Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table 4-3. Pre- and post-project area of river channel and riparian <br />overbank for the Channel Improvement alternative. <br /> <br />Problem Existing area Post-project Difference <br />Area (acres)' area (acres)' (acres) <br /> <br />River channel: <br /> <br />Percent <br />changeb <br /> <br />3 387 220 -168 -43% <br />4 52 50 -2 -4% <br />5 265 403 +138 +52% <br />6 100 105 +5 +5% <br />7 90 89 -I -1% <br />All 894 865 -29 -3% <br />Riparian zone (overbank): <br />3 1,026 354 -672 -65% <br />4 136 80 -56 -41% <br />5 254 1,000 746 +293% <br />6 162 135 -27 -17% <br />7 227 269 42 +18% <br />All 1,805 1,838 +33 +2% <br />Total: <br /> <br />3 1,414 574 -840 -59% <br />4 188 130 -58 -31% <br />5 489 1,283 +795 +163% <br />6 262 239 -23 -9% <br />7 137 180 +43 +32% <br />All 2,489 2,406 -82 -3% <br />, Columns may not sum exactly due to rounding. <br />b Percent change = 100 X difference / existing acreage. <br /> <br />The Albuquerque District believes that modification of the entire 3,000-cfs corridor and <br />removal of all riparian vegetation would represent a significant adverse impact to the Arkansas <br />River system, be highly controversial, and would have limited revegetation success. Successful <br />riparian restoration projects have, of course, been implemented; most projects target a specific <br />component or two of the system for modification. The Channel Improvement alternative <br />outlined here would modify the hydrology, substrate, and vegetation components of the system, <br />effectively rebuilding of the Arkansas River corridor "from scratch." For these reasons, the <br />District does not recommend the Channel Improvement alternative as a cost-effective, <br />implementable solution. <br /> <br />35 <br />