blue lake shoreline stabilization design/build report...the shoreline stabilization site is located...

Blue Lake Shoreline Stabilization Design/Build Report Whitley County, Indiana

July 2010

Prepared For:

Blue Lake Association

c/o Jerry McClure 5354 N. Blue Lake Road

P.O. Box 7 Churubusco, IN 46723

Prepared By:

Mark Pranckus

708 Roosevelt Road Walkerton, IN 46574

(574) 586-3400

BLUE LAKE SHORELINE STABILIZATION DESIGN/BUILD REPORT

WHITLEY COUNTY, INDIANA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2008, the Blue Lake Association (BLA) received an Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Lake and River Enhancement (LARE) grant to design and build a bank stabilization project along the eastern shoreline of Blue Lake in Whitley County. The goal of the project was to design and implement a bioengineered shoreline stabilization technique for the purpose of reducing shoreline erosion on two islands on the east end of the lake, reduce sedimentation, and decrease the transfer of nutrients from the sediment–water interface to the water column. JFNew was contracted to provide design, permitting, construction services and plant material along with the installation of plant and construction materials. Members of the BLA provided significant support in the construction of the project site as part of the Association’s match requirement for the grant. A total of 715 feet (217.9 m) of shoreline was stabilized utilizing two similar techniques. Six hundred and five feet (184.4 m) of shoreline was stabilized using a stone toe and coir log bioengineering technique, while 110 feet (33.5 m ) of shoreline was stabilized using only the coir logs. The technique combining the stone toe and coir logs was applied along those areas of the shoreline were the erosion potential was high while the technique utilizing only the coir logs was applied along those areas of the shoreline with reduced shoreline erosion potential. A stone toe was established to provide stabilization to the actively eroding toe of slope. Coir logs were installed on the shoreward edge of the stone toe to provide a stable bank front and as a matrix to plant native wetland plugs. For the coir log only treatment, the coir logs were installed at the Ordinary High Water Mark or the average lake level. For both techniques topsoil was placed between the coir logs and the existing banks to rebuild the existing eroded shoreline banks. Topsoil was seeded with a native wetland seed mix and covered with erosion control blanketing. All coir logs installed were planted with native wetland plant plugs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Blue Lake shoreline stabilization design/build project was made possible by a grant from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Lake and River Enhancement (LARE) program and with financial support from the BLA. The shoreline stabilization design/build project was completed by JFNew with significant contributions from volunteers from the BLA. Specifically, JFNew would like to thank Jerry McClure, Bob Strite, Greg Dunn, Dick Milligan, and Jerry Working for the work on installing the stone toe, helping with coir log installation, and planting. Other thanks to the volunteers from the BLA who gave up portions of their weekends in October to work on the project. Special thanks to Precision Sharping for providing the use of a skid steer to install the stone toe. Individuals that worked on this project from JFNew include Mark Pranckus, Tom Estrem, Christine Dittmar, Brad Leeper, Adam Wilson, and Dan Keane.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Statement of Project Purpose ................................................................................... 1 2.0 General Overall Project Description .......................................................................... 1 2.1 Landowner Permission ................................................................................... 3

2.2 Permit Requirements ...................................................................................... 3 2.3 Contractors ..................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Project Timing ................................................................................................. 4 2.5 Project Accomplishments ............................................................................... 4 2.6 Future Project Inspection and Maintenance ................................................... 4

3.0 Specific Project Design and Construction ................................................................. 5 4.0 Project Summary ....................................................................................................... 9 5.0 Literature Cited .......................................................................................................... 9 FIGURES: Figure 1. Approximate project location ...................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Historic size comparison of Blue Lake islands, 1957 and 2005 aerial

photographs. .............................................................................................. 2 Figure 3. Example of the eroding shoreline on the south island ............................... 3 Figure 4. Location of shoreline stabilization along Blue Lake’s eastern shoreline .... 5 Figure 5. Installed stone toe and coir log treatment on the south island ................... 6 Figure 6. Installed stone toe and coir log treatment on the north island .................... 7 Figure 7. Use of a second row of coir logs on the peninsula ..................................... 7 Figure 8. Treatment 2 on the south island ................................................................ 8 TABLES: Table 1. Native plant plugs installed in the coir log and backfill areas ..................... 8 APPENDIX A PERMITS APPENDIX B SPECIES LIST FOR WETLAND SEED MIX APPENDIX C MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING APPENDIX D DESIGN PLAN SET

Blue Lake Bank Stabilization Design/Build Report July 2010 Whitley County, Indiana

Blue Lake Shoreline Stabilization Design/Build Report Whitley County, Indiana

1.0 STATEMENT OF PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of this project was to reduce shoreline erosion on two islands on the east end of the lake, reduce sedimentation, and decrease the transfer of nutrients from the sediment–water interface to the water column by stabilizing 715 feet (217.9 m) of Blue Lake shoreline. The project helps to improve water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. 2.0 GENERAL OVERALL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Blue Lake is a 239-acre (96.7 ha) lake located in the northeast corner of Whitley County, Indiana, 1.5 miles (2.4 km) northwest of the Town of Churubusco (Figure 1). The shoreline stabilization site is located on the east side of the lake on publicly-owned property within the boundaries of the lake.

Figure 1. Approximate project location. Source: DeLorme, 1998.

JFNew Project# 0812113.00 Page 1


The specific area includes two islands and a peninsula, which have been modified through historic dredging operations and channel maintenance activities. The three parcels are referred to as the South Island (south parcel), the North Island (center parcel) and the peninsula (north parcel; Figure 2). These publicly-owned parcels are utilized for recreational activities, such as picnicking and fishing by local residents and boating. The majority of the property is vegetated by a mix of turf grass and sparse deciduous trees. Local residents maintain the area and in some locations mowing occurs down to the waterline.

Figure 2. Historic size comparison of Blue Lake islands, 1957 and 2005 aerial photographs. Source: 2005 Aerial obtained from http://earth.google.com/; 1957 Aerial from Indiana Historical Archives, Whitley County. Due to the location of these parcels on the east end of the lake, prevailing winds from the west create substantial wave action along this shoreline. These natural conditions and wave action from boating activity caused erosion along portions of the shoreline. Figure 2 demonstrates the surface area of the island in 2005 as compared to the outline of the historic size taken from a 1957 aerial photograph. The area of the north island decreased nearly 45% during this 48 year period. The south island decreased in size by 29% and the peninsula decreased by 20%. The turbulence created by wave action against the shoreline causes the toe of the slope to erode and sediment to mobilize; thereby increasing the transfer of nutrients from the sediment-water interface to the water column. Turf grass, such as that found on the south island, provides very little shoreline protection (Figure 3). During mild winters, frequent freeze and thaw cycles play a significant role by causing ice to build up along this shoreline. As the ice advances and recedes, it collects sediment, which then is released into the water column during the spring rains. All of these factors increase the erosive activities, which occur along this shoreline.


http://earth.google.com/


Figure 3. Example of the eroding shoreline on the South Island. 2.1 Landowner Permission The project site was located on public land; however, access to certain areas of the project area required the use of private property. Access to the South Island was granted by a property owner actively involved in the Lake Association and who participated in the construction phase of the project. Access to the North Island was by foot through the backyards of several property owners. The Blue Lake Association (BLA) participated in the design and construction of the project and secured verbal permission to travel through the yards. 2.2 Permit Requirements An Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Lakes Preservation Act permit was required for the proposed project. The IDNR, Division of Water, issued a permit for the project on July 27, 2009. The proposed project also required a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) because the lake is a “Waters of the State”. The Water Quality Certification from IDEM was issued on July 31, 2009. During the early coordination process for the Blue Lake Feasibility Study (JFNew, 2008), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) was sent information regarding the proposed shoreline stabilization project for their review and comment on the permit-ability of the proposed project. Response from the USACOE indicated once an IDEM Section 401 Water Quality Certification was issued and a copy of the permit was mailed to the USACOE the project would be permitted under a Nationwide Permit. A copy of the IDEM Section 401 permit was mailed to the USACOE on August 6, 2009. Copies of the permits and correspondence can be found in Appendix A.



2.3 Contractors JFNew was contracted to provide design, permitting, construction services and plant material along with the installation of plant and construction materials. Members of the BLA participated in the design and construction of the project as part of their match required for the grant. The BLA provided the LARE Program maximum of 20% project total in-kind services for a design/build grant in the form of participating in the design survey and site construction. Specifically, volunteers from the BLA installed the stone toe along the entire project area, helped to install coir logs, assisted with the planting of the coir logs, and was responsible for site clean-up. A local business also provided the use of a skid steer during the course of the project. 2.4 Project Timing An engineering feasibility study was completed for Blue Lake in January 2008 outlining feasible projects within the Blue Lake watershed to help improve the water quality of Blue Lake. In January 2008, the BLA applied for an IDNR Lake and River Enhancement (LARE) design/build grant for the design and construction of the shoreline stabilization project outlined in the feasibility study. A design/build LARE grant was awarded to the BLA in July 2008 for the design and construction of the project along with another project identified in the grant. The second project was not completed by JFNew and not included in this report. JFNew was contracted by the BLA to complete the design and construction shoreline stabilization project in March 2009. Design survey work began in May 2009 and construction of the project was complete in October 2009. 2.5 Project Accomplishments A total of 715 feet (217.9 m) of shoreline was stabilized. This included 605 feet (184.4 m) of glacial stone toe and coir log treatment and 110 feet (33.5 m) of coir log treatment. Topsoil was placed between the coir logs and the existing banks to rebuild the existing eroded shoreline banks. Topsoil was planted with a native wetland seed mix and covered with erosion control blanketing. All coir logs installed were planted with native wetland plant plugs. 2.6 Future Project Inspection and Maintenance The project was constructed entirely on publicly-owned land. The site is utilized by the public for recreational activities such as picnicking and fishing. The BLA will be responsible for the inspection and maintenance of the project site. It is recommended the project site be inspected on an annual basis for the next three to five years. At a minimum, the project site should be inspected in early spring soon after ice melt. Potential failure of erosion stabilization measures may include sections of the coir-logs and areas of the rock toe displaced by shifting ice. Any issues identified within the project site shall be addressed as soon as possible by the BLA. Native vegetation establishment usually requires some mowing and weeding during the first two to three years. Specifically for this project, mowing will likely not be required because the areas that were seeded are fairly narrow. Cutting vegetation back once or twice a growing season with a string trimmer may be a more feasible option. It should be noted that mowing to the waters edge along the project area should be prohibited or reduced



except during maintenance events. Allowing the establishment of a native plant buffer along the shoreline will promote shoreline stability. A maintenance schedule is included in Appendix C. 3.0 PROJECT SPECIFIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION The shoreline stabilization project incorporated the use of two techniques: coir logs planted with native wetland plants on a glacial stone toe and coir logs planted with native wetland plugs without a glacial stone toe (Figure 4). In total, 715 feet (217.9 m) of shoreline stabilization took place along the lakeshore which included 605 feet (184.4 m) of coir logs planted with native wetland plants with a glacial stone toe and 110 feet (33.5 m) of coir logs only planted with native wetland plants. Incorporated with both treatment types was the addition of topsoil between the coir logs and the existing bank to rebuild the eroded banks. All topsoil was seeded with a native wetland seed mix and covered with erosion control blanketing. Figure 4. Location of shoreline stabilization along Blue Lake’s eastern shoreline. Treatment 1 included both the glacial stone toe and coir logs. The stone toe consisted of 6-inch (15.2 cm) glacial stone toe placed on non-woven geotextile fabric and installed to a width of approximately 2.5 feet (0.8 m) out into the lake from the existing shoreline and to a height of approximately 1 foot (0.3 m) above the existing lake bottom. Stone was placed on the Peninsula and South Island using both a skid steer, and by hand.



Equipment was not accessible to the North Island and required the stone to be shuttled to the North Island by a pontoon. The stone was taken off the pontoon and placed hand. Approximately 56 cubic yards of glacial stone was used to construct the stone toe. Coir logs were placed along the edge of the stone toe, between the existing bank and stone toe (Figures 5 and 6). Due to the height of the bank and amount of bank eroded some areas on the peninsula and the north island required the use of two coir logs (Figure 7). The second layer of coir logs were placed above the legal lake level. Coir logs were secured using 2x2x36 inch (5x5x91.4 cm) wooden stakes placed every two feet (0.6 m) on alternating sides of the coir log. Nylon rope was secured to the wooden stakes and the stakes driven into the ground thereby securing the coir logs to the bank. A total of 72 coir logs were installed at the legal lake level. An additional twelve coir logs were placed above the legal lake level. Within the coir logs and in the backfill areas 1,257 native plant plugs were installed. A listing of the species planted and the number of individuals of each species planted can be found in Table 1. Topsoil was placed between the coir logs and the existing bank to rebuild the eroded bank. Once the topsoil was backfilled it was seeded with a native wetland seed mix and covered with North American Green S-150BN erosion control material. In areas where significant bank erosion had occurred, which was usually where a second coir log was used, additional topsoil backfill was added. In total, 55 cubic yards (42 m3) of topsoil was used. Fifteen cubic yards (11 m3) of that was used above the legal lake level in severely eroded areas. A list of the species found in the native wetland seed mix can be found in Appendix B.

Figure 5. Installed stone toe and coir log treatment on the South Island.



Figure 6. Installed stone toe and coir log treatment on the North Island.

Figure 7. Use of a second row of coir logs on the Peninsula.



Table 1. Native plant plugs installed in the coir log and backfill areas. Common Name Scientific Name Quantity Sweet flag Acorus calamus 152 Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata 190 Bristly sedge Carex comosa 266 Bottlebrush sedge Carex lurida 114 Common boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum 114 Blue flag Iris virginica 76 Great blue lobelia Lobelia siphilitica 114 Common arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia 43 Hard-stemmed bulrush Scirpus acutus 114 Dark green rush Scirpus atrovirens 114 Total 1297 Treatment 2 used only the coir logs as the method to stabilize the shoreline. This treatment was used only on the northern 110 feet (33.5 m) of the South Island (Figure 4) where the erosion potential of the shoreline was reduced and did not require the installation of a glacial stone toe. The coir logs were placed at the OHWM and secured with wooden stakes and nylon rope. The coir logs were planted with the same native plant plugs as that used in Treatment 1. Topsoil was backfilled, seeded and covered with erosion control material in the same method as that used for Treatment 1. A complete as-built plan set can be found in Appendix D.

Figure 8. Treatment 2 on the South Island.




4.0 PROJECT SUMMARY Waves generated from wind energy and boat wakes impact the Blue Lake shoreline causing portions of eastern shoreline to erode. Historical aerial photographs show a loss of between 20%-45% from the islands. The turbulence caused by wave action against the shoreline caused the toe of the slope to cut away thus allowing the upper portion of the bank to fail. This turbulence also re-suspended bottom sediments thereby increasing the transfer of nutrients from the sediment-water interface to the water column. Continuous disturbance in shallow areas along the shoreline also reduces the growth of shoreline vegetation. The purpose of this project was to reduce erosion along the Blue Lake shoreline and the delivery of eroded materials from the project site into Blue Lake. This was accomplished by stabilizing a portion of the eroded shoreline along Blue Lake’s eastern shore. The construction of the project was completed in early October 2009. The long term success of shorelines stabilized with bioengineering techniques requires the establishment of the native vegetation. Erosion control materials such as the coir logs and the erosion control blanket used in this project lose effectiveness as they degrade over time. As the materials breakdown, the root structure of the vegetation provides the additional protection from shoreline erosion. During the first few years (three to five years) after the project is constructed, maintenance and monitoring should occur to ensure long term project success. Appendix C highlights typical maintenance and monitoring activities that should take place on an annual basis. In general, the BLA should monitor the coir logs each spring after the ice comes off the lake to determine if any logs were displaced by the ice. Mowing, if any, should occur once or twice a season. Prior to the project, there were sections of the bank that were being frequently mowed by local residents. Frequent mowing will negatively impact the native vegetation, not allowing for their establishment, and encourage the growth of shallow-rooted plant species, which do not provide the same level of shoreline stabilization. Monitoring should occur on a monthly basis and consist of inspecting the project areas for vegetation establishment, areas of erosion, and areas of disturbance that may be caused by natural (wave action) or human impacts (mowing or foot traffic). If maintenance issues arise, corrective action can be taken by following the information in Appendix C or contacting individuals with experience in shoreline stabilization techniques. 5.0 LITERATURE CITED DeLorme, 1998. Indiana Atlas and Gazetteer. Yarmouth, Maine. JFNew, 2008. Blue Lake Engineering Feasibility Study. Indiana Department of Natural Resources Lake and River Enhancement Program.

APPENDIX A

PERMITS BLUE LAKE DESIGN/BUILD REPORT


708 Roosevelt Road Walkerton, IN 46574

Phone: 574-586-3400 Fax: 574-586-3446

Mark Pranckus Ecological Resource Specialist

[email protected] 574-229-8723 (mobile)

Corporate Office: Walkerton, Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana Madison, Wisconsin Monee, Illinois Grand Haven, Michigan Cincinnati, Ohio Native Plant Nursery: Walkerton, Indiana

www.jfnew.com

August 6, 2009 Scott Matthews USACOE – Louisville District Indianapolis Field Office 9799 Billings Rd Indianapolis, IN 46216-1055 RE: IDEM 401 Water Quality Certification for Blue Lake Shoreline Stabilization, Whitley County (LRL-2008-539-lcl) Dear Scott, Enclosed is a copy of the IDEM 401 Water Quality Certification for a shoreline stabilization project on Blue Lake in Whitely County. From our understanding based on a letter from your office dated May 21, 2008, the project is authorized by the USACOE under a Nationwide Permit once we furnished a copy to you. It is also our understanding that once this copy is furnished to you we may proceed without further contact or verification from the USACOE office. If this is not the case, please contact us immediately. In addition to the IDEM 401 permit, we have also received the IDNR Lake Preservation Act permit and will likely begin construction this fall. Thanks, Mark Pranckus CC: Jerry McClure, Blue Lake Association JFN File 0812113.00

APPENDIX B

SPECIES LIST FOR WELAND SEED MIX BLUE LAKE DESIGN/BUILD REPORT


Wetland Edge Seed Mix

Botanical Name Common Name Ounces/Acre

Permanent Grasses/Sedges:Carex comosa Bristly Sedge 1.00Carex cristatella Crested Oval Sedge 2.00Carex lurida Bottlebrush Sedge 4.00 Carex frankii Bristly Cattail Sedge 4.00 Carex vulpinoidea Brown Fox Sedge 3.00 Eleocharis palustris Great Spike Rush 0.50 Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye 12.00 Glyceria striata Fowl Manna Grass 1.00 Leersia oryzoides Rice Cut Grass 1.50 Scirpus atrovirens Green Bulrush 1.00 Scirpus cyperinus Wool Grass 0.75 Scirpus pungens Chairmaker's rush 1.00 Scirpus validus Great Bulrush 2.50 Sparganium eurycarpum Great Bur Reed 4.00

Total 38.25

Temporary Cover:Avena sativa Common Oats 360.00 Lolium multiflorum Annual Rye 100.00

Total 460.00

Forbs:Acorus calamus Sweet Flag 1.00 Verbesina alternifolia Wingstem 0.75 Alisma spp. Water Plantain (Various Mix) 2.00 Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed 1.00 Aster puniceus Swamp Aster 1.00 Bidens spp. Bidens (Various Mix) 2.00 Decodon verticillatus Swamp Loosestrife 1.00 Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset 1.00 Helenium autumnale Sneezeweed 2.00 Hibiscus spp. Rosemallow (Various Mix) 3.00 Iris virginica Blue Flag Iris 2.50 Lobelia siphilitica Blue Lobelia 1.00 Ludwigia alternifolia Seedbox 0.25 Mimulus ringens Monkey Flower 1.50 Peltandara virginica Arrow Arum 4.00 Rudbeckia laciniata Cut-Leaf Coneflower 0.75 Sagittaria latifolia Broad-Leaf Arrowhead 2.00 Senna hebecarpa Wild Senna 2.00 Thalictrum dasycarpum Late Meadow Rue 1.50 Verbena hastata Blue Vervain 1.50 Vernonia spp. Ironweed (Various Mix) 2.00

Total 33.75

Native Plant Plugs

Botanical Name Common Name # Plugs

Acorus calamus Sweet flag 152Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed 190Carex comosa Bristly sedge 266Carex lurida Bottlebrush sedge 114Eupatorium perfoliatum Common boneset 114Iris virginica Blue flag 76Lobelia siphilitica Great blue lobelia 114Sagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead 43Scirpus acutus Hard-stemmed bulrush 114Scirpus atrovirens Dark green rush 114

Total 1297

APPENDIX C

MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING BLUE LAKE DESIGN/BUILD REPORT


Blue Lake –Lakeshore Maintenance Natural Buffer Area Maintenance Natural areas are dynamic systems, and a maintenance plan requires flexibility in order to accommodate the development of the site. Native plants tend to germinate and develop at a slower rate than ornamental perennials or turfgrass. Regular maintenance during the native plant establishment period, usually three to seven years, greatly improves the success of the project. The maintenance of the natural areas can include exotic and invasive species control, reseeding, replanting, and monthly site inspections. Species such as canadian thistle, cattails, reed canary grass, common reed, and purple loosestrife are noxious weeds that establish quickly in newly disturbed areas. Upon establishment, these species spread exponentially to nuisance levels, crowding out other desirable plants and reducing the overall diversity and aesthetics of a site. A focused and dedicated maintenance program will reduce the competition from weed species, allowing desirable native plants to develop. Techniques such as mowing, chemical applications, prescribed burning, hand weed removal, overseeding, and replanting need to be implemented to ensure project success. Techniques MOWING During the establishment period the developing native plants concentrate their energy toward expanding their root systems. Non-native plants tend to concentrate energy towards developing the above-ground portions (vegetative) of the plants. Due to this difference in development we can suppress the non-native plants without negatively impacting the desirable natives by mowing. The native areas should be mowed at approximately 8-10 inches with a brush saw or walk-behind brush mower. 1-3 mowings may be performed during a growing season, depending on the height and growth of the given vegetation. Mowing could generally take place in the spring or fall and maybe once during the summer if needed. Ragweed, queen anne’s lace, and clover species are best controlled through mowing events. The buffer zone should never be mowed up to the waterline on a regular basis. CHEMICAL APPLICATIONS Selective herbicide applications should be used to reduce the unwanted non-native weed populations in the natural areas. Selective herbicide applications will consist of a crew of state-licensed herbicide applicators canvassing the area in search of undesirable plant species. Many perennial weed species in upland and wetlands, such as canadian thistle, cattails, and purple loosestrife are best controlled through chemical applications. PRESCRIBED BURNING Prescribed burning simulates historical processes that once maintained prairies, and can be very effective in native plant management. Burning will greatly reduce the number of woody species, while enhancing the health of the herbaceous species. Fire also clears thatch, making way for new growth in the spring. The black, burned surface absorbs and retains heat, giving natives an early start in the spring. At the end of the third season of establishment, the site should possess a sufficient fuel matrix to conduct a prescribed burn. This is the ideal and most cost effective form of management for native plant communities. JFNew will supply a crew of trained fire specialists and all equipment necessary to conduct a controlled management burn. JFNew will apply for all necessary state and local permits and coordinate with local authorities as necessary to fulfill burn requirements. We request that JFNew receive permission for liberal equipment access to and around the site as it relates to control measures and safe execution of the burn. JFNew will be responsible for the required homeowner notifications prior to the scheduled burn execution, unless requested by the client. As a

general rule of thumb, fall burning will tend to favor the forbs, while spring burning favors the grasses. HAND WEED REMOVAL On very small infestation areas or on sites where chemical applications cannot be performed target species may be removed by hand. Removed plants will be discarded off-site and/ or left on-site in a manner that will not allow the plant to regrow. OVERSEEDING/ REPLANTING The need for overseeding or replanting can usually be determined by the middle of the first growing season following installation. It is important to note that most native species grow slowly from seed. Therefore, it may be difficult to assess the development of a recently planted site by searching for native grass and forb species. However, some indicators are usually present that will forecast a successful planting, such as cover crop germination. JFNew will overseed and/or replant areas that are in need of remediation. BIOLOG MAINTENANCE For the biologs to function properly they need to remain securely fixed to the shoreline otherwise it could affect the ability of the native plants to establish a secure root system or allow erosion to occur. Periodically throughout the year the condition of the biologs installed should be monitored as they could become unsecured and moved around by ice, wind or from failure of the securing rope. Biologs displaced by ice or wind should be placed back into their original position and securely fixed to the shoreline using rope and wooden stakes. Wooden stakes should be place on alternating sides of the biolog about every two feet for the entire length and driven into the ground roughly a third of the length of the stake. Next, using a chainsaw cut a notch in the upper portion of wooden stakes large enough for the rope to sit in. Finally, at one end of the biolog tie the rope off on the wooden stake making sure the rope is seated in the notch. Rap the rope around the wooden stakes for the length of the biolog and tie off at the last wooden stake. Once the rope is in place drive the wooden stakes into the ground far enough so the rope tightens around the biolog and secures it to the bank.

APPENDIX D

DESIGN PLAN SET BLUE LAKE DESIGN/BUILD REPORT


blue lake shoreline stabilization design/build report...the shoreline stabilization site is located...

Documents