7377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

developed a variety of new and innovative approaches for goal-setting in particular river and river corridor contexts, and for planning, coordination of programs, constituency-building and financing of efforts. These include various special area management planning approaches, river corridor planning efforts for particular rivers or segments of rivers, stormwater planning and management programs, stormwater utility approaches, and other financing mechanisms. Guidebooks have also been developed that describe the implementation of these approaches (National Park Service 1986; NY DEC 1986). IMPEDIMENTS TO IMPLEMENTATION Despite the advantages, multiobjective river corridor management efforts continue to face impediments: - Traditional approaches have great momentum. Many factors favor continuation of old approaches. It is perhaps human nature to apply "familiar" solutions to problems. Traditional engineering approaches are all that many design professionals (engineers, water resources planners) know. Such approaches are the only ones which have been taught in schools. In addition, engineers have a fear of legal liability in applying new designs which may not perform as anticipated. Beyond this, the entire set of relationships and friendships that water resources agencies, engineers, and contractors have developed over a period of years tend to support traditional approaches. Traditional engineering projects often involve substantial contracting and jobs for an area; natural area protection does not. - Most federal, state, and (to a lesser extent) local river management programs continue to be single purpose or for a small number of purposes. Individual government programs usually continue to be designed to serve a primary objective or a small number of objectives. Given limited statutory or program objectives, it is often difficult for staff of single-objective agencies to undertake multiobjective projects, fund such projects, or even provide technical assistance for such projects. There are few incentives for coordination among agencies and, in many instances, out and out turf battles when one agency attempts to do something that overlaps with activities of another agency. Efforts to achieve various objectives may conflict (particularly when traditional approaches are applied) and agencies then often "battle it out" rather than seek multiobjective solutions. Or, they may simply avoid multiobjective situations where their jurisdictions may overlap. - There is often little incentive for agencies, groups or organizations to cooperate as long as they have enough money and/or political support to carry out single objective management. Agencies often have little incentive to cooperate with other agencies, providing they can carry out their primary mission without such cooperation. Cooperation is often viewed as time-consuming and adding complexity. It may involve compromising "turf" and sharing credit for successful efforts. Cooperative mechanisms may also be lacking or inadequate. - Multidisciplinary expertise is lacking. Individual experts whose skills and knowledge are needed for multiobjective assessments, designs, and implementation are not widely available. Those designing river corridor projects often have limited knowledge outside of their immediate areas of expertise. Hydrologists often know little about sediment transport and bank stability problems or about biological aspects of river management. Biologists and botanists often know little about hydrology, erosion, or engineering design. Engineers often know a fair amount about hydrology but little about sediment or biology or botany. Planners often have limited knowledge of hydrology, geology, botany or biology. These individuals may not only have limited knowledge of these disciplines, but they may view with mistrust individuals with other expertise. - There are inadequate design manuals and training for multiobjective approaches. Despite quite widespread use of various "soft engineering" approaches in the last decade, there have been limited studies to determine how well such approaches perform in major flood events and even less written on the topic. Design manuals concerning various innovative design techniques are not widely available, nor has training been provided to planners, engineers, local govern- ments, and other key decision-makers and design professionals. - The data base and modelling capabilities are improved but have limitations. Although the data and map base has greatly improved during the last decade, certain types of data are lacking (e.g., erosion and sedimentation) and maps are often at too small a scale for detailed planning and management (e.g. 1/24,000). In addition, most of the flood hazard and water quality data-gathering and mapping to date has been for larger rivers and streams with little data available for smaller water bodies. Finally, modeling capabilities have been improved but much remains to be done to develop adequate predictive capability with regard to flood storage and conveyance, erosion, sediment transport, the response of streams to changes in sediment regime, and wetland restoration and creation. - Inflexible regulatory standards fail to allow innovation and tailoring to factual situations. In some instances, rigid regulations adopted to achieve particular goals such as flood loss reduction may prevent innovative multiobjective approaches. For example, stormwater regulations which require concrete channels and below ground systems may reduce flood losses but they also may prevent the use of above ground grassed channels with not only flood conveyance but water quality protection and maintenance potential. - Domestic and international funding sources often favor engineering projects. On the international scene and, to a lesser extent, on the domestic U.S. scene, there is often a continued strong bias toward structural approaches. There are several reasons for this: (1) Funding organizations are often staffed primarily by (in addition to economists and 13