20020164 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20101115

'o t- 00
0
° °o g S
r T N N N N
Q O >
m > > >
a z°zzzz

8
F
?
p
G

?
O
q bq bq bD
O ?
0
000
0
32
0
0 0 0 0
U 20
?
¢ :5

a k
N 'mil
n? .??

O ?
y ? V pg _ ? N
x W ? a3?o.OUz <z
0

co?
?
u c
o

5

V p .O

x 3 3
5 o
'2

a?ar.? UA
A'zFFA?'

O
'C
F ?

V ? .O

h Vl ? ? 4r

V u F m U h h
w
w
U %--
r
2 z z
'O y ii cCi
'
ti ¢
1
1
I
d
N
.= L

C
V M

a
V
? L
A ?
a

d A v
O °
C

a
? 8

3 7
.
PI,
g
z
d
'z
a
z 7

d
3 dy

M P. LL

d d
'
z z z
? < a
a
z z z
W M
o0
y N
00
M
°

w N

W
a
Z
?
o
o
o
o
¢
? a ?
A z T

Z O

a

z
a N
g a o
.
_ N
z
C
0

v CL
?i
O
O
8
8
u U

°

? M Q

a
a

o
d
0
e e s .o
o u 3
U o ..

x
o ? ? C7
?
y °' C ?
a U ? u O a
C

c
? P
.
u o
? o a
A F F z L ¢ a a
d w
a

o 0
C O O

y
L
O
O
0
0
0
?i O O O O O
7?, C
o, 0 0 o a

u rn o 0 0 0,
W M C C O M

x-00 P Go `?
fli S?2c11a
jo

?o
? N
? C
Q N
O
C.'
O
U
ro
W
k
.O
Q'
W
w
a
0
N
o °O
UM
Uz
U
Fa
BackEround
The Trout Cove restoration site is located in southwestern Clay County within the Hiwassee
River Basin. The stream was designed and implemented under a North Carolina Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) grant in June of 2002. Funds were transferred from the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to the CWMTF in 2004 and the
project was first monitored by NCEEP in 2005 to service mitigation needs in the cataloging unit
(CU). The project mainstem is 2,928 linear feet, which excludes the four crossings within the
reach. The unnamed tributary excluding the crossing totals 863 linear feet, for an overall project
total of 3,791 linear feet. Prior to restoration, both Trout Cove Branch and the unnamed tributary
had been impacted by past land uses including grazing, mowing, channelization, and other
maintenance activities. Stream reaches lacked riparian corridors and exhibited severe bank
erosion with stream bank heights ranging from 1 to 6 feet and a mean bank height ratio of 1.8.
The streams were classified as unstable B5 stream types progressing towards a G type. Soil loss
for Trout Cove Branch was estimated at 170 tons per year prior to restoration.
Goals and Objectives
• Improve stream and buffer conditions to limit lateral inputs of nutrients and sediments to
the project reaches;
• Improve stream and buffer conditions to limit the loss of bank derived fines to the
receiving watershed;
• Improve instream and riparian habitat cover;
• Improve conditions and opportunity for thermoregulation and oxygenation;
• Improve and maintain hydrologic function to include a floodplain connection appropriate
to the stream type and to manage storm flows such that the channel improvements are
sustainable;
• Transport bedload sediments in equilibrium;
• Exclude cattle through the fencing of a conservation easement;
• Install a native riparian buffer;
• Design and construct a sustainable step-pool stream reach with a reference appropriate
dimension and profile to provide floodplain connection and extent appropriate to the
stream type; and
• Install structures designed to provide grade control, bank protection, and habitat.
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 2 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Project No. 388 September 2010
Pre-Construction Site Photos
Photograph 3. Trout Cove Branch undercut and eroding bank. Bank height approximately 4 feet
Photograph 4. Trout Cove Branch eroding bank. Bank height approximately 5 feet.
o=
t qA? y a
' v P
y ? dY w:u'
is
I ?
fD
t
a
.S

IN

I

Q o L
W
I I U
i
n
r tq Y
? ? _ y ?4(: _ /? /r Ate' ? '? f o ? '?
v,? t } ? ? o ti ?, 'c03
? x ?1t ¢; JY?* N i ? - ?y " ado
00
M N
? :'? o ?v o z a
co rA
- r' : Y• " cwt .. U U
Channel Stability
Dimension: Bankfull cross-sectional area values reported in Table 2 were calculated based on a
set elevation established during monitoring year 4 in the proximity of the top of bank. Riffle
cross-sectional values reported between monitoring years illustrate that the bed form has
remained within the variability and sensitivity tolerances expected. The cross-sections have
remained stable with a maximum vertical variation of about 0.3 feet and there was no down
cutting indicated in the project profile. Cross-section 5 showed some earlier widening in
dimension between monitoring years 1 and 2, but subsequently narrowed and only 4% of the
projects banks exhibited instability during the monitoring period.
Table 2. Riffle Cross-Sectional Areas Calculated Based on Monitoring Year 4 Bankfull
Elevations
Riffle Cross-Sections MY 1 MY 2 MY 3 MY 4 MY 5
Cross-Section 3 3.5 4.2 2.7 3.6 3.9
Cross-Section 4 3.2 4.1 5.2 4.2 4.4
Cross-Section 5 1.8 4.0 3.3 3.9 2.7
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 4 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Project No. 388 September 2010
Trout Cove Branch
Cross-Section #1 - Pool
April 9, 2009
50
46
u
45
a
0
44
d
w
43
40
39
49
48
47
----------+-----4------ 4 ------- I ------F-----f---W------fi---t------1------1------f
42
41
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+G0 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20
Station (feet)
MY5 t MY4 MY3 MY2 - MY1 --------- Bkf
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 5 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Project No. 388 September 2010
57
Trout Cove Branch
Cross-Section #2 - Pool
April9, 2009
56
55
54
d
w 53
a
0
52
W
51
50
49
48 4--
0+00
0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50
Station (feet)
MY5 - MY4 MY3 MY2 - MY1 --------- Bkf
0+60
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 6 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Project No. 388 September 2010
Trout Cove Branch
Cross-Section #3 - Riffle
April 8, 2009
47
4s
45
_ 44
w
W_
0 43
v
W
42
41
40
----------4-.. .-----??-------1----- sa/--r----------r---------Y-----------
39 +-
0+00
0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30
Station (feet)
MY5 - MY4 MY3 MY2 - MY1 -------- Bkf
0+35
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 7 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Project No. 388 September 2010
65
64
63
Trout Cove Branch
Cross-Section #4 - Riffle
Apri18, 2009
62
w
w
O
g 61
ea
Q
W
60
59
58
57 +-
0+00
0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50
Station (feet)
?- MY5 - MY4 - MY3 MY2 - MY1 -------- Bkf
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 8 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Project No. 388 September 2010
78
77
76
_ 75
d
W
0 74
R
d
73
72
71
70
0+00 0+05
Trout Cove Branch
Cross-Section #5 - Riffle
Apri18, 2009
0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0445 0+50 0+55
Station (feet)
-?- MY5 - MY4 MY3 MY2 - MY1 --------- Bkf
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 9 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Project No. 388 September 2010
Profile: The stream profile has remained stable among monitoring years and indicates no
significant or systemic loss of grade. The two main issues observed during monitoring year 5
and as seen in previous years were some pool aggradation and some level of piping through
approximately half the structures. All other morphological metrics during monitoring year 5
indicated performance percentages averaging between 92 and 99%. The extent of pool
aggradation observed during monitoring years 3 and 4 was primarily attributed to historic low
flows preventing pool scour and sediment transport. While stream flows in monitoring year 5
appeared normal and included two bankfull events, pool aggradation was still common and was
independent of structure condition. Limited upstream observations indicated poor land use
activities which may be importing fines even at normal discharges that are accumulating in
portions of some of the pools. Approximately half the structures surveyed in monitoring year 5
had some level of piping, but the visual observations and the profile plots indicate no significant
or systemic loss of grade and the number of structures in the profile represents a very high level
of grade control redundancy.
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 10 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Project No. 388 September 2010
.e
V
R
L
a
L
s?
V a
a
R r?
i
0.1 y
O L
J Q.i
7 ?
v
F
bD
G
O
J

/
/ 1\
/

o /

R /
d
en ,

/
d

/
/
/
/

r

/

/
/
/

/

O VI O V. O
P 00 00 h [?
1?
11% A1O
qe
11-11
?O
4
O ?
L
b
m
h
d }C
h?0 C I
t
O N
a?
O
?O
Y
J^
v?0
T
ti
9
e
0'?'o
0
`NO V N N R Q M M
(;aa;) aoyena[3
U O
C .?
? N
by ?
U
Q y
G
O
N
C
O
U
C.
O
w
O
C
.O
w
c
w
0
a
0
a?
0 00
?z
U
E a`
i
u
a
? b
u
a ?
44
0 0
U i
,. a
? R
L .9
H .fl
E
0

/
'
e

F,'
y
fY /

7

0.l . /

ti / :

d

l:

/

/
/
r .

/

/

/

/
i''

/
r
/
/

/

/

/
/
?
r ?
/

/
/
r

/

/

8 a a ? ? e e
o a a a a a a o? a a a
(loaf) uolleeal3
U O
^ N
,?O ?
M y

?O
'L° N ?
Q y
C y¢'j
cd

° ?
L:
O
9'
? a
C

?o
tiq O
U
:°
v

W
?O k0
.O
W
O
?
1
?O
1?
y
1b
1b y

ti ? 2
a
0
?° r
?
4r
ti
? m
tia ?
Na
,H° I?
i
?o
tiv
o
I
?o
w
o

C
o

ti
~? ?"

o
a
0
oho U oMo
ti ?
'

0
z
U ?
a ?

d
?r
L
t V
V ?
L a
m y
7
? L
U p„
o C°
F 'o
a
a
. /I

/ i

/ i
./ i

I

/

/

/ r

/

o /

/

/
C

? I

?. I
u /

I

N

Y /

/
/
/
i
b
i
l
r.
/

/

/
/
/

r
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
r I

r
/

/

/
/ r
/

U O_
N
vq G s
..
tw ?
Q
U
'd O
p .
C
O

?O
4
v U

a

??o v
v 0

w

?n w

o d
`
b>P
4 2

O
?

Y
CL
O
?

v
O

va ?

o
?

o
-
N
V

?o
?
v
h

I (Jaaj) uogena13
?o
vv
?o
, c
w
v
E

O
ti
00
O
m
f° U
vp U p
?z

0 0
E= w
a
oa N
o
U ?
? 0.
i a
E" .H
eo
a
I ?
I
I

I
/
/
I

/

/

/
/
I

/
o I
Vi I
I
I
O /

i

d? I
I
I
. I ,

i

/

,
/
l
/
it
,

i
F

/i
/

/
/
/ i
I
/
/
I

/
I

I
I

/
/

I
I

I
I

I
/
I
I
I
1
/
/

?o
6
x^h
1
0
lxtih ?
^?,o 0
a
?h
b"
b0
tih
b"
bR
b e N v h
a a ? a a
(aaa;) ao??ona??
2
CO
i
?o
? N
o^n y
ti .O
Q
N
A
O
O
U
a
0
a
W
0
W
2
Q
w
7
N
00
Um
? O
?z
U
N
H ?
Overbank Events: Based on visual observations and crest gauge documentation, the Trout
Cove Branch project has conveyed bankfull events in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (Table 3).
Table 3. Verification of Bankfull Events
Trout Cove Branch / Project No. 388
Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method
Wrack lines, stained vegetation.
?I
2006 Unknown displaced/flattened vegetation.
and sediment deposition
Wrack lines, stained vegetation.
2007 Unknown displaced/flattened vegetation.
and sediment deposition
6/27/08 Unknown Crest gauge & wrack lines
4/9/09 Unknown Crest gauge & wrack lines
11/6/09 Unknown Crest gauge & wrack lines
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 15 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc
Project No. 388 September 2010
Stem Counts: The monitoring year five vegetation plot data indicate that the project meets the
established criterion for planted stem density, which is a minimum survival of 260 planted stems
per acre at the end of the five year monitoring period. Average stem density for planted stems in
monitoring year 5 was approximately 428 stems per acre. However, when the monitoring year 5
planted and natural stems were combined, the average stem density was 890 stems per acre,
which is well above the minimum established criterion. Problems with vegetation consisted of
small isolated bare bench and floodplain areas as well as approximately 10 currently isolated
patches of high threat invasive plant species that span the project extent. An initial invasive
treatment occurred in the summer of 2010 with a follow up treatment planned for the spring of
2011.
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Final 16 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc
Project No. 388 September 2010
f - M a o - d
8
N > 7
a m O O . - ? N d y d h ? N N
a
e
^ y
O O
y .+
a
c
Q ? ? a M
? N ? d N m v? ??
Q

a _
q
s
ro
^+
?
fj
N
d
rn
?

m n

o

m
.?
d o

y F ? ?- N N N O
a ? (p H ? O N a
e0
H y
.?1
a O o O
y f N y N e d d ?- N y
T
q
U R
a ? N N ? o O N
F y
?
a
0
0 0

f d
N N
4 a
t
f

$ y

a
o

0 0
? n ~

b
$ g r

c y
?
a
0
0 0

F
O
?
N
d
?O Oo
ep N
y o
O r
• 1?
O
?
O
N
C t

o H y
.?
O O
? a

6 O
a V
Y ?
a 1- ? 7
6
F y
a
H d N E N O
O
q
a d ? N
? y
?
6
a 0

?
r`
r ? L W ? U
y
y~
1= $
f g+
H t
y
H 2
y t
y .2c
y N
H R
F 1
f 1
H L
y mm
F
l-
y
H
F y N Y N
y yG
}1
y
O
?
r

o
E
c 5?
E yg
y
C
v

B ?

E ?

t ?

3
v
E d
E y t
a $ ? m E ? ? m ? ?
.x s
Y
S B g ? ? o o ?
? u
a" ?
? a
? u
a 'd
t ?
a ?
„ a a a"

1 3 3 H 9

c 6! O i ? ? S ?

v o
? N
b^p y
Q v
C

0
i?rn
O
Fr
W
k
W
W
0
0
0
o °O
00
(? M
? O
?z
U
H a`
kr)
Cd
N
to
O
a?
O
N
t
O
a
O
bA
u

U O
N
N Q N
U
C
O
O ?
O o
? F
? o
O
? W
O_ x
? o
O a'
bA W
O

j?.Y..
Y

N
bA
C
O
O
a?I
i1
O

TW

O
IN

S7
74

NIr

9 ;`rr

p ?. K
I k .
s
?
?
y
axi+ '?
7"
4
? r

N
Sr
CCS
N
bA
O
O Q
w
Qr,
iw
O
y
_o O0
(? M
j O
oz
U ?
Fa
L
O
O
^O
W
O
C?
bq
N

s.
c?
bA
O
O
0
a,
c
0
a?
on

N
M
N
CQ
Q
O
O
O
a
C
O
c?
O
bA
N
v 0
G -.
?- o
N
to
h
Q
G
O
a
C
O
U
^.J
.G
W
K
G
O'
W
11,
G
w
E
a
0
N ?
Um
v
z
U
U
G .?
O O
F a
Proiect Goals, Outcomes and Conclusions: The Trout Cove stream restoration project is
meeting the monitoring criteria of geomorphic stability and vegetative success over the 5 year
monitoring period. This project is successful and is submitted for regulatory closure.
Trout Cove Closeout Summary Draft 20 Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc
Project No. 388 September 2010