A Proposal and Examination of What Best Fulfills the Needs of Locally Neglected Creeks and Watersheds

A Proposal and Examination of What Best Fulfills the Needs of Locally Neglected Creeks and Watersheds

by Craig Clemons

Another picture of the creek looking down. It's fuller today than normal. My foot also decided to be sneaky on this one.

Things like “Protect the Environment” and “Don't be mean be green” have been catch all, feel good phrases that have been used for decades. Many of us don't think past that. Even fewer of us think about how best to understand how to do either of those things that close to home. One of the most widely accessible and widely under emphasized areas of environmentalism is watershed management. Which is more often taking care of a local stream or creek. There is however a good way, and a bad way to manage a stream. To come in immediately with a backhoe and dig them all out so they flow consistently is on the bad list. This will cause severe damage to the life of the stream as well as cause substantial disruptions to everyone that lives along the creek. Would you then clean you hands of concern and leave all the work and maintenance to be done by the environmental agencies? As bizzare as is it may seem, almost all of the benefit that comes from having all the minds gathered in one place is hardly ever needed. Only in the most technical examples of environmental reconstruction(ex Exon Valdiese Oil Spil) are they ever actually needed. The best thing to do is to have community group, an entity that is entirely autonomous from any government organization that looks to government and other experts for technical assistance. A group whose main purpose is to promote environmental stewardship and collect environmental data for better local understanding. 

Creeks serve as biological sanctuaries in their natural state. Unfortunately, as a general rule their quality degrades the more often we take the liberty to build things around them. A recent aquaculture study found a direct correlation between the reduction of biodiversity and the level of urban development surrounding a creek (Fore et al 118). Furthermore the same study shows that percent dominance (the percent of an environment that is taken up by a single species (a key indicator in poor ecosystem health)) increases as human development increases. This demonstrates that our actions are forcing creeks in a watershed to foster less and less life. If the rate of urbanization and our environmental protection record continues. Our existing ecosystems will not be able to exist in the way similar to the way they have for centuries. All hope of restoring already damaged ecosystems will be lost. It is for this reason that their continued protection will be crucial in the upcoming decades. For ourselves and those who come after us.

Understanding that there are two main actors in watershed management, and understanding how to optimize them is absolutely crucial. The Volunteers, or people who choose to make efforts for the protection of the environment without monetary gain. And, government agencies. Which are funded and standardized based off or rigid requirements that are derived from macroscopic principles of land use. 

In Defense of Volunteers

 

There are some who would call to question the capacity of volunteers to aid in creek preservation in any real, meaningful sense. These criticisms come in three flavors, First that the volunteers will not be willing to make this effort. Second, that the volunteers will not be able to match the precision of professionals and as such professionals ought to be hired. And lastly, some claim that the volunteers, however good in intention or skill will be unable to amass the funds to maintain the projects they delve into.

 

To address the issue of motivation, it is worth noting that a group of scientists recently published a paper entitled “Assessing the Performance of Volunteers in Monitoring Streams” this assessment had the unintended side effect of demonstrating just how tenacious volunteers are. “This project demonstrated a very strong interest in stream health by local citizens (77 people participated) and a willingness to spend long hours sorting and identifying very small animals (>880 h). Most volunteers said they would participate again.” (120). On average each volunteer gave more than 11 hours to the project. They would also continue to do so if needed.

 

As previously referenced Fore and others have analyzed empirically whether or not volunteers can compete with professionals in terms of precise measurement of data and its collection. “Citizen volunteers, when properly trained, can collect reliable data and make stream assessments that are comparable to those made by professionals.”(Fore et al 109) This analysis was done in two parts, Field tests and lab tests. After the appropriate training, there was absolutely no difference in the quality of the field tests. Furthermore the only areas where the volunteers lab testing started to falter on was on taxonomic distinctions of various local wildlife. The margin of the professionals ability to analyze data was very slim. They only performed 13% better than the volunteers. Which once analyzed viewing current field statistical standards is within the margin of error. Additionally, another independent review that was originally written to be concerned with analyzing groups using effective research tools in middle, and high schools. This review states that “Approaches are needed that are inexpensive and simple enough to enable nonspecialist volunteers to measure ecosystem health over time so that land uses can be evaluated for long term sustainability.”(Fleming 30) after analyzing a data set of 772 local programs of this variety he discovered that “Nearly one fifth of the programs surveyed have annual budgets of $100 or less, With 44% costing 1000 or less.” (Fleming 30). This is a dollar amount that all but the absolute poorest environmental groups could afford to implement. 

 

For a real world demonstration of the effectiveness of volunteers if organized together toward a environmental protection endeavor. Examine the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The Appalachian Trail is a hiking trail that stretches the entire length of the Appalachian mountains, from Maine to Georgia. Some 2100 miles of trail through all kinds of terrains and climates. In addition to maintaining the physical trail itself since its completion in 1934, starting in 1984 the national parks service delegated responsibility for the trail's corridor lands to the ATC. All of this without becoming a part of a larger bureaucratic agency. These are simply people coming together for what they feel is the good of the community. These same principles can, and have been applied to stream conservation.

The Stream Doctor Project is just what its name implies. It is an organization dedicated to the maintenance and promotion of stream and watershed health nationwide. “The role of Save Our Streams (part of the Stream Doctor Project) is to serve as the middle man between the general public and the professional and scientific community. By translating technical information into language that the public can understand.”(Middleton 293)

On the issue of Government

Some have argued that the issue with getting policies implemented correctly is hardly a matter of government agency implementation. Rather, that it is an issue of good agency policy vs poor policy. When referring to the overarching goal of the government based watershed management and, addressing why it failed. Mishra, Saxenaa (183) claimed that “At every level the basic intentions behind the watershed programme were diluted, leading to the creation of differential impact.”. They also claim that “The impact of large-scale watershed development projects . . . has been less than optimal. Existing impact assessment studies have attributed this to the inefficiency of the implementing agency. This paper argues that this explanation is insufficient and proposes a broad-based explanation which brings in issues such as policy dilution, stakeholder interests and organisational processes.”(175) once more they claim that “the lack of cooperation, conflict of interests and power-play changed the portfolio of interventions and the benefit distribution pattern”(183). All of this is essentially painting a picture that points to individual, community-Driven non-government organizations as being obstructionists to the greater goal of civic harmony.

The claims made by Mishra and Saxena fail to hold up to empirically procured evidence from studies world-wide. The first of which being the investigations made in Japan, a country that has historically held just the idea that Mishra and Saxena seem to promote. The idea that allowing full jurisdiction to government supported agencies will make for the most successful policy. In regards to Japan's current watershed issues Ohno et all says “Since the River Law was amended in 1964, river management in Japan has been almost exclusively the province of national and prefectural government, and, as a result, residents along rivers have been unable to participate in the decision-making process” he later continues that “Lack of public participation has sometimes resulted in inappropriate river development projects, leading to serious degradation of the natural and social environment (e.g., loss of biodiversity, eutrophication in dam reservoirs, insufficient consent or compensation for the submerged community)”(304) Drawing from this “The result has been, nationwide, fierce campaigns against large-scale river development projects,”(304) Furthermore sociological examinations show that “as a result of this bureaucratic river management system, many people now feel increasingly alienated from and indifferent to rivers”. All this in conclusion, leads directly to the conclusion that while a top down approach to watershed management would in theory seem to be the most appropriate, and beneficial for all parties. It fails because those who have the closest attachment to the creek/river/part of watershed are the ones that are ignored by the policy. And by doing this you alienate most of if not all of your potential volunteer force. Which as demonstrated earlier, a volunteer force can be quite impressive. Any loss of it would have severe negative effects on all watershed projects

Table 4 Structure and Decision Process

"Governments, Group Membership, and Watershed Partnerships"

.

An American study examined the management process and output of three main types of water management governmental groups, citizen-centered groups, and mixed-groups. It is here where we notice that the distribution of authority is quite different among the three structures. The government-centered ones are the least open to citizen/landowner concerns, creating the distance effect noted earlier in the Japanese example.The Citizen-centered model however was entirely developed by the people for they themselves leaving no disconnect between local needs/wants. The Mixed-groups act more similarly to government-centered group structure. After analyzing all three, the conclusion reached was that “These [governmental] groups were the most successful at research and restoration projects related to highly complex issues, such as removal of hazardous sediments from the river and the coordination of storm water management institutions to be implemented on a watershed scale.”(Hardy 600) and that “These groups [citizen-centered] are most successful at stewardship,education, garnering widespread community support for watershed conservation, and lobbying public officials for policy change.”(600) while commenting that “ With these groups[citizen-centered], the largest impact of collaboration with government is thus witnessed in technical . . . support” (600) after all of this they state that “Key informants in this study suggested that grant-giving organizations should afford groups more flexibility with the use of financial resources and greater availability of human and technical resources”(600). This would help watershed coordinators and group members capitalize on their professional strengths and social networks, as well as incorporate more of a local perspective on watershed management activities. This flexibility comes ready made with the creation of a citizen-centered authority structure.

Another distinct governmental issue brought up by Westphal which is the need for an overarching government wide infrastructure protection plan. This would require a large body of governmental agencies to expend a lot of time and a lot of money to make investments into natural disaster damage relief and prevention. The subliminal claim here is that the “macro” picture cannot be seen from a local perspective and as such a macro perspective is absolutely necessary. I will grant him that it is imperative that we have a plan for dealing with natural disasters. Furthermore I will say that I am not altogether against government intervention in the area of nature. I think only, that it should be decentralized if possible and pragmatic. Especially in the area of stewardship and data collection. Which is something that volunteers citizen-based organizations have proven to be particularly adept at. For this reason i think the advent of infrastructure protection plans do not necessarily denounce the value of citizen care groups.

This brings up another issue with government. A perceived paradox one contributed by Babbbit(18) “American voters are increasingly demanding less federal regulation while aggressively telling the Republican Congress they want more environmental protection.” instinctively this would seem to be a paradox and many of us fall into the trap of seeing this as a black and white decision. There is however a simple answer. Use volunteers, set standards and have volunteers do the leg work. It has been demonstrated both theoretically and empirically that Volunteer groups of citizens are more adept at government agencies at doing just that.

A picture of the creek from further downstream. Notice the ditch like attributes shown here.

Ending Remarks

The issue of watershed management isn't a simple one. There are some flaws within this. The value of volunteer led research diminishes as human development around the creek approaches zero. Citizen groups will have to develop a solid working relationship with government agencies to accomplish key tasks. Which may reduce in some senses the autonomy that makes them work so well. And also there are some tasks at which the government agencies will be better equipped to handle such as large-scale toxic waste. These together do not diminish the greater goal of a more effective, more precise and more community friendly way to promote environmental understanding and volunteerism so that the waterways in this world is as vibrant for future generations as they have been for ours. 

 

The evidence of the usefulness of community given volunteers with scientific oversight has been well documented. Even if not adequately publicized. For this reason i think it would be wise for us all to take some time out and form them. Instead of simply demanding another entity to take care of our land. Let those who know it best do what they like to do best. Conserve, protect and ensure that the creeks of our childhoods are there for our children, and our children's children.

Works Cited

Appalachian Trail. Appalachian Trail Conservancy  n.d. Web.8 Jul. 2011

Babbitt, Bruce. "Less regulation, more protection." Christian Science Monitor 08 Mar. 1996: 18. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 July 2011.

Fore, Leska S., Kit Paulsen, and Kate O'Laughlin. "Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams." Freshwater Biology 46.1 (2001): 109-123. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 July 2011.

Fleming, William. "Volunteer Watershed Health Monitoring by Local Stakeholder: New Mexico Watershed Watch." Journal of Environmental Education 35.1 (2003): 27-32. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 July 2011.

Harder, Amy. "A Stalled Movement." National Journal (2011): 9. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 July 2011

Hardy, Scott D. "Governments, Group Membership, and Watershed Partnerships." Society & Natural Resources 23.7 (2010): 587-603. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.

Middleton, Julie V. "The Stream Doctor Project: Community-Driven Stream    Restoration."BioScience 51.4 (2001): 293. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 July 2011.

Mishra, Pradeep Kumar, and Rakesh Saxena. "Integrated impact assessment model for explaining differential impact of watershed development projects." Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal 27.3 (2009): 175-184. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.

Ohno, Tomohiko, Takuya Tanaka, and Masaji Sakagami. "Does Social Capital Encourage Participatory Watershed Management? An Analysis Using Survey Data From the Yodo River Watershed." Society & Natural Resources 23.4 (2010): 303-321. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.

Westphal, Joseph W. "The Politics of Infrastructure." Social Research 75.3 (2008): 793-804. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 29 July 2011.

Workshop July 22

I'm still in the process of rewriting this with an anecdote as you requested.

All of us have seen the waterways in our communities, some of us have seen them littered with trash. How many of us actually think about just how important those little streams are to local life? How many of us stop and ask how we are impacting the life of the local stream? I have, and discovering the answer to these questions is quite unsettling. Our record of care-taking is abysmal. Many of the waterways that have been here since time immoral have been ditched, drained and neglected. What's worse, these actions make the area completed drained of all life and biodiversity. This is a travesty. For this reason, i will show that without question stream conservation should not be a job for a government initiative but that conservation works best if done by a group of volunteers with academic/professional oversight. And that it is absolutely necessary to stream, and community well being.

Working thesis etc

Works Cited Page

Middleton, Julie V. "The Stream Doctor Project: Community-Driven Stream    Restoration."BioScience 51.4 (2001): 293. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 July 2011.

Fore, Leska S., Kit Paulsen, and Kate O'Laughlin. "Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams." Freshwater Biology 46.1 (2001): 109-123. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 July 2011.

Ohno, Tomohiko, Takuya Tanaka, and Masaji Sakagami. "Does Social Capital Encourage Participatory Watershed Management? An Analysis Using Survey Data From the Yodo River Watershed." Society & Natural Resources 23.4 (2010): 303-321. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.

Parés, Marc. "River Basin Management Planning with Participation in Europe: From Contested Hydro- politics to Governance-Beyond-the-State." European Planning Studies 19.3 (2011): 457-478. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.

Mishra, Pradeep Kumar, and Rakesh Saxena. "Integrated impact assessment model for explaining differential impact of watershed development projects." Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal 27.3 (2009): 175-184. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.

Hardy, Scott D. "Governments, Group Membership, and Watershed Partnerships." Society & Natural Resources 23.7 (2010): 587-603. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.

Shye, Samuel. "The Motivation to Volunteer: A Systemic Quality of Life Theory." Social Indicators Research 98.2 (2010): 183-200. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 July 2011.

Appalachian Trail. Appalachian Trail Conservancy  n.d. Web.8 Jul. 2011

Thesis: Stream conservation by a group of volunteers with academic/professional oversight is absolutely necessary to stream and community well being. Furthermore no government initiatives will be necessary.

UCLA

Please, I’m studying here.

                America, the great melting pot. Has it gone to far? Here at UCLA we have quite a large number of asian imigrants. And as such there is a bit of a “culture clash”. In general “Americans” tend to put a large emphasis on a “Do it Yourself” attitude. We grow up knowing that there becomes a point where our lives become our own and the basic nessesities become our responsibilities. This doesn’t occur in the lives of asian americans. To them family is forever you stay as close to your family as long as you are alive. Family is everything. Even during college when the average “American” is coming to terms with their own adult responsibilities. Asian families often live together and still cook and clean for their children while they are in college.

                All of this is largely just a foreign concept. Very little of this directly impacts the lives of the steriotypical american. Some other actions however do and are quite frustrating. For example a Western Standard is that libraries ought to be silent, or at the very least silent so that people may focus with great gusto on their text of choice. This is exceedingly true in college libraries, especially during finals week when the students lifetime well being could very well be impacted by the studying done then. For this reason the now common phenomenon in asian culture of talking on your cellphone while in the library becomes quite frustrating and is indeed a harm to the masses. For this reason something needs to be done to limit this. For afterall how many great minds have discovered their ephinaies while unintentionally evesdropping? 

July 20

On page 299 he is discussing the "melting pot" that Chicago had become in the postwar and describes various people and places as "hoods" "hillbilly". In the same paragraph he says "The hoods would turn on you if they sensed you were putting airs on them". All of these things "hoods" "hillbilly" and the above sentence show a sense of leveling. Speaking in layman's terms to demonstrate an academic idea. It was effective now we are able to see ourselves in Chicago post war having a detailed description of how life might had been when if the layman's writing terms had been avoided would have been a dry boring description of something full of life.

He later quotes Elvis who was a fan of Adlai in 1956 even though he didn't "Dig the intellectual bit". This little snippet quotes public knowledge and uses it as a demonstration of a point rather than quoting some fancy pants article written by a college professor on the subject. And in this way it works, This was far far more effective than a citation from a scholarly article claiming "Adlai more intellectual candidate".

Never let them creeks rise!

A Hierarchy of Stream Health 

We certainly know that neglect of local Creek Systems is a world-wide problem and a principal cause of environmental decay.  For generations we have changed local ecosystems to suit our own individual and collective needs. And now it’s finally starting to make a significant impact in how we see the world ; and how the world treats us.  The problem of creek neglect is one that has to be solved locally. Why? it takes a reteaching, a  showing if you will to those that are unaware that the way they are acting towards the sensitive areas around them is not the correct one.

                A viable solution to this is a volunteer group who has oversight from professionals in hydrology (UofL Stream Institute for example). It has been predicted that streams impacted by Urban Stream Syndrome have substantially more erosion and, significantly less biodiversity than those that are not. Furthermore, it has been shown that this cause of stream decay is second only to the agriculture industry.

                Calling on this, I say that a community action group ought to be put together to protect this creek properly. For if we cast a blind eye, if we ignore this, the world as we know it will not be. No longer will kids be able to hunt for crayfish in the streambeds for the crayfish cannot live there. No longer can one sit and listen to the gentle flow of water because it would be a torrent of water cutting through the streambed the bedrock.

                Although some may object and claim that a community action group is not needed or, is too strong an action.I would reiterate to these people the ecological disaster that has occurred since mankind has stepped in and took hold of the natural Watershed. Because of Our actions, crucial factors such as biodiversity reduction, total stream population reduction and unprecedented dominance by a single species in aquatic stream habitats. This is not the way a stream should exist. It is an unfortunate place for it and it leads to a negative impact to us.

                The naysayers will inevitably retort “Community action never works” and “We need a government initiative to get serious about this” I find that sentiment ridiculous, and I call to your attention the irrevocable success of the “Appalachian Trail Conservancy” an entirely non-profit community led initiative to maintain the natural environment. One that has for generations kept the Appalachian trail a hiking path that is some 2100 miles long just as majestic as the day it was dreamed of.

                My point is not that we should expect a community service organization such as the "Appalachian Trail Conservancy" for our creeks, but instead to show that folks can come together to protect something without the backing of big government. Non-profit organizations can work remarkably well if enough time and effort are divulged into them in meaningful ways.

                So in conclusion, if the good lord's willing and the creeks don't rise (or perhaps even more so if they do rise!) the creation and maintenance of a Kentucky Creek Preservation Collection becomes not only a pipe dream but a viable pragmatic option as well. The paths of conservation and preservation have already been marked. All that is left now is to take up the familar banner, protect the beauty of the world as it has always been and give its gift to our children, and our children's children. 

Smoke a Little Smoke

Legalization of marijuana is a good idea DESPITE THE FACT Thousands of illegal immigrants farm marijuana on the West Coast. Billions of dollars are made every year in the United States in marijuana sales, but it is not taxed. This financial problem is a recurring issue. Even more important, however is the fact that what drugs enter and exit a persons body is a personal medical decision that should not be in the realm of government. 


Legalization of marijuana is a good idea DESPITE THE FACT Thousands of illegal immigrants farm marijuana on the West Coast. Billions of dollars are made every year in the United States in marijuana sales, but it is not taxed. This financial problem is a recurring issue. Although some readers may object and claim that marijuana will negatively impact the workforce by making them lazy, i would argue that any dip in productivity would be more than offset by a boom in the restaurant business brought about by millions of new marijuana smokers buying food because of post smoke munchies. 

"In Other Words" exercise 2

A Hierarchy of Stream Health 

We certainly know that neglect of local Creek Systems is a world-wide problem and a principal cause of environmental decay.  For generations we have changed local ecosystems to suit our own individual and collective needs. And now it’s finally starting to make a significant impact in how we see the world ; and how the world treats us.  The problem of creek neglect is one that has to be solved locally. Why? it takes a reteaching, a  showing if you will to those that are unaware that the way they are acting towards the sensitive areas around them is not the correct one.

                A viable solution to this is a volunteer group who has oversight from professionals in hydrology (UofL Stream Institute for example). It has been predicted that streams impacted by Urban Stream Syndrome have substantially more erosion and, significantly less biodiversity than those that are not. Furthermore, it has been shown that this cause of stream decay is second only to the agriculture industry.

                Calling on this, I say that a community action group ought to be put together to protect this creek properly. For if we cast a blind eye, if we ignore this, the world as we know it will not be. No longer will kids be able to hunt for crayfish in the streambeds for the crayfish cannot live there. No longer can one sit and listen to the gentle flow of water because it would be a torrent of water cutting through the streambed the bedrock.

                Although some may object and claim that a community action group is not needed or, is too strong an action.I would reiterate to these people the ecological disaster that has occurred since mankind has stepped in and took hold of the natural Watershed. Because of Our actions, crucial factors such as biodiversity reduction, total stream population reduction and unprecedented dominance by a single species in aquatic stream habitats. Our environment deserves better from us. This is why community action is absolutely necessary.

                The naysayers will say “Community action never works” and “We need a government initiative to get serious about this” I disagree, and I call to your attention the irrevocable success of the “Appalachian Trail Conservancy” an entirely non-profit community led initiative to maintain the natural environment. One that has for generations kept the Appalachian trail, that is some 2100 miles long just as majestic  as the day it was dreamed of.

                My point is not that we should expect a community service organization such as the "Appalachian Trail Conservancy" for our creeks, but instead to show that indeed people can come together to protect something without the backing of a big government led and government managed initiative. Non-profit organizations can work remarkable well if enough time and effort are divulged into them in the right ways.

                As such I find this Kentucky Creek Preservation Collection absolutely necessary, not only to protect the life that has existed since time immemorial but also to protect the cultural legacy and gift of streams to our children, and our children’s children.

We certainly know that neglect of local Creek Systems is a world-wide problem and a principal cause of environmental decay.  For generations we have changed local ecosystems to suit our own individual and collective needs. And now it’s finally starting to make a significant impact in how we see the world ; and how the world treats us.  The problem of creek neglect is one that has to be solved locally. Why? it takes a reteaching, a  showing if you will to those that are unaware that the way they are acting towards the sensitive areas around them is not the correct one.

                A viable solution to this is a volunteer group who has oversight from professionals in hydrology (UofL Stream Institute for example). It has been predicted that streams impacted by Urban Stream Syndrome have substantially more erosion and, significantly less biodiversity than those that are not. Furthermore, it has been shown that this cause of stream decay is second only to the agriculture industry.

                Calling on this, I say that a community action group ought to be put together to protect this creek properly. For if we cast a blind eye, if we ignore this, the world as we know it will not be. No longer will kids be able to hunt for crayfish in the streambeds for the crayfish cannot live there. No longer can one sit and listen to the gentle flow of water because it would be a torrent of water cutting through the streambed the bedrock.

                The naysayers will say “Community action never works” and “We need a government initiative to get serious about this” I disagree, and I call to your attention the irrevocable success of the “Appalachian Trail Conservancy” an entirely non-profit community led initiative to maintain the natural environment. One that has for generations kept the Appalachian trail, that is some 2100 miles long just as majestic  as the day it was dreamed of.

                As such I find this Kentucky Creek Preservation Collection absolutely necessary, not only to protect the life that has existed since time immemorial but also to protect the cultural legacy and gift of streams to our children, and our children’s children.

I've attributed the naysayers to a general naysayer. I feel as though i've represented them fairly accurately i've shown the most common arguments against my idea pretty solidly. I could expand on this after further research. If i used any of the language from the chapter it was by incident i anticipated a naysayer before instructed too. It very much improves my argument. I demonstrate the nayersayers naysaying is quite incorrect. 

July 13 hw in class

And as such…

We certainly know that neglect of local Creek Systems is a world-wide problem and a principal cause of environmental decay.  For generations we have changed local ecosystems to suit our own individual and collective needs. And now it’s finally starting to make a significant impact in how we see the world ; and how the world treats us.  The problem of creek neglect is one that has to be solved locally. Why? it takes a reteaching, a  showing if you will to those that are unaware that the way they are acting towards the sensitive areas around them is not the correct one.

                A viable solution to this is a volunteer group who has oversight from professionals in hydrology (UofL Stream Institute for example). It has been predicted that streams impacted by Urban Stream Syndrome have substantially more erosion and, significantly less biodiversity than those that are not. Furthermore, it has been shown that this cause of stream decay is second only to the agriculture industry.

                Calling on this, I say that a community action group ought to be put together to protect this creek properly. For if we cast a blind eye, if we ignore this, the world as we know it will not be. No longer will kids be able to hunt for crayfish in the streambeds for the crayfish cannot live there. No longer can one sit and listen to the gentle flow of water because it would be a torrent of water cutting through the streambed the bedrock.

                The naysayers will say “Community action never works” and “We need a government initiative to get serious about this” I disagree, and I call to your attention the irrevocable success of the “Appalachian Trail Conservancy” an entirely non-profit community led initiative to maintain the natural environment. One that has for generations kept the Appalachian trail, that is some 2100 miles long just as majestic  as the day it was dreamed of.

                As such I find this Kentucky Creek Preservation Collection absolutely necessary, not only to protect the life that has existed since time immemorial but also to protect the cultural legacy and gift of streams to our children, and our children’s children.

Creek and its People

There’s an old creek by my home (Wilson Creek) it wanders its way through the lower parts of my neighborhood after beginning in my backyard. There is one part of this creek that seems particularly special, the tiny overpass through the creek acts as a point where two things meet. Where nature and people come together, all in one brief moment one can become engulfed in the majesty of the place. Feeling enclosed as the tree’s cover one side of the creek bed as though fingers curling up from underneath it. Then you notice the water, scarcely deep enough to get your feet wet in most places, it doesn’t rumble of thunder or moan. Instead it trickles quaintly as the water skids its way through the tunnel just beneath the road. If you look carefully, really carefully you can watch the bits of dirt and rock get picked up where the water is the fastest. This new sediment then gets deposited as soon as they were elevated when the stream slowed once again.

My Grandma Dorothy Lewis.

The neighborhood around my home is aging; not just the homes but the people. My grandfather once worked this land when it was a farm as a teenager in the early thirties.  Soon afterwards he purchased a plot of land and began to build his home. A home he crafted after his return from military service in WWII. He lived there until his passing in 2003. His neighbor and longtime local resident Laverne Edwards has lived in her home since April of 1951. I asked her what she remembered about the area at the time. “I remember there weren’t that many people living here back then. We (she and her husband) paid $450 dollars for this lot when we bought it. There was a sign at the end of the road that read ‘Warning children at play 15mph’ and I tell you if you’d hit one of the sinkholes in the road then going anything more than 5 you’d bust your tire.” Knowing that the “overpass” had existed in some form or another since before my grandma was there as a kid I can only imagine the level ill repair it must have been in if the roads were in that state.

 I then asked Laverne about a time she could remember when the local creek made a substantial impact on the local residents. To which she explained to me that at some point the state came in and built the overpass up from what it was to what I remember it as, two large concrete tunnels for water to pass through with a road above. During this construction event all homes further up the road from the creek were inaccessible (our “neighborhood” is one mile long road with homes on each side) Laverne opened up her yard which connected to a nearby road so that everyone could get to their homes because “It seemed to be the neighborly thing to do”.

Rail road tie retaining wall built by Mr.Boyd in 1977 the home in
background is his.

Another longtime local resident Mr.Boyd has lived in his home which is next to the overpass since 1968. I asked him about the state of the overpass when he moved in only to learn that at some point between his arrival and 1977 some significant reconstruction had been done to it. This may be the event Laverne mentioned earlier. As I spoke to him about the creek I learned that he had built a retaining wall using left over rail road ties from his job at the railroad to protect his home from flooding in 1977, which was after the overpass as I had known it was built. I asked about the water level of the creek since he had been there and got an answer that I wasn’t expecting. “In 1977 the creek would hardly flow at all. Great parts of it went most of the year dry. I had a guy come out with a backhoe that year and cut it out a bit to get all of the water flowing again.” What, I wonder would’ve caused such a substantial difference in the water depth of the creek from the forties when it was waist deep to seventy-seven when there was hardly any standing water at all? Could it be that the creation of the overpass at which I became familiar with the creek was the principal cause of its destruction?

                I have learned that the memory I have of Wilson Creek, as a childhood place all to my own. is hardly accurate, indeed it was in many ways it was quite backwards. The creek had been in constant flux by those who came before me whether the fluctuations benefitted the creek or decremented it. A simple curiosity led me to wonder what existence was like elsewhere on the creek. So I hit the books, until I discovered that the creek had been modified heavily since its discovery by the Europeans; Irrigation took its toll on the creek I had grown so fond of. While the creek around me looks relatively pristine.  With flora, fauna and life in abundance; the areas elsewhere were not so lucky. Man took from nature its beauty for its own design. Draining the life from the watery passage ways into their fields for their crops to grow from whence they wouldn’t. For hundreds of years it had happened. Since the 1700’s when the land was but scratched and not yet scared.  I feel as though torn. On the one hand I wish immensely to reach out and protect the land and the mass of beauty that it can entail in its natural state at all costs. On the other I realize that those who cause the destruction I can relate to. They aren’t vengeful to a creek that has wrong them. They are people whose happiness I hold to be self-evident. Any destruction they have caused the creek has been born of ignorance not malice.

Much to my delight I learned that there are some people coming together in large numbers to fix the errs of those before us. Bernheim forestry and Kentucky universities have come together in an effort to fix all of the problems that man has wrought to the creek. Not only did they replant the areas around it with local growth. They rebuilt the stream in its entirety. Senior Vice President of UofL’s research put it as follows “what’s unique about the Wilson Creek project… is its comprehensiveness. Streams have been modified or enhanced before, but not fully restored.”  The creek of my childhood gets the tender love and care of its caretakers once more. After all of the hits the creek has taken it’s a miracle I suppose that the creek itself is restorable at all. It had in parts eroded uncontrollably going straight down to the bedrock acting more like an axe cleaving away the sediment, rather than its normal sandpaper like movement of the creek sediment below.

How magnificent it was to know that some other soul caught the idea of understanding such a place as I did. Many people with many titles trooped across my creek, engineers, biologist, arbitrators. All for the goal of cleaning up the mistakes of the other men with different titles that came before them. This group had an ambition that set them apart from others. They sought completeness. As Kevin Rayburn writer for the University of Louisville Impact journal puts it this way, “The restoration of Wilson Creek ….  Is being hailed as an unprecedented opportunity for engineers, biologists, arborists and landowners to see what happens when a stream is rebuilt virtually from scratch.” Not only are we inviting nature to scab itself over our mistakes (revegetation) we are cleaning the wound, replicating it, so that it doesn’t have to do its job twice. Allowing the creek to snake and wind so that erosion remains local and the debris comes as though brushed sandpaper and not cleaved.  Letting the ground itself be the filter and reservoir. Allowing the area around it to swell with the seasons to create water pristine and bristling with life.

This still takes me back to home. As I sat at the creek I had known all of my life I assumed that it was here as it always was and as it always should be. I’ve since learned that neither of those statements is true. It has been changed significantly since its inception. And a lot of work would need to be done to it to get it to the state at which it should be. I feel as though this shouldn’t be an impossible goal to obtain. I refuse to think that by asking for a little tender love and care for our environment I also claim it inherently superior to our happiness as people.  I think it still possible to coexist with our environment. Perhaps, if we sit down, reanalyze the impact of our actions and talk to our peers, neighbors and the learned this goal can be met. And so we shall sit with open ears and open eyes listening to each other and finding this goal realizing that they can be meet if, and only if we are willing to cooperate.

And as such…

We certainly know that neglect of local Creek Systems is a world-wide problem and a principal cause of environmental decay.  For generations we have changed local ecosystems to suit our own individual and collective needs. And now it’s finally starting to make a significant impact in how we see the world and how the world treats us.  The problem of creek neglect is one that has to be solved locally. For it takes a reteaching, a  showing if you will to those that are unaware that the way they are acting towards the sensitive areas around them is not the correct one.

                The solution to this is a volunteer group who has oversight from professional s in hydrology(UofL Stream Institute for example). It has been predicted that streams impacted by Urban Stream Syndrome have a substantially more erosion and less biodiversity than those that do not. Furthermore it has been shown that this cause of stream decay is second only to the agriculture industry.

                Calling on this, I say that a community action group ought to be put together to protect this creek properly. For if we cast a blind eye, if we ignore this, the world as we know it will not be. No longer will kids be able to hunt for crayfish in the streambeds for the crayfish cannot live there. No longer can one sit and listen to the gentle flow of water because it would be a torrent of water cutting through the streambed the bedrock.

                The naysayers will say “Community action never works” and “We need a government initiative to get serious about this” I disagree, and I call to your attention the irrevocable success of the “Appalachian Trail Conservancy” an entirely non-profit community led initiative to maintain the natural environment. One that has for generations kept the Appalachian trail, that is some 2100 miles long just as majestic  as the day it was dreamed of.

                As such I find this Kentucky Creek Preservation Collection absolutely necessary, not only to protect the life that has existed since time immemorial but also to protect the cultural legacy and gift of streams to our children, and our children’s children.

Boyd, Calvin. Personal interview. 3 Jul. 2011.

Edwards, Laverne. Personal interview. 5 Jul. 2011.

Lewis, Dorothy. Personal interview. 7 Jul. 2011.

“Urban Stream Syndrome: The Future of Stream Ecosystems in Urban Watersheds” sigimax.org n.d web.

 7 Jul. 2011 

Appalachian Trail. Appalachian Trail Conservancy n.d. Web.8 Jul. 2011

Bernheim Arbourem and Research Forest  Bernheim Arbourem and Research Forest, n.d. Sun. 19 Jun          

  2011

Wilson creek, like all streams, serves as a filter and regulator for the water coming through it and allows the water to go into the surrounding area slowly and more pure as opposed to an onslaught of liquid attacking it at once.  The path of Wilson Creek remains similar to what it was 400 years ago before the onset of European settlers and the irrigation that followed. In 2003 the Bernheim Forest and the Universities of Louisville and Kentucky successfully petitioned for an Environmental Protection Agency grant. Much survey was done as to determine the original route of the creek before the European settlers arrived. From the data found researchers decided were best to place the routes so as to work with the already standing environment, not work against it. Biologist were called in to ensure that all life (fish, microorganisms and otherwise) were all around and in proper numbers. It does however become clear that to Bernheim  it is important that “Wilson Creek is a stream with very good water quality….. This project helps ensure the stream’s future ability to purify water and maintain good habitat”.  Ensuring that the end goal will and ought to remain a healthy environment and a sustainable environment for wildlife and people. As such Wilson Creek is being used as a workshop to teach locals about the importance of environmental protection and what homeowners on the property can do to properly care for the watershed around them.

“Snaking and Winding Again” Louisville.edu. University of Louisville. n.d. Web. Jun. 19 2011

Since the late 1700’s people have been altering Wilson Creek and its immediate vicinity. Sometimes simply diverting a bid of the creeks water flow into nearby crop fields other times far more extreme plowing straight through the area taking whatever trees and life that went with it. The  Environmental Protection Agency gave 500,000 dollars to the cause. What is so impressive is the fact that “The restoration of Wilson Creek in rural ….  Is being hailed as an unprecedented opportunity for engineers, biologists, arborists and landowners to see what happens when a stream is rebuilt virtually from scratch.” The magnitude of this work is being embraced by Art Parola the civil engineer in charge. The man who convinced Bernheim to take the extra effort to complete revamp the creek as opposed to repeating the normal vegetation and done policy. Explaining that the creek was incorrect and at a systemic level. After five years of preemptive research they finally decided to operate on the creek in its fullest. Even if for quite some time the renovation area looked more like a destruction site than it did a bed of creation. The local flora and fauna will take some years to completely regrow. Thus is the need for periodic checks.

A Creek and its People

There’s an old creek by my home (Wilson Creek) it wanders its way through the lower parts of my neighborhood after beginning in my backyard. There is one part of this creek that seems particularly special, the tiny overpass through the creek acts as a point where two things meet. Where nature and people come together, all in one brief moment one can become engulfed in the majesty of the place. Feeling enclosed as the tree’s cover one side of the creek bed as though fingers curling up from underneath it. Then you notice the water, scarcely deep enough to get your feet wet in most places, it doesn’t rumble of thunder or moan. Instead it trickles quaintly as the water skids its way through the tunnel just beneath the road. If you look carefully, really carefully you can watch the bits of dirt and rock get picked up where the water is the fastest. This new sediment then gets deposited as soon as they were elevated when the stream slowed once again.

My Grandma Dorothy Lewis.

The neighborhood around my home is aging; not just the homes but the people. My grandfather once worked this land when it was a farm as a teenager in the early thirties.  Soon afterwards he purchased a plot of land and began to build his home. A home he crafted after his return from military service in WWII. He lived there until his passing in 2003. His neighbor and longtime local resident Laverne Edwards has lived in her home since April of 1951. I asked her what she remembered about the area at the time. “I remember there weren’t that many people living here back then. We (she and her husband) paid $450 dollars for this lot when we bought it. There was a sign at the end of the road that read ‘Warning children at play 15mph’ and I tell you if you’d hit one of the sinkholes in the road then going anything more than 5 you’d bust your tire.” Knowing that the “overpass” had existed in some form or another since before my grandma was there as a kid I can only imagine the level ill repair it must have been in if the roads were in that state.

 I then asked Laverne about a time she could remember when the local creek made a substantial impact on the local residents. To which she explained to me that at some point the state came in and built the overpass up from what it was to what I remember it as, two large concrete tunnels for water to pass through with a road above. During this construction event all homes further up the road from the creek were inaccessible (our “neighborhood” is one mile long road with homes on each side) Laverne opened up her yard which connected to a nearby road so that everyone could get to their homes because “It seemed to be the neighborly thing to do”.

Rail road tie retaining wall built by Mr.Boyd in 1977 the home in
background is his.

Another longtime local resident Mr.Boyd has lived in his home which is next to the overpass since 1968. I asked him about the state of the overpass when he moved in only to learn that at some point between his arrival and 1977 some significant reconstruction had been done to it. This may be the event Laverne mentioned earlier. As I spoke to him about the creek I learned that he had built a retaining wall using left over rail road ties from his job at the railroad to protect his home from flooding in 1977, which was after the overpass as I had known it was built. I asked about the water level of the creek since he had been there and got an answer that I wasn’t expecting. “In 1977 the creek would hardly flow at all. Great parts of it went most of the year dry. I had a guy come out with a backhoe that year and cut it out a bit to get all of the water flowing again.” What, I wonder would’ve caused such a substantial difference in the water depth of the creek from the forties when it was waist deep to seventy-seven when there was hardly any standing water at all? Could it be that the creation of the overpass at which I became familiar with the creek was the principal cause of its destruction?

                I have learned that the memory I have of Wilson Creek, as a childhood place all to my own. is hardly accurate, indeed it was in many ways it was quite backwards. The creek had been in constant flux by those who came before me whether the fluctuations benefitted the creek or decremented it. A simple curiosity led me to wonder what existence was like elsewhere on the creek. So I hit the books, until I discovered that the creek had been modified heavily since its discovery by the Europeans; Irrigation took its toll on the creek I had grown so fond of. While the creek around me looks relatively pristine.  With flora, fauna and life in abundance; the areas elsewhere were not so lucky. Man took from nature its beauty for its own design. Draining the life from the watery passage ways into their fields for their crops to grow from whence they wouldn’t. For hundreds of years it had happened. Since the 1700’s when the land was but scratched and not yet scared.  I feel as though torn. On the one hand I wish immensely to reach out and protect the land and the mass of beauty that it can entail in its natural state at all costs. On the other I realize that those who cause the destruction I can relate to. They aren’t vengeful to a creek that has wrong them. They are people whose happiness I hold to be self-evident. Any destruction they have caused the creek has been born of ignorance not malice.

Much to my delight I learned that there are some people coming together in large numbers to fix the errs of those before us. Bernheim forestry and Kentucky universities have come together in an effort to fix all of the problems that man has wrought to the creek. Not only did they replant the areas around it with local growth. They rebuilt the stream in its entirety. Senior Vice President of UofL’s research put it as follows “what’s unique about the Wilson Creek project… is its comprehensiveness. Streams have been modified or enhanced before, but not fully restored.”  The creek of my childhood gets the tender love and care of its caretakers once more. After all of the hits the creek has taken it’s a miracle I suppose that the creek itself is restorable at all. It had in parts eroded uncontrollably going straight down to the bedrock acting more like an axe cleaving away the sediment, rather than its normal sandpaper like movement of the creek sediment below.

How magnificent it was to know that some other soul caught the idea of understanding such a place as I did. Many people with many titles trooped across my creek, engineers, biologist, arbitrators. All for the goal of cleaning up the mistakes of the other men with different titles that came before them. This group had an ambition that set them apart from others. They sought completeness. As Kevin Rayburn writer for the University of Louisville Impact journal puts it this way, “The restoration of Wilson Creek ….  Is being hailed as an unprecedented opportunity for engineers, biologists, arborists and landowners to see what happens when a stream is rebuilt virtually from scratch.” Not only are we inviting nature to scab itself over our mistakes (revegetation) we are cleaning the wound, replicating it, so that it doesn’t have to do its job twice. Allowing the creek to snake and wind so that erosion remains local and the debris comes as though brushed sandpaper and not cleaved.  Letting the ground itself be the filter and reservoir. Allowing the area around it to swell with the seasons to create water pristine and bristling with life.

This still takes me back to home. As I sat at the creek I had known all of my life I assumed that it was here as it always was and as it always should be. I’ve since learned that neither of those statements is true. It has been changed significantly since its inception. And a lot of work would need to be done to it to get it to the state at which it should be. I feel as though this shouldn’t be an impossible goal to obtain. I refuse to think that by asking for a little tender love and care for our environment I also claim it inherently superior to our happiness as people.  I think it still possible to coexist with our environment. Perhaps, if we sit down, reanalyze the impact of our actions and talk to our peers, neighbors and the learned this goal can be met. And so we shall sit with open ears and open eyes listening to each other and finding this goal realizing that they can be meet if, and only if we are willing to cooperate.

And as such…

We certainly know that neglect of local Creek Systems is a world-wide problem and a principal cause of environmental decay.  For generations we have changed local ecosystems to suit our own individual and collective needs. And now it’s finally starting to make a significant impact in how we see the world and how the world treats us.  The problem of creek neglect is one that has to be solved locally. For it takes a reteaching, a  showing if you will to those that are unaware that the way they are acting towards the sensitive areas around them is not the correct one.

                The solution to this is a volunteer group who has oversight from professional s in hydrology(UofL Stream Institute for example). It has been predicted that streams impacted by Urban Stream Syndrome have a substantially more erosion and less biodiversity than those that do not. Furthermore it has been shown that this cause of stream decay is second only to the agriculture industry.

                Calling on this, I say that a community action group ought to be put together to protect this creek properly. For if we cast a blind eye, if we ignore this, the world as we know it will not be. No longer will kids be able to hunt for crayfish in the streambeds for the crayfish cannot live there. No longer can one sit and listen to the gentle flow of water because it would be a torrent of water cutting through the streambed the bedrock.

                The naysayers will say “Community action never works” and “We need a government initiative to get serious about this” I disagree, and I call to your attention the irrevocable success of the “Appalachian Trail Conservancy” an entirely non-profit community led initiative to maintain the natural environment. One that has for generations kept the Appalachian trail, that is some 2100 miles long just as majestic  as the day it was dreamed of.

                As such I find this Kentucky Creek Preservation Collection absolutely necessary, not only to protect the life that has existed since time immemorial but also to protect the cultural legacy and gift of streams to our children, and our children’s children.

Boyd, Calvin. Personal interview. 3 Jul. 2011.

Edwards, Laverne. Personal interview. 5 Jul. 2011.

Lewis, Dorothy. Personal interview. 7 Jul. 2011.

“Urban Stream Syndrome: The Future of Stream Ecosystems in Urban Watersheds” sigimax.org n.d web.

 7 Jul. 2011 

Appalachian Trail. Appalachian Trail Conservancy n.d. Web.8 Jul. 2011

Bernheim Arbourem and Research Forest  Bernheim Arbourem and Research Forest, n.d. Sun. 19 Jun          

  2011

Wilson creek, like all streams, serves as a filter and regulator for the water coming through it and allows the water to go into the surrounding area slowly and more pure as opposed to an onslaught of liquid attacking it at once.  The path of Wilson Creek remains similar to what it was 400 years ago before the onset of European settlers and the irrigation that followed. In 2003 the Bernheim Forest and the Universities of Louisville and Kentucky successfully petitioned for an Environmental Protection Agency grant. Much survey was done as to determine the original route of the creek before the European settlers arrived. From the data found researchers decided were best to place the routes so as to work with the already standing environment, not work against it. Biologist were called in to ensure that all life (fish, microorganisms and otherwise) were all around and in proper numbers. It does however become clear that to Bernheim  it is important that “Wilson Creek is a stream with very good water quality….. This project helps ensure the stream’s future ability to purify water and maintain good habitat”.  Ensuring that the end goal will and ought to remain a healthy environment and a sustainable environment for wildlife and people. As such Wilson Creek is being used as a workshop to teach locals about the importance of environmental protection and what homeowners on the property can do to properly care for the watershed around them.

“Snaking and Winding Again” Louisville.edu. University of Louisville. n.d. Web. Jun. 19 2011

Since the late 1700’s people have been altering Wilson Creek and its immediate vicinity. Sometimes simply diverting a bid of the creeks water flow into nearby crop fields other times far more extreme plowing straight through the area taking whatever trees and life that went with it. The  Environmental Protection Agency gave 500,000 dollars to the cause. What is so impressive is the fact that “The restoration of Wilson Creek in rural ….  Is being hailed as an unprecedented opportunity for engineers, biologists, arborists and landowners to see what happens when a stream is rebuilt virtually from scratch.” The magnitude of this work is being embraced by Art Parola the civil engineer in charge. The man who convinced Bernheim to take the extra effort to complete revamp the creek as opposed to repeating the normal vegetation and done policy. Explaining that the creek was incorrect and at a systemic level. After five years of preemptive research they finally decided to operate on the creek in its fullest. Even if for quite some time the renovation area looked more like a destruction site than it did a bed of creation. The local flora and fauna will take some years to completely regrow. Thus is the need for periodic checks.