I'd debate USACE mgm't plans!
Posted by: slushpaddler on Apr-25-13 11:54 AM (EST)
-- Last Updated: Apr-25-13 11:58 AM EST --
I can give you numerous examples of where and how those management plans have failed all or parts of a community. The USACE is in large part responsible for why the upper great lakes are low presently. I'm particularly skeptical when it comes to the USACE. The USACE is like a DOT in that they have a limited scope and concerns.
In my state where streams and rivers have significant gradient, I have to side with gbg - deadfall presents little if any flood danger. On the other hand, watershed organizations across my state who help manage streams from a habitat standpoint - blue ribbon trout streams, for example - advocate leaving deadfall in place. They get support from state agencies. If flooding is an issue, state agencies obviously take that into consideration.
I'd also reference my conversation with Willi that paddlers in my state face a tough uphill battle if they think their use should get equal or greater consideration than habitat issues relating to fishing. Better to work toward compromise and common goals and apply them where appropriate.
Probably where we all agree is that the approach to woody debris removal is context dependent.
Anyway, this is a really good thread because it makes us think about these issues from many perspectives and contexts (plus, I think Glen's post and research re: the history of navigable waters is pretty interesting).
|Table of Contents|