Laserfiche WebLink
- 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