- Federal subsidies and grants-in-aid have been
<br />reduced and enhanced cost-sharing requirements
<br />have been adopted. In the last decade federal and
<br />state subsidies and grants in aid for flood
<br />control and recreational land acquisition have
<br />been dramatically reduced; Congress has approved
<br />very few projects. In addition, state or local
<br />cost-sharing requirements have been increased.
<br />These changes combined with tight budgets and
<br />fiscal restraints at state and local levels have
<br />required (1) increased use of low budget
<br />approaches to river and river corridor management
<br />which combine flood loss reduction, recreation,
<br />water quality treatment, etc. and (2) efforts to
<br />appeal to a broader range of constituencies in
<br />communities.
<br />- Traditional approaches for addressing flood
<br />loss reduction, water quality treatment, and
<br />recreation have, in some instances, failed to meet
<br />intended goals. In addition to high cost,
<br />engineering solutions have often been only partly
<br />successful in achieving their desired goals and,
<br />in some instances, subject to hidden costs and
<br />problems. For example, efforts to clean up the
<br />rivers and streams of the U.S. have improved the
<br />quality of waters for recreation and water supply
<br />purposes, but fisheries have not, in general,
<br />returned to former conditions. Nationally, reser-
<br />voirs are subject to high rates of sedimentation
<br />and many are quickly losing their storage
<br />capability. Various hardened channels designed to
<br />accommodate high velocity "supercritical" flood
<br />flows have proven to be vulnerable to erosion. In
<br />urbanizing watersheds, peak flood flows for
<br />intermediate-level floods have typically increased
<br />2-8 times over those occurring naturally (National
<br />Science Foundation 1980).
<br />Part of the problem with pure engineering
<br />approaches has been a failure to adequately
<br />consider the natural erosion and meander forces of
<br />river systems. Sediment regimes have often been
<br />ignored or only superficially considered despite
<br />their critical importance in determining channel
<br />and bed configuration as well as the erosive force
<br />of water. This has resulted in both downstream
<br />erosion and sediment deprivation for delta sys-
<br />tems, such as the Mississippi delta, with
<br />resulting loss of wetlands. (Gagliano, this
<br />volume). The natural pollution control and water
<br />quality protection and restoration capabilities of
<br />streambank vegetation and wetlands have been
<br />ignored with resulting degradation of water
<br />quality. Flood storage capabilities of riverine
<br />wetlands and the adjacent floodplain have usually
<br />not been considered in engineering calculations.
<br />The importance of river fish habitat has not been
<br />adequately considered, resulting in gradual
<br />destruction of river fisheries (Lambou, this
<br />volume).
<br />- Attention has shifted from simply prevention
<br />of future problems to restoration of degraded
<br />river and river corridor areas. A broad range of
<br />instream restoration, wetland restoration, bank
<br />restoration, and upper floodplain urban renewal
<br />efforts have been undertaken in the last decade or
<br />are underway or proposed (California Department of
<br />Natural Resources 1988; Kusler and Kentula 1990;
<br />Riley, in press). Cities and landowners are often
<br />no longer willing to accept degraded waterfront or
<br />wetland conditions.
<br />- Broadscale river basin planning has
<br />diminished while community-based and parcel-based
<br />planning for river and river corridor areas have
<br />increased. In the 1980's with the demise of the
<br />River Basin Commissions, much basin-wide river and
<br />river corridor planning disappeared (Kusler 1985).
<br />However, local, more specific, planning and regu-
<br />latory efforts increased (NPS 1989; Riley, in
<br />press). These local efforts have permitted
<br />innovative funding from a wide variety of sources.
<br />- The information base with regard to rivers
<br />and adjacent lands has been greatly improved. This
<br />improved data base facilitates detailed assess-
<br />ment, modeling, and implementation efforts. In
<br />the last twenty years, flood maps have been
<br />prepared by FEMA and other agencies for over
<br />21,000 communities. Many states and communities
<br />such as Maryland have supplemented federal flood
<br />maps with their own even more detailed mapping
<br />efforts. In the last decade, federal wetland maps
<br />have been prepared for most riverine areas by the
<br />National Wetland Inventory or by states or
<br />communities. Rare and endangered species habitat
<br />has been identified by the Fish and Wildlife
<br />Service and state conservation programs. Areas of
<br />natural diversity and special scientific interest
<br />have been identified and mapped by state Natural
<br />Heritage Programs and private efforts such as
<br />those of The Nature Conservancy. Many states have
<br />carried out river inventories which identify a
<br />variety of special values and attributes of river
<br />areas (Eugster, this volume; Morrison, this
<br />volume). Detailed soils maps have been prepared
<br />for many areas. Orthophotos are now available for
<br />most of the nation and the federal agencies have
<br />implemented a systematic high level air photo
<br />program with a schedule for periodic resurvey of
<br />the nation as a whole.
<br />- Technological advances in science and
<br />engineering have been made and scientific under-
<br />standing of natural system values and nonstruc-
<br />tural approaches has increased. In the last
<br />decade, significant advances in knowledge have
<br />been made with regard to a broad range of
<br />assessment methods, modeling and planning
<br />approaches, and implementation techniques for
<br />floodplains, wetlands, and fisheries. (See papers
<br />in Chapters 9 and 10 of this volume.) These
<br />include flood and stormwater analysis, wetland
<br />analysis, wetland restoration and creation,
<br />instream flow analysis, alternative "hard" and
<br />"soft" engineering designs to achieve particular
<br />flow levels, nonstructural flood loss reduction
<br />techniques (e.g., warning systems, flood-
<br />proofing), and bioengineering techniques for bank
<br />stabilization, and park design. Today the planner
<br />or engineer wishing to achieve multiobjective
<br />goals in river and river corridor management has a
<br />much broader range of techniques available than
<br />ever before. Much of the "how" with regard to
<br />multiobjective river corridor management is now
<br />available although this information has not, in
<br />some instances, been broadly disseminated.
<br />- New implementation approaches have been
<br />develo to facilitate implementation of multi-
<br />objective river corridor management. In the last
<br />decade, local governments and states have
<br />12
|