1. Northern Connecticut River Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment – Appendix 5

2. Do Nothing Option Pros: -No investment -Avoid complicated setting -Slow rate of erosion Cons: -Does not address concerns -Instability remain Northern Connecticut River Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment – Appendix 5

4. Conservation Easement Option Pros: -Slower rate of erosion -Improve habitat -Erosion concerns alleviated -Low cost Cons: -Several years before well established -Poor soils on fan surface -High plant mortality Northern Connecticut River Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment – Appendix 5

6. Bioengineering Option Pros: -Create habitat -Bank stabilization -Demonstration value -Compatible with easement option Cons: -Expensive -Difficult to secure on high gravelly bank -Short term protection Northern Connecticut River Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment – Appendix 5

8. Channel Realignment Option Pros: -Relieve pressure on bank -Channel placed where good cover Cons: -Possible unintended consequences -Expensive -Permitting difficulties Northern Connecticut River Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment – Appendix 5

10. Remove Riprap Option Pros: -Accommodates excess sediment -Improve stability downstream -Compatible with easement option Cons: -Erosion increased -Public resistance -Remote chance of extending beyond easement Northern Connecticut River Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment – Appendix 5

12. Alluvial Fan Access Option Pros: -Decrease sediment supply -Relieve pressure on VT 102 -Return to more natural condition Cons: -Further assessment needed -Limited area available -Public resistance -No short term improvements Northern Connecticut River Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment – Appendix 5