allowed
to grow. In other words, the savanna would be allowed to eventually become a
riparian jungle, thus producing a greater backflow during times of high water.
But that would occur years after the project was approved!
Good Science & Good Sense?
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) lays claim to using "good science and good sense" in carrying out its restoration projects but when ultimate impacts are considered, it is apparent that neither attribute has been applied.
An example where "good science" is said to have been used involves proposed riparian restoration in the Beehive Bend Sub reach of the Sacramento River in the vicinity of Highway 162.
A TNC report says that FEMA guidelines do not allow the water surface level to be increased by more than one foot as the result of habitat restoration. To stay within this limit, the proposal is to plant only grasses where an orchard now exists. This "savanna" supposedly would cause less than half the backflow created by the orchard when it is seasonally flooded.
By restricting this area to low growing vegetation, it would be possible to develop full riparian restoration in other areas downstream, TNC says.
When asked what would happen when willow and cottonwood trees
take root in the grasslands, a TNC spokesperson told the Sacramento River
Conservation Area Forum (SRCAF) committee that the trees would be allowed
to grow. In other words, the savanna would be allowed to eventually become a
riparian jungle, thus producing a greater backflow during times of high water.
But that would occur years after the project was approved!
The organization contends that economic losses from removing thousands of acres of farmland from production and the tax rolls will be offset by revenue associated with recreation fishing and bird watching.
The prediction that local income produced by increased recreation will off set losses is based more on hope than reality. It presupposes greatly increased numbers of fishermen and passive recreationists to restored habitat. But the creation of habitat for threatened species will result in much more land being closed to public access.
While there probably are areas where the species would be benefited by habitat restoration, these should be carefully selected so they will not result in harmful impacts.Habitat restoration in floodways is neither good science, nor good sense. It creates additional flood hazards in areas already in peril because channels are not kept clear of siltation and snags.