Laserfiche WebLink
• Two years of monitoring at the restored bottomland sites have demonstrated that the erosion and <br />sedimentation processes are quite dynamic. Different processes will be experienced year to year <br />depending on the magnitude, duration, and rates of filling and draining of the sites. Two years of data is <br />not sufficient to determine any long term erosion and sedimentation trends. Changes have been <br />experienced, but the floodability has not changed drastically. The scouring of outlet channels that <br />maintain or even increase the floodability has complemented deposition at the mouths of the inlets. Thus <br />far, none of the data have indicated that the local channel morphology has been modified by restoration <br />activities. There has been some sand bar development adjacent to some of the inlets but there has also <br />been the shifting of sand bar away from the inlets. The bar shifting documented near the restoration sites <br />is typical of the local channel morphology before restoration activities. Sedimentation in the bottomlands <br />themselves has also been negligible. One other parameter, vegetation encroachment, has thus far not <br />been a significantly negative impact of the restoration activities. A significant amount of growth was noted <br />in the inlets in 1997, but the growth of this vegetation was not prolific in 1998. The continued flooding of <br />these sites should keep tamarisk growth in check, although some vegetation will continue to grow. <br />Noxious weed growth and tamarisk encroachment is quite common in the river corridor, and the growth <br />experienced at the restoration sites does not appear to be significantly worse and is even less evident <br />than it is at many locations in the vicinity. <br />• <br />n <br />fry <br />