I have been unabashedly critical of Dave Rosgen and his pricey stream restoration classes on this blog. Most of my reasons are scientific: I don't believe his methods have a basis in science and I think they are frequently quite damaging to the streams on which they are used. His framework, with it's focus on channel shape as the sole goal of restoration and sole variable of monitoring has infected every area of stream restoration work and research to the point where people don't even see other well established techniques like riparian restoration, stormwater management, or endangered species management as "stream restoration".
Some of my reasons are political as well: the unquestioning embrace of his training programs by local, state, and federal agencies means that ecologists, hydrologists, and geomorphologists with PhDs whose dissertation research was on stream restoration have no particular advantage in seeking a position in industry or government, while those who instead took a few Rosgen short courses are eagerly sought after. (And for those who might accuse me of sour grapes, I have always wanted to teach at the college level and have never been interested in working in the consulting world.)
Most of all, I advocate for stream restoration done with a science based background, focused on watershed scale processes, and with a recognition that physical intervention is not always the best solution to the problem, and I think it is likely that short courses are not sufficient to convey all of the necessary information.
The National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics (NCED) has decided to examine the current state and future of stream restoration training. In the current and future issues of their newsletter they will explore the successes, problems, and challenges of stream restoration training both in short courses and in degree programs. This month they offer several short articles:
In "Developing the Practice: Perspectives on Training and Education in River Restoration", Jeff Marr the Stream Restoration Project Manager for NCED writes about his experience attending one of the regional workshops where people present their latest and greatest stream restoration projects. He uses this to illustrate clearly why it's time to have a conversation about standards for training and the future of the practice of stream restoration.
In "Certificate in River Restoration: One Approach to Training and Professional Development", Janine Castro with the
River Restoration Professional Certificate Program at Portland State University describes the origins of this program and its goals to provide standardized training with a continuity of common knowledge among all participants that also encourage interaction and communication among those with diverse backgrounds and expertise. The primary concern ... was to avoid creating over-confident, over-eager restorationists who do not fully appreciate the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of river restoration projects. It is from this concern that the philosophy of the program emerged—you must be a “jack-of-all-trades and a master of one.”
In "The Future of Short Courses and University Programs" John C. Schmidt of the Intermountain Center for River Rehabilitation and Restoration at Utah State University provides suggestions for improvement of the current short courses and ideas for how short courses can evolve to an eventual possible future where stream restoration science will require semester long courses to satisfactorily convey the necessary amount of invormation.
My good buddy Dave Rosgen writes "The Role of River Restoration Short Courses in Training and Professional Development", arguing that academic programs overemphasize modeling, don't include enough field work, and aren't adequately training practitioners in commonly used technique, thus short courses serve a vital role in stream restoration practice today. As always, he defines stream restoration very narrowly as "securing the physical and biological stability and function of rivers, streams, and creeks" and all of his emphasis is on channel reconstruction and stability. He mentions possible biological goals of restoration like "enhance fish habitat and diversity" and "establish native, riparian vegetation communities" but provides no indication as to why he thinks stable channels are the most important thing, how biological functions relate to channel stability, or that his classes teach any other stream restoration technique apart from how to build his supposedly stable channels.
In "Professional Development in the Field of Stream Restoration" Marty Melchior of Inter-Fluve, Inc writes about his firms standards for stream restoration practitioners, with an emphasis on a strong formal academic background specializing in one area but with broad coursework across physical and biological science as well as technical writing. In addition, he describes his firm's informal mentoring/apprenticeship program which allows new employees to learn specific technical skills of stream restoration practice on the job.
All together, I found it to be a pretty interesting preliminary exploration of the topic and look forward to seeing more.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Excellent post Elizabeth, thanks.
Thanks, Steve. Quality over quantity for now.
Hi again: Interesting post, once again though, you show you don't understand what Rosgen does, or what his classes are about. He teaches courses designed by definition to enlighten people about how to restore a degraded river, and to assess the condition of a river, and yes shape is very important. I have never heard him say that his is the only type of restoration that is considered restoration, that is an assumption you have made. Also, I laughed until I almost cried when I read your statement:
"Some of my reasons are political as well: the unquestioning embrace of his training programs by local, state, and federal agencies means that ecologists, hydrologists, and geomorphologists with PhDs whose dissertation research was on stream restoration have no particular advantage in seeking a position in industry or government, while those who instead took a few Rosgen short courses are eagerly sought after. (And for those who might accuse me of sour grapes, I have always wanted to teach at the college level and have never been interested in working in the consulting world.)"
It is almost sad that you believe that. No one who attended all four levels of Rosgen Training, with lets say a BS, would ever be considered above a candidate with a Ph.D. in Fluvial Geomorphology, or river Restoration Academic appointment to that field. Also, having worked in industry (a consultant), I was hired because of my Ph.D., and was offered Rosgen training after I was employed, along with multiple other restoration courses.
Also your belief that the government agencies have accepted Rosgen's methods without questions show's a real lack of understanding of what goes on internally within the agencies regarding Rosgen. When NRCS decided to include Rosgen's methods, along with others, in their national restoration manual there was considerable debate, thankfully cooler heads prevailed and multiple methods were included, as they should have been.
Again, I would challenge you to take one of his courses. You don’t have to believe a thing he says, but in order to criticize something one out to have experienced it directly. The courses may be called short courses, but at the end of 10 days you will have thoroughly challenged yourself. In the upper level courses the day may start at 7 and not get over until after 11 at night. Students come from all backgrounds, even Ph.D.’s with emphasis on restoration. As I have mentioned before there are lots of critics in the class so discussion is always exciting.
It is easy to make a villain out of someone you disagree with. If there is a better idea, a better approach, then promote that method. I like the quote by Montgomery. He was being interviewed about Rosgen, and Montgomery is critical of Rosgen, but at the end of the quote he said, but no one is asking the question “who is doing it better?” The reason is, that at this point no one is doing it better.
"No one is doing it better."
But that's the thing. What is "it"? Reconfiguring whole channels? Improving water quality? Increasing habitat? And are we positive that "it" needs to be done if we don't yet know how to do "it" well?
You say shape is very important, but why? What is it about shape that makes it key? As a stream ecologist I would say watershed land use, riparian vegetation, particle size, and depth and velocity variation are much more important to every ecosystem function I can think of than bankfull cross section or sinuousity.
And, if Rosgen doesn't think shape is essentially the definition of restoration why does he define in this article, as in every other place as particularly "securing the physical and biological stability and function of rivers, streams, and creeks". Why the emphasis on stability? What on earth is "biological stability"? And why define restoration so narrowly? There is no room in that definition for stormwater management, riparian revegetation, endangered species reintroduction, etc.
I currently have no time or money to attend one of his classes. Or particular inclination. I've sat in on classes taught by people who were trained by him. I've read tons of his stuff. And as I said I'm just not that interested in channel shape, particularly as he understands it. I've taken actual fluvial geomorphology classes, and learned a lot from them.
"It" is often a channel that was straightened by the Corp, or some other agency, or a miramide of other impacts that have altered a channel by man's impacts. "It" can also be many things, some need help others don't.
You said your have taken “Actual” (as opposed to what? Simulated ones?) Fluvial Geomorphology courses as have I. During my Graduate work I also have taken more courses than I care to remember in surface hydrology, channel hydrology, and surface water modeling. I can't see how anyone can say they have taken Fluvial Geomorph, and not think shape is important for sediment transport, velocity, etc.
I wonder what your definition of shape is? Is it only cross section, sinuosity, and bankfull?
Also, you seem to think, or it is the impression I get, that Rosgen's concept includes a rigid shape (dimension, pattern and profile). If so, again you miss the point.
Restoration includes many aspects, Rosgen just focuses on one, that doesn't mean he discounts all others.
Biological Stability....maybe he means Biological sustainability? Who knows.
If you believe Rosgen feels that what he does precludes anyone from working in "stormwater management, riparian revegetation, endangered species reintroduction, etc." you have really missed the boat.
I am sorry you feel as you do, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would say in closing not to judge the content of Rosgen's own courses, by someone that has taken his classes. There are good and bad students of all teachers. I always go to the source when I want to understand.
As far as reading his material I am glad you took the time to do it. However, as a pilot I know that I couldn't learn to fly by reading all the books there are about flying, one has to be taught hands on to learn to be a pilot, the same can be said about many field related disciplines.
The utilization of Rosgen natural stream channel design has created a bureaucratic nightmare for anyone who doesn't want to blindly follow his approach to stream restoration when dealing with the COE. Its quite ridiculous how little leeway there is.
Exactly.
That's a problem with the Corps, though. They want you to Blindly Follow Procedure X. If it wasn't Rosgen, they'd tell you to blindly follow another procedure. That's how they're set up, bureaucratically, and you can't hang that on Rosgen or on anything else. Their job as regulators is not (unfortunately) to provide the best solution to an environmental problem, it's to show their superior that the engineer followed whatever procedure has been chosen by policy. And that's not just with streams, that's with everything they do. It's how they work.
Elizabeth is exactly right, bravo. Preserve as much land as possible, maintain quality riparian buffers, and focus on better erosion control and stormwater management for all the inevitable development that created these problems in the first place. Don't just fix a streams shape and call it a day.
You point is absoutly right. I guess, Dr. Rosgen approach was developed from the perspective of engineers and practical applications. As an engineer student, I know that it is difficult to relate scientific view to engineering measures. Sometimes, I am thinking that cooperations between Dr. Palmer and Dr. Rosgen could possiably enhance our understanding and management level in river restoration in reality. Thanks for your blog.
I think this is a case of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
The Rosgen techniques are the good in this case.
We need accepted and practical field techniques. The translation from lab/computer to field is always fraught with difficulty but you must move forward with something or be paralyzed by analysis. You can always adaptively manage to fine tune the outcomes.
Show me some evidence that the Rosgen techniques are good. I want to see peer-reviewed studies that show they have positive effects on either biota or ecosystem functioning.
I do not accept the burden of proof nor do I really care which practical restoration techniques course gets the best spot on the bureaucrat circuit.
In science and in "real" work it is sometime better to be first than to be right. The Rosgen trainings and techniques just got out front. It's totally a market thing - this is where academia sort of misses the whole point about how the world really works.
We DO need practical training beyond our graduate degrees, when the "real" work starts and the hyper-intellectualized sophmoric debate-club rhetoric stops. When it comes down to moving dirt (as it always does in the end), let's face it, the bulldozer isn't a very fine instrument.
Do you have another comprehensive practical training course for "on the ground" stream restoration that is fully developed and ready to deliver that will serve the needs that the Rosgen trainings and certifications serve. If not, why all the bluster? Almost sounds like you would like to be a competitor in the markets. It's all about markets in the end. The truth almost never wins in the market. Sad but true.
So, first you tell me by questioning Rosgen's methods I'm letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. When I say I see no evidence that the methods are any good, you say you don't care if they're good or not. And you wonder why I care and wonder if maybe I'm trying to sell my own "methods" for driving bulldozers in streams.
So, here's the thing. We currently spend millions of dollars every year on something that nobody can prove works, and a lot of people have serious evidence suggesting actually does more harm than good.
If we simply stop driving bulldozers in streams, we could put some of those millions into things like fencing out cows, ag BMPs, urban stormwater BMPs, restoring riparian vegetation, and conservation easements or government purchasing land outright to protect critical areas for water quality. All of these are approaches proven to work for restoring habitat, function, and water quality, and none of them cost nearly as much money as driving bulldozers in streams.
It is a travesty how much taxpayer money is being wasted and how many pristine areas are being destroyed to be replaced by "mitigation" that doesn't work. That is why I care.
After working directly in the field for the last 10 years I have seen all of those techniques that you mention as well as the Rosgen methods being applied in a complementary and holistic approach. Rosgen methods are almost never used as a sole approach. Most people with practical experience blend all of their knowledge from graduate school, professional courses/certs, and the school of hard knocks to come up with real plans that work for them in their specific situations (scientific, political, social, financial, etc.).
Graduate school leaves one very ill prepared to deal with reality. It leaves out so much of the matrix of synthesis that is required to operate in a practical world. This is where professional training courses try to fill in the gaps. I admit, many of these are sadly lacking and some are downright false money making schemes...but this just "is what it is." Smart people will take what they can and leave the rest.
Seems to me, that what you are saying is that you could do it better/faster/cheaper. So..do it. The American Dream is waiting.
Post a Comment