My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD03332
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
FLOOD03332
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:26:58 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 11:40:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
State of Colorado
Basin
Statewide
Title
Bank Erosion/Self-Help Brochure
Date
4/19/1984
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />NOTES: Construe-tlon materials are usually from quarry-run stone wIth specified <br />limItations on the maximum sIze of stone and amount of fInes. The hardpotnts are built <br />with crowns of various widths up to 10 feet or more depending on the severity of the <br />expected attack, the method of construct Ion, and the requ I rements for ma I ntenance. The <br />spacing between any two hardpolnts has generally been related to the average of their <br />lengths IllUltlplled by a spacing-length ratio. The spacing-length ratio Is derived from <br />the experience of the designer. The final selection of spacing and length may be an <br />economic one, but for bank protection purposes, the length of the dikes should be just <br />sufficient to move the eroding current away from the bank. Of course, there Is a <br />I imitation on length since It must not be such that the dike will unduly restrict the <br />navigation channel or increase the current velocity to an unacceptable value. Short rock <br />jetties are effective In deflecting the current away from the eroding bank and tend to <br />create a foreshore between the project i ng dikes of rock. Use of broken concrete, If <br />available, would eliminate some of the Initial cost. <br /> <br />COSTS: Approximately $18,OOO/hardpolnt. Assuming a lO-foot top, 46-foot length, and <br />12-foot height with spacing at about 11 times the length of the hardpolnt, the cost would <br />equal $37/bank-foot. <br /> <br />MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS: If constructed properly, little maintenance. <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT: In this teChnique, stone Is extended from the bank and spaced at <br />po I nts a long an erod I ng bank I f ne. The stone fill shou I d be covered with tbpso II and <br />p I anted with nat I ve p I ants. The structures red i rect the current f I ow and cause some <br />sediment bui Idup. The spacing of the structures depends on flow rates and river <br />morphology. Short hardpoints should be used over long ones. Long hardpolnts, If used, <br />should be notched to permit some flow to maintain the aquatic ecosystem. The aquatic <br />portion of the structure would Improve the habitat diversity and provide a substrata for <br />estab Ii shment of invertebrates. The above-water port I on of the structure, J f proper I y <br />planted, would provide wi Idllfe cover and food. Vegetated hardpoints are not as <br />aesthetically pleasing as some erosion control structures, but may be lOClre visually <br />acceptable than steel jacks, timber jetties, bulkheads, and old tires. Many hardpoints <br />are constructed entirely of stone with no vegetation and would be less I ikely to blend <br />Into the riverine environment. <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.