Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />Results <br />Erosion Severity <br />ğĬƌĻ Ћʹ {ǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ ĻƩƚƭźƚƓ ƭĻǝĻƩźƷǤ͵ <br />Most of the riverbank inventoried had limited erosion <br />(Table 2). Approximately 78% of the riverbank was <br />categorized as either slight (40%) or moderate (38%) <br />erosion severity. This corresponds to a lateral recession <br />rate of 0.0 0.2 ft/yr. <br /> <br />In contrast, 11% of the shoreline was categorized as <br />severe and 10% as very severe (Table 2). These <br />categories have lateral recession rates of 0.3 >0.5 ft/yr. <br /> <br />ğĬƌĻ Ќʹ {ĻǝĻƩĻ ğƓķ ǝĻƩǤ ƭĻǝĻƩĻ ĻƩƚƭźƚƓ ƚƓ ƦǒĬƌźĭ ğƓķ ƦƩźǝğƷĻ ƌğƓķƭ͵ <br />Overall, shoreline <br />{ĻǝĻƩϐĻƩǤ {ĻǝĻƩĻ <br />categorized as either severe <br />hǞƓĻƩƭŷźƦ\[ĻƓŭƷŷ ΛƒźƌĻƭΜі\[ĻƓŭƷŷ ΛƒźƌĻƭΜі <br />or very severe is distributed <br />Public0.2742%0.3761% <br />relatively evenly between <br />Private <br />0.3758%0.2439% <br />public and private ownership <br />0.64100%0.60100% <br />Total <br />(51% and 49%, respectively). <br />However, when looking at the severe and very severe categories individually, the breakdown is not as <br />evenly balanced (Table 3). Public land has a lower percentage of the total severe sections (42%) and a <br />higher percentage of the total very severe sections (61%). <br />%²³¨¬ ³¤£ 3®¨« ,®²² <br />The total length of <br />ğĬƌĻ Ѝʹ 9ƭƷźƒğƷĻķ ƭƚźƌ ƌƚƭƭ ĬǤ ĻƩƚƭźƚƓ ƭĻǝĻƩźƷǤ͵ <br />riverbank <br />9ƩƚƭźƚƓ {ĻǝĻƩźƷǤ\[ĻƓŭƷŷ ΛƒźƌĻƭΜі <br />5ƭƷźƒğƷĻķ55ƚźƌ55ƚƭƭ5ΛƷƚƓƭΉǤƩΜ <br />categorized with <br />Severe0.64117423% <br />severe or very <br />Very Severe0.60397477% <br />severe erosion is <br />Total1.245148100% <br />relatively equal <br />between the two categories (Table 4). However, because of the higher lateral recession rate in the very <br />severe sections (i.e. 0.75 ft/yr), those sections represent the majority (77%) of the estimated soil loss. <br />3³ ¡¨«¨¹ ³¨®­ #®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­² <br />The goal of most riverbank projects is to correct or prevent excessive erosion or undercutting through <br />bank stabilization. Stabilization of eroding riverbanks is highly site-specific; there is not a simple solution <br />that can be applied across all sites. For example, factors such as position along the river (e.g. outside <br />bend), river dynamics (e.g. flow and flood elevations), and site accessibility must be considered <br />individually for each project. That being said, stabilization approaches generally fall into two categories: <br />hard armoring and bioengineering. <br /> <br />Hard armoring uses physical structures to protect the riverbank; riprap is used commonly for hard <br />armoring. Riprap does not necessarily need to extend to the top of the slope to be effective and can be <br />inter-planted with native species to soften its appearance. Often times, hard armoring the toe of the <br />slope (i.e. the very bottom) up to a moderate height (e.g. the 2-year flood elevation) is sufficient for <br />stabilizing the rest of the bank. <br /> <br />