7377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ization and other drainage, construction of agricultural dikes and levees for flood control, land clearing and mowing of floodplain and wetland areas, grazing and cattle operations in rivers and streams, and point and nonpoint source pollution of streams and watersheds by sediment, nutrients, pesticides. Forestry. Forestry operations have disturbed or destroyed some streams and associated wetlands by construction of dams and booms to facilitate movement of logs, drainage of some forested wetlands, construction of forest access roads, use of pesticides, and creation of sediment loadings in the watershed. Industrial and Commercial Uses. Industrial and commercial activities have directly or indirectly destroyed many streams and associated wetlands, particularly in urban areas, through construction of dams, dikes, levees, fills, drainage, point sources of pollution, nonpoint sources of pollution, and impervious surfaces. Residential Development. Residential development has destroyed or damaged many small streams and floodplain wetlands on larger rivers and streams through channelization, fills, dikes, dams, construc- tion of stormwater detention areas, grading, and other activities. WHY MULTIOHJECPIVE RIVER CORRIDOR MANAGE11ENT? Many of the reasons for an increased interest in multiobjective river corridor management have already been discussed above. But, they bear closer examination in formulating strategies for future efforts. The use of rivers and their adjacent lands for a wide variety of uses to serve a broad variety of objectives is not new. The typical pattern of use of rivers and streams and adjacent lands is one of piecemeal agricultural, forestry, residential, industrial, and other uses along the length of the river or stream and tiered back from the water along the floodplain. Although rivers and their adjacent lands have been used for many purposes, attempts are relatively rare to simultaneously achieve multiple objectives for particular river segments or to interrelate planning and activities on various river segments. multiobjective river corridor management takes the multiple use concept a step further to relate activities throughout the length of a river and for the river, the bank, and the adjacent flood- plain. It is an integrated approach that attempts to maximize multiobjective values for each reach of river and parcel of land, while recognizing interrelationships between parcels and segments. The issues, concerns, needs, proponents for multiobjective river corridor management, and techniques available in the 1990's are quite different than those of even a few years ago. The broadscale recent interest of private landowners, scientists, local governments, states, and federal agencies in multiobjective management was demonstrated in workshops conducted in January 1989 by Congressmen McDade and Udall concerning multiobjective river corridor management. These. workshops drew over 600 participants (Office of Joseph M. McDade 1989). Additional workshops conducted in March 1989 by the Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation with the Unified National Program for Floodplain management drew an additional 350 participants. In 1989 Congressman McDade drafted and introduced a "State and Local Multiobjective River Corridor Assistance Act" (HR 4250) based upon these workshops and reflecting this growing national interest. This bill will be resubmitted in 1991. If it does go forward, it will reflect new interests quite different from those supporting traditional scenic, wild, and recreational river legislation at all levels of government. What is new and what are the forces compelling landowners and all levels of government to consider multiobjective river corridor management? A variety of interrelated factors include: - Funds to achieve flood loss reduction, erosion control, pollution control, urban renewal, open space and recreation, and other objectives are increasingly limited at all levels of government. Efforts are, therefore, being made at all levels of government to make better use of scarce financial resources. And, this forces multiobjective planning. In contrast, several decades ago when federal, state and local funds were readily available, it was not uncommon for local governments to locate industrial development along rivers and streams, and parks in upland areas (Kusler 1982b). Federal flood control works were available at 100% federal cost and federal open space funds were also broadly available. There was little, if any incentive, to combine flood loss reduction and open space/recreation measures. - The easy protection/development decisions have been made on rivers that are prime candidates for wild or scenic river status or for intensive development. To a considerable extent, major rivers with potential for scenic or wild river status have already received protection at federal or state levels. These include many of the real "jewels" with little or no alteration to the river channel or banks and, in many instances, little development in the adjacent corridor areas. However, these rivers constitute only a small percent of the total river mileage of the nation. on the other hand, many rivers or stretches of river and adjacent floodplain have already been heavily modified and developed and are not, therefore, good candidates for total protection. But many miles of rivers and stream do not fall into either category, have both protection and development potential, and can, if properly planned, meet multiple resource management goals. - Attention is shifting to rivers which are in a less pristine condition, have more varied shoreline uses, have already been modified, in part, by dikes, dams and levees, and have broader and more varied use demands. Highly simplistic protection/development decisions are not possible 10