HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020164 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20080414Year 2 Monitoring Report
Trout Cove
Stream Restoration
??'i{ ??y}yy1t! ?Q w^? i1 ?9N F "'sya?? M? s
I sr? r e?{ "' w tia i y? ti
to r? 4.. w + r ?.R r {, A ?. ??
1 ,?' 34'? S? ? s z i t -n - }qs ahFy`K M
prf 1x"^? ; ,. 13' ?'' ?j//?wn1 ": v „i.;? ? t `?-?I ? ?•? " ? i? it .??? r ??t?
??.? a ! e ?I p r 5 ?I fJ ,y?7r #,??
c ? k 't't?' 'S ?t4:?°^ #? ? i i, }w"?^• 4? j`{"?'S r I( k ;•j?f? ?cl A {
f?,vu- •?c?y y ,,. I`K?-', d? ;v ?f t3"y ?'?f•? [ ^ae4 ) ..\a i? n i { e '??{?`x, ? ? ? 5 l,Y
54.. { a o-, ti x ?F a }app s t t #_n [ ti?y? z r? J a, t fl ' 4yp?? 4y
9J'?
?.
?. ? :6fff*FFA "i
March 2008
EEP Project No. 388
Prepared for
Qs?'S
NCEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
?gc?Raw§
APR 1 4 2008
ZENR - wA ER QUAUTY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
L_
-7 rltr
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary / Project Abstract ....................................................................... 1
II. Project Background ................................................................................................. 2
A. Location and Setting ............................................................................................... 2
B. Structure and Objectives ......................................................................................... 2
C. Project History and Background ............................................................................. 3
D. Monitoring Plan View ............................................................................................. 4
III. Project Condition and Monitoring Results ............................................................. 5
A. Vegetation Assessment ........................................................................................... 5
1. Soil Data .............................................................................................................. 6
2. Problem Areas Plan View (Vegetation) .............................................................. 6
3. Stem Counts ........................................................................................................ 6
4. Vegetation Plot Photos ........................................................................................ 8
B. Stream Assessment ................................................................................................. 8
1. Problem Areas Plan View (Stream) .................................................................... 8
2. Problem Areas Table Summary .......................................................................... 8
4. Fixed Photo Station Photos ................................................................................. 9
5. Stability Assessment ........................................................................................... 9
IV. Methodology Section ............................................................................................ 1 3
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL i S&EC Job # 10079.132
March 2008
I. Executive Summary / Project Abstract
I This report summarizes the monitoring efforts for Year 2 (2007) on the Trout Cove
Stream Restoration in Clay County, NC.
' Monitoring of the vegetated buffer was performed during the growing season of
2007, by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC). Stem counts were
performed within the established vegetation monitoring plots, resulting in a live stem
density of approximately 590 stems per acre indicating vegetative success. No
vegetative problem areas were observed. No significant infestations of exotic
invasives or bare areas of soil that should be addressed.
' The stream channel was surveyed, and a visual stability assessment was performed.
While several problem areas along the restored channel were observed, the overall
channel is deemed stable and successful. Field observations indicate that at least 98%
of all stream features, including riffles, pools, meanders, and channel bed and banks
were stable. Although select in-channel rock structures were identified to have some
' minor problems, 95% of site structures were deemed stable. In 2008, Year 3
Monitoring will commence.
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL S&EC Job # 10079.D2
March 2008 1
II. Project Background
The background information for this report was collected from previous monitoring
data submitted to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) by
the Biological and Agricultural Engineering (BAE) Department at North Carolina
State University (NCSU).
A. Location and Setting
The Trout Cove Stream Restoration Project consists of an approximately 6.32 acre
property in southwestern Clay County, NC. The site is located south of US Highway
64 and east of old US Highway 64 approximately 2 miles north of the Georgia state
line. The site is located along Trout Cove Road just north of the community of
Ogden, NC. This area is shown in detail in the attached vicinity map (Figure 1). To
visit the site from I-40, take 19/74 eastbound. Turn left on US 64 in Murphy, NC.
Turn left onto Old US 64 and continue past Brasstown, NC. Turn left onto Trout
Cove Road and a right onto McCray Road. The site will be located to your right.
B. Structure and Objectives
' The restoration site consists of approximately 2,683 linear feet of stream restoration
and approximately 6.32 acres of riparian buffer restoration. Explicit project
objectives and restoration quantities were not included in the project history provided
by NCEEP. Restoration units are estimates based on site data collected. The
structure and objectives are detailed in Tables I and Il.
Table I: Project Structure Table
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project # 388)
Se ment/Reach ID Linear Feet or Acreage
Reach 1 1,876 linear feet
Reach 2 807 linear feet
Buffer Restoration 6.32 ac
Table II: Project Objectives Table
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project # 388)
Se ment/Reach ID Objectives Linear Feet or Acreage Comment
Reach 1 Restoration 1,876 linear feet
Reach 2 Restoration/Enhancement 807 linear feet
Buffer Restoration 6.32 Acres
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL S&EC Job # 10079.132
March 2008 2
C. Project History and Background
We have assumed that 2006 served as Monitoring Year 1, therefore 2007 will serve
as Monitoring Year 2 of the required 5 years of monitoring. Additional details, to
include the project designer, original design parameters, and the history of the project,
have not been provided as of the date of this report. Details regarding the timeline of
the project are included as Table 111.
Table III: Project Activity and Reporting History
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project #388)
ctivity or Report Calendar Year of
Completion or
Planned
Completion
ctual Completion Date
Restoration Plan Unknown Unknown
Site Planted Unknown Unknown
Initial-Year 1 monitoring 2006 Dec-06
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring 2006 Aug-06
Year 2 Monitoring 2007 Nov-07
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring 2007 Jun-07
Year 3 Monitoring 2008
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring 2008
Year 4 Monitoring 2009
Year 4 Vegetation Monitoring 2009
Year 5 Monitoring 2010
Year 5 Vegetation Monitoring 2010
Based on data provided by NCEEP, it is unknown at this time which firms designed
and constructed the Trout Cove project. Monitoring activities for Year 1 were
performed and reported by S&EC. Additional information regarding known
contractors is shown in Table IV.
Trout Cove Stream Restoration
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL
March 2008
3
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S&EC Job # 10079.D2
H
Table IV: Project Contact Table
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project #388)
Designer Unknown
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Monitoring Performers 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 26714
Stream Monitoring POC
S&EC
i
R
J
egan,
ess
ca
Vegetation Monitoring POC
The project is located within Clay County, which is located within the Blue Ridge Belt
of the Mountains of North Carolina. The site is located within a rural area. Additional
information regarding the stream is included as Table V.
Table V: Project Background Table
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project #388)
Project County Clay
Drainage Area 0.453 s q. mi.
Drainage impervious cover estimate (%) 5%
Stream Order 1 st, 2nd
Ph sio ra hic Region Mountain
Ecore ion Blue Ridge
Ros en Classification of As-Built
Dominant Soil Types RhA LoC, FrA
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 06020002
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 04-05-01
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference WS-IV
An portion of an project segment 303d listed? No
An portion of an project segment upstream of a 303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor No
% of project easement fenced 100%
*Unknown - As-built data not provided
D. Monitoring Plan View
Original site survey data was provided to S&EC by NCEEP including the location of
a series of monitoring devices previously installed onsite. The survey included a total
of 2,683 linear feet of longitudinal profile and five (5) cross-sections. During our
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL S&EC Job # 10079.D2
March 2008 4
initial site visit on January 12, 2006, all cross-sections were located. These same
cross-sections were surveyed in 2006 and again in 2007.
Using provided survey data from 2005, we located five (5) previously established
vegetation monitoring plots. A single corner of each of these plots was marked with
iron pin with a plastic yellow cap. Four permanent corners had not been set. During
our August 21, 2006 site visit S&EC established permanent corners with 1.5-inch
PVC. The permanent corners were located with the survey data collected in
November 2006. In Year 2 (2007) NCEEP requested that two (2) additional
vegetation plots be installed on the tributary to the main channel. Each surveyed
stream cross-section and vegetation monitoring plot is also a designated photo point
that is photographed annually. The locations of all monitoring devices are shown on
Sheets 1 through 4 (Overall Site Plan and Monitoring Plan View).
III. Project Condition and Monitoring Results
A. Vegetation Assessment
The Trout Cove stream restoration site vegetation is dense and healthy throughout the
site with a variety of herbaceous and woody species. The site contains a lush
herbaceous layer particularly in the wetland areas and pond edges. Herbaceous
species observed included large amounts of goldenrod (Solidago sp.), boneset
(Eupatorium perfoliatum), soft rush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex sp.), ironweed
(Vernonia noveboracensis), great blue lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica), cutgrass (Leersia
oryzoides) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis).
Larger trees (5-20 feet tall) can be seen throughout the buffer mostly consisting of
black willow (Salix nigra), river birch (Betula nigra) and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). Saplings and smaller individuals of oak, pine, maple, tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) were observed.
Shrubs observed in the buffer included pepperbush (Clethra acuminata), silky
dogwood (Cornus amomum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis) and possumhaw (Viburnum nudum).
The buffer area also contains a large amount of blackberry (Rubus sp.) which is
extremely dense in some areas. The stream bank vegetation is also extremely dense
and primarily made up of tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and silky dogwood (Cornus
amomum).
Exotic, invasive plant species do not appear to be a problem on the Trout Cove
restoration site. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) was observed but it was
not dense or widespread.
Seven (7) vegetation monitoring plots were established onsite as previously
described. Five (5) plots are standard l Om x IOm plots and two (2) are non-standard
5m x 20m plots. Two (2) new plots were established on the tributary in 2007 by
S&EC.
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL S&EC Job # 10079.D2
March 2008 5
The vegetative success criteria for the site require a minimum of 320 live stems per
acre for the first three (3) years of monitoring. At the end of Year 4, a density of 290
stems per acre is required. At the end of the 5-year monitoring period, a live stem
density of 260 stems per acre is required.
1. Soil Data
L
Table VI: Preliminary Soil Data
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project # 388)
Max % Clay
Depth on OM
Series (in.) Surface K T %
Reddies Loam, 0-3% slopes RhA) 80 5-18 0.20 4 3-8
Lonon Loam, 8-15% slopes (LoQ 80 7-20 0.24 5 0-2
French fine sand loam, 0-3% slopes (FrA 45 5-20 0.24 4 0-4
2. Problem Areas Plan View (vegetation)
' No vegetation problem areas were observed during visual inspection of the
restoration site.
1 3. Stem Counts
' On June 12, 2007, S&EC conducted vegetation counts within each vegetation
plot. The results of this survey are shown below in Table VIII. The taxonomic
standard used for the counts is "Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and
' Surrounding Areas" by Alan S. Weakley. Vegetation counts were completed
according to CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0.
' The following tree and shrub species were observed within the vegetation
monitoring plots in previous monitoring years according to stem count data
' collected by S&EC: Acer Rubrum (Red Maple), Alnus serrulata (Tag Alder),
Betula nigra (River Birch), Cephalanthus occidentalis (Buttonbush), Cornus
amomum (Silky Dogwood), Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweetgum), Platanus
' occidentalis (Sycamore), Salix nigra (Black Willow) and Viburnum nudum
(Possumhaw)
.
1
1
' Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL S&EC Job # 10079.D2
' March 2008 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Vegetation Monitoring (EEP Project# 388)
Live Stem Counts per Plot arranged by Species
Plot #
Species Reach 1 Tributar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Year 2
Totals
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
1
1
1
2
5
Alnus serrulata*
Tag Alder
5
3
1
8
13
30
Betula nigra
River Birch
1
4
5
10
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
1
2
2
1
6
Clethra alnifolia
Pepperbush
2
1
3
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
1
6
2
8
10
2
29
briodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
1
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
1
1
1
3
Salix nigra
Black Willow
6
3
1
2
2
14
Year 2 2007 Plot Totals 9 17 4 24 29 11 8 102
Year 1 2006 Plot Totals 6 18 4 22 28 N/A N/A 78
Previous Plot Totals 5 4 5 22 14 N/A N/A 50
Plot Live Stem Density 364 689 162 972 1175 445 324
Overall Site Stem Density 590
* Numerous volunteers observed - not included in the stem counts shown
The average number of stems per sample plot is approximately 14 stems.
Based on this stem count, the 2007 (Year 2) vegetation monitoring of the site
revealed an average live stem density of 590 stems per acre.
As shown in Table VIII, one plot (Plot 3) has shown a stem density of less
than the desired 320 stems per acre. However, while not quantified in the
above table, each plot has shown a large number of volunteers in addition to
the original planted stems including additional species such as Red Oak and
Trout Cove Stream Restoration
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL
March 2008
7
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S&EC Job # 10079.D2
Pepperbush. If these new plants are taken into consideration, stem density
would likely be much higher than 320 stems per acre in that plot.
4. Vegetation Plot Photos
Photos taken during the June 12, 2007 Vegetation Sampling event are
included as Appendix A.
B. Stream Assessment
1. Problem Areas Plan View (Stream)
An assessment of channel stability was performed on June 12, 2007, by
S&EC. Areas of concern that were observed and documented included
localized bank scour, and stressed or failing structures. These problem areas
are shown on Sheets 5 through 7 (Problem Area Plan View) and described in
Table IX.
2. Problem Areas Table Summary
Table IX: Stream Problem Areas
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project # 388)
Feature Issues Number Suspected Cause Photo number
1 1+40 - 1+55 Erosion/Undercutting
3 (3+60 - 3+70) Erosion/Undercutting
Structure 4 (3+95 - 4+05) Erosion/Undercutting 1
2
(Rock Shift) 5 4+60 - 4+70) Erosion/Undercutting -
6 (23+05 - 23+15) Erosion/Undercutting
7 28+30 - 28+40) Erosion/Undercutting
Structure
(Rock Piping) 2 (2+90 - 3+00) Erosion 3
1 2+50 - 2+60 Erosion/Undercutting Banks
2 4+10 - 4+18) Erosion/Undercutting Banks
3 (6+20 - 6+27 Erosion/Undercutting Banks
Bank Scour 4 (22+55 - 22+95) Erosion/Undercutting Banks 4-5
5 (24+96 - 25+00) Erosion/Undercutting Banks
6 (26+00 - 26+05 Erosion/Undercutting Banks
7 (27+40 - 27+95) Erosion/Undercutting Banks
Trout Cove Stream Restoration
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL
March 2008
8
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S&EC Job # 10079.D2
3. Numbered Issues Photo Section
Representative photos of each category of stream problem area were taken
and are shown in Appendix B.
4. Fixed Photo Station Photos
Photos from established photo stations (at each cross-section) were collected
during the stream survey (November 2007). Cross-section photos taken
during the Monitoring Year 1 survey (November 2006) are included for
comparison. These photos are included in Appendix B.
5. Stability assessment
A visual qualitative assessment was performed to inspect channel facets,
meanders, bed, banks, and installed structures. This visual assessment was
confirmed and enhanced with a quantitative assessment of the physical stream
survey. The goal of this assessment is to provide a percentage of the features
listed in Table X that are in a state of stability. Table X was compiled from
the data in Table B 1 in Appendix B of this report.
Table X: Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site (EEP # 388)
Feature MY-1
2006 MY-2
2007 MY-3
2008 MY-4
2009 MY-5
2010
A. Riffles 100% 99%
B. Pools 100% 100%
C. Thalwe 100% 100%
D. Meanders 100% 100%
E. Bed General 99% 98%
F. Channel General N/A N/A
G. Banks 99.5% 98.6%
H. Vanes/ J Hooks, etc. 96% 95%
1. Wads and Boulders N/A N/A
6. Quantitative Morphology
The following tables (Table XI and Table XII) summarize the quantitative
data collected from the cross-sectional and longitudinal stream survey.
Collected data was analyzed and summarized, and then compared with
baseline data available for this project. The Quantitative Morphology Tables
illustrate the degree of departure, if any, of the current channel from the
baseline data.
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL S&EC Job # 10079.D2
March 2008 9
2005 stream survey data received from NCEEP, was collected and provided
' by NCSU. Two reaches of the stream channel originally surveyed in 2005
were again surveyed using assumed vertical and horizontal coordinates.
' We understand that a crest gauge has been installed on the site; however at the
time of this submittal, no data from that gauge was available to S&EC. A
' review of available on-line USGS gauge sites was performed to determine if a
suitable surrogate gauge was present in the area. No nearby gauge was
identified. The closest USGS gauge to the site was on Brasstown Creek (near
Brasstown, NC, Gauge Identification Number 03548330) which is
approximately 3.3 miles from the project site. Based on this large distance,
significant disparity in watershed sizes, and topographic variation, it is
' unlikely that a conclusive determination regarding the number of bankfull
events experienced on the restoration site could be made.
' Based on observed site conditions, to include wrack lines, staining of
vegetation, displaced/flattened vegetation, and observable sediment
deposition, it appears that one or more overbank events have occurred during
' this monitoring year. Similar observations were made during 2006 by S&EC
indicating that one or more bankfull events have occurred onsite in each of the
last two monitoring years.
' Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL S&EC Job # 10079.D2
March 2008 10
Table X1. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
TROUT COVE STREAM RESTORATION SITE (EEP Project #388)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Project Reference Stream Design As-built
Dimension Min Max Avg. Min Max Avg. Min Max Avg. Min Max Avg.
BF Width (ft * * » ' * * * * * »
Floodprone Widt
(ft » » * * * * » * » » « «
BF Cros
Sectional Are
' " " * * ' * » » » » r
BF Mean * * * ' ' ` * » » » ` `
BF Max
T
Width/
Ratii
Entrenchmen
Rati * ' * * * ' * » » ` ` »
Bank Heigh
Rati * * " * * * ` * » » » `
Wette
Perimeter(ft * * * * * * * * * * «
Hydraulic radiu
(ft ' " * * ' ' * * ' ` ` »
Pattern
Channe
Beltwidth (ft * * + * » r r " * « r «
Radius o
Curvature (ft
Meande
Wavelength (ft * * * * * " * * » » * `
Meander Widt
rati * " * * " * * ` * » « »
ror'
Riffle length (ft * ' * * * * * » * * » r
Riffle slope (ft/ft'
*
*
*
"
*
*
'
*
*
»
»
»
Pool length (ft * * * * * * * * »
Pool spacing (ft * * " * * " » * * * ` »
Substrate
d50 (mm " * * * « * * « * r r «
d84 (mm " * * * « " r r « r . «
Additional React
Parameters
Valley Length (ft * * "
Channel Lengt
(ft
Sinuosi
Water Surfac
Slope (ft/ft
BF slope (ft/ft * * `
Rosge
Classificatio
*Habitat Inde
*Macrobentho
items oenoteo wim an astensK nave not Deen provtaeu oue to: racK of uata Pruviucu Lot PrcvWw
monitoring years, incorrect data provided for previous monitoring years, or these are items outside the
scope of this year's monitoring effort.
Trout Cove Stream Restoration
Year 2 Monitoring - DRAFT
December 2007
II
Soil Environmental Consultants, PA
S EC lob #10079.D2
1
1
11
Exhibit Table XII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
TROUT COVE STREAM RESTORATION SITE (EEP Project #388)
Parameter LOWER REACH UPPER REACH
XS I -POOL 1 XS2 - RIFFLE 2 XS3 - POOL 2 XS4 - RIFFLE 2 XS5 - POOL 3
Dimension AS BUILT MYl MY2 AS BUILT MYl MY2 AS BUILT MYI MY2 AS BUILT MYl MY2 AS BUILT MYI MY2
2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007
BF Width (ft * 15.69 10.96 * 9.6 6.79 * 18.63 15.52 22.33 21.64 * 12.47 11.13
Floodprone Width (ft • 54.22 3241 • 50 28.13 • 50 32.93 ' 50 48.58 • 50 39.88
BF Cross Section.
Area (ftt * 11.21 17.63 * 10.02 8.78 " 10.1 7.16 " 10.3 11.35 * 10.07 8.85
BF Mean Depth (ft * 0.71 1.61 * 1.04 1.29 * 0.54 0.46 * 0.46 0.52 • 0.81 0.8
BF Max Depth (ft 2.35 2.22 * 2.3 2.19 * 1.48 L23 ' 1.22 • 1.81 L8
Width/Depth Ran * 22.1 6.81 • 9.23 5.26 * 34.5 33.74 * 48.54 15.4 13.91
Entrenchment Rani 3.46 2.96 5.21 4.15 2.68 2.12 2.24 " 4.01 3.58
Bank Height Ran * 1.04 1.08 1.20 1.26 1.54 1.59 1.06 1.49 1.52
Wetted Perimeter(ft * 16.93 12.77 * 10.88 8.64 • 19.35 15.89 • 22.73 r22.07 13.57 12.19
Hydraulic radius (ft 0.66 1.38 0.92 1.02 0.52 0.45 0.45 0.74 0.73
Substrate
150 (mm '
d84 (mm • ' • • * r r r r * * r
Parameter As-built (2005) MY-1 (2006) MY-2 (2007)
Pattern Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Channel Belmidth (ft • * * 24.28 84.5 45.88 22.06 80.88 4735
Radius of Curvatur
(ft * * * 19.03 38.59 28.26 20.95 35.37 28.49
Meander Wavelengtl
(ft) * * * 57.75 135.06 103.88 57 124.64 90.36
Meander Width ran * • 3.92969 6.04837 4.65204 3.2489 11.9116 6.97349
Profile
Riffle length (ft * • 4.69
Riffle slope HIM E 007284 0.04092 0.0239
Pool length(ft 434 3009 14.39 4.75 22.33 1L98
Pool spacing (ft ?
9 105.54 5121 29.94 87.91 57.62
Additional Reach
Parameters
Valley Length HI * 1746 1746
Channel Length (ft • 1876 1876
Sinuosi * 1.07 1.07
Water Surface Slop
(h/ft * 0.04092 0.0409
BF slope (ft/ft • 0.04092 0.0409
Rosgen Classificatio (74b CO
Habitat Index
Macrobenthos
Trout Cove Stream Restoration
Year 2 Monitoring -DRAFT
December 2007
12
Soil Environmental Consultants, PA
S EC Job #10079.D2
IV. Methodology Section
No unavoidable deviations from initially prescribed methodologies were implemented as
a part of monitoring Year 2 (2007) activities. Vegetation counts were completed
according to CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0.
References
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm)
Weakley, Alan S. 2004. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding
Areas.
Trout Cove Stream Restoration
Year 2 Monitoring - FINAL
March 2008
13
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S&EC Job # 10079.D2
j
f
D
X 223
r
4
`L t
w
I / -I VI F
Project Number: i?
10079. D2
Project Manager:
JER
Scale:
I = 1000'
Date:
DECEMBER 2007
} L i'r V
S
C?
Map Title:
Figure I - USGS Map
Trout Cove
Stream Restoration
Clay County, NC
Source:
Peachtree Quadrangle
,:.d7
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd. - Raleigh, NC 27614
(919) 846.5900 • (919) 846-9467
Web Page www SandEC.com
?Li_ _1hF r
x
Cl
_
)L)L
- - ? I b E Lo I-)
? D _
s,
t
1 ?I r {{
i
JE,f
17
V?r)
C
? fir tt
44 I ? ?;? ?. i ?r i? , i??+, - Tom. •? ..ap,fi -
, _
,° 11 a
! ? I
Project Number: Map Title:
10079.D2 Figure 2 - 5oib Map
Project Manager:
JER Trout Cove
Stream Restoration 0 Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Scale: Clay County, NC 11010 Raven Ridge Rd. - Raleigh, NC 27614
y (919) 846 5900 • (919) 846-9467
1 250' Web Page: www.SandEC.com
Date: Source:
JANUARY 2008 5oil 5urvey of Clay County, NC
j?
?Ln
O c4-
-? o
ca ?
> --?
U O ?
0
f
LLJ
LLJ
j I
0
4-1
E Q Q ~
C) U-i
G2 C) Q2 G C) >
z
Q
J
W
J
J
W
a
w p? anon qno,?l
0
? U -z -z- s > c6 2 s-- ? ? 0-/ a-/ ?. Q ?
°Oo?a?cD-'?n cn w U zU \\ j
oz?E?4-1 LU Uoo??? o?
z?z? ?cn IV
O QQ
s E EjM? ° ?v? w O?z oz? NQ Wz ?
??? Q) U U N ? U n4-3 D- J W L W L? O O W Q ?
z_ N
j,
El I
j?
?g
W
? U
•
0
N
O
N
O w
z Q o
N
w
O
L JO z PDVIJ kgA7 7 7131,17 woo-OapUEs'mmm
MIA WJ DNI?JOIINOW
:'ON ways :01411 40OH9 L9b6-9b8 (616) Ml • 0069-9b8 (616) :auogd • V19LZ uuiloazD guoH `g2ioieg . puo-8 o2prd uoneIl 01011 ?
.08 = I 11)1S A`( Y), "OO Ji O E
jir ?J3leOs d330N :aualp ON :u:`40o0? vd 6sluieljnsuoD jejuaunuoijAUg v lios
:umea0 : a6y? fo.,d NOUVd OiGIN AVd? 1S
Z0 6/001 9AOj 1nO211
:'ON PafOJd
Q Q
Q) 0
cz D-
z `) r^ (^ ? z UI
°oC v vl 71
0 Q Lu W O ? W> O CZ
CL/ U CL/ QO
L oZ Uz LLJ ?zQ( wz
U
czU OCV > CUB >?
T
0
0
W
li?
U
:,r z
o ?
z
°
z
U
z?
O tl? Ln
<
00
w j R/
>
v
w un
O
o
U
4 0
z
o O
U
?? Q o
> W
Q
00
CZ
°
Z
\\ u- o
W
w?
00 ^ /
rv
D
o ?(1
QL
W o W
4--1 {f} n
W
M 4--l
(n ca N ca N E N Z
E L- 4--l 4-1 E
4-3 ? N O U O LD U Q
O U L ?? z O E=3 D-- p O 6 00 92
U E , O L
_ 4--l 4-1 O >
?O>S BCD >+,?
qj 4J.
t (S) O? O v> N v ?, O O _
W O it a/ i1 O U) [I/ OU > N O Q ° 4--l n O?
Z - CV c'? ?• ?
0 0
0
N
W
Z
D
^'P'MVd ONV'iNOW LOOZ i(10?J1V\dvd\ZG`61001\d6660I-Olsgo \?oa?\:alia
L Jo e 777,7) . 77,777 77777 WOO ue •MMM
M9In NWA JNI?JOlINOn ?aP s
'ON 3aa4S 0114 7004S L946-M (616) :XU • 0065-948 (616) :auogd • b19LZ eugoie3 WOW `0101UH • PEON ZSPRI UO-ld 01011
.09 = .. i dI3°N °N "OD AVID
?J3f ?J3?e'S ;uay? :uol;eool uS l'sjulujinsuo? iicluavuuo.?inua 3g poS
:ume?Q :v6y? ford NOUYNOIGIN Avg, JUS r Cl
Z0 6LOO I 9n03 lno'a •
Q Q
LLJ L^U/ O
L.L L.L Q ?
(n LLJ Z
J tLI oL
C J O C LLJ
C) (L/w U (L/W> QO
C) w 0z ?w oz(s) wz
Q Q o c? cn Q U z (t) Q z U
w
oQ J LuU ?> ?C) >?
w
Q?
W
z
00 o u
0
0
z QD
o z
° rv
z O
o
U
cc)
w u?
23 O
°° O
Q ?
U O
w
> w
T?
ry? W
rv
oo
z W
O
u? l..L_O Q
U U
D
z
z o° O V J
az
21 z
O O
w r v
N
O z
W
w
U
> Q) U W O
1L. IL- ``^^? ^^
V J kr) O( 1 N
4-1
O
O 4J O W U ?- 6 4' 6 E -Z LU N U N N
((? L
v_' E
s > N ca
;, N N
?Oo?a?ocn\n
O 4--l 0
z O% 4 O H O
U Z E+ > n +3 O O ca
O CD Ln jo >s
4J. N >
ti Ln (1) N U Ln 4-1
= II
4-3
L i_ M O > U N O N O w
IW- .+-N a- ? Q O U> N o
0 0
? o
N
W
Z
mGAdVd ONV7NOW LOOZ 1(lOb1VwVd\ZO6L001 \16660 -01 sqo \ZoaS\\:ali4
Q
QD
z
0
O O
az
0
Q Q O
J
(n () (S Z
Z
J 0 C) J > O
C) emu' U BwOZ QQ
w oz ?w Oozes w~
ct? U Z
W ?U 02> DUB >O
Z
O *k
?
4 O
w ?
U'
W
Q) 73 ?vJ
N N 0_ N O
ca N w s O c6
4--l -Z E
ca Z N +- O `? x
L U s >
n JP
O N N
C) -LI CL/ U
U Z E ,- > In >, -P U O c6
+? N U N U to U U
043 D- S?- Da/- SLO U > N
O^
Z - N cn d
N
K
O
U
N
to
.z 'T
C)
ao
QD
D
z
0
N
n
z_
t
O
0
O
N
U)
0
0
U
w
Q
O
m
O
U
un
az
Q
OD
00
O
co
O
_II
w
J o
Q
U
0
?r
w ll-1
p? W >
C) LU LLJ C) w
(c ? z Q (w z
w-
CLI Q Q Q J
(S) U- LLJ LLJ
I I
Q Q Q Q
??
w ww
J Q Q J W
J
> m
Q w
CL a- w 0 rv 0 0 00
Q Q LLJ
W W W W
o/ OL 0 0
(n()» 0
U
W
00
:z rv
?o
z `
c, /\r
w?
00 W
rv
D
oz
W
0-
DD
0
z
? U
V ?
i
U z
O
N
N
U
?
L N
Y
Z
m ?
?
C7
o z
?v
_ L_
I
U Ir
N Ln
G =10 9 u:)vi J ,13n?1ns dimoi - ndvd woo-DgpueS-MAm
i
:'ON 40045 :91411 19a9S L91,6-91,8 (616) :Xe3 • 0065-91,8 (616) :O°04d • 1,19LZ eu!1-3 4>1ON `4$!alejj • PeOld 02P!b u3ne2l 01011
"OOlVO
.OB=..I d DN ON
?l?f ?13f e'S 9u2iIS uogeoo? vd 4sjuTcjjnsuo? jcju;)wuojjAUa 2s flos
:umeda :v6w ford NOIlV'dOlSg?J Mg'21S ?
ea'e?°O 9noD lno?l •
Q Q o
CL/ Q Q-
cn cn Lu z
C) 0 C, LU
c) a/ w U D/ wa/ QO
0 OQ Uz oQcn wz
0 °o -' uU 0 > ?U> >?
W_
w z
oz ? Q
00 LLJ
zi W O
O W
(n
°4 w
N z
R (S) L o o W
C) C) 122 02/
z
z Q Q Q Q
° ° z
w ??
° z Q Q ? U-i
> [D CD
LU ??r W
Q m m 0- D-
D- J
0 0 o o °° CD
Q
Q O
z
Wo wwWW R/
o WW
cn cn > >
Iz
?..
o
o o
v
h Iz
W
Q
on rv
N
C) °
o
N
Q 27
z _
CD a (Ll?/
C0 =
a
ak o° D
z
O 2 z (S)
w ?
LI? z
Lf) O C?
1__ !
O
Q) O
o
W
U J??l,.. - uJ
?w
D
CZ LLJ -Q? 4-1
?Ln???,U??a? ?73
Ex
m E L
r^
(6 w
F- O J-1
U z ti- > >' ?' p o N ca 00
L c6 y 4,
q) cn 73 Q) 4J 4--l C)
O O 0 s O(,D
N U N 4--l II
Z (M
b Q)
(L 12/ L o N p[ (3 > ts) O w
O - z Q o
Z _ N c? ?t U
0
O o
N
w
z
-P AAVd (INV'1NOW Loot 1f102'1V?dV?\ZO'6L001\ 66601-O1e4o \Z?a?S'\\'al-I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
L =10 L 7771777
M9In NVIJ Vg',J V W9190NJ woa•DUpUUS-AVAm
`
:'ON IPOHG :01411 10a49 L9176-9h8 (616) ABA • 0069-9b8 (616 ) :auo gd • V19LZ eu!IOJLD VON
01 [BE . PeOS 32P!-d uane'd 01 011
.09 - .. I
eos d]3DN ON -CD AVV 0
?ua90 :uogeool
Isjuluj
n
su
o
eu
rluailiuos
o
2g
s 1
?3f ?3f , vd
Q i
3 I
i
a
Tj
:umeja 6 4 ro,d N OIl?Oig?? A
' ,JiG
vg
2!(]'G 00,
:'oN ;oaro.id ?nO ino
a
:p,fodd •
Q
% < O
,
Lu Z U
Z
U O ? O
/ W
Q
? U W> Q O
v
N w oz
~ ,Lw Oz?
~ 1i ?-
Z
i O
L4- Q U Z Q
(17 Z U
? LU a
J ?
?
? ?
U > ? U? >
L O
L
?
E
O V
I 73 0 -
,
U-i
LU
1n z L lLl
? ? -
4
1 s
-
73
?- Q
l(? O -1--3 O ?
°a rv
Nz
z Q
?
O
z O
<
I
? O %
/
??.
CSC 0
> o_ 21 0 0
I ? ti
O W
?, s J
z r-- N o°
8
z
0
o '?
IL- ? n
/
ry
w
>
10
D
-
00
? \ 3
2
I
iy
W
> U W
W
S--
(S) ?:
6' U
U 1 W
n
O >
In
>1 L U
O `?
L
O ?, N ?
W Z
J C
G (f
N > w U p
-
Z U
4-1 -
ca -
p
U s > U `? 6 '?-? C? DL
O
O
O
L
O
U L
E m
C: 4-1
U
T)
4-1
U
L F U U
O J Q J J
CO CD
p
L4--
0
z O N N U Z 3:
?'
ID > U'
O
O
Ln
< !? m
(L
U '
E >
CD O L
2
- U O
CLI
ti (S) U s -
1
U CV -Z U
6?
_p
O 73 U
U
O
+-
- Q Q
O >
SL > c6 p ?,
L
L m
D
Q)
U U
O w
z °
Q Q
I-
Lu S D- SL o 0
L/ > U> >
U cZ L/ U' U'
W W
0, ,.
z_ cv m ? N ? g
N
w
z
D
r /\dvd UIVV 11VUVV LUUG 11 IUd1V\6Vd\LU bLOU I \%6601 -U 154??\L?dS\\
® m m m
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A -
Vegetation Data Survey Tables
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Vegetation Monitoring (EEP Project# 388)
Live Stem Counts per Plot arranged b Species
Plot #
Reach 1 Reach 2
Species
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 ear
Totals
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
1
1
1
3
Alnus serru/ata*
Tag Alder
5
3
1
8
13
30
Betula nigra
River Birch
1
1
Cepha/anthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
1
2
2
5
Clethra a/nifolia
Pe erbush
2
1
3
Corpus amomum*
Silk Dogwood
1
6
2
8
10
27
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
1
1
2
P/atanus occidentalis
S camore
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black Willow
6
3
1
10
Year 2 (2007) Plot Totals 9 17 4 24 29 83
Year 1 (2006) Plot Totals 6 18 4 22 28 N/A N/A 78
Previous Plot Totals 5 4 5 22 14 N/A N/A 50
Plot Live Stem Density 364 689 162 972 1175
Report Prepared By David Ingersoll
Date Prepared 6/20/2007 14:32
database name 2007-TC-CVS_EEP_EntryTool_v210.mdb
database location \\Sec2\iobs10-10999k\10079.D2\Veoetation
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
' Metadata This worksheet, which is a summary of the project and the project data.
Plots List of plots surveyed.
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes.
' Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
' Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Stem Count by Plot and Spp Count of living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing st
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code project Name Description
TC Trout Cove Trout Cove Branch Stream Restoratio
1 Table 2. - Vegetation Vigor by Species
Species 4 3 2 1 0 Missing
Acer rubrum 3 2
Alnus serrulata 18 10 2
Betula ni ra 9 1
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
4
2
Clethra alnifolia 2 1
Cornus amomum 17 10 1 1
Liriodendron tuli ifera 1 1
Platanus occidentalis 3
Salix ni ra 9 4 1
TOT: 9 66 31 3 2 0 0
Table 3. - Vegetation Damage by Species
pecies All
Damage
Categorie
s
(no
damage
Insect
s
(other
damage
Acer rubrum 5 4 1
Alnus serrulata 30 30
Betula ni ra 10 9 1
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
6
6
Clethra alnifolia 3 2 1
Cornus amomum 29 27 2
Liriodendron tuli ifera 2 2
Platanus occidentalis 3 3
Salix ni ra 14 10 4
TOT
9
102
93
9
0
Table 4. - Vegetation Damage by Plot
lot All
Damage
Categories
(no
damage)
Insects
(other
damage)
TC-01-buffer1-year: 2 9 9
TC-01-buffer2- ear:2 17 12 5
TC-01-buffer3- ear:2 4 4
TC-01-buffer4- ear:2 24 21 3
TC-01-buffer5- ear:2 29 28 1
TC-01-buffer6- ear:2 11 11
TC-01-buffer7- ear:2 8 8
TOT: 7 102 93 9
Table 5. - Stem Count by Plot and Species
TC-01- TC-01- TC-01- TC-01- TC-01- TC-01- TC-01-
Total # avg# buffer1- buffer2- buffer3- buffer4- buffer5- buffer6- buffer7-
S ecies Stems lots stems ear:2 ear:2 ear:2 ear:2 ear:2 ear:2 ear:2
Acer rubrum 5 4 1.25 1 1 1 2
Alnus
serrulata 30 5 6 5 3 1 8 13
Betula ni ra 10 3 3.33 1 4 5
Cephalanthus
occidentalis 6 4 1.5 1 2 2 1
Clethra
alnifolia 3 2 1.5 2 1
Cornus
amomum 29 6 4.83 1 6 2 8 10 2
Liriodendron
tuli ifera 2 2 1 1 1
Platanus
occidentalis 3 2 1.5 1 1
Salix ni ra 14 5 2.8 6 3 1 2 2
9 102 9 17 4 24 29 11 8
APPENDIX A -
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix A
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #1-Year 2 (June 12, 2007)
?, AA
NIP
Y ^. tart YY?WA '? ? Y i' ; . \ A ?,
.+Yr +r'? ? yY"?;e rv +.•. to ? j ?:. ,y;
44
44, 1
m w? '?';, f ? ? .. ? '4.a`? "?e4 err .•
? I r? r a
t? .r
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #I-Year 1 (June 20, 2006)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Project # - 10079.D2
March 2008
Appendix A
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #2-Year 2 (June 12, 2007)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Project # - 10079.D2
March 2008
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #2-Year 1 (June 20, 2006)
Appendix A
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #3-Year 2 (June 12, 2007)
2 r $ ,
.. ? '??`'A •\'Ca"? ANR "FIK': f 'DNS ? ,e? - ? ?.., v ? wA +.,
f b +C'
,'a??R7 {rir'?"'. i'??` T.. * ? ? '4?•Yl nr '?-`*• ,,, ; •.. A.f M ?t ,? ,
,A I-
#???." ?" '?'? i'.9l,ar?c .,Tw`+?. a ?' ^r. ? . ? ..r r i<'t - « 'c'w ,r ?;:, S?>. ?`?+. R ,
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #3-Year 1 (June 20, 2006)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Project # - 10079.D2
March 2008
Appendix A
Trout Cove Stream Restoration
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL
March 2008
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S&EC Project # - 10079.D2
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #4-Year 2 (June 12, 2007)
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #4-Year 1 (June 20, 2006)
Appendix A
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
A
5
V
`
+ ? `
wc
?
y S41"+rt
?
y
A ?:•
Qa,
(,
A ?.,? ,
? ? t
i y i 1 5
,,
"P / ,... _ w
``
S
?' l V ?N ,'
l . }
T
r'i 4
'm. y,?.
c *
'f
n
Y `
•? i . _
p
% ,14 1?
r •r
y?
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #5-Year 1 (June 20, 2006)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Project # - 10079.D2
March 2008
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #5-Year 2 (June 12, 2007)
Appendix A
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
+ x
7 r i 4 ? ?lM,s
" `''
c '?i h=
S?^
soh. b
k
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #6-Year 2 (December 12, 2007)
4 xlw I t .
ti
', •. a{ . "" "'. : ? ? m ?r?n 4,
?' rlk a '7 a
YN 4,
i n
Alt
? 4-
+ r? s t
All"
? " .
yA?ts+oM "• ?. ?i ?? t ? - ;'. ? ?+t{'?.?s ? ?,. ? `a1' y'r J"?, ''i4Q ??Q_,
4
Vegetation Monitoring Plot #7-Year 2 (December 12, 2007)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Project # - 10079.D2
March 2008
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B -
Stream Problem Areas
Appendix B
Stream Problem Area Photos
Figure 2-Typical Rock Shift (June 12, 2007)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Job# 10079.132
March 208
Figure I - Typical Rock Shift (June 12, 2007)
Stream Problem Area Photos
Figure 4-Typical Bank Scour (November 13, 2007)
11
Appendix B
Trout Cove Stream Restoration
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL
March 208
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S&EC Job# 10079.D2
Figure 3-Typical Rock Piping (June 12, 2007)
Appendix B
Stream Problem Area Photos
Figure 5-Typical Bank Scour (June 12, 2007)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL
March 208
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
S&EC Job# 10079.D2
APPENDIX B -
Cross-section Data
X
\ O
\x?
I X
\x
x0)
- 00
X
OX
an,.
O X
Ox
r
? O
? O Ox
O O
Ox
O
It:
N O OX
(17 ? OX?h ?
0 ? ? i I Ox?O
U ?
U Ox
o I I I - ?o
O
I
xllj
O
xp
I I O
x?
x
O
_ \h
O
Ox
--- ? Ox
- -- N I -- Ox00
m 0 u Ln v m N - o
- It It It
(4224) UOlgeAOlg
L.()
O
N
L9
O
N
O
O
T
11
O
l9
17
O
a)
L N-
R/
I
E ?
+-N
O
U o
4, L
? U
O
L
Ln ?o Ln Ln Ln v m Ln N Ln - Ln O Ln m Ln cq O
u Ln Ln Ln ?t Ln Ln N Ln - Ln O Ln 6? d ?t
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
+
O
Ln
Ln
+
O
O
Ln
+
O
Ln
+
O
O
+
O
m
O
O s:_-
m O
o ?
42-
Ln
N
+
O
O
N
+
O
Ln
O
O
O
Ln
O
+
O
O
O
+
Ln
O
O
1TN
I
<9
O
O
O
N
(gOO4) UOlgeAaI:l
Ln
m
0
O
m
O
O _
42, O
O C)
rV m
E
m
? O
^L -LN
U 1 ( Q??
O
U p
L
5 U
O
L
Ln
N
+
O
O
N
+
O
Ln
+
0
o_
O
Ln
0
O
?T- o
0 n Ln n \r Ln co Ln N Ln - n c) n m a o
?r v ,ri ?r N_ v o ch m
v v ?r ?r m m
(gOO4) uoigenQQ
0
Ln
0
0
N
I
U
0
N
0
0
IN
T
O
O
O
R/ d
E
L O
L 4-N
? U
N
N
O L(1
U ?
? O
O U
L
i
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
i I I
I
i
I
I I
O
O
Ln
Ln
O
O
Ln
O
Ln
?r
0
0
?r
0
c?
O
o O
cn
+
O
Ln
N
O
O
N
O
Ln
+
O
O
+
O
Ln
O
+
O
O
O
- +
Ln Ln ? Ln m Ln N Ln - Ln O Ln m Ln cp Ln t? o
<9 LO L9 N L9 _ ?9 ?9 Ln Ln Ln
C9 L9 L9 L9 lD Ln Ln Ln
(?aa}) uoi??na??
n
V
9
v
V
i
O
? O
O
O ?
O
Ln
E ?
O
L 4L
V 1 Q?
O ?
U p
? L
? U
O
L
I
I
I I
I
I
I
--- I I
? I I
I
I
I
I I I I
II
I? I
i
I
i I
I I
O
O
0
O
Ln
O
0
O
?r
O
m
O
O p
+ +'
O +m
Ln
N
+
O
O
N
+
O
Lf?
+
O
O
+
O
Ln
O
+
O
O
O
I I I I I I I I I I +
?O to l- Lo <9 Ln Ln Ln ?t Ln m Ln N Ln - Ln O O
(1901) uoigL-najg
Ln
O
IN
I
<9
O
O
O
O
jN
I
Appendix B
Cr055-5CCtlon Photos
Cross-section # I -Year 2 (November 13, 2007)
Cross-section # I -Year I (November 17, 2006)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Job# 10079.D2
March 2008
Appendix B
Cross-section Photos
Cross-section #2-Year 2 (November 13, 2007)
Cross-section #2-Year I (November 17, 2006)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Job# 10079.132
March 2008
Appendix B
Cross-section Photos
Cross-section #3-Year 2 (November 13, 2007)
Cross-section #3-Year I (November 17, 2006)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Job# 10079.D2
March 2008
Appendix B
Cross-section Photos
Cross-section #4-Year I (November 17, 2006)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Job# 10079.132
March 2008
Cross-section #4-Year 2 (November 13, 2007)
Appendix B
Cross-section Photos
Cross-section #5-Year 2 (November 13, 2007)
Cross-section #5-Year I (November 17, 2006)
Trout Cove Stream Restoration Site Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Year 2 Monitoring-FINAL S&EC Job# 10079.132
March 2008
' APPENDIX B -
' Longitudinal Profile Data
1
1
n.
1
1
o°
oX
s
o
o ?
n
rv
E '
o
cn CL-
U 75
D
?? O
J
o(o
C),X
O°
?x
o°
?X
CD
0
o
O '
?X
U
O z
°
X Q m
?
Q
? o
N
°°
DX O°
N
O
O
N
I
?X
(°
2x
O°
x
O°
Ox
o Lr) o Tn o LC) O Ln o Ln o LC) o
u u Ln Ln ?r d m co
N O I UVNIT]
s
? U
O
-'?
c?
L ?
O ?
? O
rv J
I
?- O
cn ti
U ?
O ?
? O
N
x
I
10
i
i
¦
I
00
?x
2
?O
?x
2
00
?x
2
h0
?x
2
00
?x
2
h0
?x
00
?x
2
h0
?x
2
o?
?x
2
?o z
2? x O
00 Q
?x (f
?o
lbx
2
Oo
?x
2
?O
?x
2
00
2x
xh0
00
x
?O
Ox
2
00
Ox
o L o Ln 0 Ln o
m
m
O
o.?
L
U
L
cf?
Ln
0
0
N
0
0
N
r-
0
0
1N
T
Table 131. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
Date: November, 2007 Project # 10079.D2
Feature Category (# stable) Total
Total Feature
Number Number/ % perfor.
number Perform.
performing feet in in stable
per As- Mean or
as unstable condition
built Total
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines intended state
A. Riffles 1. Present? 64 64 NA 100%
2. Armor stable (e. g. no displacement)? 64 64 NA 100%
3. Facet grade appears stable? 64 64 NA 100%
4. Stable interval grade? 64 64 NA 100%
5. Featurespacing appropriate? 59 64 NA 92%
6. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 64 64 NA 100%
7. Depth appears appropriate for current discharge? 64 64 NA N/A
8. Length appropriate? 54 64 NA N/A 99%
C
1
B. Pools 1. Present? (e. g. not subject to severe a radation? 59 59 NA 100%°
2. Suffiecientl deep Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6 59 59 NA 100%
3. Thalwe located outer bend? 59 59 NA 100%
4. Spacing appropriate? 59 59 NA N/A
5. Non-a radin not filling)? 59 59 NA 100%
6. Length appropriate? 59 59 NA N/A 100%
C. Thalweq 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering? 59 59 NA 100%
2 Downstream of meancrr iylidN inflection l center'mq? 59 50 NA 100 100°ia
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 59 59 NA 100%
2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 0 59 NA 0%
3. Apparent Rc within spec? N/A N/A NA N/A
4. Sufficient flood lain access and relief? 59 59 NA 100% 100%
E. Bed General 1. General channel bed a radation areas bar formation NA NA 0 100%
channel a egra a on - areas o increasing own
cutting or head cutting?
NA
NA
75
96%
98%
F. Channel
Capac./Dimen
1. Channel width: depth appears out of design/tv e spec?
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Banks 1. A arent scour points from channel processes NA NA 0 100%
2. Apparent cut points from overland flow NA NA 50 99%
3. Apparent cut or scour from flood water re-entry to channel
(e. g. inadequate flood lain access? NA NA 0 100%
4. Tension cracks NA NA 0 100%
5. Bank gradient in excess of 40%? NA NA 200 95%
6. Collapse/slumping NA NA 124 97%
7. Ratio of bank height: bankfull height elevated NA NA N/A 100% 98.6%
H. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour? 53 56 NA 95%
2. Height appropriate? 51 56 NA 91%
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 53 56 NA 95%
4. Free of i in or other structural failures? 55 56 NA 98% 95%
1. Wads/Boulders 1. Free of scour? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2. Footinq stable? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes