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

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.

A-1 A P P E N D I X A NCHRP Report 544 Findings on Selected Treatments

A-2 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures McCullah and Gray (NCHRP Report 544) – Summary of Hydraulic Loading, Reasons for Failure, and Research Opportunities DATA AVAILABILITY AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES McCullah and Gray found that availability of design data in terms of sustainable hydraulic loads varied considerably among the 44 techniques included in NCHRP Report 544. Their findings represent the state of practice in the 2003–2005 time frame and provide a baseline for developing more definitive design data for selected treatments under NCHRP Project 24-39. The McCullah and Gray findings for the 16 treatments that were included in the NCHRP Project 24-39 Task 2 survey of relevant agencies (see Appendix B) are summarized below. NCHRP Report 544 also found that opportunities exist for studying particular components of installation and the impacts individual techniques have on project success. The need exists for more performance data, such as allowable velocities for some techniques and the amount of vegetative cover required to reach project objectives. As a result of the extensive literature review performed for NCHRP Report 544, and expert input and testimonials, research opportunities where identified in the descriptions of many techniques. These are also summarized below. 1. COCONUT FIBER ROLLS HYDRAULIC LOADING Only limited data has been collected for shear stress or velocity tolerances of coir or coconut fiber rolls. In general, fiber rolls should only be used under relatively low to moderate shear stress and velocity conditions. Available data shown in Table 1 comes largely from empirical information or from vendors' design criteria (Allen and Fischenich 2000). Failure of coconut fiber rolls has been attributed to several mechanisms, i.e., flanking, undercutting, and anchor failure. TABLE 1: Limiting Shear Stress And Velocity Levels For Fiber Geotextile Rolls (after Allen and Fischenich 2000). FIBER ROLL TYPE LIMITING VELOCITY m/sec (ft/sec) LIMITING SHEAR STRESS Kg/m2 (lbs/ft2) Roll with coir rope mesh (staked only, without rock bolster) <1.5 (<5) 1.0 – 3.9 (0.2 – 0.8) Roll with polypropylene rope mesh (staked only, without rock bolster) <2.4 (< 8) 3.9 – 14.6 (0.8 – 3.0) Roll with polypropylene rope mesh (staked, with rock bolster) <3.7 (< 12) > 14.6 (> 3.0)

NCHRP Report 544 Findings on Selected Treatments A-3 COMMON REASONS/CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Reasons for failure include excessive shear stress leading to scour and undermining, inadequate anchoring conditions, a poor vegetative establishment environment (e.g., shade, toxic soil/water chemistry, etc), and poor construction methods. If the substrate beneath the fiber roll is noncohesive material, such as sand or silt, anchoring may be problematic because of the lack of sufficient skin friction to hold the anchors (stakes) in place (Allen and Fischenich 2000). Conversely, a substrate laden with interspersed rocks may make it difficult to drive the stakes in place. An example of a Coconut Fiber Roll failure can be found in Racin and Hoover (2001), pages 88 through 93. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES The combined use of coconut fiber rolls with discontinuous, redirective techniques, e.g., Bank Barbs, Vanes, and Bendway Weirs, merits additional investigation. The potential value of fiber rolls for improving near shore aquatic habitat also deserves some attention. 2. LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) STRUCTURES HYDRAULIC LOADING LWD structures are suitable for velocities up to 3 m/s (10 ft/s). Allen and Leech (1997) reported various local velocities measured with a flowmeter. Roaring Fork River, CO, log revetments cabled to bank measured 3 m/s (10 ft/s), Snowmass Creek, CO rootwads measured 2.6 m/s (8.7 ft/s), Upper Truckee River, rootwads, 1.2 m/s (4.0 ft/s). COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Failures of LWD structures are attributed mainly to inadequate anchoring and orientation, and unsuccessful vegetation establishment. The improper installation and orientation of LWD when imbedded in structural armor can result in undercutting, structural damage, and subsequent loss of the armor and the woody debris. When anchoring to bedrock or boulders, improper quantity, placement, gluing, or drilling of anchor points can lead to excessive movement and instability of the structure (Washington State 2003). Projects with under-ballasted box groins and no bank armoring adjacent to the structure in particular streams have been known to fail (Slaney, et al. 2001). If vegetation does not establish properly, the habitat benefits of the structure may be somewhat limited and the integrity of the structure and adjacent banks could be compromised. Vegetation may fail to establish due to a variety of circumstances such as: improper orientation of the rootwad that accelerates local scour or negatively alters scour patterns; lack of access to water during periods of drought; lack of seed recruitment; or inappropriate installation timing (e.g., planting live willow stakes during the dry season). RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Allowable velocities or hydraulic loading for redirective structures.

A-4 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures 3. LIVE BRUSH MATTRESS HYDRAULIC LOADING Studies have shown that brush mattresses have stabilized a bank in a test flume against velocities exceeding 7 m/s (20 ft/s) (Gerstgrasser 1999). Allen and Fischenich (2000) report the following velocity and shear stress data: Brush Mattress Type Velocity Shear Mattress without rock toe, initial <2.7 m/sec (<4 ft/sec) 2.0 – 14.6 kg/m2 (0.4 – 3.0 lb/ft2) Mattress without rock toe, grown <3.4 m/sec (<5 ft/sec) 19.5 – 34.2 kg/m2 (4.0 – 7.0 lb/ft2) Mattress with rock toe, initial 3.4 m/sec (<5 ft/sec) 3.9 – 20.0 kg/m2 (0.8 – 4.1 lb/ft2) Mattress with rock toe, grown 8.2 m/sec (<12 ft/sec) 19.5 – 39.0 kg/m2 (4.0 – 8.0 lb/ft2) Florineth (1982) provided additional shear force tolerances for brush mattresses without a rock toe: 20.5 kg/m2 (4.2 lb/ft2) just after construction, 30.8 kg/m2 (6.3 lb/ft2) after 15 months, and 41.0 kg/m2 (8.4 lb/ft2) after the third year. COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Flanking or undermining of the revetment due to a lack of toe protection, or lack of upstream and downstream keys. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Additional information regarding the required soil moisture and depth of soil fill for successful vegetation establishment would be valuable to obtain. A study of the effects of slope steepness on brush mattress growth and establishment would be useful as well. 4. LIVE BRUSH LAYERING HYDRAULIC LOADING: Allowable velocity for brush layering is 3.7 m/s (12.1 ft/s), and allowable shear stress is 19 to 300 N/m2 (0.4 to 6.25 lb/ft2) depending on how long the brush layers have had to establish (Fischenich 2001). Schiechtl and Stern (1996) suggest an allowable shear stress of 140 N/m2 (2.92 lb/ft2).

NCHRP Report 544 Findings on Selected Treatments A-5 COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE The most likely causes of failure are the following: 1. Inadequate reinforcement from the brush layer inclusions, i.e., too large a vertical spacing or lift thickness for the given soil and site conditions, i.e., slope height, slope angle, and soil shear strength properties, 2. Inadequate tensile resistance in the brush layers as a result of too small an average stem diameter and/or too few stems per unit width, 3. Failure to properly consider seepage conditions and install adequate drainage measures, e.g., chimney drain, behind brush layer fill, and conversely, 4. Inadequate moisture applied during installation, and 5. Inadequate attention to construction procedures and details. As with all resistive streambank structures, flanking is always a potential problem. If frozen soil is employed in constructing the soil lifts between brush layers, some settlement may occur when the soil thaws. This settlement may falsely signal a slope failure. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES A need exists to study carefully the performance of brush layer protected streambanks that are subjected to stream ice. 5. LIVE FASCINES HYDRAULIC LOADING Escarameia (1998) suggests that all bioengineering treatments be limited to situations where mean flow velocity is less than 1 m/s (3.3 ft/s). Fischenich (2001) presents data from a variety of published sources that suggests live fascines will withstand shear stresses up to 60 N/m2 (and velocities of 1.8 to 2.4 m/s (5.9 to 7.9 ft/s)). Fripp (personal communication, 2002) presents data from Gerstgrasser (1999) that show fascines may withstand up to 100 N/m2 and 3 m/s (9.8 ft/s), data from Schiechtl and Stern (1996) for live fascines of 60 N/m2 (right after construction) and 80 N/m2 (after 3 to 4 seasons of growth), and data from Schoklitsch (1937) indicating fascines may be used in situations with shear stresses ranging from 10 to 50 N/m2. Dr. Gerstgrasser reported that while the fascines themselves could withstand high velocities, the unprotected, horizontal soil areas between the fascines showed accelerated erosion (personal communication, 2000). COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Toe erosion and/or flanking can cause loss of the structure, if not combined with a toe protection in areas where shear stresses and velocities exceed limits for the soils underlying the structure. Flanking can be caused by insufficient keying-in of the structure (Sotir and Fischenich 2001).

A-6 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Studies could be conducted to further investigate the spacing between fascines on a slope that provides the optimum stability while minimizing costs, and how they perform relative to coir rolls and straw wattles. 6. LIVE SILTATION HYDRAULIC LOADING This technique may be used for velocities up to 2 m/sec (6.6 ft/sec), but velocities should be at least 0.25 m/sec (0.8 ft/sec) for the system to function properly. COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Cuttings will not promote siltation as well if not located at the water’s edge. If located further up the bank, cuttings may dry out, and will only trap sediments and slow velocities during high flows. Cuttings may not grow well if not handled properly prior to installation. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Research into velocities that this technique can withstand would be helpful. 7. LIVE STAKING HYDRAULIC LOADING Allowable shear stress for this technique is approximately 120 N/m2 (2.5 lb/ft2) (Schiechtl and Stern 1996), and allowable velocity is about 0.9 m/s (3 ft/s) (Gray and Sotir 1996). COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Live staking can fail if vegetation is not handled properly prior to installation, is installed incorrectly (less than 80% of the cutting in the ground, bud scars facing down, poor soil contact, etc.) or not irrigated or "watered in" when installed in arid areas. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Studies would be valuable regarding the effect live staking has on increasing the ability of other measures to withstand higher velocities and shear stresses. 8. ROOTWAD REVETMENTS HYDRAULIC LOADING Allen and Leach (1997) report allowable velocities for rootwad revetments of 2.7 m/sec (8.9 ft/sec).

NCHRP Report 544 Findings on Selected Treatments A-7 COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE The most frequent reasons for failure of rootwad revetments are flanking and undercutting of the structure. Flanking may occur if upstream or downstream meanders are unstable, causing changing flow directions, the footer log does not extend far enough to protect the entire structure, or the trunk is not keyed in to a sufficiently stable substrate. Undercutting may result if the rootwad is not set at an appropriate elevation, or the trunk is not embedded far enough. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Thresholds for allowable shear stress have not been developed, and would greatly assist in specification of these structures (Sylte and Fischenich 2000). 9. SOIL AND GRASS COVERED RIPRAP HYDRAULIC LOADING Soil-covered riprap with vegetative cover performs well in situations where flow velocities in the vicinity of the bank do not exceed 1 to 2 m/sec (4 to 6 ft/sec). Critical velocities vary with the variety of vegetation used and soil conditions. COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Flanking, overtopping or undermining of the revetment due to improperly installed or insufficient keyways is one of the primary reasons for failure of riprap. Improperly graded granular material can also cause undermining and failure of the installation. Undersized stones can be carried away by strong currents, and sections of the revetment may settle due to poorly consolidated substrate. Vegetation may require irrigation if seeded or installed during the late spring or summer, or in extremely droughty soils. Also, only particular grass species can tolerate excess soil moisture when the banks are inundated. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Information Unavailable 10. TURF REINFORCEMENT MATS HYDRAULIC LOADING The maximum flow velocity for unvegetated TRM has been shown to reach 2.4 m/sec (8 ft/sec) under long-term flow conditions (50-days) in a laboratory test (Austin and Theisen 1994). COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Critical points in conveyance system applications where mats can lose support include points of overlap between mats, projected water surface boundaries and channel bottoms.

A-8 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES None identified. 11. VEGETATED GABION BASKET HYDRAULIC LOADING Fischenich (2001) reported a maximum allowable velocity of 4.3 m/s (14.1 ft/s) for gabion baskets. COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Baskets not adequately filled, allowing stones to shift and cause abrasion and fatigue failures of wire. Baskets damaged by floating debris, wear, corrosion, or vandalism. Flanking or undermining of the structure due to insufficient keying, or unstable banks on upstream or downstream end. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Long-term (more than 15 years) performance of vegetated gabions. 12. VEGETATED GABION MATTRESS HYDRAULIC LOADING Limit velocities for vegetated gabion mattresses range from 4.2 m/sec (13.8 ft/sec) for a 15 cm (6 in.) thick mattress to 6.4 m/sec (21 ft/sec) for a 30 cm (12 in.) thick mattress (Freeman and Fischenich 2000). COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Mattresses not adequately filled, allowing stones to shift and cause abrasion and fatigue failures of wire. Baskets damaged by floating debris, wear, corrosion, or vandalism. Flanking or undermining of the structure due to insufficient keying, or unstable banks on upstream or downstream end. Omission of a filter layer below the installation. Attempts to vegetate the mattress after construction is complete. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES None identified.

NCHRP Report 544 Findings on Selected Treatments A-9 13. VEGETATED MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH HYDRAULIC LOADING There appears to be little or no published test data for permissible hydraulic loading of VMSE structures. There does exist, however, published data on vegetated coir mats and live brushlayers, respectively, as shown in Table 1. These data can be used to approximate permissible shear stresses and velocities for VMSE. In the case of vegetated coir mats or fabric, the cuttings are inserted through the fabric into the underlying soil, whereas in the case of VMSE, the cuttings are inserted between successive lifts of wrapped earth. In either case, the presence of the vegetation acts to either help anchor the netting in place or to slow velocities adjacent to the netting interface. Accordingly, upper bound values in Table 2 can be used to estimate allowable shear stresses and velocities for VMSE, particularly when the vegetation is fully established. TABLE 2: Limiting shear stress and velocity levels for selected soil bioengineering treatments (adapted from Fischenich 2001). Treatment Type Limiting Velocity m/sec (ft/sec) Limiting Shear Stress Kg/m2 (lbs/ft2 ) Live fascines 0.37 – 0.94 (1.2 – 3.1) 29 – 39 (6 – 8) Coir roll 0.9 – 1.5 (3 – 5) 39 (8) Vegetated coir mat 1.2 – 2.4 (4 – 8) 46.4 (9.5) Live brush mattress (initial) 0.1 – 1.2 (0.4 – 4.1) 19.5 (4) Live brush mattress (established) 1.2 – 2.5 (3.9 – 8.2) 58.6 (12) Brush layering (initial/established) 0.1 – 2.0 (0.4 – 6.5) 58.6 (12) Live willow stakes 0.64 – 0.94 (2.1 – 3.1) 14.6 – 48.8 (3 – 10) COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE No known instances of failure have been published. The most likely causes of a hypothetical failure, however, would be the following: 1. Inadequate primary reinforcement from the inert tensile inclusions (fabric or geotextile), i.e., improper vertical spacing or lift thickness, insufficient allowable unit tensile resistance in the selected fabric or geotextile, too short an embedment length, etc., for the given soil and site conditions, viz., slope height, slope angle, and soil shear strength properties. 2. Failure to properly consider seepage conditions and install adequate drainage measures, e.g., chimney drain behind VMSE structure. 3. Inadequate attention to construction procedures and details. 4. As with all resistive, shoreline protective structures, flanking is always a potential problem.

A-10 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Some uncertainty exists at present as to the exact permissible shear stresses and velocities for VMSE interfaces. Performance results during high water conditions indicate that VMSE can withstand hydraulic loadings at least equal to those listed in Table 2 for either vegetated coir mats or live brush layers alone. Additional research would also be helpful on the nature of the interaction between roots and fabric and root architecture/distribution in VMSE structures. 14. VEGETATED RIPRAP HYDRAULIC LOADING The riprap blanket should be keyed into the streambed below the expected depth of scour. Toe depth should be based on potential scour, which is not directly related to stream discharge. More stone can be placed as a skirt at the base of the revetment or be used to increase the width of the key, the purpose of this stone being to fall into scour holes should they be deeper than expected. Permissible shear and velocity for vegetated riprap is related to the size of rock used in construction. Other factors, such as the angularity of the stone, the thickness of the layers of stone, and the angle at which the faces of the stone structure are constructed also come into play. Detailed guidance for sizing stone for bed and bank stabilization structures is beyond the scope of this guideline, and many approaches are available. However, the Maynord (1995) equation gives a D50 stone size for an angular stone riprap revetment of 0.875 m (2.87 ft) if the near-bank vertically averaged velocity is 3.5 m/s (11.5 ft/s), and flow depth = 1 m (3.3 ft), and stone is placed on a bank slope of 1V:1.5H. Use of riprap larger than this is unusual. COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Flanking, overtopping or undermining of the revetment due to improperly installed or insufficient keyways is one of the biggest reasons for failure of riprap. Improperly designed or installed filter material can also cause undermining and failure of the installation. Undersized stones can be carried away by strong currents, and sections of the revetment may settle due to poorly consolidated substrate. Vegetation may require irrigation if planted in a nondormant state, or in extremely droughty soils. Also, vegetation may be limited by excess soil moisture (Pezeshki et al. 1998). RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Investigate the performance of this technique under conditions where banks are subjected to scour forces, bank overriding, or plucking action by ice. Does the presence/use of vegetation play a useful role? How does the vegetation or vegetative component respond to ice damage? What appears to enhance, or conversely, detract from the ability of vegetation to perform well under icing conditions?

NCHRP Report 544 Findings on Selected Treatments A-11 15. VEGETATED ARTICULATED CONCRETE BLOCKS HYDRAULIC LOADING The critical velocity and failure shear stress for ACBs are on the order of 4.3 m/s (14 ft/s) and 226 Pascals (4.7 psf), respectively. Performance studies (Lipscomb et al. 2001) of articulated concrete blocks (Corps block) under vegetated and unvegetated conditions have shown that vegetation increases the critical failure shear stress by about 40%. Failure of an ACB system is defined as excessive loss of subgrade beneath the block mat resulting in vertical discontinuities between adjacent blocks. COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Flanking or loss of blocks at the edges can be a problem with block systems; therefore, the system must be well keyed in at the edges. The loss of blocks from the center of the mat may lead to loss of articulation/interlocking and compromise the effectiveness of the system. Cabling armor units together and encapsulation (e.g., wire cages used with gabion (Reno) mattresses) minimize this problem. Improper placement and sizing of filter fabric beneath an ACB mat can lead to washout of fines beneath the mat and collapse or settlement problems. The filter fabric layer can sometimes act as a sliding surface. This problem is gradually ameliorated as vegetation becomes established in the mat. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES Determine the extent to which geotextile filter fabrics placed beneath ACB mats impede the growth, development, and penetration of roots through the filter cloth into the native soil beneath. 16. WILLOW POSTS AND POLES HYDRAULIC LOADING Allen and Leach (1997) report velocities of 2 m/sec (6.6 ft/sec) sustained by willow cuttings. COMMON REASONS / CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE Dessication and browsing are the two biggest reasons for failure. Often, willow post installations need to be fenced for a year or so, especially in agricultural areas, to allow the Willows to get established. Willows that are not planted deeply enough, have too much of their stem exposed, or do not have good stem to soil contact can dry out and die before getting established. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES None identified.

A-12 Evaluation and Assessment of Environmentally Sensitive Stream Bank Protection Measures References Cited Above Allen, H. and Leech, J.R. (1997). "Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion Control," Report 1, Guidelines, Technical Report EL-97-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Allen, H.H. and Fischenich, J.C. (2000). "Coir Geotextile Roll and Wetland Plants for Streambank Erosion Control," EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-04), U.S. Army Engineer Research Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Austin D.N. and Theisen, M.S. (1994). "BMW Extends Vegetation Performance Limits," Geotechnical Fabrics Report, April/May. Escarameia, M. (1998). "River and Channel Revetments," Thomas Telford, Ltd., London. Fischenich, J.C. (2001a). "Impacts of Stabilization Measures," EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-32), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Fischenich, J.C. (2001b). "Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials," EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC-TN-EMRRP-SR-29), U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Florineth, F. (1982). "Experiences with Bioengineered Measures for Watercourses in Mountains," Landschaftswasserbau, TU Wien, Vol. 3. Freeman, G.E. and Fischenich J.C. (2000). "Gabions for Streambank Erosion Control," EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-22), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Gerstgraser, C. (1999). "The Effect and Resistance of Soil Bioengineering Methods for Streambank Protection," Proceedings of Conference 30, International Erosion Control Association. Gray, D.H. and Sotir, R. (1996). "Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization," John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Lipscomb, C.M., Thorton, C.I., Abt, S.R., and Leech, J.R. (2001). "Performance of Articulated Concrete Blocks in Vegetated and Un-Vegetated Conditions," Land and Water, Vol. 45, No. 4. Maynord, S.T. (1995). "Corps Riprap Design Guidance for Channel Protection," C.R. Thorne, S.R. Abt, F.B.J. Barends, S.T. Maynord, and K.W. Pilarczyk. (eds.), In River, Coastal and Shoreline Protection: Erosion Control Using Riprap and Armourstone, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, U.K. Pezeshki, S.R., Anderson, P.H. and Shields, F.D., Jr. (1998). "Effects of Soil Moisture Regimes on Growth and Survival of Black Willow (Salix nigra) posts (cuttings)," Wetlands Vol. 18, No. 3, 460-470.

NCHRP Report 544 Findings on Selected Treatments A-13 Racin, J.A., Hoover, T.P., and Crossett Avila, C.M. (2000). "California Bank and Shore Rock Slope Protection Design - Practitioner's Guide and Field Evaluations of Riprap Methods," Report FHWA-CA-TL-95-10, California Department of Transportation., Sacramento, CA. Schiechtl, H.M. and Stern, R. (1996). "Ground Bioengineering Techniques for Slope Protection and Erosion Control," Blackwell Science. London, England. Schiechtl, H.M. and Stern, R. (1998). "Water Bioengineering Techniques for Riverbank and Shore Stabilization," Blackwell Science, London, England. Schoklitsch, A. (1937). "Hydraulic Structures; a Text and Handbook," Translated by Samuel Shulits, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY. Slaney, P.A., Koning, D’Aoust, S.G., and R.G. Millar (2001). "Increased Abundance of Rainbow Trout in Response to Large Woody Debris Rehabilitation at the West Kettle River," Streamline: Watershed Restoration Technical Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 4. Sotir, R.B. and Fischenich, J.C. (2001). "Live and Inert Fascine Streambank Erosion Control," EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-31), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Sytle, T.L. and Fishenich, J.C. (2000). "Rootwad Composites for Streambank Stabilization and Habitat Enhancement," EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-21), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2003). "Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines," published in co-operation with Washington Dept. of Transportation and Washington Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, WA.