ARBOR Study Alt. 13 vs. 20: It's all about the River

For many (both human and animal residents) I believe the main difference between the Army Corp's ARBOR study alternative 13 vs. 20 would likely be the amount of the actual concrete river channel is modified and "restored". Alternative 13  improves about ~3.2 miles (29%) of the 11 mile reach, where as alternative 20 improves ~6.4 miles (58%). The unacceptable condition of the existing river channel is largely why this study has been initiated and alternative 20 is a  "best buy" option that improves more than half of this reach – twice as much as alternative 13. Improving the heart of the river, the channel itself, also has a substantial implications in terms of habitat connectivity (that are often hard to quantify vs. area calculations) and in terms of how people access and engage with the river restoration.

ARBOR Analysis Revisions3.jpg