7377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and potential erosion problems, provides little in the way of recreational opportunities, provides little water quality protection, and is often unaesthetic. Wider, vegetated channels and banks do require more land but may also require less engineering and may have a broad range of other flood storage, pollution control, recreational, aesthetic, habitat, and erosion control benefits. Engineers also often begin with the assumption that water should move as rapidly as possible through an area (supercritical flow). This requires removal of vegetation and other impediments to flow and requires construction of concrete channels to withstand the erosive forces of high velocity flow. But, water can be passed from upstream to downstream points just as well at lower velocities with a broader vegetated floodplain and higher roughness coefficients. - It should be realized that to achieve multiobjective goals considerable specificity in thinking must take place with an examination of natural values and functions for the floodplain as a_ whole and a consideration of geomor holo ical as well as hydrologic and hydraulic factors. A factually sensitive approach often means more detailed data gathering and analysis for the floodplain as a whole and consideration of factors which have often been ignored in the past (e.g., sediment regimes). A Shift in Responsibility for Goal-Setting, Planning, Funding, and Implementation Second, multiobjective river corridor manage- ment often requires not only a philosophical shift in approach but a shift in who is responsible for goal-setting, planning, funding, and implementa- tion responsibilities. Successful implementation requires considerable "bottom-up" planning and plan implementation. Local government and land- owner initiatives have proven key to many of the multiobjective efforts to date (Kusler 1982b; Platt 1980; Coyle, this volume). This is a major shift from the "top down" river planning and management approach. The federal government and states can help, but the major motivation, planning, design, financing, and design must often take place at the local level if locals are to fund and implement the efforts. Locals often have most to gain from multiple objective river corridor management and most to lose from single objective approaches. The locals have the greatest incentive to coordinate federal and state grants- in-aid, technical assistance, etc. A strong bottom-up orientation requires the involvement of landowners and local governments from the beginning, the application of consensus decision-making models, and a division of responsibilities for implementation. It requires power-sharing and new coordinating mechanisms to gain consensus and facilitate implementation. This is not to suggest that state or federal assistance is not needed or that watershed perspectives are not needed. State help is needed to encourage and support local programs, provide technical assistance and data, and place such efforts in broader watershed or state contexts. They can assist local integrated efforts by reorienting some of their own river and river corridor management efforts, including floodplain management and wetland management efforts, to more fully emphasize urban areas and multiobjective goals. They need to better coordinate not only wetland and floodplain plans and regulations but stormwater, nonpoint source pollution, sediment control and broader efforts. A reoriented federal role is also needed. More than anything else, federal level leadership and a redirection of federal resources is needed rather than a expenditure of large amounts of new money. Adoption of the McDade Bill would do much to further local programs. Other suggestions include: 1. Federal agency leadership is needed in more fully endorsing multiobjective goals; 2. Federal agencies should set examples for local governments by incorporating innovative designs in federal projects; 3. Federal agencies should better coordinate efforts with one another and with state and local efforts; 4. Federal technical assistance efforts should be reoriented to be more multiobjective issue and technique oriented; 5. Congress should provide to local governments selected and modest grants in aid; 6. Congress should provide bonuses for projects which can meet multiobjective goals and remove incentives for single objective projects; and 7. Congress and federal agencies should provide research, training and education to facili- tate multiobjective approaches. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the trend toward multiobjective river corridor management will likely not only continue but gain momentum in both urban and rural areas of the United States. This reflects increasingly tight budgets, pollution control, and broadened public expectations. Multi- objective river corridor management is complex and cannot be easily accomplished. But, the tools and techniques are available. And the long term benefits will be substantial. REFERENCES AND SELECTED READINGS Brooks, A. 1988. Channelized rivers, perspectives for environmental management. John Wiley & Sons, New York. California Department of Water Resources. 1988. Urban stream restoration program. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento. Congressman Joseph M. McDade and Congressman Morris K Udall. 1989. Multi-objective river corri- dor management planning workshops, Final Report. Washington, D.C. Diamont, R., B. Eugster and C. Duerksen. 1984. A citizen's guide to river conservation. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 17