National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures (2016)

Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach

« Previous: Summary
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23540.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23540.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23540.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23540.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23540.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23540.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23540.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23540.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23540.
×
Page 13

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 1.1 Scope and Research Objectives 1.1.1 Background Vegetation is the most natural method for protecting stream banks and it provides ecosystem services such as habitat, water quality protection, and aesthetic benefits. Vegetation can effec- tively protect a bank in two ways. First, the root system helps to hold the soil together and increases overall bank stability by forming a binding network. Deep root structures increase soil strength by imparting an “apparent cohesion” to soils, stabilizing banks from mass-wasting types of geotechnical slope instability. Second, the exposed stalks, stems, branches and foliage provide resistance to flow, causing the flow to lose energy by deforming and exerting drag on the plants rather than by removing soil particles. Above the water line, vegetation prevents sur- face erosion by absorbing the impact of falling raindrops and reducing the velocity of overbank flow and rainfall runoff. Terms describing the techniques that combine the use of vegetation with structural (hard) elements include biotechnical engineering, biotechnical slope protection, bioengineered slope stabilization, and biotechnical revetment. The terms soil bioengineering and biotechnical engi- neering are most commonly used to describe stream bank erosion countermeasures and bank stabilization methods that incorporate vegetation (Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 23, Third Edition, Lagasse et al. 2009). Where riprap constitutes the “hard” component of biotechnical slope protection, the term vegetated riprap is also used (McCullah and Gray 2005). Due to a lack of technical training, experience, and design guidance there is a reluctance on the part of many engineers to utilize soil bioengineering/biotechnical engineering techniques and sta- bility methods. In addition, bank stabilization systems using vegetation have not been standard- ized for general application under particular flow conditions. There is a lack of knowledge about the properties of the materials being used in relation to force and stress generated by flowing water and there may be difficulties in obtaining consistent performance from countermeasures that rely on living materials. Nonetheless, stabilization of eroding stream banks using vegetative counter- measures has proven effective in many documented cases in Europe and the United States. Design of biotechnically engineered countermeasures to minimize stream bank erosion requires accounting for hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic, geotechnical, vegetative, construction, and maintenance factors. Although most of the literature dealing with biotechnical engineering on rivers is associated with stream bank stabilization relative to channel restoration and reha- bilitation projects, it is also generally applicable to bank stabilization associated with highway facilities. While many biotechnical bank-protection measures have been deployed and have survived for a number of years, there remains considerable skepticism within the engineering community C H A P T E R 1 Introduction and Research Approach

6 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures regarding performance of these measures when subjected to flood event magnitudes typical of DOT designs for stream bank protection. Very little information is available regarding the dura- bility and service life expectations as well as the maintenance requirements of these measures. The applicability of individual measures to varying stream hydraulic and site conditions, the long-term structural integrity of the measure, and the anticipated maintenance and inspection costs are all critical elements that must be understood in order to support sound engineering decisions. Existing NCHRP guidance for environmentally sensitive stream bank protection measures (McCullah and Gray 2005) was developed more than ten years ago. Although the products from that project provide a wealth of information, several important developments have occurred during the past decade. Among these are attempts by others to summarize and codify design guidance for biotechnical measures [e.g., Li and Eddleman 2002, Admiraal et al. 2007, NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) 2007a, b, c], detailed case studies (e.g., Barrett et al. 2006), development of risk-benefit analyses for comparing biotechnical measures (Niezgoda and Johnson 2012), advances in understanding the behavior, properties, and architecture of plant roots, incorporation of vegetation into stream bank stability models (Simon et al. 2011), improved representations of vegetation interaction with the flow field in numerical simulation, and the development of a unique, prototype-scale facility (described below) at Colorado State University (CSU) for subjecting various types of vegetation to the erosive forces of flowing water. The research work plan for this project was designed to capitalize on these and other developments in this evolving field. 1.1.2 Objectives The objectives of this research were to produce guidelines for appropriate selection, design, installation, and maintenance of environmentally sensitive stream bank stabilization and protec- tion measures. The guidelines are intended to address: • Performance data/failure mechanisms; • Stabilization structure selection guidelines; • Structural guidelines and standard designs; • Construction and maintenance best practices; • Hydraulic design parameters such as shear stress and velocity; • Hydrologic design parameters such as regional climate, topography, and stream morphology; • Structure and geotechnical design parameters such as composite interaction of soil, rock, geo- synthetic materials, and/or vegetation; • Longevity issues such as performance under peak flood conditions, material durability, and vegetation viability; • Cost and availability issues such as installation, maintenance, and materials, including com- mercial products; and • Ecological issues such as fish species and aquatic organisms habitat enhancement, and vegetation suitability for climatic conditions. This research provided the opportunity to develop hydraulic design parameters for critical “hard” (engineered/structural) and “soft” (vegetation) components of biotechnical counter measures. By addressing life-cycle issues for environmentally sensitive bank-protection measures, this research provided countermeasure alternatives that can be designed and installed with the same level of confidence and reliability achieved with more traditional “hard” engineering approaches to stream bank stabilization.

Introduction and Research Approach 7 1.2 Research Approach Successfully achieving the objectives outlined above required the integration of multiple dis- ciplines to produce practical guidelines that can be reliably and consistently implemented by practitioners. The following sections present an overview of the research team’s approach to this research. The approach to this research project included not only the identification and assessment of existing field sites where environmentally sensitive stream bank protection measures have been implemented, but extended the current state of the practice with quantitative methods that can be used for design, specification, installation, and maintenance of these measures. In addition to field work, prototype-scale laboratory testing of selected biotechnical engineering treatments was conducted in the large (20 ft wide by 110 ft long) outdoor flume at CSU. Two treatments were installed in large trays and nurtured in CSU’s climate-controlled green- houses, which provide customized light, temperature, and humidity conditions for year-round establishment and growth of many different types of vegetation. When vegetation was established to a predetermined condition, the trays were moved to a large outdoor flume for testing under the desired hydraulic conditions. Figure 1.1 provides an example of the greenhouse facility and vegetated trays used in hydraulic testing. Guidelines developed under this research project would not meet the objectives without inclu- sion of practical and implementable guidance involving cost, constructability, and maintenance requirements in a life-cycle context. While information on these issues was gleaned from this project’s Phase I literature review (Task 1) and survey of practitioners (Task 2), additional guidance came from the experience of the research team members. Research team members have provided design, specification, and construction observation (and in some cases, the actual con- struction and post-construction maintenance) for a number of notable environmentally sensitive stream bank protection projects. Figure 1.1. (Left) Climate-controlled greenhouses at CSU’s Hydraulics Laboratory. (Right) Turf grass grown in large trays for subsequent hydraulic testing.

8 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures In summary, the research approach was designed to take advantage of the data that was obtained from a comprehensive field investigation program, but also offered the singular opportunity for growing and testing critical components of biotechnical treatments in a controlled laboratory set- ting. This methodology provided a quantitative, repeatable measure of vegetation condition and viability for biotechnical treatments to support inspection activities and maintenance decisions. The overall approach provided specific and detailed hydraulic design and life-cycle guidance for a range of environmentally sensitive stream bank protection measures. 1.3 Research Tasks—Phase I Considering the research approach discussed above, the following specific tasks were com- pleted to accomplish project objectives. These tasks incorporate NCHRP project panel guidance and parallel, with some modifications, the tasks established in the original research work plan. 1.3.1 Task 1—Review the Technical Literature The research team conducted a thorough review of technical literature from foreign and domestic sources to assess adequacy and extent of existing information on environmentally sensitive stream bank protection measures. The literature review identified research in progress as well as completed work. Under Task 1 of the Research Work Plan, a complete and thorough literature search on envi- ronmentally sensitive stream bank protection measures was conducted. The search began with a major search engine that included most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America’s largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer-reviewed journals, in addition to GeoRef and TRB’s TRID. As necessary, secondary searches were conducted online using reference search engines provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Inter national Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS), United States Geological Survey (USGS), Geological Society of America (GSA), American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) in the United Kingdom. The key words used in the search included: • Stream stability • Stream bank protection • River training • Bank armor/protection • Riparian buffer • Slope stabilization • Laboratory studies (countermeasures) • Field studies (biotechnical countermeasures) • Case studies (biotechnical countermeasures) • Channel restoration/rehabilitation Combinations of these key words also helped refine the search. The remaining secondary search sites contain reference lists for their respective publications. Almost all of the sites contain references to literature that has been published since the early 1970s. After primary and secondary lists were compiled, references not relevant to the study were removed from all the compiled reference lists. The lists were then compared and evaluated for duplicates. The remaining references were evaluated for appropriateness and usefulness and submitted to the NCHRP project panel for review.

Introduction and Research Approach 9 1.3.2 Task 2—Survey of Relevant Agencies In consultation with the NCHRP project panel the research team developed, distributed, and evaluated a survey of agencies that have implemented existing guidelines for environmentally sensitive bank protection. The survey was designed to support development of a Compendium of photographs and case studies and provide information to assist in identifying field sites. Permitting and regulatory agencies were included in the survey. State and federal resource and regulatory agencies were also included in the survey [such as state Departments of Natu- ral Resources (DNRs), Departments of Environmental Conservation (DECs), Departments of Environmental Protection (DEPs), etc.]. For the survey, spreadsheets were used to allow rapid screening and organization of the response data set. 1.3.3 Task 3—Identify Field Evaluation Sites Based on the information obtained in Tasks 1 and 2, candidate sites for field investigation during Task 6 (Phase II) were identified and proposed to the NCHRP project panel. At the outset of this study, 31 sites where environmentally sensitive bank-protection mea- sures have been installed across the country were identified. Each of those sites had either been designed, constructed, and/or monitored by one or more research team members. During Phase I of the project, additional field sites were identified as potential candidate sites for field investigation. The research team discussed at length the costs vs. benefits of field site investigations, which will provide a synoptic “snapshot in time” of a particular site’s condition. That condition must then be compared to a quantitative assessment of the “history” of the site. The length of time since construction, its design/installation records, and its post-construction monitoring and maintenance records all figured into the final selection process. It was noted that the cost of visiting field sites to obtain one “snapshot” would yield valuable, but limited, quantitative data compared to the cost of performing controlled laboratory testing. The research team worked closely with the NCHRP project panel through the Quarterly Prog- ress and Interim Report process to select the final “short list” of field sites during Phase I. The final short list of sites for the Interim Report (Task 5) included a diversity of protection measures and geographic locations including the upper Midwest (Michigan), Southeast (Mississippi), and the West Coast (Northern California). 1.3.4 Task 4—Develop Laboratory Test Plan Under this task, a detailed description was developed for the Phase II (Task 7) laboratory experiments proposed. The primary purpose of the experiments was to develop hydraulic design data for critical components of biotechnical stream bank treatments. Data from these experi- ments would supplement and expand existing databases, and would support the development of detailed design guidelines. Based on NCHRP project panel review of the Interim Report, the laboratory test plan was refined and revised. A wealth of literature and documentation is available regarding environmentally sensitive stream bank protection measures. Much of this material is summarized or cited by NCHRP Report 544 (McCullah and Gray 2005) and additional references were obtained during Task 1. However, most of the information regarding biotechnical measures consists of case studies of particular sites that, in many cases, have limited general applicability. Furthermore, these case studies usually have a shortage of quantitative data regarding the hydraulic, hydrologic, climatic,

10 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures and geotechnical conditions surrounding the sites. Recent advances in understanding the per- formance of nonliving bank-protection materials and structures have included laboratory flume tests that allow greater control and data acquisition than for field sites, but few of these experi- ments involved plant materials. Some tests have been conducted with grass-lined channels or with artificial plants made of wooden dowels, plastic strips, or other materials to investigate interactions between plants and the flow field. However, due to the difficulty of conducting scaled tests with real plants in available hydraulic laboratory flumes, only limited work has been done with real plants (see Section 2.2.5). During this project, this deficiency was addressed by conducting well-planned, carefully con- trolled flume tests in the unique facilities at CSU described in Section 1.2.1 (see Figure 1.1). Tests would focus on a few selected but representative biotechnical measures that could be con- structed with real plants in deep planter boxes. Plant materials would be given time to establish prior to installation on the banks of the experimental trapezoidal channel. Measurements of the flow field conducted during flume runs would then be used to calibrate an appropriate one- dimensional computer model. The approach to prototype-scale laboratory testing of selected bank-protection measures was outlined in some detail in the Interim Report. Figure 1.2 provides a conceptual sketch of a typical bank-protection measure that could be investigated under Task 7. The steps involved in testing and evaluating a bank-protection treatment such as the one shown in Figure 1.2 would involve the following: 1. The soil, rock, and stream bed materials required for each specific treatment will be installed in large planter trays in the CSU climate-controlled greenhouse (see Figure 1.1). Various treatments will be installed at the beginning of the Phase II program, selected in consultation with the NCHRP 24-39 project panel. 2. The vegetative component(s) will be installed and allowed to establish over a 5- to 6-month period. Periodic measurement of the root structure for the vegetation will be performed to ensure that a representative canopy and root system has developed prior to testing. 3. The planter trays will be moved by crane and placed in the outdoor River Engineering Flume at CSU with associated upstream and downstream transition sections. Cross-section surveys at predetermined locations will be performed prior to testing. 4. The discharge and tailgates will be adjusted to achieve the desired flow conditions. It was anticipated that three discharges would be examined: (a) a relatively low “mean annual” dis- charge, (b) an intermediate flow rate, and (c) a “design” discharge. Each flow rate will be run for a period of 2 to 3 hours to allow detailed velocity and depth measurements to be recorded. At each flow rate, both cross-sectional and vertical velocity profiles will be recorded. Figure 1.2. Typical bank-protection measure proposed for testing at CSU. Design high water Mean annual flow Grass species (bank zone) Woody species (splash zone) Rock toe (toe zone) Planter tray Streambed material

Introduction and Research Approach 11 5. After each flow, the treatment will be examined for any damage to its various components (e.g., loss of vegetation, movement of rock, or soil loss) and cross-section surveys and longi- tudinal profiles will be repeated. 1.3.5 Task 5—Interim Report The research team prepared and submitted an Interim Report documenting the informa- tion developed in Tasks 1 through 4. The Task 5 revised work plan for completing Phase II was included as an attachment to the Interim Report. The Interim Report (Task 5) provided all findings and recommendations, including sug- gestions for field site visits and a recommended laboratory test plan for Phase II. The principal investigator (PI) and co-PIs met with the NCHRP Project 24-39 panel in Fort Collins, Colorado to discuss the Interim Report and the revised work plan. The Interim Report meeting included a visit to the CSU laboratory to observe the selected treatments for testing growing in the green- house and the outdoor flume where testing would be conducted during Phase II. 1.3.6 Task 6—Field Investigations The research team planned, coordinated, and implemented field site visits to evaluate design, performance, and maintenance issues for selected biotechnical treatments. Site visits were com- pleted at 16 individual sites in three regions (upper Midwest, Southeast, and West Coast). Site visit teams were organized so that most disciplines on the research team (hydraulic engineer, geomorphologist, Geotechnical Engineer, vegetation specialist, and construction/maintenance engineer) had the opportunity to visit sites in one of the three geographic regions recommended under Task 3. Each site visit included comprehensive photographic documentation, a search for design or as-built drawings, supporting calculations, and performance and monitoring history. The goal was to integrate the data acquired from the site visits with the results of the Task 7 labora- tory testing and obtain sufficient design, construction, monitoring, and maintenance information to produce several detailed case studies for the design guidelines and substantial supporting infor- mation for the Task 8 Compendium. As recommended by the NCHRP project panel, a uniform field protocol/data collection form was developed and used for all site visits. 1.3.7 Task 7—Laboratory Studies Using the testing program and configurations discussed and approved during the Interim Report meeting, the research team conducted the laboratory experiments according to the approved work plan. Two specific treatments for the laboratory testing program were approved by the panel during Phase I. For Task 7, the extensive laboratory facilities and hydraulic modeling expertise of CSU were available. These included the unique greenhouse facilities where biotechnical treatments can be grown/installed to meet particular specifications for later testing at prototype scale in a large outdoor flume (see Figure 1.1). These tests provided specific hydraulic design parameters for the selected biotechnical treatments. The outdoor flume was made available on a priority basis at the appropriate time in the testing sequence. Testing included two representative biotechnical measures that were constructed with real plants in large planter boxes (6-ft wide by 20-ft long by either 12 or 18 in. deep). Plant materials were given time to establish prior to installation on the banks of the experimental trapezoidal channel. A variety of environmentally sensitive bank-protection measures were considered as potential candidates for testing at prototype scale at CSU. Due to cost considerations, only two treatments

12 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures could be accommodated under this research project. Various treatments were carefully evaluated from the perspective of having wide applicability across the nation, as well as practical issues of: • Constructability, • Physical testing requirements, • Quantitative measurements of key hydraulic variables, and • Monitoring the condition of each component before testing and after each test flow event. The two biotechnical bank-protection treatments selected for testing were: 1. Live siltation with live staking and rock toe at a 3H:1V slope, and 2. VMSE (sometimes referred to as FES lifts) at a 2H:1V slope. The vegetative components of these treatments were harvested locally in Fort Collins, Colorado, and consisted of Salix exigua (also known as sandbar willow or narrowleaf willow), a shrub-type willow that is common to riparian corridors throughout most of the United States. 1.3.8 Task 8—Develop Compendium of Photographs and Case Histories Based on the data acquired from the Task 2 survey and photographic and case history docu- mentation from the Task 6 field investigations, a Compendium of biotechnical treatments in a searchable database format was developed. In addition, two detailed case studies were developed to support the design guidelines: • Application Example—Arid Region (Rio Grande Bank Protection, Santa Ana Reach, near Bernalillo, New Mexico). • Application Example—Humid Region (Bank Protection and Erosion Control on Malletts Creek near Ann Arbor, Michigan). 1.3.9 Task 9—Develop Detailed Design Guidelines Based on the results of Tasks 7 and 8 and the field data assembled under Task 6, detailed design guidelines for the life cycle of selected environmentally sensitive stream bank protection measures were developed. These guidelines address appropriate selection, design installation, and maintenance requirements. Using the Task 8 Compendium, 16 site visit folders were assembled to supplement the design guidelines. The site visit examples illustrate the hydrologic/geomorphic application of the tech- niques for various scenarios in a range of physiographic conditions across the country. 1.3.10 Task 10—Submit Final Report The research team submitted a Final Report that documents the entire research effort, includ- ing a companion summary. Standalone design guidelines (Chapter 4) document in detail how to implement the findings of this research. 1.4 Points Addressed by the Research Plan The NCHRP 24-39 Problem Statement listed ten specific points to be addressed in this study. These points are shown below with the addition of a reference to the location/task of the final research work plan where these topics were addressed along with relevant observations by the research team. • Performance data/failure mechanisms—Performance and failure experience data were requested in the Task 2 survey of relevant agencies. Additional information at selected sites

Introduction and Research Approach 13 was obtained during the field investigations (Task 6). Performance/failure issues were inves- tigated during the laboratory investigations (Task 7). Photographic evidence and case history experience assembled for the Compendium (Task 8) were also used to address this topic in the design guidelines (Task 9). • Stabilization structure selection guidelines—NCHRP Report 544 (McCullah and Gray 2005) includes selection guidelines in the form of the Greenbank Decision Support Tool (developed by members of NCHRP Project 24-19 research team). Review of this expert system approach to selection guidance resulted in the proposal, which was accepted by the project panel, that updating or revising this tool would not be necessary. The Greenbank Decision Support Tool as published with NCHRP Report 544 provides a viable approach to screening a range of alter- native treatments for a specific application. • Structural guidelines and standard designs—Standard designs were requested in the Task 2 survey of relevant agencies. Additional information on structural guidelines and standard designs at selected sites was obtained during the field investigations (Task 6). Hydraulic data to support design was developed during the laboratory investigations (Task 7). Case history experience assembled for the Compendium (Task 8) was also used to address this topic. The guidelines include structural guidelines and standard designs for the treatments selected (Task 9). • Construction and maintenance best practices—Based on evaluation of case study informa- tion (Task 8) and the combined experience of the research team, construction and mainte- nance best practices are included in the detailed guidelines (Task 9). • Hydraulic design parameters such as shear stress and velocity—Developing detailed hydraulic design parameters was the primary objective of the Task 7 laboratory studies. With the unique greenhouse and flume facilities at CSU, a test plan was implemented that provides hydraulic design data for biotechnical techniques that had not been available from field expe- rience and case studies alone. These results were integrated with hydraulic design guidance compiled for the detailed design guidelines (Task 9). • Hydrologic design parameters such as regional climate, topography, and stream morphology—These components of the design approach are addressed in the Task 9 design guidelines and in two application examples. • Structure and geotechnical design parameters such as composite interaction of soil, rock, geosynthetic materials, and/or vegetation—The research team included Professional Civil Engineers with the design experience necessary to address the structural and geotechnical issues related to design of environmentally sensitive treatments. In addition, a Geotechnical Engineer was added to the research team as suggested by the panel. Several research team members have broad experience with design, construction, and monitoring of a variety of biotechnical treatments. • Longevity issues such as performance under peak flood conditions, material durability, and vegetation viability—One research team member’s experience at both the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) National Sedimentation Laboratory includes the longevity and durability of materials for large woody debris structures and various vegetative treatments such as willow post plantings. These topics are addressed in the Task 9 design guidelines (Task 9). • Cost and availability issues such as installation, maintenance, and materials, including commercial products—Cost information, where available, was considered as a component of the design guidelines (Task 9). • Ecological issues such as fish species and aquatic organism habitat enhancement, and veg- etation suitability for climatic conditions—A consultant was included on the research team to address ecological and habitat issues/opportunities for environmentally sensitive stream bank protection measures (Tasks 8 and 9).

Next: Chapter 2 - Findings »
Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 822: Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures evaluates and assesses existing guidelines for the design, installation, monitoring, and maintenance of environmentally sensitive stream bank stabilization and protection measures, and develops quantitative engineering design guidance for selected treatments. Updated design guidelines for three widely used treatments are presented: live siltation and live staking with a rock toe, vegetated mechanically stabilized earth, and vegetated rip rap.

A compendium of field data, documentation, and photographs complement the report. The compendium is available as a DVD and available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image. Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a disc from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large file and may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

CD-ROM Disclaimer - This software is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine or the Transportation Research Board (collectively "TRB") be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!