|
Fluvial Geomorphology
Train Is Leaving the Station; Shouldn’t We Be on Board?
Commentary by J. Steven
Kite
“…bear with me while I share some thoughts on an issue that needs
our collective attention immediately lest we lose influence and
control over part of our discipline ... if we have not done so already.
I am referring to applied aspects of fluvial geomorphology, a field
that has been called “FGM” in some circles.
A
simplistic phrasing of the problem is that, if the overwhelming
majority of research and academic fluvial geomorphologists continue
to disregard the rapidly growing field of natural stream design,
we will lose control of the direction of applied fluvial geomorphology
and miss an opportunity provided by a plethora of hydraulic geometry
data. One might argue that geomorphology applications rightfully
belong in the field of civil engineering, but the evolving reality
is that an expanding market is largely being filled by folks with
very limited experience in hydrology or geomorphology, other than
a series of workshops on fluvial geomorphology techniques, such
as those taught by Dave Rosgen of Wildland Hydrology. These workshops
fill an important void in conveying many basics of the discipline,
standardizing methodology, and presenting solutions to common stream
problems. Hundreds participate in these workshops annually … I’ll
bet the number exceeds the total enrollment of all academic fluvial
geomorphology classes in the USA … raising the awareness of how
streams function to a large audience of nongeomorphologists from
a variety of backgrounds. Several government agencies and NGOs
have set completion of these workshops as a de facto requirement
of natural stream design practitioners.
However, I am sure that everyone will agree there is no way that
workshops, no matter how well done, can take the place of in-depth
experience such as that acquired through research in a degree program.
It seems obvious that the best natural stream design practitioners
should come from a pool of traditionally educated geoscientists
with a true understanding of fluvial processes, hydraulic geometry,
and the geologic controls of sediment supply.
What are we academics doing to prepare our students to walk the
natural stream design walk and talk the FGM talk? My conversations
with colleagues suggest that the most common positions are to either
dismissively criticize or to simply ignore it. My last review of
basic geomorphology and fluvial geomorphology textbooks showed even
the best tend not to address Rosgen’s stream classification and
many of the other basic terms that regulators and environmental
consulting firms assume are the lingua franca of stream work.
Hence, today our intellectually well-prepared graduates are likely
to sound illiterate to those who most need their guidance… and who
might be in a position to offer them a job.
Leaving streams untouched to recreate equilibrium conditions is
not a viable solution to deteriorating stream channels in the modern
socio-political climate. While this hands-off strategy may make
all the sense in the world to those of us viewing through the lens
of geologic time, “real” people demand action in a timely manner.
Bulldozers and backhoes are already in the channels (especially
in the aftermath of floods), and they have been there for a long
time. The most viable professional solution for bad streams is for
those of us who are knowledgeable to guide the path of mitigation
and restoration. Misguided efforts by those who lack a depth of
understanding are likely to fail sooner or later, and while these
may make for some interesting field trip stops, the ecological costs
can be unaffordably high.
Unless we want to allow natural stream design principles to evolve
detached from academic geomorphology, we need to ensure that our
students are fluent in the field and understand its research needs.
We should embrace Dave Rosgen for putting the discipline on the
front burner of regulators and into the public eye. If we believe
that some applied aspects of the field as currently implemented
need to be done differently, then we should formulate alternatives
and present them to practitioners with good forceful arguments.”
_______________________________
J. Steven Kite is an Associate Professor, Department of
Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
26506-6300; jkite@wvu.edu; (304) 293-5603 x4330.
This is an excerpt of a commentary originally published under the
title, “Message From the Chair” in the American Geological Society
Fall 02—Spring 03 Newsletter of the Quaternary Geologist and Geomorphologist
Division. Dr. Kite was Chair of the Quaternary Geologist and Geomorphologist
Division at the time. The full text of the article can be found
online at:
http://rock.geosociety.org/qgg/
| 
