See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351082340

GROUND BIOENGINEERING AS ONE OF THE PREFERRED APPROACHES FOR

STABILISATION OF ERODING RIVER BANKS

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 111

1 author:

Lenka Balážovičová
Matej Bel University Banska Bystrica
30 PUBLICATIONS 111 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lenka Balážovičová on 24 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GEOGRAFICKÁ REVUE FPV UMB
378 -
Geografické Ročník 9 Supplement Banská Bystrica,
387 2013
a geoekologické štúdie

GROUND BIOENGINEERING AS ONE OF THE PREFERRED

APPROACHES FOR STABILISATION OF ERODING RIVER BANKS

POZEMNÉ BIOINŽINIERSTVO AKO JEDEN Z PREFEROVANÝCH

PRÍSTUPOV RIEŠENIA STABILIZÁCIE RIEČNYCH BREHOV

Lenka Anstead

Abstrakt:
Brehová erózia je integrovanou súčasťou riečnych procesov, ale zároveň je jedným z nich,
ktorý bol v rozpore s ľudskými potrebami po celé stáročia. Laterálne posúvaný breh je
chápaný ako negatívny, izolovaný jav, ktorý predstavuje hrozbu pre pozemky, bývanie a
infraštruktúru. Pozemné bioinžinierstvo ponúka ekologickú alternatívu pre riešenie
problémov brehovej stability s využitím inžinierskych metód, a hoci je tento prístup čoraz
populárnejší, nedostatok vedeckého výskumu a monitoringu projektov pozemného
bioinžinierstva bráni jeho širšiemu využitiu. Tento krátky príspevok stručne predstavuje štyri
zásadné prístupy riešenia brehovej erózie (s využitím príkladov z Anglicka) a identifikuje
oblasti, kde by ďalší výskum dopĺňal ich praktické inžinierske využitie.
Kľúčové slová: pôdne bioinžinierstvo, riečny manažment, stabilita brehov, erózia brehov,
vŕbové plôtiky, biotechnický prístup

INTRODUCTION
Ground bioengineering is an engineering method utilising biological material. It often
uses live material, where the enforcement provided by root systems can add strength above
what is provided by conventional materials. Ground bioengineering, sometimes referred to as
soil or soft engineering, has been around for centuries and is now marking its restoration in
western Europe (Anstead, Boar 2010).
Ecological approaches in river bank manageent are particularly important considering
the Water Framework Directive which sets a target to prevent deterioration of the status of all
surface water and groundwater bodies and to protect, enhance and restore them with the aim
of achieving a good ecological status by 2015 (UK TAG WFD 2008). In 2007, 42% of rivers
in Slovakia did not meet good ecological status in assesment of their hydromorphological
378
quality. Furthemore, the problems caused by universally applied hard engineering and its
high installation costs have made a strong case in favour of alternative methods that ‘work
with nature’ rather than against it. According to Hey (2006), the widespread application of
structural engineering methods is unjustified not only on ecological grounds but also on
economic ones.
The research has shown that vegetation does increase the stability of riverbanks (e.g.
Coppin, Richards 1990; Thorne 1990; Abernethy, Rutherfurd 1998; Simon, Collison 2002)
and empirical works have demonstrated that alluvial channels supporting well-developed
riparian vegetation are deeper, narrower and are migrating more slowly than their cleared
equivalents (1984; Graf 1978; Hickin 1984; Andrews Hey, Thorne 1986). The stabilising
effects of plants include the reinforcement of soil by root systems and the reduction of soil
moisture content through canopy interception and evapotranspiration (Greenway 1987,
Coppin, Richards 1990; Simon, Collison 2002). Vegetation stems and foliage will also reduce
near bank velocities and shear stresses thus reducing fluvial erosion (Gray, Sotir 1996; Li,
Eddleman 2002). Even low root densities can provide substantial increases in shear strength
compared to non-root-permeated soils. Unfortunately, the precise role that vegetation plays is
often elusive and complicated, making it difficult to separate and quantify its effect (Hupp
1986; Gregory, Gurnell 1988; Thorne 1990; Abernethy, Rutherfurd 1998) and as a result, this
makes vegetation a less trusted method amongst some river engineers.

RIVER BANK MANAGEMENT APPROACHES

Before a specific strategy for bank protection is chosen, the preferred solution should
be weighed against the competing priorities and interests for the given river stretch. For
example, flood defence or minimal channel properties for navigation, or improving the
ground water level and protection of the infrastructure. At the same time, the solution should
contribute to habitat enhancement and help to preserve the river as an amenity for angling or
other leisure pursuits. The final approach should also be compatible with natural processes
and complement or enhance geomorphological processes, contributing to a dynamically
stable river channel (Morgan et al. 1999).
It is rarely possible to satisfy all interests, although alternatives to hard engineering do
exist and vegetation-based approaches may provide more benefits than hard engineering
(Anstead 2012). Thorne et al. (1996) argue that engineering design and management
approaches that work with, rather than against, natural processes, provide more successful

379
solutions to river instability problems. These may be also cheaper in the long term and result
in fewer unwanted side effects somewhere else in the fluvial system.
In this paper, four main approaches are summarised in the order that they should be
considered when assessing a river bank erosion problem: (1) Allowing for natural channel
adjustment, (2) Ground bioengineering, (3) Biotechnical solutions and (4) Structural
engineering. Detailed methodological approaches for selecting the most suitable solution
were published by Hemphill,Bramley (1989), Coppin, Richards (1990) and Morgan et al.
(1999).

ALLOWING FOR NATURAL CHANNEL ADJUSTMENT

It has to be stressed that bank erosion fulfils an integral role amongst the complex
natural river processes (Leopold, Wolman 1957; Schumm 1977). Natural adjustment should
therefore be the first option considered in the management of river bank erosion (Morgan et
al. 1999). This approach is particularly important when the investment in engineering cannot
be justified on financial or environmental grounds, or where the bank modification could
cause instability upstream or downstream of the site. The tendency of a bank to meander and
therefore to erode, transport and deposit sediment is a natural process for river channels. And
eroding banks will stabilise over time. Even heavily modified rivers have a tendency to
restore their natural dynamic stability and a number of straightened rivers across East Anglia
subsequently developed a tendency to meander (Anstead 2012). This dynamic function is
important as it increases the flow variability which consequently increases the diversity of
physical habitats. If the dynamism within a river environment is reduced, for example by
stabilising a river bank, the quality and diversity of habitats will also be reduced (Sear et al.
2004). If the erosion is caused by artificial processes (e.g. boat wash, cattle trampling,
fishing etc.) an approach to manage these causes should be implemented (by either restriction
or relocation of the problematic activity). This approach is also referred to as a ‘positive
management of the bank’ (Morgan et al. 1999).

GROUND BIOENGINEERING
The second consideration is ground (or soil) bioengineering, which utilises the positive
effects of vegetation to aid river bank stability. A bioengineering approach to water
engineering has been carried out for centuries and is becoming gradually popular in modern
civil river engineering in the UK (Anstead, Boar 2010), but this is not solely because of its
geotechnical functionality. Living structures are more pleasing to the human eye than hard
380
engineering and enhance stream habitats (Li, Eddleman 2002). A range of vegetation-based
methods exist and are grouped by Gray and Sotir (1996) under the term ‘soil bioengineering’.
There are numerous guidelines and methodologies for soil bioengineering that refer to
the use of willows in civil engineering projects (e.g. Brooks, Agate 1981; Hemphill, Bramley
1989; Coppin, Richards 1990; Gray, Sotir 1996; Schiechtl, Stern 1996, 1997; Allen, Leech
1997; Bentrup, Hoag 1998; Morgan et al. 1999).
Ecologically, soil bioengineering methods offer a natural restoration solution (Gray,
Sotir 1996; Schiechtl, Stern 1997) and enhance the aesthetic value of a stream (Ree, Palmer
1949; Parsons et al. 1963; Schiechtl, Horstmann 1980), (Fig 1). The most commonly used
ground bioengineering methods are described by Schiechtl, Stern (1997) and Hemphill,
Bramley (1989). Schiechtl, Stern (1997) used their experience of observing vegetative
protection measures on banks of rapidly flowing watercourses in an Alpine region.
Vegetation measures that can withstand the erosion forces of torrent streams were more likely
to be effective for most erosive situations, including those stretches along spillways and
below weirs. Gerstgraser (2000) built and tested common bioengineering methods on an
artificial flume in the Austrian Alps, observing them fail or succeed.

Fig. 1. Revetment using willow stakes, hazel faggots and reeds for river narrowing and habitat improvement, the River Shep,
Cambridgeshire (TL384473), April 2008.

Schiechtl and Stern (1997) grouped water bioengineering systems by type of bank
protection into: (1) soil protection measures (turf establishment, grass seeding, direct shrub
and tree seeding, seed matts or live brush matts) and (2) ground stabilisation (live cuttings,
wattle fence and wattles, live willow spiling, hedge or brush layers).

381
BIOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
In situations where vegetation revetments could be subject to high flow erosive forces
and bank toe undercutting (e.g. on steep sections of the channel), a biotechnical design could
be more successful to combine the stabilising function of vegetation with some inert material.
A range of materials is often used, from geotextiles to gabions, rip-rap or cellular concrete
blocks, which provide additional strength which is necessary, for example, during the
vegetation establishment period. Hybrid solutions have been used with great success (Allen,
Leech 1997; Watson et al. 1997; Li, Eddleman 2002). Schiechtl and Stern (1997) call these
‘combined construction techniques’ and review a range of strategies to implement them, such
as live deflectors, reed rolls, stone revetments reinforced by cuttings etc.
Willow spiling incorporating rock toe and toe boards has been carried out on the River
Skerne (RRC 2002). On a project in California, deflectors upstream from the structure helped
to direct the highest velocities away from the structure. Hybrid solutions that combine soil
bioengineering and conventional technologies have proved feasible and effective in some
situations (Allen, Leech 1997; Watson et al. 1997; Li, Eddleman 2002). An example of a
successful large-scale streambank stabilisation and restoration project that integrates soil
bioengineering (live staking, live fascines, brush layers) with the biotechnical methods
(vegetated geo-grids and geo-gabions) has been carried out at Airport Town in Shanghai (see
Li et al. 2006).

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Also referred to as ‘hard’ engineering, structural engineering was widely applied during
the 20th century. It relied heavily on hard structures such as concrete walls, rock, sheet piling,
rip-rap, gabion mattresses etc. (Simon, Steinemann 2000). Many government agencies
favoured these because this type of intervention provided a high degree of precision and
reliability during planning and construction, but increasing failures of these methods, notably
during the 1980s and 1990s, started to raise questions about their appropriateness in every
setting (Li, Eddleman 2002; Hoag, Fripp 2005).
Structural engineering should be viewed as the last resort, only to be used when the
other strategies have been ruled out and there is a serious risk to property or safety.
Implementation of hard engineering on a grazed floodplain, for example, is unjustified.
Gabion baskets (Fig. 2) are, by far, the most popular method for protecting river banks on the
River Stour in East Anglia, UK, with the aim of preventing loss of riparian land.
382
 Fig. 2 Example of a two-tiered gabion revetment, flood relief channel upstream on the River Stour in East Anglia, UK

However, an increasing number of observed failures of these and other hard

engineering revetments (Fig. 3), together with their relatively high financial cost and
environmental impact, started to raise questions about the suitability of these solutions not
only in a rural setting, but also overall.

Fig. 3 Gabion revetment on the River Stour, UK. The arrow points to the location of a large scour at the end of the
revetment. Note also the sliding willow tree that is falling into the channel as a consequence of the bank scouring.

SUMMARY
A shifting bank is seen as a negative, isolated phenomenon that presents a threat to
land, settlement or infrastructure and river engineers were frequently required to ‘repair’ a

383
failing length of river bank. In many cases, it was another human activity like weirs
installation, dredging, desilting etc. that has caused considerable bank instability problems.
The commonly used hard engineering solutions stabilised the failing banks but had little
consideration for the critical causes of their instability. Thorne (1978) stated that it is crucial
to establish the mode of failure when selecting the optimum approach to the management of
river bank erosion to ensure it is sustainable in the long term. If allowing for natural channel
adjustment is not a viable sollution, ground bioengineering could be such an option.
However, many engineers believe that the type and amount of information available on soil
bioengineering methods is inadequate for the promotion of their wider use (Thorne et al.
1998; Li, Eddleman 2002) and there are serious gaps between the type of fundamental
research being conducted on vegetation-soil-water interactions and the needs of practitioners
working in river management agencies and consultancy companies. Specifically, many
design engineers and river managers have found that existing research does not address key
problems or produce results that can be applied in practice. Coppin and Richards (1990)
concluded this into four important quesitons that should be tackled: (1) To what extent can
the role of vegetation be quantified; (2) Is the level of quantification sufficient for
engineering application; (3) Can vegetation provide economic and environmental advantages
over conventional materials and (4) How much engineering experience is there on which to
base designs using vegetation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abernethy, B., Rutherfurd, I.D. 1998: Where along a river’s length will vegetation most
effectively stabilise stream banks? Geomorphology 23, 55-75.
Allen, H.H., Leech, J.R. 1997: Bioengineering for Streambank Erosion Control. Report 1 –
Guidelines. Technical Report EL-97-8. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 105 pp. Available online in March 2010 at:
http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~bbledsoe/CIVE413/Bioengineering_for_Streambank_Ero
sion_Control_report1.pdf
Andrews, E.D. 1984: Bed-material entrainment and hydraulic geometry of gravel-bed rivers
in Colorado. Geological Society of America Bulletin 95, 371-378.
Anstead, L. 2012: River bank erosion rates and the case for willow spiling as a bank
stabilisation sollution. Ph.D. thesis. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 320 pp.
(unpublished)

384
Anstead, L., Boar, R.R. 2010: Willow spiling: Review of streambank stabilisation projects in
the UK. Freshwater Reviews 3, 33-47.
Bentrup, G., Hoag, J.C. 1998: The Practical Streambank Bioengineering Guide. User’s
Guide for Natural Streambank Stabilization Techniques in the Arid and Semi-arid Great
Basin and Intermountain West. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho. 150 pp.
Brooks, A., Agate, E. 1981: Waterways and Wetlands. A Practical Conservation Handbook.
British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, Reading, UK. 169 pp.
Gerstgraser, C. 2000: Ingenieurbiologische Bauweisen an Fliessgewässern. Grundlagen zu
Bau, Belastbarkeit und Wirkungsweisen. Dissertationen der Universität für Bodenkultur
Wien 52, Österreichischer Kunst-und Kulturverlag, Wien.
Coppin, N.J., Richards, I.G. 1990: Use of Vegetation in Civil Engineering. Butterworths,
London, UK. 312 pp.
Graf, W. 1978: Fluvial adjustments to the spread of tamarisk in the Colorado Plateau region.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 89, 1491-1501.
Gray, D.H., Sotir, R.B. 1996: Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization: A
Practical Guide for Erosion Control. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 400 pp.
Gregory, K.J., Gurnell, A.M. 1988: Vegetation and river channel form and process. In:
Biogeomorphology (ed.: H.A. Viles), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 11–42. Available online in
August 2011 at: <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X96000281>
Greenway, D.R. 1987: Slope Stability: Geotechnical Engineering and Geomorphology. John
Wiley & Sons, New York. 230 pp.
Hemphill, R.W., Bramley, M.E. 1989: Protection of River and Canal Banks: Guide to
Selection and Design. Butterworths, London, UK. 216 pp.
Hey, R.D. 2006: Fluvial geomorphological methodology for natural stable channel design.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42, 357-386.
Hey, R.D. & Thorne, C.R. 1986: Stable channels with mobile gravel beds. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 112, 671–689.
Hupp, C.R. 1986: Upstream Variation in Bottomland Vegetation Patterns, Northwestern
Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 113, 421–430.
Hickin, E.J. 1984: Vegetation and river channel dynamics. Canadian Geographer / Le
Géographe canadien 28, 111-126.
Hoag, C.J. & Fripp, J. 2005: Streambank Soil Bioengineering Considerations for Semi-arid
Climates. Riparian/Wetland Project Information Series No. 18, US Department of
385
 Agriculture, Washington D.C. 15 pp. Available online in March 2010 at: <http://plant-
materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcar5981.pdf>
Leopold, L.B. & Wolman, M.G. 1957: River Channel Patterns: Braided, Meandering and
Straight. Physiographic and Hydraulic Studies of Rivers. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 282-B, US Government Printing Office, Washington, USA. 85 pp.
Li, M.-H., Eddleman, K.E. 2002: Biotechnical engineering as an alternative to traditional
engineering methods. A biotechnical streambank stabilization design approach.
Landscape and Urban Planning 60, 225-242.
Li, X., Zhang, L., Zhang, Z. 2006: Soil bioengineering and the ecological restoration of
riverbanks at the Airport Town, Shanghai, China. Ecological Engineering 26, 304-314.
Morgan, R.P.C., Collins, A.J., Hann, M.J., Morris, J. 1999: Waterway Bank Protection: A
Guide to Erosion Assessment and Management. Environment Agency R&D Publication
11, Environment Agency & Cranfield University, Bristol, UK. 251 pp.
Parsons, D.A., Apmann, R.P., Decker, G.H. 1963: The determination of sediment yields from
flood water sampling. International Association Scientific Hydrology Publication 65, 7-
15.
Ree, W.O., Palmer, V.J. 1949: Flow of Water in Channels Protected by Vegetative Linings,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. University of Michigan. 115 pp.
RRC 2002: Manual of River Restoration Techniques. The River Restoration Centre (RRC),
Silsoe, UK. 168 pp. Available online in March 2012 at:
<http://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_manual_pdf.php >
Schiechtl, H.M., Horstmann, N.K. 1980: Bioengineering for Land Reclamation and
Conservation. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton. 404 pp.
Schiechtl, H.M., Stern, R. 1996: Ground Bioengineering Techniques for Slope Protection and
Erosion Control. Blackwell, Oxford. 146 pp.
Schiechtl, H.M., Stern, R. 1997: Water Bioengineering Techniques: for Watercourse, Bank
and Shoreline Protection. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. 186 pp.
Schumm, S.A. 1977: The Fluvial System. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 338 pp.
Sear, D.A., Thorne, C.R., Newson, M.D. 2004: Guidebook of Applied Fluvial
Geomorphology. R&D Technical Report FD1914. Defra Flood management Division.
Available online in March 2012:
<http://www.restorerivers.eu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=o2ghg%2FI4DzQ%3D&tabid=26
24>

386
 Simon, A., Collison, A. J.C. 2002: Quantifying the mechanical and hydrologic effects of
riparian vegetation on streambank stability. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27,
527-546.
Simon, K., Steinemann, A. 2000: Soil bioengineering challenges for planning and
engineering. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 126, 89-102.
Thorne, C.R. 1978: Processes of Bank Erosion in River Channels. PhD thesis, 2 vols.,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK (unpublished).
Thorne, C.R. 1990: Processes and mechanisms of river bank erosion. In: Vegetation and
Erosion (ed.: J.B. Thornes), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 125-144.
Thorne, C.R., Reed, S., Doornkamp, J.C. 1996a: A Procedure for Assesing River Bank
Erosion Problems and Sollutions. R&D Report, National Rivers Authority, UK.
Thorne, C.R., Amarasinghe, I., Gardiner, J., Perala-Gardiner, C., Sellin, R. 1998: Riverbank
Protection using Willows. Scoping Study. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report
W154, Environment Agency, Bristol. 125 pp.
UK TAG WFD 2008: Environmental Standards and Conditions (Phase 2). UK Technical
Advisory Board on the Water Framework. Available online in November 2011 at:
<http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article%20_11/POMEnvStds/sw_07>
Watson, C.C., Abt, S.R. & Derrick, D. 1997: Willow posts bank stabilization. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 33, 293-300.

Author’s details
Mgr. Lenka Anstead, PhD.
Lecturer
Department of Geography, Geology and Landscape Ecology
Faculty of Natural Science
Matej Bel University
Tajovského 40, 974 01 Banská Bystrica
Slovakia
Tel: +421 48 4467302
Website: http://geo.fpv.umb.sk

387

View publication stats