20080879 Ver 2_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2019_20200310

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 5 Monitoring Report

Jackson County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID No. 92515; Contract No. D06046-A
Savannah River Basin: 03060101-010020
DWR # 20080879 Ver. 2, SAW ID: 2008-01711

Project Info: Monitoring Year: 5 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2019
Year of Completed Construction: May 2015
Submission Date: December 2019

Submitted To: NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
NCDEQ Contract ID No. D06046-A

 797 Haywood Road| Suite 201|
Asheville NC 28806
Office: 828.412.6100 | Fax: [phone]
March 6, 2020

NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
Attn: Mr. Paul Wiesner, Western Project Management Supervisor
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801

Subject: Response to DMS comments on the Year 5 Monitoring Report Draft review for the
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project; Savannah River Basin - CU# 03060101;
Jackson County, North Carolina; NCDMS Project # 92515; Contract No. D06046-A

Dear Mr. Wiesner,

Please find enclosed the final Logan Creek Year 5 Monitoring Report. We have addressed the
comments that you submitted on the draft report and our responses to your comments are the
following:
 Section 2.0 - Methodology: Please review this section. The section notes that monitoring data
was collected in October 2018. MY5 is 2019. Please update accordingly.
This mistake was corrected.
 Section 2.1 - Vegetation Assessment: Please QA/QC the third paragraph. Based on Figure 2B,
“Stream Relocation” should be updated to “New Trail Alignment”. Please also report the trail’s
approximate average distance from Logan Creek and its approximate minimum distance from
Logan Creek. Please also report the trail’s approximate width.
It appears that the reference should have been to the fourth paragraph where the trail was
discussed. The wording has been corrected and trail measurements have been added to the
discussion.
 Executive Summary & Section 2.2.1-Morphologic parameters and Channel Stability: In the
report text, please briefly explain why the longitudinal profile for UT8 was not established in
MY0. Please note when it was established and the monitoring years that data was collected for
the reach. This text should be incorporated with the text noting the additional cross section on the
reach.
The requested discussion of UT8 was added in the Executive Summary, but it was placed in the
paragraph where the IRT site visit is discussed and reference was made to this UT. If this is
unacceptable, we can modify where this is located.
 Section 2.2.4 - Project Problem Areas: In the report text, please note any proposed resolution
for the continued structure piping noted at CPA 3-5 during MY5. If no action will be taken,
please add that to the report text.
CPA 3-5 was repaired during February 2020, and this has been noted in the report in Section
2.2.4 and photos added to Table 12.
.
Page 2 

 Executive Summary & Section 2.2.4 - Project Problem Areas: EA-1 – Why does the
landowner continue to mow this area at a 10-foot width? Has there been any discussion with the
landowner to cease this mowing? What is the agreed width? Please add additional verbiage to the
revised report as necessary. We will discuss this with the NCDEQ Stewardship team during the
2/4/2020 pre-closeout meeting. It is likely that NCDEQ Stewardship will require resolution on
this issue with the landowner before accepting the site. They will also likely want a maintenance
width agreed upon in writing and signed by the landowner.
The report was modified so that this area is no longer called an encroachment area in this
report. Based on measurements of the trail, the width in this area is only slightly greater than
other areas and we believe does not constitute an encroachment. The greater issue, as pointed
out, is that a trail width needs to be established in writing and agreed to by all parties. We are
developing an infrastructure map that details our findings on the trail and other issues and will
work with the Lonesome Valley development and the NC Stewardship Program to establish an
agreement for long-term stewardship of these issues. We are also making Lonesome Valley
aware of other encroachment issues and asking for their assistance in resolving these. We will
communicate any findings or resolutions to DMS. These additional areas are now shown on the
CCPV and discussed in the report.
 Section 2.2.4 - Project Problem Areas: In the revised report, please indicate when the beaver
and associated beaver dams were removed from the site. At a minimum, a scheduled removal
date should be included in the revised report. DMS recommends removing beaver dams as soon
as possible to avoid potential irregular monitoring data, project damage and additional
maintenance. Beaver and beaver dams should be controlled/maintained through IRT project
closeout.
The beaver and their dams have been addressed and this is discussed in Section 2.2.4.
 Section 2.2.4 - Project Problem Areas and CCPV Sheets: Section 2.2.4 indicates that existing
beaver dams are identified on Figures 2A and 2B; however, the beaver dams are not shown on
the CCPV sheets. Please update accordingly.
Given that these have been taken care of, we are indicating that beavers were found on the site
and dealt with. We have removed the callouts for beaver dams, on the CCPV maps.
 Table 2 – Project Activity and Reporting History: Please add invasive treatments, beaver
removal efforts, and/ or any maintenance activities to the table. Activities from MY1 – MY5
should be included in the table in chronological order.
Table 2 has been updated with any repairs, invasive vegetation control and beaver control
activity and the time period that this activity was done.
 Table 12 – MY5 Stream Problem Areas and Photos: DMS recommends updating the table
name as most of these areas are not issues in MY5. Suggest “MY1-MY5 Stream Problem Areas”.
While it is good to track previous issues, please make sure the table notes when the issues were
initially identified (monitoring year at a minimum) and when Michael Baker Engineering
believes the issues were resolved. It may also be helpful to have a RESOLVED/ ON GOING
ISSUE column for clarity. Lastly, please provide recent (Fall/ winter MY5) photos of each area
so the reader can observe the current condition of the reported issue/ PA.
The title of this table has been changed as suggested. We added a new column called status and
are showing if the issue is resolved or on going. We added recent photos of each location and
have added photos for two new areas that were identified on our recent site visit.
Page 3 

 Table 9 – Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events: DMS recommends
adding a row for MY1 noting that no bankfull events were recorded in MY1.
A row for MY1 was added indicating do data was collected that year.
 Profile of UT8: The longitudinal profile just shows profile data from MY1 and MY5. A footnote
is missing from the graph. Please be consistent with the other graphs. DMS recommends
including the profile that shows MY1 compared to MY5 and a separate graph showing all
longitudinal profile data collected for the reach over the monitoring term.
The UT8 profile was corrected so that both the MY1 to MY5 comparison and the profile showing
the year to year comparison, are included. The footnote is also shown.

Digital Support File Comments:
 Logan Creek spatial features do not match the linear feet reported in the asset table. All UT
feature lengths currently match. Please provide a spatial feature for Logan Creek that is
segmented as it is reported in the asset table, and that properly characterizes the creditable linear
feet.
DMS has commented that they would like the GIS shapefiles for all projects and noted that for
some projects the lengths were not matching with the credit/asset table. Baker spoke with
DMS Science and Analysis staff about this issue. We are happy to provide processed shapefiles
derived from the as‐built survey CAD files for all project features. That is, we have taken the
final as‐built CAD files, converted them into GIS, and modified them so that each feature
segment is combined or split by reach or wetland type and that the attribute table is clear and
has a length or acre value approximate to the credit/asset table. But due both to rounding
issues in length and credit calculations, as well as to inherent program differences between
CAD and GIS, some small differences may exist between the two. The as‐built CAD files used to
create the PE/PLS signed/sealed plan sheets are the legal standard by which we determine all
our credits/assets. The GIS shapefiles are secondary files we derive from the CAD to more
easily make maps in our reports. While small differences between the two (of a few feet here
or there) are likely to occur on some reaches, particularly longer ones and ones with breaks
such as for crossings, Baker has not regarded this as of particular importance. The CAD files
are what have generated all official feature measurements. DMS accepted that small
differences would be acceptable for the creditable features but did want the processed as‐built
shapefiles for each project and Baker has agreed to provide them.
 CCPV geospatial features submitted cannot be rendered in ArcMap; the files appear to be
compromised. Please ensure that these files can be uploaded into ArcMap, and if not, resubmit a
new set.
We are providing updated CCPV features in response to the previous comment; however, we
have had no problems using these files.
 The CVS file shows that x y coordinates in prior monitoring years exceed the bounds of the
designated plots. Please ensure the proper plot sizes are selected, or correct the x y coordinates.
DMS needs these errors corrected before we can upload the data into our database.
That X/Y portion of the CVS entry tool has always been used for internal purposes at Baker
and over the 5 years of monitoring this is the first time that this has been questioned. We have
used it to identify the plant plot and individual tree number (e.g. 4‐15 means plot 4, plant 15)
and not for internal plant location, as CVS does not otherwise provide an easy way to carry
over clear plant ID numbering from year to year. Thus, the plot dimensions recorded in CVS
Page 4 

are correct for each veg plot, though we understand that may have been confusing when
looking at our X/Y entry data. But using the X/Y coordinate entry this way saves Baker
significant time each year during monitoring and helps eliminate errors by reducing
confusion. We have long regarded it as a mild flaw in the CVS tool but have found this easy
workaround to be a perfectly suitable rectification. Baker spoke with DMS Science and
Analysis staff about this issue. They have allowed that for our existing projects we may
continue to use the X/Y entry tool for our own purposes but for future projects ask that we
enter the X/Y grid plot coordinates as the CVS program originally intended. We will also
provide DMS with a copy of our plot maps showing individual plant locations within each plot.
And to be clear, the CVS field protocol is being followed throughout our projects with the sole
exception of this X/Y grid plot entry tool. All planted stems are identified and marked (and
mapped internally) at the as‐built stage and tracked and assessed throughout the monitoring
phase. We have checked the CVS entry tool submitted to DMS in MY5 and vigor is reported for
each year, for each plot and for each plant; it is unclear to us why this comment was made.
 Please provide a final revised GIS shapefile for the nature/walking trail located within the
conservation easement. This GIS shapefile will be provided to NCDEQ Stewardship as part of
the proposed closeout/ acceptance package. The property owner should understand that the trail
cannot be moved in the future. A “not to exceed” trail width should be established with the
landowner and documented with both DMS and DEQ stewardship prior to project closeout.
The GIS shapefile for the nature trail is included with the submitted GIS files. It has been
updated to show all segments of the trail. We are working with the NCDEQ Stewardship
Program to document all important infrastructure at this site. We will be submitting an
infrastructure map to them with this information. In conjunction with this map, a document will
be prepared and submitted to the property owner that indicates the location of these items, that
states infrastructure cannot be added in the future, per the deed of easement, and that establishes
the width of the Nature Trail.

If you have any questions or find any issues that need to be addressed, please contact me directly
at [phone]. I am submitting an invoice for this task to Ms. Debby Davis in the Raleigh
DMS Office and will be providing you an email copy.

Sincerely,
Micky Clemmons,
Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. i
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 5 Monitoring Report

Jackson County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number – 92515

Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ii
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 
2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 2 
2.1  Vegetation Assessment…………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 
2.2 Stream Assessment………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ........................................................................................... 4 
2.2.2 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation ....................................................................................................................... 4 
2.2.4 Project Problem Areas .................................................................................................................................. 5 
3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 5 

APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map and Directions Figure 2 Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)– MY5, Overview Map Figure 2A CCPV MY5, North Area Figure 2B CCPV MY5, Middle Area
Figure 2C CCPV MY5, South Area
Appendix B General Project Tables Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Figure 3 Project Asset Map
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix C Vegetation Assessment Data Table 5 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table 6 Vegetation Metadata
Table 7 Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Figure 4 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Figure 4.1 Trail Relocation Photos – MY5
Table 7.1 Vegetative Problem Areas
Table 7.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment at Logan Creek
Appendix D Stream Assessment Data
Figure 5 Stream Photos by Channel and Station Table 8 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment Table 9 Verification of Bankfull Events or Greater than Bankfull Events Figure 6 Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 7 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8 Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 10 Monitoring Year 5 Stream Summary
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table 12 MY5 Stream Problem Areas and Photos

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 1
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored, enhanced or preserved 5,110 linear feet (LF) of perennial
stream channel along Logan Creek and eight unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, UT5, UT6, UT7 and
UT8) in Jackson County, NC (Appendix A). The nearest town, Cashiers, is approximately five miles west of
the Logan Creek Project site. The site lies in the Savannah River Basin within the Targeted Local Watershed
03060101-010020 (Horsepasture River) and within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
sub-basin formerly known as 03-06-01-01 (Keowee River Subbasin). The Horsepasture River is a National
Wild and Scenic River and a state-designated Natural and Scenic River. The project involved the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of a stable channel and a Montane Alluvial/Montane Oak-Hickory Forest system
(NCWAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural
conversion including orchard development, trout hatchery development, mink farming and more recently
single-family home development.

The project goals directly address stressors identified in the Savannah River Basin Restoration Priority Plan
(RBRP) (DMS 2001 and updated 2008) such as habitat degradation, inadequate riparian buffer cover, channel
modification, and excess nutrient and sediment loading. The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the
approved mitigation plan, are described below:

 Create geomorphically stable stream channels within the Logan Creek project site.
 Protect stable areas as well as mature trees and other desirable vegetation.
 Improve water quality within the Logan Creek project area through reduction of bank erosion,
improved nutrient and sediment removal, and stabilization of streambanks.
 Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
To accomplish these goals, the following actions were taken:
 Restore the existing eroding or over-wide stream reaches by creating a stable channel that has access
to its floodplain.
 Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools, providing woody debris for habitat, moving sand deposits through the reach and
reducing bank erosion.
 Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation to increase storm water runoff filtering
capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water temperature, provide cover,
improve wildlife habitat and protect this area with a permanent conservation easement.
 Improve terrestrial habitat by increasing the density of tree species that root deeply, by thinning the
thick stands of rhododendron within the easement area and planting a more diverse native plant
community.
During Monitoring Year 5 (MY5), our monitoring activities indicated that the planted acreage was functioning
well with most banks, benches and floodplain areas developing a diverse herbaceous community and having
good growth of planted trees. There were no new Vegetative Problem Areas identified during 2019. The
Encroachment Area (EA-1) that was noted in 2016 is still maintained as a part of the nature trail; however, no
new trees in Vegetation (Veg) Plot 3 have been affected since MY3. Despite the impacts to the trees in the plot,
Veg Plot 3 still meets minimum success criteria for MY5. Because the plot meets the success criteria we are
not asking Lonesome Valley to move the nature trail in this area.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

The 11 channel problem areas (CPAs) noted in previous year’s monitoring reports, did not show further erosion
or degradation during 2019, and no new CPAs were noted in MY5. Most of the previously listed sites exhibited
further stabilization during MY5. Updated photos of all previous CPAs can be found in Appendix D.
As noted in the Baseline report, eight (8) vegetation monitoring plots were installed at this site after
construction, with seven (7) being installed along the restoration reach (Logan Creek, Reach 1) and one (1)
being installed along the enhancement reach (Logan Creek, Reach 2). The location of these vegetation
monitoring plots can be seen on Figures 2A-C. The average density of total planted stems following the MY5
growing season is 602 stems per acre (SPA). The average density of volunteer trees across all 8 vegetation
plots was 405 SPA. The total average density of all planted and volunteer stems in MY5 was 1,007 SPA.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY5 was assessed by surveying thirteen (13) cross-
sections (8 on Logan Creek, 2 on UT3, 2 on UT6 and 1 on UT8) and a profile of Logan Creek, UT3, UT6 and
UT8, evaluating the bed particle size with 3 riffle pebble counts and by observation and replicating channel
location photographs. An additional cross-section was added on UT8 during MY2 surveying so there are cross-
sections on all restored tributaries and reported in subsequent years. Cross-sections of all the channels indicated
that there was very little change in the cross-sections during MY5. The average particle size observed in MY5
pebble counts was within the range of what has been observed in previous monitoring years, with a slight shift
towards a decrease in particle size. No observed changes indicate any instability. The Visual Morphological
Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable and performing well. All structures but one (CPA 3-5) are
functioning as designed during MY5. The structures that were piping in MY3 have filled in and are no longer
piping. Overall, channel morphology is responding as designed and meeting project goals.
An Interagency Review Team (IRT) site visit to Logan Creek was held on March 28, 2018. Because this project
began before the IRT was established and members had never visited the site, it was felt that other visits in the
area offered a good opportunity for the IRT to see this site. The visit allowed IRT members to see UT7 (EII)
and UT8 (R) which were added after the Mitigation Plan was produced but was included in the As-Built (MY0)
report. A profile of UT8 was not taken for MY0 because of the short length of this channel; however, the need
for this data was recognized in MY1 and it was collected and reported in MY2 and in subsequent reports (MY2-
MY5). The MY0 report did indicate that we would seek restoration credit for UT3, UT6 and UT8. The IRT
was also able to view the nature trail that is partially within the easement area. IRT members did not find any
issues with the two unnamed tributaries. There was concern with how close the nature trail was in one location,
near a meander that was less than 10 feet from the stream bank. Michael Baker contacted the Lonesome Valley
development on July 17, 2018 and requested that the trail be moved away from the stream. Lonesome Valley
responded the next day, saying that they would address the issue. The trail was moved away from the creek in
the area of concern and in one additional location where it was close. Trees were transplanted in MY5 in the
original path of the nature trail and vegetation is well established.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres
to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated December 1, 2009 and other mitigation guidance (NCEEP
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 3
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

2009 and USACE 2003), which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The
specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections and profiles, and the crest
gauge location, are shown on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) sheets found in Appendix A.
Vegetation monitoring plots, pebble counts, and site photo points were monitored in October 2019. Site surveys
for channel cross-sections, photos and profiles were also conducted in October 2019.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
To determine if success criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrants (veg plots) were installed and
monitored in accordance with the CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (CVS 2007
and Lee et al 2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of
the Site with eight plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer, per CVS Monitoring Level
2. No veg plots were established within the undisturbed forested areas along the northern part of the project
or within the undisturbed forested areas along Reach 2 of Logan Creek and UT5. A small area was disturbed
within this enhancement reach (R2) so that structures and channel repairs could be made during construction
in April of 2015. Veg Plot 1 is located in this area where bare root trees and herbaceous vegetation were
planted. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody species and 1 square meter for
herbaceous vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation quadrants were established in one corner of the larger woody
vegetation plots and monitored by comparative photographs taken each year.
Trees surviving within vegetation monitoring plots were visually accessed during MY5. All vegetation was
found to be in good condition. All plots indicated that most trees were growing and in good to excellent
condition and herbaceous vegetation was well established and growing well. The average density of total
planted stems following the MY5 growing season is 602 stems per acre (SPA) with a range from 364 SPA to
890 SPA. The average density of volunteer trees was 405 SPA and the density ranged from 0 to 1,133 SPA.
The overall average, including both planted and volunteer stems, was 1,007 SPA. With an average planted
density of 602 stems per acre, the Site meets the final success criteria of having 260 stems per acre by the end
of MY5.
The invasive multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) that was noted in previous years was treated in previous years
and again in May and August of 2019. As of MY5 monitoring (October 2019), the multiflora rose is largely
under control and no new growth areas have been noted. No other areas of concern regarding the existing
vegetation were noted along Logan Creek or any of the tributaries. Year 5 vegetation assessment information
is provided in Appendix C.
Concerns about the walking trail that parallels the stream were raised by the Interagency Review Team (IRT)
during a walkthrough in March 2018. The IRT pointed out one area where the trail was within approximately
10 feet of the stream along the outside of a meander bend near station 19+50. This issue was raised with the
Lonesome Valley maintenance personnel, and during MY4 field work it was noted that the trail had been
moved away from the stream (called out as Trail Relocation in Figure 2B of the CCPV). In MY5 trees and
shrubs were transplanted into the area of the previous trail location. To better describe the location of this
trail we measured the distance from the creek every 200 linear feet down the trail from the upstream end and
found that the trail on average is 48 feet from the top of bank (range is 6’ to 105’, n=14) and averages 6.6 feet
in width (n=12). The narrowest distance off the top of bank was 6 feet and that was at the back of a point bar
on a meander, so the creek was a greater distance from the trail and is stable. The maintenance staff also
moved the trail crossing of UT4 upstream away from Logan Creek, where it appeared to be closer than 10
feet. This area is also called out in Figure 2B.
2.2 Stream Assessment
The restoration approach for the Logan Creek Site included the restoration of channels to a stable morphology
that allows for the transport of water and sediment through the Site and allows stream flows larger than
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 4
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

bankfull flows to spread onto the floodplain. Stream monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, a crest
gauge to document bankfull flooding events, surveying established stream cross-sections and channel profiles
to assess channel stability and pebble counts to assess if proper sediment transport is taking place.
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As-built Survey.
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen 1994) and all
cross-sections were evaluated to determine if they meet design expectations. Cross-sections were also
compared to cross-section plots from previous monitoring years to evaluate changes in the cross
sections. Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of Logan Creek, UT3 and UT6, and UT8 to
document changes during MY5. The survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements
included thalweg, water surface, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements were taken at the
head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY5 was assessed by surveying thirteen
(13) cross-sections (8 on Logan Creek, 2 on UT3, 2 on UT6 and 1 on UT8) and a profile of these
channels as described above. The bed particle size was evaluated with three riffle pebble counts and by
observation and replicating channel location photographs. Cross-sections and profiles of all the
channels indicated that there was very little change in the channel during MY5. The Visual
Morphological Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable and performing at 89 to 100 percent
for all parameters. The last structure on UT8 was piping during MY5 surveying (CPA 3-5); however,
this was repaired during the winter (February 2020). Overall, channel morphology is responding as
designed and meeting project goals.
Pebble count data for MY5 indicates a slight shift to smaller particle sizes but is well within the range
of observed data as compared to previous monitoring years. The channel had a mean D50 of 16.5 mm
during baseline sampling, 36.9 mm during MY1, 22.2 mm in MY2, 26.8 mm in MY3, 34.0 mm in
MY4, and 23.7 mm in MY5. This represents a general coarsening of particle size since baseline
sampling.
2.2.2 Hydrology
A crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the right top of bank on
Logan Creek at approximate Station 30+00. There were three bankfull events recorded on the crest
gauge during MY5. The crest gauge indicated a water depth on the floodplain of 19.5 inches during
the first event, 5.2 inches during the second event, and 1.5 inches during the third event. Crest gauge
readings are presented in Appendix D.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference transects were photographed at each permanent cross-section. A survey tape is normally
centered in the photograph when the tape is used to identify the transect. The water line was located in
the lower area of the frame, and as much of the bank as possible included in each photograph.
Photographs were taken at specific photo points established along each channel during Year 5
monitoring. Photographs from these points are replicated each year and used to document changes
along the channel. Points were selected to include grade control structures as well as other structural
components installed during construction. Annual photographs from the established photo points are
shown in Appendix D.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 5
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

2.2.4 Project Problem Areas
Project problem areas fall into three types: Vegetation Problem Areas (VPA), Encroachment Areas
(EA), and Channel Problem Areas (CPA). All observed problem areas are shown on the CCPV maps.
There were no VPAs identified during MY5. Vegetation was well established across the entire project
site.
One structure was piping during MY5 monitoring (CPA 3-5). This structure was repaired during
February 2020 and is no longer piping. Other structures that were noted as piping in the past have filled
in naturally and are no longer piping.
No new erosion areas were noted in MY5. Some of the areas of erosion that were called out in previous
years (CPA 2-1, CPA 2-2, CPA 2-4, CPA 2-5, CPA 2-6, CPA 3-1, CPA 3-2, and CPA 3-3) have
stabilized and are becoming vegetated. The remaining areas of erosion (CPA 3-4, CPA 2-3) have not
completely stabilized but have not gotten worse in MY5 and are supporting vegetation.
An area called EA-1 in past reports is the alignment of the nature trail that passes along the outside
margin of Vegetation Plot 3, since no trees in the plot have been affected since MY2 we are not calling
this an encroachment area in MY5. Path maintenance in this area is only slightly wider than the trail is
in other areas. We are working with the landowners and the NC Stewardship Program to define the
width of the nature trail maintenance. Despite the proximity of the trail to the plot, Veg Plot 3 still
meets minimum success criteria for MY5. EA-2 is a small triangular area that is being mowed by an
adjacent landowner. EA-3 is a trail from an adjoining home to the easement area down a steep slope
and then utilizes a foot bridge that the development placed but later abandoned. This foot bridge was
supposed to be removed. We will be contacting the developer to work with these landowners to correct
these encroachments and if immediate action is not taken, we will place fence post on the easement line
or other obstacles in the encroachment area, to limit access.
Two beaver dams were noted during the survey in October of MY5. We contacted the Lonesome
Valley development about Michael Baker working with APHIS to remove the beavers and found out
that the development was already taking care of the issue. During follow-up visits, between October
2019 and February 2020, we found that the beaver and their dams have been removed.
All issues discussed above reference the CCPV mapping and the Stream Problem Area table included
in Appendix D and the e-File data with associated photos.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
Harman, W.A., D.E. Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, M.A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.R.
Clinton, J.M. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. In:
AWRA Conference Proceedings, D.L. Kane, editor. American Water Resources Specialty Conference
on Water Resources in Extreme Environments. Anchorage, Alaska.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2008. Savannah River Basin Restoration
Priorities. December 2008.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Savannah_River_Basin/Savan
nah_RBRP_hcb_22dec08.pdf
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 6
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2019, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Guidance and Content Requirements for
EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1.2.1. December 1, 2009.
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team (WFAT). 2010. North Carolina Wetland Assessment Manual (NC
WAM) User Manual, Version 4.1. Dated October 2010.
NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 2001. Watershed Restoration Plan for the Savannah River
Basin.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Includes:
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) –
MY5, Overview Map
Figure 2A. CCPV MY5, North Area
Figure 2B. CCPV MY5, Middle Area
Figure 2C. CCPV MY5, South Area

Project Location
£¤64
£¤281
£¤107
THORPERESERVOIR
BEAR CREEKRESERVOIR
LAKETOXAWAY
Cashiers
Highlands
03-13-01SAV1
03-13-02SAV2
04-04-01LTN1
04-04-02LTN2
04-03-01FRB1
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Log an Cre ek Stream Restoration NCDMS Project 92515 Monitoring Year 5 Report Jackson County, NC
³
0 1 2 3Miles
li
Jackson County, NC
^_
Municipal boundaries
Counties
USGS Hydrologic Unit
NCDWQ Sub-basin Division of Mitigation Services
To reach the Logan Creek project site from Asheville, follow Interstate 26 East and take NC-280 at Exit 40. From the exit, turn right onto NC-280 and continue to the intersection with US-276/US-64 atBrevard. Continue west on US-64 past Rosman and Lake Toxaway traveling towards Cashiers. Theentrance to the Lonesome Valley Development is 0.5 miles past the community of Sapphire, NC on US-64.The project site extends north from a road culvert under US-64 to the outfall of Trout Pond.
(
((
(
((
(
(
(
(
(
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911Board
(Channel Problem Area
Veg. Encroachment Area
#0 Photo Station
!>Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots
Trail
±Figure 2A
Figure 2B
Figure 2C
DMS Project # 92515
0 400 800Feet Figure 2 - OverviewCurrent Conditions Plan View Monitoring Year 5Logan Creek Site1 inch = 400 feet
(
((
(
(
(
(
Logan CreekReach 1
UT3
UT6
UT2
UT1
UT8
XS-3 XS-4
XS-1
XS-9
XS-2
XS-8.5
XS-8XS-7
XS-12 2827
25
24
21
30
29
26
23
22
20
19
18
CPA 3-4
CPA 3-5
CPA 2-4
CPA 2-2
CPA 2-1
CPA 2-3
7
8
6
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911Board
(Channel Problem Area
#0 Photo Station
Cross Sections
Trail
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots
DMS Project # 92515
0 125 250Feet Figure 2A - North Area Current Conditions Plan View Monitoring Year 5Logan Creek Site1 inch = 125 feet
±
(
(
(
(
(
EA-1
Trail Relocation
Trail Relocation
CPA 3-3
CPA 3-2
CPA 3-1
CPA 2-6
CPA 2-5
EA-1
17
16
13
8B
10
11
12
14
15
9XS-6
XS-5
Logan CreekReach 1
UT4
UT7
Crest Gauge
3
5
4
2NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911Board
New Trail Alignment
(Channel Problem Area
Veg. Encroachment Area
#0 Photo Station
!>Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots
Trail
±
DMS Project # 92515
0 125 250Feet Figure 2B - Middle Area Current Conditions Plan View Monitoring Year 5Logan Creek Site1 inch = 125 feet
Logan Creek Reach 1
UT5
Logan Creek Reach 2
XS-11
XS-10
7
65
1
2
3
4
32
31
33
8A
8B
Crest Gauge
2
1
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911Board
#0 Photo Station
!>Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots
±
DMS Project # 92515
0 125 250Feet Figure 2C - South Area Current Conditions Plan View Monitoring Year 5Logan Creek Site1 inch = 125 feet

Appendix B
General Project Tables

Includes:
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Figure 3. Project Asset Map
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Attributes

Riparian
Wetland Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type R EI EII P
Totals 3,441 SMU 692 SMU 136 SMU 58 SMU
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
3,131 SMU 3,131 LF 1:1
692 SMU 1,038 LF 1.5:1
28 SMU 71 LF 2.5:1
37 SMU 92 LF 2.5:1
16 SMU 40 LF 2.5:1
138 SMU 138 LF 1:1
34 SMU 84 LF 2.5:1
58 SMU 290 LF 5:1
127 SMU 127 LF 1:1
21 SMU 54 LF 2.5:1
45 SMU 45 LF 1:1
Buffer
(SF)Upland (AC)
Element Location
0+00 to 31+84
32+43 to 42+81
0+00 to 0+71
0+00 to 0+92
Enhancement II 341
3134 LF
1038 LF
92 LF
54 LF
45 LF
UT5 290 LF Preservation
84 LF Enhancement II
0+40 to 1+78
0+00 to 2+87
0+00 to 0+54
Creation
Preservation 290
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
BMP Elements
Purpose/Function Notes
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
STREAMS
Enhancement I
Restoration 3,441
Component Summation
Restoration Level Riparian Wetland (AC)Non-riparian Wetland
(AC)Stream (LF)
1,038
Reach 1
Reach 2
UT4
UT7 Enhancement II
Logan Creek
Restoration - PI
UT3
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Non-riparian Wetland
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Project Components
Existing Footage/
Acreage ApproachProject Component
or Reach ID Stationing/ Location
Stream
40 LF
138 LF
Reach 1
UT2 Enhancement II
Enhancement II0+00 to 0+40
Reach 2
UT1
Enhancement I
71 LF Enhancement II
0+00 to 0+45
Restoration - PI
Restoration - P1UT8
UT6 0+00 to 1+27 127 LF Restoration - PI
0+00 to 0+84
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 5
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT 92515
UT1
UT8
UT3
UT6
UT2
UT4
UT7
UT5
Logan Creek
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000Feet Figure 3Stream Asset MapMonitoring Year 5 Logan Creek SiteDMS Project # 92515
Conservation EasementStream Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
±
Activity or Report Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared Jun-07 06-07 Apr-08
Mitigation Plan Amended Apr-13 N/A May-13
Mitigation Plan Approved N/A N/A Jun-13
Final Design – (at least 90% complete)N/A N/A May-13
Construction Begins N/A N/A Jun-14
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A Jan-15*
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A Jan-15*
Planting of bare root trees and live stakes N/A N/A Jan-15*
End of Construction N/A N/A May-15**
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) N/A Mar-15 Aug-15
As-Built Baseline Report N/A Apr-15 Nov-15
Year 1 Monitoring N/A Mar-16 Apr-16
Year 2 Monitoring Dec-16 Nov-16 Dec-16
Flood repair of piping, scour repair (hand tools)May-17
Invasive Vegetation Control Jul-17
Minor bank scour repair and add live stakes (hand tools)Oct-17
Year 3 Monitoring Dec-17 Oct-17 Dec-17
Trail relocations done Apr-18
Year 4 Monitoring Dec-18 Oct-18 Nov-18
Added livestakes and trees to old trail, treated invasive veg May-19
Treated invasive veg.Aug-19
Year 5 Monitoring Dec-19 Oct-18 Mar-20
Beavers and dams removed by landowner Nov-Dec, 20
Repaired piping of log structure on UT-8 Feb-20
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
* Began seeding with the start of construction June, 2014 and site was seeded multiple times with a final entire area
overseeding at the time the bare root trees were planted.
** Construction of the majority of the site was completed by November 1, 2014 after a 2 week extension of the trout
moratorium. The Enhancement Reach was done after April 15, 2015 (when Trout Moratorium ends) and was
completed by May 12, 2015.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 5
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Monitoring Surveyor
Stephen Carroll, Tel. [phone]
River Works, Inc.
Contact:
Seeding Contractor
Raleigh, NC 27607
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Table 3. Project Contacts
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor
Designer
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Stephen Carroll, Tel. [phone]
River Works, Inc.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Green Resources (seed), Tel. [phone]
Dykes and Son (trees), 931-668-8833
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
ArborGen Inc. (trees), 843-528-3204
Contact:
Raleigh, NC 27607
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Contact:
Nursery Stock Suppliers
River Works, Inc.
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Seed Mix Sources
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Stephen Carroll, Tel. [phone]
Stream and Vegetation Monitoring
Kee Mapping and SurveyingP.O. Box 2566
Asheville, NC 28802
Contact: Brad Kee, License #C-3039; Phone: [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 5
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Project Name
County
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
DWR Sub-basin
Project Drainage Area (AC)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
Parameters
R1 R2
Length of Reach (LF)40 138
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
Drainage Area (AC)
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Evolutionary Trend
Underlying Mapped Soils
Drainage Class
Soil Hydric Status
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
FEMA Classification
Native Vegetation Community
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation2
Parameters
R1 R2
Length of Reach (LF)40 138
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
Drainage Area (AC)
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Evolutionary Trend
Underlying Mapped Soils
Drainage Class
Soil Hydric Status
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
FEMA Classification
Native Vegetation Community
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation2
Regulation
Waters of the United States – Section 404
Waters of the United States – Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Historic Preservation Act
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Resolved
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
No-Rise
Mainstem - Reach 1
3,134
VIII
1,557
52.5
C; TR: +HQW
Developed (6%)
32
41.5
C; TR: +HQW
II
1,714
Project Information
Logan Creek Mitigation Project
Jackson
12.71
Latitude 35.132803 o Longitude -83.061046 o
Watershed Summary Information
NCDMS Land Use Classification for this
Hydrologic Unit
Stream Reach Summary Information
Other (.5%)
USGA Land Use Classification
Blue Ridge
Savannah River Basin
03060101 / 03060101010020
Keowee River: 0306010101
Mainstem 1353.5 at beginning to 1714 at end, UT1, UT4, UT6, UT7 & UT8 <13, UT2 = 26; UT3 = 32,
UT5 = 128.
<2%
Deciduous Forest (76%)
Evergreen Forest (8%)
Pasture Land (4.6%)
Forest (91%)
Agriculture (1.5%)
Shrub (1%)
Table 4. Project Attributes
Mainstem - Reach 2
1,038
VIII
Regulatory Considerations
Zone AE
C; TR: +HQW
B→C→E
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
6 other small UTs in R1
45 - 127
II
.02 to .04
40.5 - 32.5
52.5
C; TR: +HQW
C→E
SaC
Very deep, well drained, mod
permeable soils
Non-Hydric
0.007
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
type)
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
UT3
Notes:
1. See Figure 2.5 of Mitigation Plan for key to soil series symbols.
3. USGS Land Use Data (2001) used rather than CGIA Land Use Classification data which is more dated (1996)
NkA, SaC
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Site-specific
0.0134 (UT6)
<1%
Permit: WQC #3885
Categorical Exclusion
Categorical Exclusion
N/A
Certification, June 27, 2016
N/A
Site-specific
0.012
<1%
0.012
Site-specific
Somewhat poorly to well drained
NkA, SaC
Supporting Documentation
N/A
Somewhat poorly to well drained
NkA, SaC
No
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
type)
Permit: Action ID #2008-01711
E - B
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
32
41.5
<1%
0.012
II
B
<1%
127
Applicable
Yes
<1%
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
<1%
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
NoneNone
C-E
C→E
NkA
Poorly drained to very poorly
drained soils
Non-Hydric
0.004
Zone AE
B
NkA, SaC
Somewhat poorly to well drained
B
Site-specific
None
C-E
None
B
B
C; TR: +HQW
41.5
32
II
UT3
B
C; TR: +HQW
UT6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 5
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Appendix C
Vegetation Assessment Data
Includes:
Table 5 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 6 CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 7 Stem Count Arranged by Plot and Species
Figure 4 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Figure 4.1 Trail Relocation Photos - MY5
Table 7.1 Vegetative Problem Areas (e-file)
Table 7.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment at Logan
Creek (e-file)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
Stems1 Volunteers2 Total3
Success
Criteria Met?
1 647 81 728 Yes
2 364 283 647 Yes
3 405 526 931 Yes
4 526 243 769 Yes
5 850 971 1821 Yes
6 607 1133 1740 Yes
7 890 0 890 Yes
8 526 0 526 Yes
Project Avg 602 405 1,007 Yes
Stem Class
1Stream/ Wetland
Stems
2Volunteers
3Total
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT
include live stakes. No vines
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes.
Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation
Success Summary (2019, MY5)
Characteristics
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements by 10%
Report Prepared By Holland Youngman
Date Prepared 11/1/2019 14:05
database name 92515_Logan_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1_MY5.mdb
database location L:\projects\109243 - Logan Creek\Monitoring\YR5 Monitoring\2.0 -
Monitoring Data\App C - Vegetation\Veg Data
computer name ASHELHYOUNGMAN
file size 45764608
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and
natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code 92515
project Name Logan Creek
Description This Project will restore or enhance 4823 linear feet (LF) of stream
along Logan Creek.
River Basin Savannah
length(ft)5110
stream-to-edge width (ft)30
area (sq m)28481.19
Required Plots (calculated)8
Sampled Plots 8
Table 6. Vegetation Metadata
Logan Creek Stream and Restoration Project - Project #92515
P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 3 3 6 10 16 2 2 7 7 3 3 6 6
Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 5 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 2 2 8 8 3 3
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree 5 2 7
Leucothoe fontanesiana highland doghobble Shrub
Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Shrub 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 7 8 3 3 1 5 6 24 24 1 28 29 4 4
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 2 2 2 2 1 1
Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Tree
Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree
Quercus alba white oak Tree 3 3 1 1 2 2
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub
Unknown Shrub or Tree
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 9 9
16 2 18 9 7 16 10 13 23 13 6 19 21 24 45 15 28 43 22 0 22
3 1 3 5 1 5 4 2 5 7 2 7 7 1 8 6 1 6 7 0 7
647 81 728 364 283 647 405 526 931 526 243 769 850 971 1821 607 1133 1740 890 0 890
P = Planted This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems
V = Volunteer Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements by 10%
T = Total Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 5 5 32 10 42 32 10 42 32 25 57 32 30 62 32 32 33 33
Betula nigra river birch Tree 2 2 11 11 12 12 11 11 12 12 11 11 13 13
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 13 13 16 16 16 16 18 18 20 20 24 24
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 21 1 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 24 24 24 24
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree 5 2 7 5 5 7 7 9 9 11 11
Leucothoe fontanesiana highland doghobble Shrub 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 4
Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Shrub 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 2 2 9 67 76 11 65 76 10 35 45 9 55 64 11 11 17 17
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 20 20
Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Tree 2 2
Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree 14 14
Quercus alba white oak Tree 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 5 5 9 9 9 9 10 10 12 12 13 13
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree 1 1
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 1 1
Unknown Shrub or Tree 7 7
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 9 9 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 9 9
13 0 13 119 80 199 132 75 207 135 60 195 144 102 246 152 1 153 170 0 170
6 0 6 11 4 11 11 2 11 12 2 12 12 5 15 12 1 13 11 0 11
526 0 526 602 405 1007 668 379 1047 683 304 986 728 516 1244 769 5 774 860 0 860
P = Planted This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems
V = Volunteer Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements by 10%
T = Total Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
*MY0 was completed in spring 2015 after the trout moratorium, MY1 data was collected after the growing season in the winter 2015. This corrects an inaccurate date show on previous reports.
0.20
1size (ares)
size (ACRES)0.02
8
0.20 0.200.20
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot, continued
Project: Logan Creek, DMS Project 392515
92515-01-0008 MY3 (2017)MY2 (2016)MY1 (2015)*MY5 (2019)
8
1
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
92515-01-0004 92515-01-0005 92515-01-0006
Stem count
size (ares)1 1 1 1 1
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
92515-01-0001 92515-01-0002 92515-01-0003
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Project: Logan Creek, DMS Project 392515
Current Plot Data (MY5 2019)
0.20
8 8 8 8
0.20
92515-01-0007
1
0.02
Current Plot Data (MY5 2019)
MY4 (2018)
Annual Means
MY0 (2015)*
Figure 4. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
DMS Project #92515
Photo 1. Vegetation Plot 1 – Tree photo (October 23, 2019). Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 1 – Herbaceous photo
(October 23, 2019).
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 2 – Tree photo (October 23, 2019). Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 2 – Herbaceous photo
(October 23, 2019).
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 3 – Tree photo (October 23, 2019). Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 3 – Herbaceous photo
(October 23, 2019).
Logan Creek Site - Vegetation Plot Photos , DMS Project #92515 - continued

Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 4 – Tree photo (October 23, 2019). Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 4 – Herbaceous photo
(October 23, 2019).

Photo 9. Vegetation Plot 5 – Tree photo (October 23, 2019). Photo 10, Vegetation Plot 5 – Herbaceous photo
(October 23, 2019).

Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 6 – Tree photo (October 23, 2019). Photo 12. Vege tation Plot 6 – Herbaceous photo
(October 23, 2019).

Logan Creek Site - Vegetation Plot Photos , DMS Project #92515 - continued

Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 – Tree photo (October 23, 2019). Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 – Herbaceous photo
(October 23, 2019).

Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 – Tree photo (October 23, 2019). Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 – Herbaceous photo
(October 23, 2019).

Figure 4.1 Trial Relocation Photos – MY5 DMS Project #92515

Photo 17. Original Trail Relocation 1 facing upstream – Trail
was relocated away from the stream. Photo 18. Updated Conditions Trail Relocation 1 facing
upstream– Trail was relocated away from stream.

New Trail
Old Trail
Old Trail New Trail
Table 7.1 Vegetative Problem Areas MY5
Feature Category Station #/Range Probable Cause Photo #
Bare Bank None
Bare Bench None
Bare Flood Plain None
Invasive /Exotic
Populations None
Table 7.2 Vegetation Condition AssessmentPlanted Acreage11. Bare AreasNone0.1 acresPattern and Color0 0.00 0.0%2. Low Stem Density AreasNone0.1 acresPattern and Color0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.0%3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorNone0.25 acresPattern and Color0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.0%Easement Acreage24. Invasive Areas of Concern4None1000 SFPattern and Color00.00 0.0%5. Easement Encroachment Areas3There was one Encroachment Area (EA-1) noted in 2016 along the nature trail, in the area of stations 23+00 to 28+00. A new maintenance staff person had the nature trail mowed; however, a wider area was mowed than we verbally agreed should be maintained. The width was 10-12 feet wide, while we had agreed to a width of 4-6 feet wide, which approximates the width of the previously existing nature trail. We discussed this with staff at Lonesome Valley and they agreed to address this issue with the trail maintenance staff, and to be sure they know the proper width for future maintenance.During MY5 monitoring, it was noted that the trail is now being mowed at the appropriate width of 4-6 feet, and runs adjacent to but does not encroach upon the neighboring vegetation plot.none Light Blue 20.014 0.11%7.4912.71Number of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Easement AcreageVegetation CategoryDefinitionsMapping ThresholdCCPV Depiction% of Planted AcreageTotalCumulative TotalVegetation CategoryDefinitionsNumber of PolygonsMapping ThresholdCCPV DepictionCombined Acreage1= Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channelacreage, crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.2= The acreage within the easement boundaries.3= Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result ofencroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.4= Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concernspcies are those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrubstands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected tobe mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whetherremediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modestamounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herblayer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impacttree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to beobserved across the state with any frequency. Those inred italicsare of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projectsmonitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry forsituations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/areafeature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concernand species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

Appendix D
Stream Assessment Data

Includes:
Figure 5. Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Figure 6. Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 7. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8. Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 10. Monitoring Year 5 Stream Summary
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table 12. MY5 Stream Problem Areas and Photos (e-file)

Figure 5. Logan Creek Stream Restoration project
Photo Points - Monitoring Year 5, (Stationing is approximate)

Photo 1. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 – Station 40+45
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 2. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 – Station 40+45
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 3. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 – Station 38+60
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 4. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 – Station 38+60
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 5. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 – Station 36+75
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.

Photo 6. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 – Station 36+75
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 7. Logan Creek Photo Point 4 – Station 34+80
(October 23, 2019) downstream from left bank.
Photo 8. Logan Creek Photo Point 4 – Station 34+80
(October 23, 2019) upstream from left bank.

Photo 9. Logan Creek Photo Point 5 – Station 33+60
(October 23, 2019) upstream from right bank.
Photo 10. Logan Creek Photo Point 5 – Station 33+60
(October 23, 2019) downstream from right bank.

Photo 11. Logan Creek Photo Point 6 – Station 32+70
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 12. Logan Creek Photo Point 6 – Station 32+70
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 13. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 – Station 32+15
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from bridge.
Photo 14. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 – Station 32+00
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from bridge.

Photo 15. Logan Creek Photo Point 8a – Station 29+75
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 16. Logan Creek Photo Point 8b – Station 29+25
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.

Photo 17. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 – Station 26+75
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 18. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 – Station 26+75
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 19. Logan Creek Photo Point 10 – Station 25+25
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 20. Logan Creek Photo Point 10 – Station 25+25
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 21. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 – Station 23+20
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 22. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 – Station 23+20
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 23. Logan Creek Photo Point 12 – Station 21+20
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank. Photo 24. Logan Creek Photo Point 12 – Station 21+20
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 25. UT7 Photo Point 13 – (October 23, 2019)
upstream view from left bank. Photo 26. UT7 Photo Point 13 – (October 23, 2019)
downstream view from left bank.

Photo 27. Logan Creek Photo Point 14 – Station 19+45
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank. Photo 28. Logan Creek Photo Point 14 – Station 19+45
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 29. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 – Station 17+45
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank. Photo 30. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 – Station 17+45
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 31. UT4 Photo Point 16 – Station 0+40
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank. Photo 32. UT4 Photo Point 16 – Station 0+40
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 33. Logan Creek Photo Point 17 – Station 15+50
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank. Photo 34. Logan Creek Photo Point 17 – Station 15+50
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 35. Logan Creek Photo Point 18 – Station 12+90
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank. Photo 36. Logan Creek Photo Point 18 – Station 12+90
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 37. UT3 Photo Point 19 – Station 00+60
(October 23, 2019) upstream from left bank. Photo 38. UT3 Photo Point 19 – Station 00+60
(October 23, 2019) downstream from left bank.

Photo 39. UT3 Photo Point 19 – Station 00+60
(October 23, 2019) upstream from left bank to vernal
pool.
Intentionally left blank.

Photo 40. Logan Creek Photo Point 20 – Station 10+60
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 41. Logan Creek Photo Point 20 – Station 10+60
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 42. Logan Creek Photo Point 21 – Station 9+40
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 43. Logan Creek Photo Point 21 – Station 9+40
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 44. UT6 Photo Point 22 – Station 0+75
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 45. UT6 Photo Point 22 – Station 0+75
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 46. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 – Station 7+70
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 47. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 – Station 7+70
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 48. Logan Creek, Photo Point 24 – Station 5+70
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 49. Logan Creek, Photo Point 24 – Station 5+70
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 50. UT2, Photo Point 25 – Station 0+65
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 51. UT2, Photo Point 25 – Station 0+65
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from left bank.

Photo 52. Logan Creek, Photo Point 26 – Station 3+80
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 53. Logan Creek, Photo Point 26 – Station 3+80
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 54. Logan Creek, Photo Point 27 – Station 1+12
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 55. Logan Creek, Photo Point 27 – Station 1+12
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 56. UT8, Photo Point 28 – Station 1+10
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank and
confluence.
Photo 57. UT1, Photo Point 29 – Station 0+50
(October 23, 2019) view upstream and confluence.

Photo 58. Logan Creek, Photo Point 30 – Station 0+50
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 59. Logan Creek, Photo Point 30 – Station 0+50
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 60. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 31 – Station
1+80 (October 23, 2019) downstream view from mid-
channel to confluence.
Photo 61. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 31 – Station
1+80 (October 23, 2019) upstream view from mid-
channel to confluence.

Photo 62. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 32 –
(October 23, 2019) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 63. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 32 –
(October 23, 2019) upstream view from right bank.

Feature
Category Metric (per As-Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As-Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
1. Present?18 18 0 100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 18 18 0 100
3. Facet grades appears stable? 18 18 0 100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 18 18 0 100
5. Length appropriate? 18 18 0 100 100%
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?) 35 35 0 100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?) 35 35 0 100
3. Length appropriate? 35 35 0 100 100%
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering? (%) 100 100 0 100
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering? (%) 100 100 0 100 100%
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 17 19 2 89
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation? 19 19 0 100
3. Apparent Rc within spec? 19 19 0 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 19 19 0 100 97%
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 3,184 3,184 0 100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?3,184 3,184 0 100 100%
1. Free of back or arm scour?24 24 0 100
2. Height appropriate?24 24 0 100
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?24 24 0 100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?24 24 0 100 100%
1. Free of scour?24 24 0 100
2. Footing stable?24 24 0 100 100%
Feature
Category Metric (per As-Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As-Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
1. Present?10 10 0 100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?10 10 0 100
3. Facet grades appears stable?10 10 0 100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?10 10 0 100
5. Length appropriate?10 10 0 100 100%
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)13 13 0 100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?)13 13 0 100
3. Length appropriate?13 13 0 100 100%
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)100 100 0 100
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)100 100 0 100 100%
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?5 5 0 100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?5 5 0 100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?5 5 0 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?5 5 0 100 100%
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)1,038 1,038 0 100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?1,038 1,038 0 100 100%
1. Free of back or arm scour?11 11 0 100
2. Height appropriate?11 11 0 100
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?11 11 0 100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?11 11 0 100 100%
1. Free of scour?0 0 0
2. Footing stable?0 0 0
* Note: Most structures in Reach 2 were designed to have water go under them during low water, in order to move sand through the reach.
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Logan Creek, Reach 1 (3,184 LF), Restoration Reach
A. Riffles
B. Pools
C. Thalweg
D. Meanders
E. Bed
General
F. Vanes,
Rock/Log
Drop
Structures*
G. Wads/
Boulders
Logan Creek, Reach 2 (1,038 LF), Enhancement Reach
A. Riffles
B. Pools
C. Thalweg
D. Meanders
E. Bed
General
F. Vanes,
Rock/Log
Drop
Structures*
G. Wads/
Boulders

Feature
Category Metric (per As-Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As-Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
1. Present?3 3 0 100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?3 3 0 100
3. Facet grades appears stable?3 3 0 100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?3 3 0 100
5. Length appropriate?3 3 0 100 100%
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)3 3 0 100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?)3 3 0 100
3. Length appropriate?3 3 0 100 100%
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)100 100 0 100
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)100 100 0 100 100%
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?0 0
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?0 0
3. Apparent Rc within spec?0 0
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?0 0
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)178 178 0 100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?178 178 0 100 100%
1. Free of back or arm scour?4 4 0 100
2. Height appropriate?4 4 0 100
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?4 4 0 100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?4 4 0 100 100%
1. Free of scour?0 0
2. Footing stable?0 0
Feature
Category Metric (per As-Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As-Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
1. Present?3 3 0 100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?3 3 0 100
3. Facet grades appears stable?3 3 0 100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?3 3 0 100
5. Length appropriate?3 3 0 100 100%
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)2 2 0 100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?)2 2 0 100
3. Length appropriate?2 2 0 100 100%
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)100 100 0 100
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering? (%)100 100 0 100 100%
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?N/A N/A N/A 100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?N/A N/A N/A 100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?N/A N/A N/A 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?N/A N/A N/A 100 100%
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)127 127 0 100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?127 127 0 100 100%
1. Free of back or arm scour?2 2 0 100
2. Height appropriate?2 2 0 100
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?2 2 0 100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?2 2 0 100 100%
1. Free of scour?N/A N/A N/A N/A
2. Footing stable?N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
G. Wads/
Boulders
UT3 (178 LF)
A. Riffles
B. Pools
D. Meanders
E. Bed
General
C. Thalweg1
F. Vanes,
Rock/Log
Drop
Structures
UT6, (127 LF)
A. Riffles
B. Pools
C. Thalweg
D. Meanders
E. Bed
General
F. Vanes,
Rock/Log
Drop
Structures
G. Wads/
Boulders
Feature
Category Metric (per As-Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As-Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
1. Present?1 1 0 100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 1 1 0 100
3. Facet grades appears stable? 1 1 0 100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 1 1 0 100
5. Length appropriate? 1 1 0 100 100%
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?) 0 0 0
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?) 0 0 0
3. Length appropriate? 0 0 0
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering? (%) 100 100 0 100
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering? (%) 100 100 0 100 100%
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? N/A N/A N/A 100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation? N/A N/A N/A 100
3. Apparent Rc within spec? N/A N/A N/A 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? N/A N/A N/A 100 100%
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 45 45 0 100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting? 45 45 0 100 100%
1. Free of back or arm scour? 1 1 0 100
2. Height appropriate? 1 1 0 100
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 1 1 0 100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1 1 0 100 100%
1. Free of scour? N/A N/A N/A N/A
2. Footing stable? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F. Vanes,
Rock/Log
Drop
Structures
G. Wads/
Boulders
UT8, (45 LF)
A. Riffles
B. Pools
C. Thalweg
D. Meanders
E. Bed
General
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Gauge Watermark Height
(inches)*
MY1 None N\A 0
3/18/2016 Crest Gauge 25.75
8/17/2016 Crest Gauge 1.56
10/26/2017 Crest Gauge, Photographs 26.04
10/26/2017 Crest Gauge, Photographs 17.4
3/16/2018 Crest Gauge 12.84
6/12/2018** Crest Gauge, Photographs 11.88
5/7/2019 Crest Gauge 19.4
8/8/2019 Crest Gauge 5.2
10/23/2019 Crest Gauge 1.5
* height indicates the highest position of cork shavings on the dowel. ** No events recorded after 10/23/19.
MY5
Between 6/12/18 and 5/7/19
Between 5/7/19 and 8/8/19
Between 8/8/19 and
10/23/19
Between 3/16/2018 and
6/12/2018
MY4
Between 10/26/2017 and
3/16/2018
Crest Gauge reading taken on 5/7/2019 shows a distinct high flow event at 19.4 inches. Reading was taken
with three consecutive measurements.
Crest gauge reading takenon 8/8/19 shows a distinct
high flow event at 5.2 inches.
Crest gauge reading taken on 10/23/19 shows a
high flow event at 1.5 inches.
MY3
Date of Data Collection Method of Data Collection Logan Creek Station
30+00
Year
MY2
Date of Event
2 events: 1 in Dec-15 and 1
in Jan-16.
undetermined
Between 7/26/2017 and
10/26/2017
10/23/2017
No events
0‐7 inches 7‐14 inches 14‐19.4 inches
Feature Stream Type BKF Area
BKF Width BKF Depth
Max BKF Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthRiffle E 66.72 27.27 2.45 4.70 11.13 1.03 2.56 3173.07 3173.07 4.70
Looking at the Right BankLooking at the Left Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
Figure 6. Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Permanent Cross-Section 1
3166
3168
3170
3172
3174
3176
3178
3180
0 1020304050607080Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
Logan Creek Cross-section 1, Station 3+10
FloodproneABKFBKFAs-BuiltMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area
BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthPool - 61.17 25.81 2.37 4.99 10.89 2.35 3172.34 3172.83 5.42
MY3
Permanent Cross-Section 2
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3166
3168
3170
3172
3174
3176
3178
0 10203040506070Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
Logan Creek Cross-section 2, Station 3+70
FloodproneBKFAs-BuiltMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthRiffle E 51.95 24.47 2.12 3.04 11.54 1.06 4.06 3169.03 3169.25 3.26
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-Section 3
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
0 10203040506070Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
Logan Creek Cross-section 3, Station 12+57
FloodproneABKFBKFMY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthPool E 74.43 27.41 2.72 6.01 10.08 3.58 3168.40 3168.98 6.59
Permanent Cross-Section 4
(MY5Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3160
3162
3164
3166
3168
3170
3172
3174
3176
0 20406080100Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
Logan Creek Cross-section 4, Station 13+00
Floodprone
Bankfull
MY0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth
Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthPool - 70.73 23.75 2.98 5.44 7.97 3.80 3164.28 3164.38 5.54
Permanent Cross-Section 5
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3158
3160
3162
3164
3166
3168
3170
3172
0 20406080100Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
Logan Creek Cross-section 5, Station 25+43
Floodprone
Bankfull
As-Built
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area
BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthRiffle E 50.96 22.77 2.24 3.59 10.17 1.01 4.14 3163.6 3163.71 3.658
Permanent Cross-Section 6
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Right BankLooking at the Left Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
0 20406080100Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
Logan Creek Cross-section 6, Station 26+09
FloodproneABKFBankfullMY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth
Max BKF Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthPool - 7.57 9.45 0.8 1.45 11.81 3.56 3170.04 3170.12 1.53
Permanent Cross-section 7
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3168
3168.5
3169
3169.5
3170
3170.5
3171
3171.5
3172
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
UT6 Cross-Section 7, Station 0+54
FloodproneABKFBankfullAs-BuiltMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth
Max BKF Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthRiffle E 3.28 5.89 0.56 0.85 10.52 0.94 5.14 3170.05 3170.10 0.90
Permanent Cross-section 8
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Right BankLooking at the Left Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
0 10203040Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+69
FloodproneABKFBankfullAs-BuiltMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth
Max BKF Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthPool - 7.69 8.63 0.89 1.47 9.7 5.68 3169.09 3170.27 2.65
* This Pool cross-section was not taken for the baseline but was added during MY1 survey and will be continued each year going forward.
Permanent Cross-section 8.5
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Right BankLooking at the Left Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3167
3167.5
3168
3168.5
3169
3169.5
3170
3170.5
3171
3171.5
0 10203040506070Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
UT3 Cross-Section 8.5*, Station 0+60
Floodprone
Bankfull
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth
Max BKF Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthRiffle E 3.63 6.02 0.6 1.11 10.03 0.8626 5.18 3168.83 3168.78 1.06
Permanent Cross-section 9
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank
* The stationing shown on this cross section plot has been changed to correct an error shown in the MY0 plots.
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3167
3167.5
3168
3168.5
3169
3169.5
3170
3170.5
3171
0 10203040506070Elevation
Station
UT3 Cross-Section 9, Station 0+73*
Floodprone
ABKF
Bankfull
MY0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area
BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthPool - 75.71 32.18 2.35 3.59 13.69 1.85 3159.66 3160.614 4.54
Permanent Cross-section 10
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3154
3156
3158
3160
3162
3164
3166
0 10203040506070Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
Logan Creek Cross-section 10, Station 37+05
Enhancement Reach
FloodproneBankfullMY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area
BKF Width BKF Depth Max BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthRiffle B 56.53 34.98 1.62 3.16 21.59 1.13 1.51 3159.97 3160.39 3.58
Permanent Cross-section 11
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
0 102030405060Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
Logan Creek Cross-section 11, Station 37+20
Enhancement Reach
FloodproneABKFBankfullMY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
Feature Stream Type BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth
Max BKF Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Low TOB DepthRiffle E 6.09 8.69 0.7 1.37 12.41 1.0169 4.97 3173.54 3173.55 1.38
*This Riffle cross-section was not taken during AB or MY1 surveys but was added in MY2 and will be continued each year going forward.
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 12
(MY5 Data - collected October, 2019)
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as-built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as-built cross sectional area.
3172
3172.5
3173
3173.5
3174
3174.5
3175
3175.5
0 1020304050Elevation (Ft)Station (Ft)
UT8 Cross-Section 12, Station 0+9.6
Floodprone LineABKFBankfullMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
31623163316431653166316731683169317031713172317331743175317631770 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Profile of Logan Creek, Station 0+00 to 16+00, Compared to As-built Thalweg (MY0)Low BankWSFMY0 TWGMY5 TWGX‐2X‐3X‐4X‐1Start of LC‐R1316231633164316531663167316831693170317131720 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600Elevation (ft) Station (ft)Profile of Logan Creek Thalweg, Station 0+00 to 16+00, Year to Year Comparison of ThalwegMY0 TWGMY1 TWGMY2 TWGMY3 TWGMY4 TWGMY5 TWG
315631573158315931603161316231633164316531663167316831691600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Profile of Logan Creek, Station 16+00 to 32+00 Compared to As-built Thalweg (MY0)Low BankWSFMY0 TWGMY5 TWGX‐6End of LC‐R1X‐5315631573158315931603161316231633164316531663167316831691600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200Elevation (ft) Station(ft)Profile of Logan Creek Thalweg, Station 16+00 to 32+00 Year to Year Comparison of ThalwegMY0 TWGMY1 TWGMY2 TWGMY3 TWGMY4 TWGMY5 TWG
315231533154315531563157315831593160316131623163316431653200330034003500360037003800390040004100420043004400Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Profile of Logan Creek, Station 32+43 to 42+81 Compared to As-built Thalweg (MY0)Low BankWSFMY0 TWGMY5 TWGStart of LC‐R2XS‐10XS‐11315231533154315531563157315831593160316131623163316431653200330034003500360037003800390040004100420043004400Elevation (ft) Station (ft)Profile of Logan Creek Thalweg, Station 32+43 to 42+81 Year to Year Comparison of ThalwegMY0 TWGMY1 TWGMY2 TWGMY3 TWGMY4 TWGMY5 TWGEnd of LC‐R2
31653166316731683169317031710 20406080100120140160Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60Compared to As-built ThalwegLow BankWSFMY0MY5XS ‐9 XS ‐8.5 31653165.531663166.531673167.531683168.531690 20406080100120140160Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60Year to Year Comparison of ThalwegMY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
31673167.531683168.531693169.531703170.531713171.531720 20406080100120140160Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Profile of UT6, Station 0+00 to 1+20Compared to As-built ThalwegLow BankWSFAs-BuiltMY5X‐7X‐8 31673167.531683168.531693169.531700 20406080100120140160Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Profile of UT6, Station 0+00 to 1+20Year to Year Comparison of ThalwegAs-BuiltMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5
* Note: This profile was added in MY1 because restoration credit is being requested for this reach. However, the profile on this reach was not surveyed and included in the MY0 report. 3169.531703170.531713171.531723172.531733173.531743174.50 1020304050Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Profile of UT8, Station 0+00 to 0+45Compared to MY1 Thalweg*Low BankWSFMY1MY5XS ‐ 123169.531703170.531713171.531723172.531733173.531743174.50 1020304050Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Profile of UT8, Station 0+00 to 0+45Year to Year Comparison of Thalweg*Low BankWSFMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5XS ‐ 12
Cross-Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 5Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515 SITE OR PROJECT:REACH/LOCATION:FEATURE:DATE:DistributionMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Total Class % % CumPlot Size (mm)Silt/ClaySilt / Clay < .0630%0.063Very Fine .063 - .12533% 3%0.125Fine .125 - .251313% 16%0.25Medium .25 - .5016%0.50Coarse .50 - 1.022% 18%1.0Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.018%2.0Very Fine 2.0 - 2.811% 19%2.8Very Fine2.8 - 4.011% 20%4.0Fine 4.0 - 5.611% 21%5.6Fine 5.6 - 8.011% 22%8.0Medium 8.0 - 11.02 2% 24%11.0Medium 11.0 - 16.09 9% 33%16.0Coarse 16 - 22.616 16% 49%22.6Coarse 22.6 - 32 13 13% 61%32Very Coarse 32 - 4519 19% 80%45Very Coarse 45 - 646 6% 86%64Small 64 - 902 2% 88%90Small 90 - 1285 5% 93%128Large 128 - 1803 3% 96%180Large 180 - 2561 1% 97%256Small 256 - 362 11% 98%362Small 362 - 512 22% 100%512Medium 512 - 1024100%1024Large-Very Large1024 - 2048100%2048BedrockBedrock > 2048100%5000101 100%D16 = 0.5D84 = 56.4D35 = 16.8D95 = 159.8D50 = 23.5D100 = 362 - 512Summary DataChannel materialsSandGravelCobbleBoulderTotal % of whole countLogan CrRiffle at XS1Riffle23-Oct-19MY5 20190%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Logan Creek Stream Restoration SiteMainstem at XS1Reach Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB 2015MY1 2015MY2 2016MY3 2017MY4 2018MY5 20190%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Logan Creek Stream Restoration SiteMainstem at XS1Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB 2015MY1 2015MY2 2016MY3 2017MY4 2018MY5 2019
Cross-Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 5Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515 SITE OR PROJECT:REACH/LOCATION:FEATURE:DATE:DistributionMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Total Class % % CumPlot Size (mm)Silt/ClaySilt / Clay < .0630%0.063Very Fine .063 - .12522% 2%0.125Fine .125 - .2544% 6%0.25Medium .25 - .506%0.50Coarse .50 - 1.022% 8%1.0Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.08%2.0Very Fine 2.0 - 2.88%2.8Very Fine2.8 - 4.022% 10%4.0Fine 4.0 - 5.633% 13%5.6Fine 5.6 - 8.055% 18%8.0Medium 8.0 - 11.08 8% 26%11.0Medium 11.0 - 16.025 25% 50%16.0Coarse 16 - 22.614 14% 64%22.6Coarse 22.6 - 32 19 19% 83%32Very Coarse 32 - 456 6% 89%45Very Coarse 45 - 644 4% 93%64Small 64 - 906 6% 99%90Small 90 - 12899%128Large 128 - 1801 1% 100%180Large 180 - 256100%256Small 256 - 362100%362Small 362 - 512100%512Medium 512 - 1024100%1024Large-Very Large1024 - 2048100%2048BedrockBedrock > 2048100%5000101 100%D16 = 7.0D84 = 33.6D35 = 12.7D95 = 71.5D50 = 15.9D100 = 128 - 180Summary DataChannel materialsSandGravelCobbleBoulderTotal % of whole countLogan CrRiffle at XS3Riffle23-Oct-19MY5 20190%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Logan Creek Stream Restoration SiteMainstem at XS3Reach Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB 2015MY1 2015MY2 2016MY3 2017MY4 2018MY5 20190%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.010.1110100100010000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Logan Creek Stream Restoration SiteMainstem at XS3Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB 2015MY1 2015MY2 2016MY3 2017MY4 2018MY5 2019
SITE OR PROJECT:REACH/LOCATION:FEATURE:DATE:DistributionMATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Total Class % % CumPlot Size (mm)Silt/ClaySilt / Clay < .0630%0.063Very Fine .063 - .12511% 1%0.125Fine .125 - .2544% 5%0.25Medium .25 - .505%0.50Coarse .50 - 1.033% 8%1.0Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.022% 10%2.0Very Fine 2.0 - 2.810%2.8Very Fine2.8 - 4.011% 11%4.0Fine 4.0 - 5.611% 12%5.6Fine 5.6 - 8.044% 16%8.0Medium 8.0 - 11.04 4% 20%11.0Medium 11.0 - 16.05 5% 25%16.0Coarse 16 - 22.613 13% 38%22.6Coarse 22.6 - 32 13 13% 50%32Very Coarse 32 - 4520 20% 70%45Very Coarse 45 - 6414 14% 84%64Small 64 - 9010 10% 94%90Small 90 - 1283 3% 97%128Large 128 - 1801 1% 98%180Large 180 - 2562 2% 100%256Small 256 - 362100%362Small 362 - 512100%512Medium 512 - 1024100%1024Large-Very Large1024 - 2048100%2048BedrockBedrock > 2048100%5000101 100%D16 = 8.1D84 = 63.7D35 = 21.1D95 = 100.6D50 = 31.6D100 = 180 - 256Total % of whole countSummary DataChannel materialsMY5 2019SandGravelCobbleBoulderCross-Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 5Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515 Logan CrRiffle at XS6Riffle23-Oct-190%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Class PercentParticle Size Class (mm)Logan Creek Stream Restoration SiteMainstem at XS6Reach Pebble Count Size Class DistributionAB 2015MY1 2015MY2 2016MY3 2017MY4 2018MY5 20190%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.010.1110100100010000Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Logan Creek Stream Restoration SiteMainstem at XS6Pebble Count Particle Size DistributionAB 2015MY1 2015MY2 2016MY3 2017MY4 2018MY5 2019
Table 10. Monitoring Year 5 Stream SummaryLogan Creek Restoration Project; DMS Project ID No. 94645Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft) - 26.4 28.3 - 22.9 27.3 23.8 38.7 6.6 4 - 16.7 - - --- 26.0 - - - - 23.6 24.3 24.1 25.2 0.67 3 22.6 23.7 24.0 24.3 0.77 3 22.5 26.2 24.3 33.9 4.50 4 22.4 26.2 24.1 34.1 4.62 4 22.6 26.7 25.1 34.2 4.46 4 22.6 27.3 25.9 35.0 4.7 4Floodprone Width (ft) -- - - - ------35.0--- - -150.00 - - - - - >150 - - - 3 - >150 - - - 3 >54 >80 - >100 - 4 >54 >80 - >100 - 4 >54 >80 - >100 - 4 >54 >80>1004BF Mean Depth (ft) - 1.4 1.5 - 1.50 2.2 2.4 2.60 0.4 4 - 1.06 - - --- 2.3 - - - - 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.6 0.22 3 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.6 0.21 3 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.7 0.32 4 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.7 0.34 4 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.5 0.28 4 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.5 0.30 4BF Max Depth (ft) -- - - 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.8 0.2 4 - 1.54 - - --- 4.0 - - - - 3.1 3.4 3.43.7 0.24 3 2.9 3.4 3.5 4.0 0.45 3 3.0 3.5 3.4 4.3 0.53 4 2.9 3.5 3.3 4.3 0.53 4 3.0 3.6 3.4 4.6 0.64 4 3.0 3.6 3.4 4.7 0.66 4BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) - 37.5 42.7 - 55.8 58.0 58.4 59.5 1.36 4 - 17.7 - - --- 58.5 - - - - 51.7 56.0 53.2 63.0 5.01 3 50.2 54.6 51.2 62.4 5.53 3 51.4 57.7 57.3 64.8 5.74 4 50.8 56.8 55.9 64.7 5.60 4 49.1 55.9 54.9 64.9 6.19 4 49.1 56.1 54.2 66.7 6.69 4Width/Depth Ratio -- - - 8.9 13.6 9.8 25.7 7.01 4 - 15.8 - - --- 12 - - - - 9.2 10.710.8 12.0 1.12 3 9.3 10.3 10.1 11.6 0.96 3 8.9 12.2 10.6 18.6 3.81 4 8.9 12.4 10.6 19.6 4.24 4 10.3 13.0 10.9 20.0 4.04 4 10.3 13.6 11.3 21.6 4.61 4Entrenchment Ratio -- - - 3.4 11.3 12.0 17.8 5.83 4 - 2.0 - - --- 5.8 - - - - 2.9 3.6 3.9 4.0 0.50 3 2.9 3.7 4.0 4.1 0.54 3 1.6 3.2 3.5 4.2 1.06 4 1.5 3.2 3.5 4.2 1.08 4 1.5 3.1 3.4 4.2 1.10 4 1.5 3.1 3.3 4.2 1.11 4Bank Height Ratio -- - - 1 1.2 1.1 1.5 0.2 4 - 1.2 - - --- 1.0 - - - - 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.0 0.00 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.05 3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.09 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.04 4 1.01 1.05 1.02 1.14 0.06 4 1.01 1.06 1.05 1.13 0.05 4d50 (mm) -- - - - --------- - -12.4----12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 0.00 130.7 38.3 41.1 43.0 5.41 3 15.2 21.7 20.7 29.2 5.8 3 22.2 26.8 23.3 35.0 5.8 3 21.6 34.0 34.7 45.0 8.3 3 15.9 23.7 23.5 31.6 6.4 3PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) -- - - 194 216 217 252 18.13 7 - 80 - - --65 - - 140 - - 130.0 193.2 190.0 258.0 41.45 6 130.0 193.2 190.0 258.0 41.5 6 130.0 193.2 190.0 258.0 41.5 6 130.0 193.2 190.0 258.0 41.5 6 130.0 193.2 190.0 258.0 41.5 6 130.0 193.2 190.0 258.0 41.5 6Radius of Curvature (ft) -- - - 23 32 30 46 8.6 5 - 23 - - --28 - - 75 - - 44.0 63.9 66.1 104.0 17.17 9 44.0 63.9 66.1 104.0 17.2 9 44.0 63.9 66.1 104.0 17.2 9 44.0 63.9 66.1 104.0 17.2 9 44.0 63.9 66.1 104.0 17.2 9 44.0 63.9 66.1 104.0 17.2 9Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) -- - - 0.85 1.19 1.11 1.7 0.32 5 - 1.38 - - -- 1.1 - - 2.9 - - 1.80 2.60 2.70 4.30 0.71 9 1.80 2.60 2.70 4.30 0.71 9 1.80 2.60 2.70 4.30 0.71 9 1.80 2.60 2.70 4.30 0.71 9 1.80 2.60 2.70 4.30 0.71 9 1.80 2.60 2.70 4.30 0.71 9Meander Wavelength (ft) -- - - 120 177 197 239 46.75 5 - 150 - - -- 118 - - 236 - -145.0 236.7 244.5 321.0 48.10 12 145.0 236.7 244.5 321.0 48.1 12 145.0 236.7 244.5 321.0 48.1 12 145.0 236.7 244.5 321.0 48.1 12 145.0 236.7 244.5 321.0 48.1 12 145.0 236.7 244.5 321.0 48.1 12Meander Width Ratio -- - - 4.44 6.56 7.3 8.85 1.73 5 - 4.8 - - -- 2.5 - - 5.4 - - 6.0 9.7 10.1 13.2 1.98 12 6.0 9.7 10.1 13.2 2.0 12 6.0 9.7 10.1 13.2 2.0 12 6.0 9.7 10.1 13.2 2.0 12 6.0 9.7 10.1 13.2 2.0 12 6.0 9.7 10.1 13.2 2.0 12ProfileRiffle Length (ft)- - ------------- - - - ----------25.768.165.3149.8 31.6 16 18.6 90.5 93.5 162.3 47.4 9 40.6 105.7 90.6 238.8 61.8 9 27.5 103.3 80.6 220.2 65.3 9 52.4 95.8 95.8 134.4 23.9 9Riffle Slope (ft/ft)- - ---------0.019--- -0.003- -0.007--------0.0009 0.0079 0.0049 0.0218 0.0065 16 0.0025 0.0076 0.0075 0.0162 0.0042 9 0.0060 0.0046 0.0034 0.0118 0.0036 9 0.0031 0.0078 0.0064 0.0129 0.0033 9 0.0045 0.0077 0.0079 0.0111 0.0017 9Pool Length (ft)- - ------------- - - - ----------31.066.464.5112.2 25.4 19 48.1 89.2 82.2 150.6 29.1 14 24.2 89.2 82.2 150.6 29.1 14 28.5 90.1 84.5 208.8 45.2 14 31.2 81.4 82.9 111.8 21.6 14Pool Spacing (ft)- - ---------75--- - 94- -165--------86.6148.6 143.5 292.6 51.9 20 50 127.4 119.8 264 46.3 24 38 152.3 126.5 524 109.0 24 52.1 141.7 132.8 239.5 54.6 23 51.9 109.4 108.5 186.6 38.1 22Pool Max Depth (ft) -- - - 2.9 3.8 4.0 4.5 0.64 3 - 2.28 - - --- 6.00 - - - - 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.4 0.1 3 5.1 5.4 5.3 5.9 0.36 3 5 5.3 5.4 5.4 0.15 3 3 3.3 3.3 3.9 0.40 4 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 0.4 4 3.6 5.0 5.2 6.0 0.9 4Pool Volume (ft3)- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 -- - ------ - - - ----Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f²- - ------------ - - - ----------------------------------------Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) -- - - - - - -------- - - - ----------------------------------------Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²- - ------------ -- ----------------------------------------Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) --0.83- - - -Impervious cover estimate (%)- - ------------- - -2.67-----2.67-----2.67-----2.67-----2.67-----2.67-----2.67----Rosgen Classification- - ---C4 to E4-----C4--- - -C4-----C4-----C4-----C4-----C4-----C4-----C4----BF Velocity (fps)- - ---------3.55--- - -4.31-----4.33-----4.20-----4.20-----4.20-----4.20-----4.20----BF Discharge (cfs) - 205.7 237.0- ------98--- - -271.5 - - - - - 242.6 - - - - - 264.8 - - - - - 264.8 - - - - - 264.8 - - - - - 264.8-----264.8 - - - -35- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Channel length (ft)- - ---4,700--------- - -4,101-----4,172-----4,172-----4,172-----4,172-----4,172-----4,172----Sinuosity -- - - - ------2.01--- - -1.3-----1.31-----1.34-----1.34-----1.34-----1.34-----1.34----Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)- - ---------0.0079 - - --- 0.0035 - - - - - 0.0039 - - - - - 0.0033 - - - - - 0.0033 - - - - - 0.0033 - - - - - 0.0033-----0.0033 - - - -BF slope (ft/ft)- - ---------0.016--- - -0.0047 - - - - - 0.0052 - - - - - 0.0044 - - - - - 0.0044 - - - - - 0.0044 - - - - - 0.0044-----0.0044 - - - -Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) -- - - ---------- - - - ----------------------------------------BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Channel Stability or Habitat Metric -- - - - ---------- - - - ----------------------------------------Biological or Other- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft)-5.34.1--------16.7--- - -6.0----6.16.26.26.30.062-5.9---1-5.8---1-6.2---1-5.5---1-6.0---1Floodprone Width (ft) -- - - - ------35.0--- - - - ----->27-----28.1---1-22.6---1-22.6---1-22.6---1- 23.4 - - - 1BF Mean Depth (ft)-0.40.5--------1.06--- - -0.7----0.700.700.700.80 0.02 2.00 - 0.70 - - - 1 - 0.70 - - - 1 - 0.60 - - - 1 - 0.69 - - - 1 - 0.60 - - - 1BF Max Depth (ft)- - ---------1.54--- - -----1.11.21.21.20.02-1.1--- 1 - 1.0 - - - 1 - 1.0 - - - 1 -1.0---1-1.1---1BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-1.94.1--------17.7--- - -4.2----4.54.6 4.6 4.6 0.1 2 - 4.1 - - - 1 - 4.0 - - - 1 - 3.8 - - - 1 - 3.8 - - - 1 - 3.6 - - - 1Width/Depth Ratio- - ---------15.8--- - -----8.18.48.48.70.32-8.5---1-8.4---1-9.9---1-7.9---1-10.0---1Entrenchment Ratio- - ---------2.0--- - - - ----4.35.55.56.61.22-4.0---1-3.9---1-4.9---1-5.3---1-5.2---1Bank Height Ratio- - ---------1.2--- - - - ----1.01.01.01.00.02-1.0--- 1 - 1.0 - - - 1 - 1.1 - - - 1 - 0.96 - - - 1 - 0.90 - - - 1d50 (mm) -- - - --------- - - - ----------------------------------------PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)- - ---------80--- - - - ----------------------------------------Radius of Curvature (ft)- - ---------23--- - - - ----------------------------------------Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)- - ---------1.38--- - - - ----------------------------------------Meander Wavelength (ft)- - ---------150--- - - - ----------------------------------------Meander Width Ratio- - ---------4.8--- - - - ----------------------------------------ProfileRiffle Length (ft)- - ------------- -12.031.819.077.026.3414.318.714.9 30.5 6.9 4 27.1 43.8 43.8 60.5 16.7 2 24.1 42.8 39.3 64.9 16.8 3 15.3 31.5 20.3 58.7 19.4 3 20.7 35.6 24.4 61.8 18.6 3 16.2 29.3 20.1 51.6 15.8 3Riffle Slope (ft/ft)- - ---------0.019--- -0.0052 0.0107 0.0106 0.017 0.0041 4 0.0000 0.0078 0.0118 0.0140 0.0084 4 0.0000 0.0032 0.0032 0.0064 0.0032 2 0.0072 0.0092 0.0084 0.0121 0.0021 3 0.0049 0.0061 0.0065 0.0068 0.0008 3 0.0063 0.0202 0.0115 0.0427 0.0161 3 0.0029 0.0080 0.0075 0.0137 0.0044 3Pool Length (ft)- - ------------- - -6.0--046.511.67.921.45.755.6811.56 11.70 17.29 4.70 3 7.50 10.90 10.20 15.00 3.10 3 6.99 9.42 8.58 12.68 2.403 3.94 9.72 6.70 18.53 6.30 3 6.97 13.16 14.23 18.27 4.68 3Pool Spacing (ft)- - ---------75--- -18.022.724.026.03.4322.239.042.4 48.8 10.2 4 21.23 42.9 38.02 69.37 20 3 24.1 42.8 39.3 64.9 16.8 3 32.2 44.4 34.6 66.5 15.6 3 34.3 45.1 34.8 66.2 14.9 3 35.5 45.9 36.3 65.8 14.1 3Pool Max Depth (ft)- - ---------2.28--- - -1.2----1.7----1-1.5-----1.5-----1.0-----0.9---- 1.5-Pool Volume (ft3)- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 -- - - - ---------- -------------------------------------Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f²- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) -- - - - - - -------- - - - ----------------------------------------Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----0.83--- - - - ---------------------------Impervious cover estimate (%)- - ------------- - - - -----<5%------------------------Rosgen Classification- - ---------C4--- - - - -----C------------------------BF Velocity (fps)- - -------7-3.55--- - - - -----4.27------------------------BF Discharge (cfs)-7.818.3 -------98--- - - - -----212.2 - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - -35- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Channel length (ft)2- - ---75--------- - -311.0 - - - - - 350 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sinuosity - - - - - ------2.01--- - - - -----1.5----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)- - ---------0.0079 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0043 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -BF slope (ft/ft)- - ---------0.016--- - - - -----0.004----------------------------------Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) - - - - - ---------- - - - ----------------------------------------BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Channel Stability or Habitat Metric -- - - - ---------- - - - ----------------------------------------Biological or Other- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Logan Creek Mainstem1 . Harman, W.A., D.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, MA Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.R. Clinton, J.M. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. In: AWRA Conference Proceedings, D.L. Kane, editor. American Water Resources Specialty Conference on Water Resources in Extreme Environments. Anchorage, Alaska. UT31. Harman, W.A., D.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, MA Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.R. Clinton, J.M. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. In: AWRA Conference Proceedings, D.L. Kane, editor. American Water Resources Specialty Conference on Water Resources in Extreme Environments. Anchorage, Alaska. 22.1 1531.170.0225MY5mean 5.2 / 16.9 / 23.7 / 51.2 / 110.62.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towards end of projectMY50.05<5%E4.81 1531.170.0225NC Mtn./NC Pied. Rural-Morgan Creek0.05Regional Curve Interval 10.05MY3mean 10.2 / 18.2 / 26.8 / 49.7 / 82.22.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towards end of projectMY30.05MY2mean 6.7/ 16.3 / 22.2 / 45.4 / 91.4MY1MY1As-builtRight Prong Logan Creek2.1 to 2.67ParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval 1Pre-Existing Condition1Design0.05mean 5.1 / 10.9 / 16.5 / 34.8 / 55.9NC Mtn. Regional CurveReference Reach DataParameterUSGS Gauge0.8 / 5.8 / 12.4 / 35.4 / 169.60.052.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towards end of project2.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towards end of project2.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towards end of projectAs-builtDesign2.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towards end of projectMY2C<5%mean 17.3/ 28.6 / 36.9 / 71.8 / 123.12.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towads end of projectE4.81 22.1 MY40.05<5%E4.81 1531.170.02250.05<5% <5%E4.81 22.1 MY4mean 14.0 / 24.0 / 34.0 / 66.0 / 121.62.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towards end of project0.02251534.81 22.1 1.17Pre-Existing Condition1Reference Reach Data22.1 1531.170.0225MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. MY5 REPORTLOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTDMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Table 10. Monitoring Year 5 Stream SummaryLogan Creek Restoration Project; DMS Project ID No. 94645Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft)-5.34.1--------16.7--- - -6.0----6.16.26.26.30.062-5.8 - - - 1 - 5.8 - - - 1 - 6.0 - - - 1 - 5.64 - - - 1 - 5.89 - - - 1Floodprone Width (ft) -- - - - ------35.0--- - - - ----->27-----32.4---1->35---1->35---1->35---1->35- - - 1BF Mean Depth (ft)-0.40.5--------1.06--- - -0.7----0.700.700.700.80 0.02 2.00 - 0.70 - - - 1 - 0.60 - - - 1 - 0.60 - - - 1 - 0.50 - - - 1 - 0.56 - - - 1BF Max Depth (ft)- - ---------1.54--- - -----1.11.21.21.20.02-0.9---1-0.9---1-0.9---1-0.8---1-0.9---1BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-1.94.1--------17.7--- - -4.2----4.54.6 4.6 4.6 0.1 2 - 3.8 - - - 1 - 3.7 - - - 1 - 3.8 - - - 1 - 2.8 - - - 1 - 3.3 - - - 1Width/Depth Ratio- - ---------15.8--- - -----8.18.48.48.70.32-9.0--- 1 - 9.1 - - - 1 - 9.5 - - - 1 - 11.3 - - - 1 - 10.5 - - - 1Entrenchment Ratio- - ---------2.0--- - - - ----4.35.55.56.61.22-5.6---1-5.4---1-4.9---1-5.2---1-5.1---1Bank Height Ratio- - ---------1.2--- - - - ----1.01.01.01.00.02-1.0---1-1.0---1-1.1---1-1.0---1-0.9---1d50 (mm) -- - - --------- - - - ---------------1-----1-----1-----1------PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)- - ---------80--- - - - ----------------------------------------Radius of Curvature (ft)- - ---------23--- - - - ----------------------------------------Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)- - ---------1.38--- - - - ----------------------------------------Meander Wavelength (ft)- - ---------150--- - - - ----------------------------------------Meander Width Ratio- - ---------4.8--- - - - ----------------------------------------ProfileRiffle Length (ft)- - ------------- -12.031.819.077.026.3414.318.714.9 30.5 6.9 4 17.8 27.0 27.0 36.3 9.2 2 27.5 31.0 31.0 34.5 3.5 2 35.2 35.4 35.4 35.6 0.2 2 27.2 27.7 27.7 28.1 0.4 2 28.7 32.2 32.2 35.6 3.4 2Riffle Slope (ft/ft)- - ---------0.019--- -0.0052 0.0107 0.0106 0.017 0.0041 4 0.0000 0.0078 0.0118 0.0140 0.0084 4 0.0014 0.0052 0.0052 0.0090 0.0038 2 0.0029 0.0033 0.0033 0.0036 0.0004 2 0.0014 0.0021 0.0021 0.0028 0.0007 2 0.0009 0.0037 0.0037 0.0066 0.0029 2 0.0042 0.0066 0.0066 0.0090 0.0024 2Pool Length (ft)- - ------------- - -6.0--046.511.67.921.45.7519.7526.73 26.73 33.70 7.00 2 9.40 16.30 16.30 23.20 6.90 2 2.76 9.51 9.51 16.26 6.8 2 22.49 23.09 23.09 23.69 0.6 2 20.56 21.95 21.95 23.33 1.4 2Pool Spacing (ft)- - ---------75--- -18.022.724.026.03.4322.239.042.4 48.8 10.2 4 39.46 42.9 42.9 46.34 3.40 2 45.60 46.85 46.85 48.10 1.25 2 46.87 47.9 47.91 48.94 1.00 2 44.71 46.70 46.73 48.74 2.00 2 45.24 46.69 46.69 48.13 1.45 2Pool Max Depth (ft)- - ---------2.28--- - -1.2----1.7----1-1.5-----1.17-----0.735-----0.87----1.50Pool Volume (ft3)- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 -- - - - ---------- -------------------------------------Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f²- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) -- - - - - - -------- - - - ----------------------------------------Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----0.83--- - - - ---------------------------Impervious cover estimate (%)- - ------------- - - - -----<5%------------------------Rosgen Classification- - ---------C4--- - - - -----E------------------------BF Velocity (fps)- - -------7-3.55--- - - - -----4.27------------------------BF Discharge (cfs)-7.818.3 -------98--- - - - -----212.2 - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - -35- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Channel length (ft)2- - ---75--------- - -311.0 - - - - - 350 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Sinuosity - - - - - ------2.01--- - - - -----1.5----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)- - ---------0.0079 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0043 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -BF slope (ft/ft)- - ---------0.016--- - - - -----0.004----------------------------------Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) - - - - - ---------- - - - ----------------------------------------BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Channel Stability or Habitat Metric -- - - - ---------- - - - ----------------------------------------Biological or Other- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Dimension and Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBF Width (ft)-5.34.1--------16.7--- - -6.0-----------------8.1---1-8.4---1-10.3---1-8.7---1Floodprone Width (ft) -- - - - ------35.0--- - - - ----------------->50---1->50---1->50---1->50---1BF Mean Depth (ft)-0.40.5--------1.06--- - -0.7-----------------0.70---1-0.70---1-0.6---1-0.7---1BF Max Depth (ft)- - ---------1.54--- - ------------------1.4---1-1.2---1-1.3---1-1.4---1BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-1.94.1--------17.7--- - -4.2-----------------6.0---1-5.8---1-5.9---1-6.1---1Width/Depth Ratio- - ---------15.8--- - ------------------11.0---1-12.2 - - - 1 -17.7---1-12.4---1Entrenchment Ratio- - ---------2.0--- - - - -----------------5.3---1-5.1---1-4.2---1-5.0---1Bank Height Ratio- - ---------1.2--- - - - -----------------1.0---1-1.0---1-0.93---1-1.00---1d50 (mm) -- - - --------- - - - ----------------------------------------Pattern: reach is to short for this data.Channel Beltwidth (ft)- - ---------80--- - - - ----------------------------------------Radius of Curvature (ft)- - ---------23--- - - - ----------------------------------------Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)- - ---------1.38--- - - - ----------------------------------------Meander Wavelength (ft)- - ---------150--- - - - ----------------------------------------Meander Width Ratio- - ---------4.8--- - - - ----------------------------------------Profile: reach is to short for this data.Riffle Length (ft)- - ------------- -12.031.819.077.026.34------------------------------------Riffle Slope (ft/ft)- - ---------0.019--- -0.0052 0.0107 0.0106 0.017 0.0041 4------------------------------------Pool Length (ft)- - ------------- - -6.0--04------------------------------------Pool Spacing (ft)- - ---------75--- -18.022.724.026.03.43------------------------------------Pool Max Depth (ft)- - ---------2.28--- - -1.2----------------------------------------Pool Volume (ft3)- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Substrate and Transport ParametersRi% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 -- - - - ---------- -------------------------------------Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f²- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve) -- - - - - - -------- - - - ----------------------------------------Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM) ----0.83--- - - - --------------------------------Impervious cover estimate (%)- - ------------- - - - --------------------------------Rosgen Classification- - ---------C4--- - - - --------------------------------BF Velocity (fps)- - -------7-3.55--- - - - --------------------------------BF Discharge (cfs)-7.818.3 -------98--- - - - --------------------------------35- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Channel length (ft)2- - ---75--------- - -311.0 - - - -------------- ---- ---- ---- ---Sinuosity - - - - - ------2.01--- - - - ----------------- ---- ---- ---- ---Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)- - ---------0.0079 - - - - - - - - - -------------- ---- ---- ---- ---BF slope (ft/ft)- - ---------0.016--- - - - ----------------------------------------Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) - - - - - ---------- - - - ----------------------------------------BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------Channel Stability or Habitat Metric -- - - - ---------- - - - ----------------------------------------Biological or Other- - ------------- - - - ----------------------------------------C 3.3215.21041.040.0114UT6 3.3215.21041.040.0114MY50.02<5%<5%EMY30.02MY50.021.040.01143.3215.21041.040.0114MY30.02<5%EParameterAs-builtMY21041.040.01141041.040.020.02NC Mtn./NC Pied. RuralParameterUSGS GaugeRegional Curve Interval 1Pre-Existing Condition1Reference Reach DataDesign0.02 0.02Morgan CreekMY10.02<5%E1.040.0114MY40.02<5%0.02USGS GaugeAs-builtRegional Curve Interval 1Pre-Existing Condition13.3215.2Reference Reach DataMorgan Creek-Design15.20.02E3.32<5%MY20.01140.02<5%C 3.3215.2104NC Mtn./NC Pied. RuralE3.3215.2104-0.0114E3.3215.21041.04MY10.02<5%<5%E1. Harman, W.A., D.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, MA Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.R. Clinton, J.M. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. In: AWRA Conference Proceedings, D.L. Kane, editor. American Water Resources Specialty Conference on Water Resources in Extreme Environments. Anchorage, Alaska. UT81. Harman, W.A., D.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, MA Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.R. Clinton, J.M. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. In: AWRA Conference Proceedings, D.L. Kane, editor. American Water Resources Specialty Conference on Water Resources in Extreme Environments. Anchorage, Alaska. 3.3215.21041.040.0114MY4MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. MY5 REPORTLOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTDMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515Logan Creek (4,172 LF)Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBF Width (ft) 24.1 24.0 24.1 24.0 26.0 27.3 - 25.9 26.8 26.0 26.0 26.1 25.8 - 25.2 24.3 24.5 24.3 24.2 24.5 - 27.6 27.1 27.1 27.4 26.8 27.4 -BF Mean Depth (ft) 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 - 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4 - 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 - 2.3 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.7 -Width/Depth Ratio 9.2 9.3 8.9 8.9 10.4 11.1 - 10.5 11.0 10.3 10.2 10.9 10.9 -12.0 11.6 11.4 11.3 11.4 11.5 - 12.1 10.0 11.2 10.7 9.8 10.1 -BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 63.0 62.4 64.8 64.7 64.9 66.7 - 63.9 65.2 65.5 66.2 62.9 61.2 - 53.2 51.2 52.7 52.3 51.4 52.0 - 62.8 73.8 65.4 70.2 73.2 74.4 -BF Max Depth (ft) 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.7 - 5.2 5.1 5.1 4.9 4.9 5.0 - 3.1 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 - 5.2 5.9 5.4 5.5 4.7 6.0 -Width of Floodprone Area (ft) >70 >70 >70 >70 >70 >70 - >60 >60 >60 >60 >60>60 - >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 - >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 -Entrenchment Ratio 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 - 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 - 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.6 -Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 - 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 - 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 -Wetted Perimeter (ft) 29.3 29.3 29.5 29.4 31.0 31.0 - 30.9 31.7 31.0 31.1 31.0 30.6 - 29.5 28.6 28.8 28.6 28.4 28.7 - 32.2 32.6 31.9 32.5 32.3 32.9 -Hydraulic Radius (ft) 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 - 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 - 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 - 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.3 -BF Width (ft)----------------------------BF Mean Depth (ft)----------------------------Width/Depth Ratio----------------------------BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)----------------------------BF Max Depth (ft)----------------------------Width of Floodprone Area (ft)----------------------------Entrenchment Ratio----------------------------Bank Height Ratio----------------------------Wetted Perimeter (ft)----------------------------Hydraulic Radius (ft)----------------------------Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)----------------------------d50 (mm) 13.830.7 15.2 23.3 35.4 23.5 --------19.243 29.2 22.2 21.6 15.9 --------Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBF Width (ft) 21.3 24.0 23.9 23.8 23.6 23.8 - 23.6 22.6 22.5 22.4 22.6 22.8 - 31.0 33.4 33.4 33.3 33.0 32.2 - 29.2 33.9 33.9 34.1 34.2 35.0 -BF Mean Depth (ft) 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 - 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.4 - 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 -Width/Depth Ratio 7.1 7.8 7.8 8.0 7.9 8.0 - 10.8 10.1 9.9 9.9 10.3 10.2 - 14.415.6 15.9 14.8 14.1 13.7 - 14.0 18.6 18.6 19.6 20.0 21.6 -BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 63.9 74.3 73.3 71.0 70.6 70.7 - 51.7 50.2 51.4 50.8 49.1 51.0 - 66.6 71.2 70.3 74.7 77.1 75.7 - 60.7 61.8 61.8 59.4 58.3 56.5 -BF Max Depth (ft) 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 - 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 - 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 - 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.2 -Width of Floodprone Area (ft) >80 >90 >90 >90 >90 >90 - >95 >95 >95 >95 >95>95 - >60 >60 >60 >60 >60 >60 - >54 >54 >54 >54 >54 >54 -Entrenchment Ratio 4.4 4.4 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 - 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 - 4.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 - 4.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 -Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 - 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 -Wetted Perimeter (ft) 27.3 30.2 30.0 29.8 29.6 29.7 - 28.0 27.0 27.1 26.9 26.9 27.3 - 35.2 37.6 37.6 37.8 37.7 36.9 - 33.4 37.6 37.6 37.6 37.6 38.2 -Hydraulic Radius (ft) 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 - 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 - 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 - 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 -BF Width (ft)----------------------------BF Mean Depth (ft)----------------------------Width/Depth Ratio----------------------------BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)----------------------------BF Max Depth (ft)----------------------------Width of Floodprone Area (ft)----------------------------Entrenchment Ratio----------------------------Bank Height Ratio----------------------------Wetted Perimeter (ft)----------------------------Hydraulic Radius (ft)----------------------------Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)----------------------------d50 (mm) -------24.941.1 20.7 35.0 45.0 31.6 ---------------Cross-section 10, Station 37+05 (Pool), Enhancement ReachBased on current/developing bankfull featureBased on current/developing bankfull featureCross-section X-5, Station 25+43 (Pool), Restoration Reach Cross-section X-6, Station 26+09 (Riffle), Restoration ReachCross-section 11, Station 37+20 (Riffle), Enhancement ReachCross-section X-1, Station 3+10 (Riffle), Restoration Reach Cross-section X-2, Station 3+70 (Pool), Restoration Reach Cross-section X-3, Station 12+57 (Riffle), Restoration Reach Cross-section X-4, Station 13+00 (Pool)Note: Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY4 and MY5 has been calculated using the as-built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. MY5 REPORTLOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTDMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515UT3 (178 LF)Dimension and substrateBase* MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBF Width (ft)-8.68.28.98.78.6-6.35.95.86.25.56.0---------------BF Mean Depth (ft)-0.90.90.90.90.9-0.70.70.70.60.70.6---------------Width/Depth Ratio-9.49.99.99.39.7-8.78.58.49.97.910.0---------------BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) - 7.9 8.2 8.1 8.1 7.7 - 4.5 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6---------------BF Max Depth (ft)-1.51.51.41.51.5-1.21.11.01.01.01.1---------------Width of Floodprone Area (ft) - 32.0 30.9 30.9 32.4 31.7 - 26.8 23.8 22.622.622.623.4---------------Entrenchment Ratio-3.73.44.56.15.7-4.34.03.94.95.35.2---------------Bank Height Ratio-1.11.01.11.11.1-1.01.01.01.11.00.9---------------Wetted Perimeter (ft) - 10.4 10.0 10.7 10.5 10.4 - 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.4 6.8 7.2 - --------------Hydraulic Radius (ft)-0.80.80.80.80.7-0.60.60.60.50.60.5---------------BF Width (ft)----------------------------BF Mean Depth (ft)----------------------------Width/Depth Ratio----------------------------BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)----------------------------BF Max Depth (ft)----------------------------Width of Floodprone Area (ft)----------------------------Entrenchment Ratio----------------------------Bank Height Ratio----------------------------Wetted Perimeter (ft)----------------------------Hydraulic Radius (ft)----------------------------Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)----------------------------d50 (mm) ----------------------------Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBF Width (ft)9.89.29.49.79.19.7-6.15.85.86.05.65.9---------------BF Mean Depth (ft)1.00.90.80.80.80.8-0.80.70.60.60.50.6---------------Width/Depth Ratio 9.5 10.7 12.1 11.2 11.2 12.1 - 8.1 9.0 9.1 9.5 11.3 10.5 - --------------BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²) 10.1 7.9 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.8 - 4.6 3.8 3.7 3.8 2.83.3---------------BF Max Depth (ft)1.71.51.21.21.31.5-1.10.90.90.90.80.9---------------Width of Floodprone Area (ft) > 50 > 50 > 50 > 50 >50 >50 - > 35 > 35 > 35> 35>35>35---------------Entrenchment Ratio3.84.03.13.33.43.8-6.65.65.44.95.25.1---------------Bank Height Ratio1.01.01.01.10.90.9-1.01.01.01.11.00.9---------------Wetted Perimeter (ft) 11.8 10.9 11.0 11.3 10.7 11.3 - 7.7 7.1 7.1 7.3 6.6 7.0---------------Hydraulic Radius (ft)0.90.70.70.70.70.7-0.60.50.50.50.40.5---------------BF Width (ft)----------------------------BF Mean Depth (ft)----------------------------Width/Depth Ratio----------------------------BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)----------------------------BF Max Depth (ft)----------------------------Width of Floodprone Area (ft)----------------------------Entrenchment Ratio----------------------------Bank Height Ratio----------------------------Wetted Perimeter (ft)----------------------------Hydraulic Radius (ft)----------------------------Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)----------------------------d50 (mm) ----------------------------Note: Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY4 and MY5 has been calculated using the as-built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.Based on current/developing bankfull featureCross-section X-7, Station 0+54 (Pool)Cross-section X-8, Station 0+69 (Riffle)UT6 (127 LF)*Stationing is corrected in this report. Based on current/developing bankfull featureCross-section X-8.5, Station 0+60* (Pool)Cross-section X-9, Station 0+73* (Riffle)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. MY5 REPORTLOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTDMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515Dimension and substrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBF Width (ft)--8.18.410.38.7----------------------BF Mean Depth (ft)--0.70.70.60.7----------------------Width/Depth Ratio--11.012.217.712.4----------------------BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)--6.05.85.96.1----------------------BF Max Depth (ft)--1.41.21.31.4----------------------Width of Floodprone Area (ft) - - > 50 > 50 >50 >50----------------------Entrenchment Ratio--5.35.14.25.0----------------------Bank Height Ratio--1.01.00.91.0----------------------Wetted Perimeter (ft)--9.69.811.410.1----------------------Hydraulic Radius (ft)--0.60.60.50.6----------------------BF Width (ft)----------------------------BF Mean Depth (ft)----------------------------Width/Depth Ratio----------------------------BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)----------------------------BF Max Depth (ft)----------------------------Width of Floodprone Area (ft)----------------------------Entrenchment Ratio----------------------------Bank Height Ratio----------------------------Wetted Perimeter (ft)----------------------------Hydraulic Radius (ft)----------------------------Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)----------------------------d50 (mm) ----------------------------Note: Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY4 and MY5 has been calculated using the as-built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.Cross-section X-12, Station 0+9.6 (Riffle)Based on current/developing bankfull featureUT8 (45 LF)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. MY5 REPORTLOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTDMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Table 12. MY1 to MY5 Stream Problem Areas and Photos  
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project, Number #92515 
Feature Issue  Station Suspected Cause Status  Photo # 
Aggradation/Bar 
Formation None N/A N/A N/A 
Bank Scour 
2+10 
CPA 2‐1. Identified MY2. Flooding 
during December and January 
caused a small area of bank scour 
at this location.  Bank was repaired 
in 2017 and has remained stable 
through 2019 (MY5). 
Resolved 1, 2, 3, 
& 4 
4+60 
CPA 2‐3. Identified MY2. Flooding 
during December and January 2017 
caused a small area of bank scour 
at this location.  The bank was 
repaired in 2017 and the area has 
not worsened, is stabilizing and is 
supporting more vegetation in 
2019.   
Resolved 9,10,11 
& 12 
11+70 
CPA 2‐4. Identified MY2. Flooding 
during December and January 2017 
caused a small area of bank scour 
at this location.  This bank has 
revegetated and stabilized. It was 
stable in the fall of 2019. 
Resolved 13,14,15 
& 16  
26+60 
CPA 2‐5. Identified MY2. Flooding 
during December and January 2017 
caused a small area of bank scour 
at this location. This scour area has 
revegetated and stabilized. It was 
stable in the fall of 2019. 
Resolved 17, 18, 
19 & 20 
27+00 
CPA 2‐6. Identified MY2. Flooding 
during December and January 2017 
caused a small area of bank scour 
at this location. Scour area was 
repaired in 2017 and has 
revegetated and stabilized in 2018 
and remains stable in 2019. 
Resolved 
21, 22, 
23, 24 & 
25 
21+00 
CPA 3‐2. Identified MY3. Bank 
slump (approx. 6 ft.) along left bank 
of main stem. Has stabilized and is 
no longer eroding. 
Resolved 29, 30  
& 31 
11+50 
CPA 3‐4. Identified MY3. Bank 
slump (approx. 8 ft.) along right 
bank of main stem. The slump area 
has not worsened, is stabilizing and 
is supporting more vegetation in 
2019.  
Resolved 35, 36  
& 37 

Table 12. continued 
Engineered 
Structures 
2+00 
CPA 2‐2. Identified MY2. Piping of 
log structure after the fabric sealing 
this structure tore during flooding 
of December and January. 
Structure was repaired in 2017 and 
was no longer piping in MY5. 
Resolved 5, 6, 7  
& 8 
23+75 
CPA 3‐1. Identified MY3. Piping of 
log structure has stabilized and is 
no longer piping in MY5.  
Resolved 26, 27  
& 28 
14+75 
CPA 3‐3. Identified MY3. Piping of 
log structure after the fabric sealing 
this structure tore. Structure has 
stabilized and is no longer piping in 
MY5. 
Resolved 32, 33  
& 34 
UT8 ‐ 00+40 
CPA 3‐5. Identified MY3. Piping of 
log structure on UT‐8 near the 
confluence of UT‐8 and Logan 
Creek. Hand repairs made Feb‐20. 
It is no longer piping.  
Resolved 38 & 39 
Encroachments 
(approximately) 
23+00  to 
28+00 
EA‐1. Identified MY2. The nature 
trail (an allowance in the 
easement); was mowed wide.  We 
discussed this with staff at 
Lonesome Valley and they reduced 
the width they are maintaining.   
Resolved, 
working with 
Stewardship 
Program to 
document 
agreed to width. 
40, 41 
Left bank near 
28+50 
EA‐2. Identified MY5. There is a 
narrow trail down the adjacent 
slope from a private residence and 
across a foot bridge. We will work 
with Lonesome Valley to resolve. 
On Going 42, 43 
Left bank near 
23+00 
EA‐3. Identified MY5. There is a 
small triangular area being moved 
by an adjacent landowner.  We will 
work with Lonesome Valley to 
resolve. 
On Going 44, 45 

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project – Monitoring Years 1-5 CPA Photos
CPA 2-1
Photo 1. CPA 2-1, Station 2+10, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January. Photo 2. CPA 2-1, Station 2+10, same area as shown in
photo 1, with vegetation stabilizing site. Bank was graded,
matting was reinstalled, and live stakes were added during
October 2017.

Photo 3. CPA 2-1, Scour area has stabilized and is no longer
eroding after repairs were made in 2017. Photo 4. CPA 2-1, Scour area is stable and supporting
vegetation, late winter photo (3-2020).

3/18/2016 10/25/2017
10/5/2018 3/4/2020

CPA 2-2

Photo 5. CPA 2-2 – Station 2+00, Piping of log structure
after the fabric sealing this structure tore during flooding of
December and January.
Photo 6. CPA 2-2 – Station 2+00, Piping structure was
repaired in May 2017. Fabric was replaced and substrate was
replaced upstream of log structure.

Photo 7. CPA 2-2 – Log structure that was repaired in 2017
has remained stable and is no longer piping. Photo 8. CPA 2-2 – Log structure has remained stable and
not piping, late winter photo (3-2020) after multiple high
water events.

10/25/20173/18/2016
10/5/2018
3/4/2020
CPA 2-3
Photo 9. CPA 2-3 – Station 4+60, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January 2016. Photo 10. CPA 2-3 – Station 4+60, bank scour area was
regraded, matting was reinstalled, and herbaceous vegetation
was transplanted in May 2017. Livestakes were installed in
October 2017.

Photo 11. CPA 2-3 – Station 4+60, bank scour area has
vegetated but not completely stable.

Photo 12. CPA 2-3 – Station 4+60, bank scour area
maintaining vegetation but still some signs it is not
completely stable.

10/25/20173/18/2016
10/5/2018 5/7/2019
CPA 2-4
Photo 13. CPA 2-4 – Station 11+70, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January 2016. Photo 14. CPA 2-4 – Station 11+70, scour area noted in MY2
has stabilized for the most part. Livestakes were planted in
the scour area as well as the bank downstream of the problem
area in October 2017.
Photo 15. CPA 2-4 – Station 11+70, Bank has vegetated and
stabilized in 2018.

Photo 16. CPA 2-4 – Station 11+70, Bank maintained not
completely stable but improving with growing vegetation in
2019

3/18/2016 9/23/2016
10/5/2018 5/7/2019
CAP 2-5
Photo 17. CPA 2-5 – Station 26+60, small area of bank
scour caused by flooding of December and January 2016. Photo 18. CPA 2-5 – Station 26+60, bank scour area was
regraded, matting was reinstalled, and herbaceous vegetation
was transplanted in May 2017. Livestakes were installed in
October 2017.

Photo 19. CPA 2-5 – Station 26+60, Scour area has
revegetated and stabilized. Photo 20. CPA 2-5 – Station 26+60, Scour area stabilized
with vegetation in 2019, late winter photo (3-2020).

3/18/2016 10/25/2017
10/5/2018 3/4/2020

CPA 2-6

Photo 21. CPA 2-6 – Station 27+00, small area of bank
scour caused by flooding of December and January 2016. Photo 22. CPA 2-6 – Station 27+00, bank scour area was
regraded, matting was reinstalled, and herbaceous
vegetation was transplanted in May 2017. Livestakes
were installed in October 2017.

Photo 23. CPA 2-6 – Station 27+00, scour area has
revegetated and stabilized in 2018. Photo 24. CPA 2-6 – Station 27+00, scour area remained
vegetated and stable in 2019.

Photo 25. CPA 2-6 – Station 27+00, scour area vegetated
and stable, some bare bank late winter (3-2020).

3/18/2016 10/25/2017
10/5/2018 5/7/2019
3/4/2020
CPA 3-1

Photo 26. CPA 3-1 – Station 23+75, piping of log structure
after the fabric sealing this structure tore in 2017.

Photo 27. CPA 3-1 – Log structure has stabilized and is no
longer piping.

Photo 28. CPA 3-1 – Log structure continues to be stable in
late winter 2020.

10/25/2017 10/5/2018
3/4/2020
CPA 3-2

Photo 29. CPA 3-2 – Station 21+00, small bank slump area
(approx. 6 ft.) along left bank of main stem. Photo 30. CPA 3-2 – Area has stabilized and is fully
vegetated.

Photo 31. CPA 3-2 – Area has stabilized and is fully
vegetated, in late winter 2020.

3/4/2020
CPA 3-3

Photo 32. CPA 3-3 – Station 14+75, piping of log structure
after the fabric sealing this structure tore in 2017.

Photo 33. CPA 3-3 – Station 14+75, piping log structure
has stabilized and is no longer piping in 2018.

Photo 34. CPA 3-3 – Station 14+75, Log structure continues
to be stable in late winter 2020.

10/25/2017 10/5/2018
3/4/2020
CPA 3-4

Photo 35. CPA 3-4 – Station 11+50, small bank slump
(approx. 8 ft.) along right bank of main stem.
Photo 36. CPA 3-4 – Station 11+50, slump area has not
stabilized but has not worsened in 2018.

Photo 37. CPA 3-4 – Station 11+50, slump area left a gap in
the bank but it is stable in late winter 2020.

CPA 3-5

Photo 38. CPA 3-5 – Station UT8 00+40, piping of log
structure on UT-8 near the confluence of UT-8 and Logan
Creek
Photo 39. CPA 3-5 – Station UT8 00+40, piping of log
structure repaired, in late winter 2020.
10/25/2017 6/12/2018
3/4/2020
Encroachments

Photo 40. EA 2-1 – Maintenance workers mowed the nature
trail wider than had been agreed to earlier, near stationing
23+00 to 28+00.
Photo 41. EA 2-1 – Maintenance workers now
maintaining the trail at 7’ width.

Photo 42. EA 2. Older foot bridge that was installed by
Lonesome Valley and later abandoned, but not removed.
Landowner now is using it to access the easement area.
Photo 43. EA 2. Appears that a landowner is maintaining
a trail down the slope to the foot bridge.

Photo 35. EA 3. Landowner is mowing a small triangular
area into the easement. Photo 36. EA 3. Maintenance workers now maintaining the
trail at 7’ width.

2/2020
2/2020 2/2020
2/2020
2/20209/10/2016
ID#* 20080879 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 03/13/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 3/10/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r- Wetlands r` Buffer r` Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20080879
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Logan Creek
County: Jackson
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: LoganCr_92515_MY5_2019.pdf 16.31 MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*