Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Appendix D for the Section 1135 program fact sheet). An example of typical costs is given in <br />Section 4.4 below. <br /> <br />Local Education. Coordination. and Planning: <br /> <br />Both the structural and non-structural corrective solutions presented above are sufficient <br />to alleviate current surface flooding problems but should not be construed as a justificati.on or <br />subsidy for further floodway encroachment. Channel capacity has steadily decreased ov'~r the <br />years along the Arkansas River below John Martin Dam. Further encroachment will result in <br />serious constraints to conveyance, increased damages, and further loss of ecological values. <br /> <br />Pressure likely will continue for additional floodway encroachment in the future. Local <br />education, coordination, and planning efforts are needed to inform the public of the importance <br />of floodplain functions, identify continuing issues, and address land use conflicts and problems. <br />While the Corps strongly supports floodplain zoning and planning, the determination of land <br />use policy lies primarily with the local, not Federal, government. <br /> <br />4.4 RIPARIAN RESTORATION <br /> <br />In addition to the above-mentioned lands, extensive areas within the current floodway <br />also are suitable for riparian restoration. These primarily entail areas of non-native vegetation <br />or those with significantly altered hydrologic regimes. <br /> <br />Specific areas were not identified as part of the current study because nearly alllands <br />within the study area are privately owned. We do not believe it is within the purview of the <br />Federal government to select privately-held parcels for restoration. Rather, the Corps can assist <br />local governments, resource groups, and individuals who express an interest in restoration <br />efforts. In this regard, the CWCB and the Arkansas River Steering Committee may be <br />especially valuable in coordinating with local interests, identifying private landowners desirous <br />of riparian improvement, and prioritizing restoration goals in the area. <br /> <br />The following sections discuss riparian vegetation restoration and salt cedar removal <br />methods which are applicable to restoration efforts along the Arkansas River. The restoration <br />activities discussed could be accomplished through the Corps of Engineers' Section 1135 <br />program, and example costs are given below. <br /> <br />Natural Regeneration <br /> <br />Under certain conditions, natural regeneration of cottonwood and willows can be <br />enhanced. In New Mexico, cottonwood stands have been reestablished within the floodway of <br />the Rio Grande (Taylor et al. 1999). During winter, dense stands of salt cedar were <br />mechanically removed from the 5-year floodplain and the soil surface was regraded after root <br />plowing. Areas inundated by the snowmelt-runoff discharge and settled by cottonwood seeds <br />from nearby trees produced dense seedlings; salt cedar also germinated profusely in the same <br />areas. Favorable flow regimes during that and the following spring resulted in a high survival <br /> <br />40 <br />