{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024466423737636647, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003643935450286309, 'mean_word_length': 5.240259740259741, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of riprap on riverine and riparian ecosystems

Abstract : Riprap (graded stone or crushed rock) is the most common material used in the stabilization of streambanks and shorelines. The continued use of this material as fill has been challenged in many locations by resource agencies due to concern for potential environmental impacts. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Districts currently invest considerable manpower "interacting" with applicants and resource agencies on this issue. These efforts are hampered by a number of factors including inconsistencies in the literature, differences among ecosystems, conflicting agency missions and directives, and insufficient knowledge. Lacking a sound procedure for the objective evaluation of potential impacts and given the ambiguous nature of the literature on the matter, decisions are often clouded by biased judgment. To address this problem, research was initiated under the Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program (WRAP) to develop guidelines for the evaluation of the environmental impacts and benefits of riprap. The first step in this research was the formulation of an annotated bibliography of related publications that could serve as a basis for regional and site-specific evaluations, and that characterizes the current state of knowledge on this subject. This document presents the results of the literature review. Citations are presented in the following sections, with an annotation summarizing the study finding. In addition to the annotation, each citation is appended with one or more category numbers that indicate the major thrust of the reference, based on the following: 1. Methods of construction/engineering aspects. 2. General impact considerations. 3. Salmonid-specific impacts. 4. Salmonid habitat/life requisites. 5. Evaluation of riprap pros and cons. 6. Assessment methods for riprap and riverine habitat. 7. Case studies/literature review.