20080879 Ver 2_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2015_20160224

As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Jackson County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 92515, Contract No. D06046
Savannah River Basin: 03060101-010020
%.r
f
SA [ *.
�11 lb� -
:w i
1[
5
%.r
f
SA [ *.
�11 lb� -
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Data Collection Period — May 2015
Submission Date — November 2015

As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Jackson County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 92515
Savannah River Basin: 03060101-010020
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Service (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road; Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28805
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. NC Engineering License: F-1084
Data Collection Period — May -September 2015
Submission Date — November 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES ........................................... 2
2.1 Project Location and Description................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Site Directions................................................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Project Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................... 3
3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE, AND APPROACH ............................. 4
3.1 Project Components....................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Restoration Approach..................................................................................................................... 4
3.2.1 Logan Creek Mainstem RI Restoration and R2 Enhancement L ............................................. 5
3.2.2 UT3-R2, UT6 and UT8 Restoration......................................................................................... 6
3.2.3 UTI, UT2, UT3-Reach 1, UT4 and UT7 Enhancement II ....................................................... 6
3.2.4 UT5 Preservation..................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data................................................................................ 6
3.3.1 Construction Summary............................................................................................................ 7
4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS......................................................................................... 9
5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA........................................................ 9
5.1 Stream Monitoring — Logan Creek, UT3 and UT6........................................................................ 9
5.1.1 Hydrology: Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions............................................................. 9
5.1.2 Cross-sections..........................................................................................................................9
5.1.3 Pattern................................................................................................................................... 10
5.1.4 Longitudinal Profile............................................................................................................... 10
5.1.5 Bed Material Analyses........................................................................................................... 10
5.1.6 Photo Reference Stations....................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Vegetation Monitoring................................................................................................................. 11
6.0 AS -BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION..........................................................................12
6.1 Stream Data.................................................................................................................................. 12
6.2 Vegetation Data............................................................................................................................ 12
6.3 Areas of Concern .......................................................................................................................... 12
7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS..........................................................13
7.1 Streams......................................................................................................................................... 13
7.2 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................... 13
7.3 Site Boundary............................................................................................................................... 14
8.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................14
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 11/12/2015
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Table 5 Baseline Stream Summary
Table 6 Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table 7 Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Table 8 Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure l Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures 1 - 3, Tables 1 - 4
Morphological Summary Data (Tables 5 and 6), Cross-section Plots, Profile Plots,
Appendix B and Pebble Count Data and Plots.
Appendix C Vegetation Data (Tables 7 and 8), Vegetation Plot Photo Log, Raw Vegetation Data
Appendix D As -Built Plan Sheets/Record Drawings
Appendix E Photo -ID Log
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV 11/12/2015
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

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 resulting in the delivery of 4,329 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs). 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 North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-06-01-01(Keowee
River Subbasin) and local watershed unit 03060101-010020.
The project goals directly address stressors identified in the Savannah River Basin Restoration Priority Plan
(RBRP) (EEP/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.
• 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, we recommend the following actions:
• 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.
The project as -built condition closely mimics that proposed in the design. Differences are outlined below:
Six unnamed tributaries (UTs) or parts of the tributaries were originally described in the mitigation plan
as being restored using an Enhancement I approach. During construction, it was determined that the
level of work needed would better be described as an Enhancement II approach, for the tributaries or
parts of tributaries (UTI, UT2, part of UT3, and UT4) described in the original mitigation plan. We
also identified two additional tributaries that were not accounted for in the mitigation plan and required
work. UT7 is a 54 LF reach of stream channel that was enhanced to connect an existing vernal pool,
wetland complex to the new channel and we are requesting Enhancement II credit for this tributary.
UT8 is a 45 LF reach of channel that was constructed to connect this existing stream to the new channel.
Since this was new channel construction, we are requesting Restoration credit for this channel. All of
these changes are shown in Appendix A, Table 1 and in Appendix D, Plansheets.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

• In the Executive Summary of the Logan Creek Stream Restoration Mitigation Plan, as updated and
submitted to the Division of Mitigation Services in May 2013, there was an explanation of the actions
that have affected the linear footage of steam available at this site for mitigation. In that explanation,
we stated that there are 5,131 linear feet available for mitigation work. This was an incorrect number.
The actual number of linear feet available for use at this site is 5,110 linear feet (USACOE 2011).
• Due to the limitation on the number of feet available at this site, not all of the stream length on UT5,
contained within the conservation easement, will be included for stream crediting.
• The original proposed bare -root and live -stake species list contained over 40 different species of trees
and shrubs. The actual plantings included 14 species primarily from this original list and these plants
are shown in Appendix C, Table 7. The only planted species that was not on this original list was
Northern red oak - Quercus rubra.
This report documents the completion of the project construction activities and presents as -built monitoring
data for the post -construction monitoring period. Table 1 (Appendix A) summarizes site conditions before and
after restoration, as well as the conditions predicted in the previously approved project Mitigation Plan.
2.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
2.1 Project Location and Description
The Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project site is located approximately three miles northeast of Cashiers in
Jackson County, North Carolina, as shown in the Project Site Vicinity Map (Appendix A, Figure 1). The Logan
Creek Stream Restoration Project area lies within cataloging unit 03060101010020 and DENR sub -basin 03-
13-02 of the Savannah River Basin. The project site includes a segment of Logan Creek and eight unnamed
tributaries to Logan Creek.
The Logan Creek mitigation project streams drain a watershed that is predominantly forested and is being
developed for single-family homes with large lots. Land use at the project site is characteristic of the greater
watershed. Recent land use of the site has been open hay fields and forestry. Historically, the site was used for
pasture, timbering, commercial trout rearing and as a mink farm. Potential for land use change in the area
adjacent to the conservation easement is low given that the watershed is a relatively new "low impact
development" and the new landowners are in part purchasing property for the low density housing that this
development offers.
Past intensive agricultural use of the property led to channel modification, dredging, riparian buffer removal,
wetland conversion, and ditching. Pasture development adjacent to the project stream reach had resulted in
unstable conditions with only grass to provide stream bank stabilization. Maintenance of the pasture area, as
well as the new home sites being developed, likely contributes nutrients to the stream system as runoff carries
fertilizer and pet waste into the streams. The resulting stream instability has resulted in significant prior and
on-going erosion and sedimentation, as well as potential nutrient loading to tributaries, Logan Creek, and to the
Savannah River downstream.
Logan Creek is shown as a "blue -line" stream on the USGS topographic quadrangle for the site, while the
various tributaries are not shown. Based on field evaluations using NCDWR stream assessment protocols, all
of the stream channels proposed for restoration, enhancement, or preservation are perennial, as indicated in the
stream mitigation plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

2.2 Site Directions
To reach the 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 at Brevard. Continue west on US -
64 past Rosman and Lake Toxaway traveling towards Cashiers. The entrance to the Lonesome Valley
Development is 0.5 miles past the community of Sapphire, NC on US -64. The project site extends south from
the confluence of Logan Creek and an unnamed tributary (Right Prong Logan Creek) downstream to a road
culvert at US 64. The site is accessible from US 64 at the Lonesome Valley Company, Inc. development and
from the community roads.
2.3 Project Goals and Objectives
The Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project was identified as an opportunity to improve water quality and
ecological functions within a NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS, formerly NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP)) Target Local Watershed (TLW).
The primary restoration goals of the project are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable stream channels within the Logan Creek project.
• 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 objectives were implemented:
• Restored the existing eroding or over -wide stream reaches by creating a stable channel that has access
to its floodplain.
• Improved in -stream habitat to provide a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools, providing woody debris for habitat, moving sand deposits through the project reach and
reducing bank erosion.
• Established 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.
• Improved 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.
The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the Savannah RBRP such as habitat degradation,
inadequate riparian buffer cover, channel modification, and excess nutrient and sediment loading. The
implemented natural channel design approach will result in a stable riparian headwater stream system that will
reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the Logan Creek sub -watershed, while improving water quality
conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic species within the Savannah River Basin.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

3.0 PROJECT STRUCTURE, RESTORATION TYPE, AND APPROACH
3.1 Project Components
Within the project area, a segment of Logan Creek and eight unnamed tributaries to Logan Creek were restored,
enhanced or preserved. For design purposes, Logan Creek through the project site was divided into two reaches,
with a longer upstream Reach 1 that was improved using a Restoration approach and a shorter downstream
Reach 2 that was improved using an Enhancement I approach. Each unnamed tributary was designated as a
UT and named UTI to UT8. Only UT3 was divided into two reaches designated as Reach 1 (Enhancement 11)
and Reach 2 (Restoration). UTI, UT2, UT4 and UT7 were all improved using an Enhancement II approach.
UT5 is a high quality stream that is being preserved. UT6 and UT8 both require Restoration to connect them
to the new mainstem channel. Additionally, there are small areas of jurisdictional wetlands and vernal pools
within the easement; however, we are not requesting mitigation credit for these areas. Figure 2 in Appendix A
illustrates the locations of these streams.
Restoration practices within Reach 1 involved stabilizing the channel laterally, removing up valley meanders
and avulsions, narrowing reaches of over widened channel and reconnecting the stream to the historic
floodplain. The existing channels had excessive erosion and were meandering up -valley in many areas causing
avulsions and further erosion. This condition was replaced by a meandering channel that was constructed at a
stable width and meander length. Existing wetlands were retained and connected to the restored channel and
additional vernal pools were created. Native, riparian buffer vegetation was established and protected for at
least 30 feet from the top of bank along all project reaches. Similar practices were performed on the various
UTs that were restored as well.
The Enhancement I reach (Reach 2) on the mainstem had a homogeneous sand bed that was very shallow and
offered little variability in habitat. There were also areas of lateral instability due to debris jams. Functionality
of this reach was improved by installing structures that would develop pools and move the sand bed load through
the reach. Unstable stream banks were repaired to establish the design stream width. All work through this
reach was done with as little impact to the existing vegetation as possible. Areas where disturbance was
unavoidable were planted with trees and herbaceous vegetation in the same way as was done for the Restoration
reach. Lastly, the stream corridor has been protected with a conservation easement that is 30 feet from the top
of bank along all streams.
3.2 Restoration Approach
Based on the post -construction as -built survey, the project consists of 3,444 LF of restoration on Logan Creek -
Reach 1, UT3-Reach2, UT6 and UT8. One 1,038 LF reach on Logan Creek -Reach 2 was enhanced using an
Enhancement Level I approach. Five unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, UT3-Reach 1, UT4 and UT7) were
improved using an Enhancement II approach for a total of 341 LF. Lastly, 287 LF of UT5 was preserved to
maintain the existing high quality habitat along this reach. The conservation easement along UT5 actually
includes an additional 274 LF of stream channel that cannot be included for crediting but is protected as well.
A conservation easement has been established over 12.71 acres of land that includes the project site and will
protect and preserve all stream reaches, wetland areas, vernal pools and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
The revegetation plan for the overall riparian buffer system considered the combination of existing on-site
native vegetation species and the riparian communities identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) that are
included in the ecological community described as "Montane Alluvial Forest and a Montane Oak -Hickory
Forest". Planting areas were not designated by zones on the project plan sheets (Appendix D) to represent site
conditions. Alternatively, observations were made of site wetness during planting and species that matched the
observed wetness were planted in areas that provided the best conditions.
The restoration approach for the project allows stream flows larger than bankfull flows to spread onto the
floodplain, dissipating flow energies, reducing stress on streambanks and hydrating wetland areas. In -stream
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

structures were used to control streambed grade, reduce streambank stress, and promote bedform riffle -pool
sequences and habitat diversity. The in -stream structures consist of root wads, log vanes, log weirs, cover logs,
log cross -vanes, toewood bank revetment, geo-lifts and ditch plugs/channel blocks.
Streambanks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting, temporary and permanent seeding,
live staking and bare -root planting. The site is planted with native vegetation (as shown in Table 7, Appendix
C) and is protected through a permanent conservation easement. Table 1 and Figure 2 (Appendix A) provide a
summary of the project components.
3.2.1 Logan Creek Mainstem RI Restoration and R2 Enhancement I
The project site on Logan Creek mainstem begins approximately 20 LF downstream of the
Lonesome Valley developments "Trout Pond" outfall canal and continues downstream to the box
culverts under US -64. This mainstem reach was divided into two project Reaches based on the
restoration approach employed. Logan Creek Reach 1 (R1) is a Restoration reach and begins at
the upstream project limit and continues south for 3,184 feet ending just above a bridge on E.
Valley Drive. Within R1, one stream crossing has been cut out of the easement. Logan Creek
Reach 2 (R2) is an Enhancement I reach that begins just below the bridge on E. Valley Drive and
continues south 1,038 feet to the NCDOT right-of-way.
Logan Creek R1 begins in a forested section of the reach where beaver activity and flooding had
caused extensive lateral instability. The channel was meandering with beaver dams, logjams and
excessive sand deposition causing meanders to extend up -valley with excessive erosion. In areas
where the primary riparian vegetation was rhododendron, the shallow root system of this species
was easily under mined by bank erosion causing more extensive woody debris jams, over -
widening and erosion. Around the present Station 11+00 and continuing to the end of Rl, the
right bank has been cleared and is maintained as a meadow. Erosion was extensive all along this
right bank. To address these issues a Restoration approach was taken. The channel was realigned
to develop a down valley meandering pattern with channel banks that have the correct bankfull
width and depth while allowing access by flows to the floodplain at bankfull. Rhododendron
was removed or cut back to the ground and hardwood trees were planted to provide bank
stabilization with vegetation that provides much greater rooting depth. Meanders were stabilized
with bank treatments (toewood, geolifts or artificial undercut banks) that reduced erosion and
provided habitat improvements for the resident trout population. Woody debris was found
throughout this reach and was incorporated back into the stream when possible to improve habitat
while avoiding instability.
Logan Creek R2 begins below the bridge on E. Valley Drive and continues south to US -64 for
another 1,038 feet. This reach had a stable meandering pattern with thick riparian vegetation.
Bank instability was present at a limited number of locations. The reach did have extensive
woody debris jams but lateral instability was not as extensive as that found at the beginning of
Rl. These jams caused extensive deposition of sand through this reach, limiting pool habitat and
streambed variability. Our approach to R2 was to use an Enhancement approach with the goal
of restoring unstable banks, removing woody debris jams and adding structures to the channel
that would increase pool habitat and the ability for the channel to move sand through the reach;
all while limiting impacts to the existing riparian vegetation. Over -wide areas were stabilized by
removing woody debris jams and reestablishing the correct bankfull width at three locations
through this reach. Log vanes, log weirs and a hanging cover log were installed through the reach
to improve habitat and move sand through the reach. Because our concern was to move sand and
develop pools in a sandy substrate we tried the unique approach of not sealing the vanes and
weirs so that water could actually go under the logs causing deeper habitat and moving sand
downstream. While not a typical practice, it has been very effective in accomplishing our goals
on this reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

3.2.2 UT3-R2, UT6, and UT8 Restoration
Restoration of the mainstem of Logan Creek involved moving its alignment. This caused a
change in the confluence location of three tributaries to Logan Creek. This required a Restoration
approach to develop new channel length that extended these unnamed tributaries to a new
confluence with the mainstem. UT3 begins at the conservation easement and flows 40 LF (R1,
Enhancement II reach) before beginning Reach 2 (Restoration begins) where we had to construct
138 LF of new channel to extend this tributary to the mainstem at Station 12+80. This reach was
constructed as a small step -pool channel that followed the left bank of the old mainstem
alignment to a constructed confluence. A number of boulder step structures were used to drop
grade across this new channel and at the confluence. UT6 has a single reach that begins in a
wetland complex that crosses the conservation easement line and flows 127 LF to the mainstem.
Like UT3, it was extended to the new alignment of the mainstem. Grade changes were made over
a couple of small boulder step structures within the reach and at the confluence (mainstem Station
8+73) with much of the drop of this channel occurring at the confluence. Stream banks are very
low and the low grade across the reach enhances the hydrology of the associated wetlands around
the reach. UT8 is a small stream that drains a relatively large wetland complex close to the
beginning of Logan Creek R1 (at mainstem Station 1+11). The extension of this channel was
relatively short (45 LF) because Logan Creek was not moved far from its original alignment at
this point. The channel grade was dropped over two log sills and the stream width and depth
copied that found on the existing, stable channel that entered the floodplain from the wetland
complex.
3.2.3 UT1, UT2, UT3-Reach 1, UT4 and UT7 Enhancement II
Five unnamed tributaries of Logan Creek were improved with an Enhancement II approach.
Originally, we planned to use an Enhancement I approach on these tributaries; however, once we
began construction it became apparent that minimal structural improvement was needed on these
reaches. Most of these channels were in good condition and did not need any bank treatments,
realignment or channel modifications. We did protect these channels within the conservation
easement over lengths that varied from 40 to 92 LF. The confluence of each channel was
stabilized with the addition of a structure or structures that provided grade control. The riparian
area along the channel was planted with herbaceous seed and with bare rooted trees were needed.
3.2.4 UT5 Preservation
UT5 is the largest unnamed tributary that enters Logan Creek along the project reach and within
the project conservation easement. This tributary has its confluence with Logan Creek at Station
36+60 and 511 LF of this tributary is located within the project conservation easement. This
tributary is well vegetated with an understory of rhododendron and an overstory of hardwood
trees throughout its riparian zone, which extends out from the top of bank for more than 100 LF.
Much of this area is protected by the conservation easement; however, there is some riparian area
that is not protected under the project conservation easement, but it is protected by a well
easement. This easement requires that this space be protected from any kind of development to
protect ground water. Due to a regulatory limitation on the number of linear feet of stream that
are available for mitigation on this property, only 287 LF of this tributary are included for
mitigation crediting.
3.3 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
Baker implemented the project under a full delivery contract with NCDMS to provide stream mitigation credits
in the Savannah River Basin. The chronology of the project is presented in Table 2. The contact information
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3. Relevant Project background and
attribute information is presented in Table 4. Tables 2, 3, and 4 are located in Appendix A of this report. As -
built stationing is presented in Table 1 in Appendix A and is shown in Appendix D on the plan sheets.
3.3.1 Construction Summary
In accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan and regulatory permits, construction began with
site preparation, installation of a construction entrance, sediment and erosion control measures,
and the establishment of a staging area, haul roads, and stockpile areas. The construction
contractor was River Works, Inc. (River Works) and construction was initiated in June 2014.
Materials were stockpiled as needed at the staging area. Suitable fill material was brought to the
site and stockpiled in an area that was away from live streams and surrounded by a silt fence.
Fill material was used on-site to fill the abandoned, existing channel and along the channel top
of bank in some areas where the existing elevation was lower than bankfull. Rain and wet
conditions were a constant issue during the construction period; however, the sandy soils allowed
for good drainage over most of the reach and these interruptions were usually of short durations.
Construction began at the upstream beginning of the project, Station 0+00, and progressed
downstream. Unnamed tributaries were worked on as work progressed to them. Due to the
beaver dams and overbank flow associated with these dams over the upper 300 feet of the
channel, a stable access path was established to reach the upper limits of the project. Channel
grading involved removing blockages and establishing the design channel width, depth and slope.
This work was done primarily from the right bank to limit impacts to existing vegetation along
the left bank. Low existing areas along the floodplain that made establishing the required width
or depth impossible were filled to establish the correct elevations. Work continued downstream
through a forested buffer area along the upper 1100 feet of R1. As the designed channel was
established and the old channel or parts of the old channel abandoned these were filled with fill
material stockpiled on site near the upstream entrance. The waterlogged woody debris found
throughout the old channel was utilized as much as possible by placing it in the new channel
where is could be "locked" in place using other structure or habitat features in the channel.
Due to the timing of construction, live vegetation material was not available for installation in
toewood or geolift revetments placed along the meander bends. Because we were dissatisfied
with the bare appearance of the coir lifts used to construct outer meander bends we began utilizing
the native live material that was being destroyed when bank grading was done. We were unsure
if this vegetation would survive, but felt that it was better to use it and have it not survive, than
to have nothing in the lifts. The doghobble incorporated in these lifts turned brown after being
moved but it often re -sprouted from the roots and along with other species like yellowroot made
a well -stabilized bank. This practice actually produced a living mass of native vegetation along
these meanders and provided a good alternative to live stake material and disposing of this onsite
living material.
Construction of the mainstem channel continued downstream following the accepted plan. As
tributaries were encountered, they were addressed. All UTs, except UT5, required that the
confluence with the mainstem be stabilized because they were dropping over a short distance to
the mainstem elevation. This was done by installing grade control log or boulder structures at
these confluences. UTs 3, 6 and 8 had significant reaches of constructed channel built to extend
them to the newly constructed mainstem. These extended UT channels were aligned to fall with
the valley to the point they intersected the mainstem channel and had a low sinuosity. Grade
across these new channels was stabilized by dropping over two to four boulder or log, grade
control structures. All tributaries were planted with both the native seed mixture, live stakes and
bare root trees within the conservation easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Construction of the mainstem and all contributing UTs along Reach 1 of Logan Creek were
completed by November 1, 2014. Logan Creek supports a reproducing brown and rainbow trout
population and during permitting, the trout moratorium was applied to this project. In early
October, it was apparent that we would need to work to the end of the month to complete all work
within Reach 1. We requested that the applied moratorium not begin until the end of October
and this request was approved by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and by the US Army
Corps of Engineers. This request was primarily needed due to delays caused by the extreme wet
weather experienced during construction. Using this extension, we were able to complete all in
channel work by November 1 and completed floodplain work such as grading, seeding and
mulching by the middle of November.
Upon completion of stream work within the site, sedimentation and erosion control measures
such as pump around operations, temporary stream crossings, and silt fence were removed. As
grading was completed on all the stream channels the bare ground was seeded with a native
riparian seed mix and with millet or rye (depending on the season). The bare ground was then
mulched with wheat straw. On the channels the sloping banks were covered with coir matting
after seeding, which was pinned in place with wooden stakes. Live stakes were installed in the
stream banks after the channel was constructed and live, bare rooted trees were planted
throughout the entire easement area in January 2015.
Logan Creek Reach 2 was restored using an Enhancement I approach. This 1,038 LF reach was
started after April 15, 2015 when the Trout Moratorium ended. Our approach through this reach
was to construct structures that would cause convergence of stream flows and move the sand that
had accumulated along the channel bed downstream. There were a few areas of varying length,
where the channel was over -wide with eroding banks, this was usually caused by accumulated
log and debris jams. Log and debris jams were removed throughout the reach, and where needed
the channel was repaired to establish the appropriate channel width and the bank stabilized using
the removed woody debris. All of this work was accomplished while having a minimal impact
on existing trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Wherever the ground was disturbed, it was
seeded with native riparian seed mix, millet and covered with straw mulch. Some livestakes and
bare -root trees were planted within this reach but the need for this vegetation was minimal due
to our ability to preserve most of the natural, existing vegetation. This Enhancement Reach was
completed by May 12, 2015.
All riparian buffer areas within the project boundaries are protected for a minimum of thirty feet
from the top of both stream banks and are protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement
that totals 12.71 acres. Fencing was not installed along the conservation easement boundary
because there will be no livestock on the property and because the owners/developers of the
property are extremely concerned with aesthetic appeal of the property. To appease the
landowners concerns regarding the aesthetics of marking the easement boundary, Baker has
worked with DMS Stewardship to mark the easement in the least stark method while still being
unambiguous. Through the meadow along much of the right bank, the easement was marked
using boulders placed at each turn. Posts and signs will be used within the forested areas.
However, the easement does allow for the installation of other marking methods and even a fence
in the future, if this becomes necessary.
As -built plan sheets/record drawings depict actual surveyed areas with the project area and depict
any changes from the construction drawings to what was implemented on-site during
construction. The as -built plan sheets/record drawings are located in Appendix D. The as -built
results for the project, including Restoration, Enhancement and Preservation areas, totaled 5,110
LF of stream. The total 5,110 LF of stream was all that was available for this project at this site,
as determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers after stream footage originally optioned by
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Baker was used by the landowners for their permitting needs (USACOE 2011). The length and
area for individual reaches are summarized in Appendix A, Table 1.
Baker and River Works met on-site on November 4, 2014, and prepared a preliminary punch -list
of final items to be performed for the Logan Creek Reach 1, and associated UTs. The needs were
minimal and River Works demobilized from the site on November 6, 2014. Work on the
Enhancement Reach (Reach 2) was done using a mid-size excavator and hand labor, so
mobilization and demob were carried out quickly and completed by May 12, 2015. A project
completion site review and site walk with DMS was held on June 2, 2015
4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Baker has been involved in obtaining recent approvals from the regulatory agencies for several Mountain stream
and wetland mitigation plans. The success criteria for the project site will follow the mitigation plans developed
for these projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (SMG) (USAGE 2003). Post -restoration
monitoring for stream mitigation work will be conducted for five years post construction. Stream monitoring
will annually collect, evaluate and report on stream dimension (cross-sections), pattern (longitudinal survey),
profile (profile survey), and will provide observational information through photographic documentation.
Monitoring shall be consistent with the requirements described in the Federal Rule for compensatory mitigation
sites in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5
paragraphs (a) and (b), dated April 2008.
5.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
5.1 Stream Monitoring — Logan Creek, UT3, and UT6
Geomorphic monitoring of both reaches on Logan Creek, UT3 and UT6 will be conducted once a year for
five years following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices
and following existing guidance (USACE 2003). Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension
(cross-sections), pattern (planimetric survey), profile (longitudinal profile survey), and visual observation
with photographic documentation. The methods used and related success criteria are described below for
each parameter.
5.1.1 Hydrology:Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site visits,
and the gauge will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within a five-year monitoring period. The two bankfull
events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the monitoring will continue until two bankfull events
have been documented during the five-year post construction monitoring period.
5.1.2 Cross -Sections
Per the USACE 2003 SMGs, permanent cross-sections were installed at a rate of one cross-section per
twenty bankfull widths of restored stream, with approximately 50 percent of cross-sections located at
riffles and 50 percent located at pools. Each cross-section is marked on both banks with permanent
monuments to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross-sections
and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. Cross-section surveys will
occur annually and will include measurements of Bank Height Ratio and Entrenchment Ratio. The
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

monitoring survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull,
inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections will be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen 1994 and 1996).
Minor change in as -built cross-sections should be expected but not significant, major changes. Any
change to the cross-sections will be documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if the
change represents a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a
movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or
decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System, and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no
more than 1.2 and ER no less than 2.2) defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the small
channel size, sandy substrate, and large floodplain widths of the proposed steam, bank pins will not be
installed unless required by the USAGE.
5.1.3 Pattern
Plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, and meander width ratio will be
measured on the newly constructed meanders to establish the as -built baseline condition and again after
one year of monitoring or if a significant change is observed. Subsequent visual monitoring will be
conducted twice a year, at least five months apart, to document any changes or excessive lateral
movement in the plan view of the restored channel.
5.1.4 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile was surveyed on Logan Creek, UT3-R2 and UT6 after construction to document
as -built baseline conditions. The survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements
included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, 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. The longitudinal
profile should show that the bedform features installed are consistent with intended design stream type.
The longitudinal profiles will be replicated each year.
5.1.5 Bed Material Analyses
Bed material analysis will consist of pebble counts taken in the same riffles during annual geomorphic
surveys of the project site. Sample sites will be selected to represent conditions on the mainstem. These
samples, combined with evidence provided by changes in cross-section and profile data will reveal
changes in sediment transport and bed gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream
sediment loads and cross-sections evolve into a more permanent stable dimension. Significant changes
in bed load composition will be evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed changes.
5.1.6 Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be used to document restoration success. Reference photo points have been
photographed after construction and will be continued annually for at least five years. Photographs will
be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Photo points have been mapped and markers
established at each point. Reference photographs will be carried into the field to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) of the site are duplicated in each monitoring period.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section.
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross-section. The transect centerline will be centered
in the photographs of each bank to the extent possible. The water line will be located in the lower edge
of the frame, and as much of the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should
make an effort to maintain consistent areas in each photo over time.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Structure photos. Photographs will be taken of grade control structures along the restored stream and
will be limited to boulder and log steps. Photographers will make every effort to maintain consistent
areas in each photo over time.
Photographs will be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Lateral photos should
not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time
should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation.
5.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of
preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine if
successful restoration of vegetation is achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants have been installed and will
be monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee et. al. 2007). Vegetation will be monitored using eight (8) plots established
randomly within the planted riparian buffer per CVS-NCEEP monitoring protocol for Levels 1 and 2. The
size of individual quadrants is generally 100 square meters for woody tree species and 1 square meter for
herbaceous vegetation.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves if possible. Individual quadrant data
will be provided and will include species diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values
will be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings were marked so that they
can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the
previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first full growing season between September 1 st and December 30th, species composition,
stem density, and survival will be evaluated. Vegetation plots shall be monitored for five years until the final
success criteria are achieved. The restored site will be evaluated between September and November using
the Carolina Vegetation Survey Entry Tool (CVS 2007). The interim measure of vegetative success for the
site will require the survival of at least 320 planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring
period. The final vegetative success criteria at year 5 will be the survival of no less than 260 planted trees
per acre.
Measuring species density and height alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health. For
this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of native volunteer species, and
the presence of invasive species vegetation to assess overall vegetative success.
Baker will provide required remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as: replanting more wet/drought
tolerant species, conducting beaver management/dam removal, and removing undesirable/invasive species
vegetation, and will continue to monitor vegetation performance until the corrective actions demonstrate that
the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement. Existing mature woody vegetation will be
visually monitored during annual site visits to document any mortality, due to construction activities or
changes to the water table that may negatively affect existing forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation.
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses, will be seeded/planted throughout the site as
necessary. At the end of construction, ground cover at the project site was complying with the NC Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 11 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

6.0 AS -BUILT DATA DOCUMENTATION
Stream and vegetation components will be monitored for five years post -construction to evaluate project
success. The specific locations of vegetation plots and permanent cross-sections, are shown on the as -built plan
sheets. Photo Point reference stations were installed along all of the project channels. The location of each
photo reference point is also depicted on the as -built plan sheets in Appendix D.
6.1 Stream Data
For monitoring stream success criteria, eleven (11) permanent cross-sections (8 on Logan Creek, 2 on UT6,
and 1 on UT3) were installed. We intended to be include an additional cross-section on UT3; however, the
surveyors failed to pick it up. This cross-section will be added during YR1 monitoring and with future
monitoring. This will bring the total number of cross-sections to twelve (12). One (1) crest gauge has been
installed on the mainstem to indicate when stream flows are greater than bankfull. The permanent cross-
sections will be used to monitor channel dimension and bank stability over time. Thirty three (33) photo
reference points were installed throughout the project area (23 photo points on Logan Creek, one photo point
on each UT (total of 7 photo points) except UT5, which has 3 photo points). The total number of cross-
sections installed to monitor this project site is slightly more than the number proposed in the Logan Creek
Mitigation Plan, from a proposed ten cross-sections to eleven reported here and twelve in future monitoring
reports. Additionally, a longitudinal survey was completed for the restored stream channels to provide a
baseline for evaluating changes in bed conditions over time. The as -built permanent cross-sections (with
photos) and as -built longitudinal data as well as the quantitative pre -construction, reference reach, and design
data used to determine restoration approach are provided in Appendix B. As -built data will be used for
comparison to post -construction monitoring data. The locations of the permanent cross-sections and photo
points are shown on the as -built plan sheets in Appendix D. Photographs from each photo point are provided
in Appendix E.
6.2 Vegetation Data
Bare -root trees and shrubs were planted within restoration and enhancement areas of the conservation
easement. The only locations not planted were areas that had existing trees, with a dense over -story and
existing thick ground vegetation. A minimum 30 -foot buffer was established and/or protected along all
stream reaches. Planting of bare -root trees and shrubs and live stake planting was completed in January 2015,
with minor additions made in May. The original proposed bare -root and live -stake species list contained over
forty different species of trees and shrubs; however, the actual plantings included fourteen (14) of these
species. Species planted at the Logan Creek site are summarized in Table 7 of Appendix C.
The Mitigation Plan for the site specifies that the number of quadrants required shall be based on the CVS-
NCEEP monitoring guidance (Lee et. al. 2007). The total number of quadrants was calculated using the CVS-
NCEEP Entry Tool Database version 2.2.7 (CVS, 2007). The size of individual quadrants is 100 square
meters. Eight (8) vegetation plots were installed throughout the project site. The initial, average density of
planted bare root stems, based on the data from the eight vegetation monitoring plots, is 860 stems per acre
(Table 8 of Appendix C). The locations of the vegetation plots are shown on the as -built plan sheets in
Appendix D.
6.3 Areas of Concern
There are no areas of concern within the stream channel associated with this new construction. There are
three issues associated with the floodplain that are of concern. Near Station 24+50 on the mainstem, the
landowners have installed a drainage pipe that extends into the easement and carries storm drainage into the
easement. We have communicated with them, explaining that this is violation of the easement agreement.
DMS has given them ninety days to remove this pipe and repair their impacts to the easement. Near Station
28+00 a small hole has developed on the floodplain due to soil settling around toewood that was installed in
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 12 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

the bank. Stormwater also stands in this area and contributes to this subsidence as water infiltrates the ground.
We have marked this location and will be filling this hole. Lastly, there are some minor areas where
maintenance workers are mowing slightly into the easement along the meadow area. We have spoken to the
developer about this and they are notifying the maintenance workers and moving them further away from the
easement line.
7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLANS
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods than
floodplains with mature herbaceous and woody vegetation.
• Projects with sandy, non -cohesive soils are more prone to bank erosion than cohesive soils or soils with
high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with access to their floodplain are less vulnerable to erosion than channels that
have been disconnected from their floodplain.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive vegetation species can affect the extent to which a native
species vegetation buffer can be established.
• The presence of beaver can affect vegetation survivability and stream function.
The site will be monitored on a regular basis, including a physical inspection of the site at least once a year
throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections
may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Maintenance issues and
recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the post -construction monitoring
reports. Factors that may have caused any maintenance needs, including any of the conditions listed above,
shall be discussed in monitoring reports. Routine maintenance will be the most likely need in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following components as described below.
7.1 Streams
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in -stream structures to prevent
piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation
along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -cutting until vegetation becomes well
established.
7.2 Vegetation
Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community. Routine
vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, seeding, pruning, and
fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any
invasive plant species control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) rules and regulations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 13 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

7.3 Site Boundary
Site boundaries are being demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and
adjacent properties. Boundaries can be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, or other means as allowed by
site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
8.0 REFERENCES
Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5 (a) and (b).
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.2.7. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4. 1,
2007.
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.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2001 (updated 2008). Savannah River Basin Restoration
Priority Plans. NCDENR. Raleigh, North Carolina. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/rbrps/savannah.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
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. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Wilmington District.
United State Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Action ID. 2007-
00110. Letter from Steven Baker to Mr. Ken Fussel of Lonesome Valley Development, LLC. December
20, 2011.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 1/20/2016
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

APPENDIX A
Figures 1 - 2, Tables 1 - 4

1 U
I
I
l
THO P
j RESER
t
04-04-01
LTN 1
03-13-01
SAV1
04-04-02
1 LTN2
Counties
NCDWQ Sub -basin
u USGS Hydrologic Unit
R CREEK i
ERVOIR
1�
1
' 04-03-01
.. FRB1
I Project Location
N
0 1 2 3
Miles
LAKE
TOXAWAY
03-13-02
SAV2
Fig 1. Project Location Map
Logan Creek Stream Restoration
LIMEEnt

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type R EI EII P
Totals 3,444 SMU1 692 SMU 1136 SMU 1 57 SMU
Project Components
Project Component
or Reach ID
Stationing/ Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
RestorationMitigation
Footage or
Acreage
Ratio
STREAMS
Logan Creek
Reach 1 0+00 to 31+84
3134 LF Restoration - PI
3,134 SMU
3,134 LF
1:1
Reach 2 32+43 to 42+81
1038 LF Enhancement I
692 SMU
1,038 LF
1.5:1
UT1 0+00 to 0+71
71 LF Enhancement II
28 SMU
71 LF
2.5:1
UT2 0+00 to 0+92
92 LF Enhancement II
37 SMU
92 LF
2.5:1
UT3
Reach 1 0+00 to 0+40
40 LF Enhancement II
16 SMU
40 LF
2.5:1
Reach 2 0+40 to 1+78
138 LF Restoration - PI
138 SMU
138 LF
1:1
UT4 0+00 to 0+84
84 LF Enhancement II
34 SMU
84 LF
2.5:1
UT5 0+00 to 2+87
287 LF Preservation
57 SMU
287 LF
5:1
UT6 0+00 to 1+27
127 LF Restoration - PI
127 SMU
127 LF
1:1
UT7 0+00 to 0+54
54 LF Enhancement II
21 SMU
54 LF
2.5:1
UT8 0+00 to 0+45
45 LF Restoration - P1
45 SMU
45 LF
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer(AC) (SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration 3,444
Enhancement I 1,038
Enhancement 11 341
Creation
Preservation 287
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT 92515

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
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 live stakes
N/A
N/A
Jan-15
Planting of bare root trees
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
N/A
Nov-15
Year I Monitoring
Dec-15
N/A
N/A
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec-16
N/A
N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec-17
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec-18
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec-19
N/A
N/A
* 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 (Trout Moratorium ends) and was
completed by May 12, 2015.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources (seed), Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
ArborGen Inc. (trees), 843-528-3204
Dykes and Son (trees), 931-668-8833
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 4. Project Attributes
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Project Information
Project Name
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
County
Jackson
Project Area (acres)
12.71
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude 35.132803° Longitude -83.061046°
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
Savannah River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03060101 / 03060101010020
DWQ Sub -basin
Keowee River: 0306010101
Mainstem 1353.5 at beginning to 1714 at end, UTI, UT4, UT6, UT7 & UT8 <13, UT2 = 26; UT3 = 32, UT5
Project Drainage Area (AC)
= 128.
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
<2%
Impervious Area
Deciduous Forest (76%)
Evergreen Forest (8%)
USGA Land Use Classification
Pasture Land (4.6%)
Forest (91 %)
Shrub (1 %)
NCDMS Land Use Classification for this
Developed (6%)
10ther (.5%)
Hydrologic Unit
Agriculture (1.5%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Mainstem - Reach 1
Mainstem - Reach 2
Length of Reach (LF)
3,134
1,038
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VIII
VHI
Drainage Area (AC)
1,557
1,714
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
52.5
52.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
C -E
C -E
type)
Evolutionary Trend
C4E
C—E
Underlying Mapped Soils
NkA
SaC
Drainage Class
Poorly drained to very poorly
Very deep, well drained, mod
drained soils
permeable soils
Soil Hydric Status
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Average Channel Sloe (11/11)
0.004
0.007
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Zone AE
Native Vegetation Community
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron and
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron and
grassland
grassland
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
<1%
<1%
Vegetation
Parameters
UT5
UT3
6 other small UTs in R1
R1 R2
Length of Reach (LF)
287
40 138
45-127
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
II
I1
11
Drainage Area (AC)
136
32
.02 to .04
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
48
41.5
40.5-32.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
E
B
E - B
type)
Evolutionary Trend
E
B
B—C—E
Underlying Mapped Soils
NkA, CwA & SaC
NkA, SaC
NkA, SaC
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.012
0.0134 (UT6)
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Permit: Action ID #2008-01711
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Permit: WQC #3885
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
No
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No -Rise Cert
Categorical Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
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)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

APPENDIX B
Morphological Summary Data
(Tables 5 and 6), Cross-section Plots, Profile
Plots, Pebble Count Plots

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary
I -an Creek Restoration Protect- DMS Prnieet ID N.92515
Logan Creek Mainstem
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval'
Pre -Existing Condition'
Reference Reach Data
Design
As -built
Gauge
Right Prong Logan Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
NC Mtn. Regional Curve
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SD
n Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
BF 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
0.7
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- 35.0 - - -
- -
150.00
- - - -
-
<150
- -
-
-
BF 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
0.2
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
-
- - -
3.4
3.6
3.5 3.8
0.2
4
- 1.54 - - -
- -
4.0
- - - -
3.1
3.4
3.4 3.7
0.2
3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-
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
5.0
3
Width/Depth Ratio
-
- - -
8.9
13.6
9.8 25.7
7.01
4
- 15.8 - - -
- -
12
- - - -
9.2
10.7
10.8 12.0
1.1
3
Entrenchment Ratio
-
- - -
3.4
11.3
12.0 17.8
5.83
4
- 2.0 - - -
- -
5.8
- - - -
2.9
3.6
3.9 4.0
0.5
3
Bank Height Ratio
-
- - -
1
1.2
1.1 1.5
0.2
4
- 1.2 - - -
- -
lA
- - - -
1.0
1.00
1.00 1.0
0.0
3
d50 O
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- - - -
- -
12.4
- - - -
-
-
- -
-
-
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
194
216
217 252
18.13
- 80 - - -
- 65
-
- 140 - -
130.0
193.2
190.0 258.0
41.5
6
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
- - -
23
32
30 46
8.6
5
- 23 - - -
- 28
-
- 75 - -
44.0
63.9
66.1 104.0
17.2
9
Rc:Bankfull width (f /ft)
0.85
1.19
1.11 1.7
0.32
5
- 1.38 - - -
- Ll
-
- 2.9 - -
1.80
2.60
2.70 4.30
0.71
9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-
- - -
120
177
197 239
46.75
5
- 150 - - -
- 118
-
- 236 - -
145.0
236.7
244.5 321.0
48.1
12
Meander Width Ratio
-
- - -
4.44
6.56
7.3 8.85
1.73
s
_ 4,8 _ _ _
- 2.5
-
- 5.4 - -
6.0
9.7
10.1 13.2
2.0
12
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
_
_
_ _
_
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _
_
_ _ _ _
_
_
_ _
_
_
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- 0.019 - - -
- 0.003
-
- 0.007 - -
-
-
- -
-
-
Pool Length (ft)
_
_ _ _
_
_
_ _
_
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _
_
_ _
Pool Spacing (ft)
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- 75 - - -
- 94
-
- 165 - -
-
-
- -
-
-
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-
- - -
2.9
3.8
4.0 4.5
0.64
- 2.28 - - -
- -
6.00
- - - -
5.2
5..3
5.2 5.4
0.1
3
Pool Volume (ft)
_
_ _ _
_
_
_ _
_
_
- _ _ _ _
_ _
_
_ _ _ _
_
_
_ _
_
_
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
dl 6/ d35/ d50/ d84/ d95
-
- - -
0.8/5.8/12.4/35.4/169.6
- - - - -
- -
-
- - - -
mean 5.1/
10.9/ 16.5/ 34.8/ 55,9
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f'
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
- - - - -
- -
-
- - - -
-
-
- -
-
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at baukfull (Rosgen Curve)
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- - - - -
- -
-
- - - -
-
-
- -
-
-
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
- - - - -
-
-
- - - -
-
-
- -
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-
2.1 to 2.67
2.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towads end of project
- 0.83 - - -
-
2.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towads end of project
2.1 at upper end of project to 2.67 towads
end of project
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- - - - -
- -
2.67
- - - -
-
2.67
- -
-
-
Rosgen Classification
-
- - -
-
C4 to E4
- -
-
-
- C4 - - -
- -
C4
- - - -
-
C4
- -
-
-
BF Velocity (fps)
3.55 - - -
- -
4.31
- - - -
-
4.33
- -
-
-
BF Discharge (cfs)
-
205.7 237.0
-
-
- -
-
-
- 98 - - -
- -
271.5
- - - -
-
242.6
- -
-
-
35
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- - - - -
- -
-
- - - -
-
-
- -
-
-
Channel length (ft
-
- - -
-
4,700
- -
-
-
- - - - -
- -
4,101
- - - -
-
4,172
- -
-
-
Sinuosity
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- 2.01 - - -
- -
1.3
- - - -
-
1.31
- -
-
-
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- 0.0079 - - -
- -
0.0035
- - - -
-
0.0039
- -
-
-
BF slope (tuft)
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- 0.016 - - -
- -
0.0047
- - - -
-
0.0052
- -
-
-
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - - - -
- -
-
- - - -
-
-
- -
-
-
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- - - - -
- -
-
- - - -
-
-
- -
-
-
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric-
- - -
-
-
- -
-
-
- - - - -
- -
-
- - - -
-
-
- -
-
-
Biological or Other
11, Harman, W.A., D.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Moms, MA Cannell, M Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.R. Clinton. I.M. Patterson. 2000. Bankfll Regional Curves for North Carolina
Mountain S --a .Ta AWRA Conference Proceeding, D.L. Kane, editor. American Water Resources SpeciallyConference on Water Resources in
Es re Environments. Anchorage, Alaska.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 5. Baseline Stream Summary
L.- Creek Restarath- Prnieete DMS Praieet ID No- 92515
UT3, UT6 and UT8
USGS
Reference Reach Data
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve Interval'
Pre -Existing Condition'
Morgan Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
NC Mtn./NC Pied. Rural
Min Mean
Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Maz SD
n Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
-
5.3 4.1 -
- -
- - - - - 16.7 - - -
- -
6.0
-
-
-
-
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.3
0.06
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 35.0 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
127
-
-
-
-
BF Mean Depth (tt)
-
0.4 0.5 -
- -
- - - - - 1.06 - - -
- -
0.7
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.02
2
BF Max Depth (ft)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 1.54 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-
1.9 4.1 -
- -
- - - - - 17.7 - - -
- -
4.2
-
-
-
-
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
0.1
2
Width/Depth Ratio
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 15.8 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
8.1
8.4
8.4
8.7
0.3
2
Entrenchment Ratio
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 2.0 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
4.3
5.5
5.5
6.6
1.2
2
Bank Height Ratio
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 1.2 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
d50 (mm)
-
- - -
-
- - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (it)
80
-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 23 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.38 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 150 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meander Width Ratio
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 4.8 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Profile
Riffle Length (it)
- - - -
- 12.0
31.8
19.0
77.0
26.3
4
14.3
18.7
14.9
303
6.9
4
Riffle 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
Pool Length (ft)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
- -
6.0
-
-
0
4
6.5
11.6
7.9
21.4
5.7
5
Pool Spacing (ft)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 75 - - -
- 18.0
22.7
24.0
26.0
3.4
3
22.2
39.0
42.4
48.8
10.2
4
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - 2.28 - - -
- -
1.2
-
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
1
Pool Volume (ft')
-
_ _ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%./Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
dl / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f'
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Max pan size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-
0.025 to 0.08
0.025 to 0.08 - - - 0.83 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
0.025 to 0.08
-
-
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
15%-
-
-
-
Rosgea ClassificatiOr
C4 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
C
-
-
-
-
BF Velocity (fps)
3.55 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.27
-
-
-
-
BF Discharge (efs)
-
7.8 18.3
- -
- - - - - 98 - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
212.2
-
-
-
-
35
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Channel length Ht)
-
- - -
- 75
- - - - - - - - -
- -
31.1.0
-
-
-
-
-
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)
-
- - -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
-
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
_
_ _ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric-
- - -
- -
- - - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Biological or Other
I. Harman, W.A., D.E Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Moms, MA Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.R. Clinton, J.M. Patterson 1111, Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina
Mountain Streams. In: AWRA Conference Proceedings, D.L. Kane, edimr. American Water Resources Specialty Conference -W-11 . . ... in
Extreme Environments, Anchorage, Alaska,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Logan Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect H) No. 92515
Logan Creek (4,172 LF)
Cross-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)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
24.1
25.9
25.2
27.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.6
2.5
2.1
2.3
Width/Depth Ratio
9.2
10.5
12.0
12.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
63.0
63.9
53.2
62.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.7
5.2
3.1
5.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>70
>60
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
2.3
3.9
3.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
29.3
30.9
29.5
32.2
Hydraulic Radius (11)
2.1
2.1
1.8
2.0
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft
EntrenchmentRatio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (f z)
d50 (mm)
Cross-section X-5, Station 25+43 (Pool), Restoration Reach
Cross-section X-6, Station 26+09 (Riffle), Restoration Reach
Cross-section 10, Station 37+05 (Pool), Enhancement Reach
Cross-section 11, Station 37+20 (Riffle), Enhancement Reach
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
21.34
23.64
31.0
29.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
3.0
2.19
2.1
2.1
Width/Depth Ratio
7.12
10.81
14.4
14.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
63.9
51.70
66.6
60.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.35
3.39
3.5
2.9
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>80
>95
>60
>54
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.0
4.2
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.3
28.0
35.2
33.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
1.8
1.9
1.8
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft'
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 (fe)
d50 (mm)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Logan Creek Restoration Protect: DMS Proiect H) No. 92515
UT3 (178 LF)
Cross-section X-9, Station 0+95 (Riffle)
Cross-section X-8, Station 0+73 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
6.25
6.14
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.72
0.76
Width/Depth Ratio
8.73
8.12
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
4.50
4.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.14
Width of Floodprone Area (11)
26.80
> 50
Entrenchment Ratio
430
6.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.7
7.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.6
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
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 (f2)
d50 (mm)
UT6 (127 LF)
Cross-section X-7, Station 0+58 (Pool)
Cross-section X-8, Station 0+73 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY-
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
9.78
6.14
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.03
0.76
Width/Depth Ratio
9.47
8.12
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft
10.1
4.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.69
1.14
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
> 50
> 50
Entrenchment Ratio
3.8
6.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.8
7.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.6
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
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)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Permanent Cross-section 1
(As -Built Data - collected May, 2015)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
63
24.12
2.61
3.67
9.23
1
2.9
3173.2
3173.26
Logan Creek Cross-section 1, Station 3+10
3178
3177-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3176
.2 3175
m 3174
w3173-------------------------------
3172
---o--- Bankfull
3171
---o--- Floodprone
3170
3169
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
,4
1
_v -
:,. IV
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 2
(As -Built Data - collected May, 2015)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
63.9
25.91
1 2.47
5.2
10.5
1 1.1
2.3
3172.57
3172.91
Logan Creek Cross-section 2, Station 3+70
3180
3178--------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
0 3176
> 3174
m
W---------------------------------
3172
3170 ---o--- Bankfull
---o--- Floodprone
3168
3166
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 3
(As -Built Data - collected May, 2015)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
53.2
25.23
1 2.11
3.08
11.97
1 1
3.9
3168.81
3168.86
Logan Creek Cross-section 3, Station 12+57
3173
3172 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3171
3170
w 3169
3168
3167 ---o--- Bankfull
---o--- Floodprone
3166
3165
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 4
(As -Built Data - collected May, 2015)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
62.8
27.59
2.28
5.2
12.11
1 1
3.6
3168.19
3168.29
Logan Creek Cross-section 4, Station 13+00
3174
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3172
.0 3170
w 3168 ---------------------------
3166
---o--- Bankfull
3164 ---o--- Floodprone
3162
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 5
(As -Built Data - collected May, 2015)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
63.9
21.34
3
5.35
7.12
1 1
4.4
3164
3164.04
Logan Creek Cross-section 5, Station 25+43
3170
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
3168
.2 3166
w 3164
---------------------
3162
---o--- Bankfull
3160 ---o--- Floodprone
3158
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 6
(As -Built Data - collected May, 2015)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
51.7
23.64
1 2.19
3.39
10.81
1 1
4
3163.33
1 3163.38
Logan Creek Cross-section 6, Station 26+09
3168
3167
3166
.2 3165
cu
Q> 3164
LU 3163
3162
---o--• Bankfull
3161
---o--- Floodprone
3160
3159
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station
7
�y
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 7
(As -Built Data - collected May, 2015)
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+58
3172.5
3172-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3171.5
c 3171
m 3170.5
------------------------
w 3170
3169.5
---o--- Bankfull
3169
---o--- Floodprone
3168.5
3168
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
,-
Looking at the Right Bank
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
10.1
9.78
1.03
1.69
9.47
1
3.8
3170.33
3170.33
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+58
3172.5
3172-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3171.5
c 3171
m 3170.5
------------------------
w 3170
3169.5
---o--- Bankfull
3169
---o--- Floodprone
3168.5
3168
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
,-
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 8
(As -Built Data - collected May, 2015)
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+73
3172
3171.5---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
c 3171
w 3170.5
-------------
3170
---9--- Bankfull
3169.5 ---o--- Floodprone
3169
0 10 20 30 40
Station
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
4.6
6.14
0.76
1.14
8.12
1
6.6
3170.3
3170.3
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+73
3172
3171.5---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
c 3171
w 3170.5
-------------
3170
---9--- Bankfull
3169.5 ---o--- Floodprone
3169
0 10 20 30 40
Station
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 9
(As -Built Data - collected May, 2015)
3170.5
3170
c 3169.5
0
a 3169
w 3168.5
3168
3167.5
3167
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+95
0 10 20 30 40
Station
---0--- Bankfull
-- 9--- Floodprone
50 60 70
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
4.5
6.25
0.72
1.22
8.73
1
4.3
3168.63
3168.63
3170.5
3170
c 3169.5
0
a 3169
w 3168.5
3168
3167.5
3167
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+95
0 10 20 30 40
Station
---0--- Bankfull
-- 9--- Floodprone
50 60 70
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 10
(As -Built Data - collected October, 2015)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
66.6
31
1 2.1
3.5
14.4
1 1.0
4.2
93.05
1 93.2
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Logan Creek Cross-section 10, Station 37+05
Enhancement Reach
97
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
96
95
94
c�
93
---------------------------------------------
w
92
91
---o--- Bankfull
---0-- Floodprone
90
89
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 11
(As -Built Data - collected October, 2015)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
60.73
29.2
1 2.1
2.9
14
1 1.1
4.5
93.54
1 93.85
Looking at the Left Bank
Logan Creek Cross-section 11, Station 37+20
Enhancement Reach
97
Looking at the Right Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
96
c
95
0
>
94
m
w
93
92
---o--- Bankfull
91
---0-- Floodprone
90
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

As -built Profile of Logan Creek, Station 0+00 to 16+00
Data collected May, 2015
E LTB
500 600 700 800 900
Station
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

3169
3168
3167
3166
3165
3164
C
O
3163
_O
W
3162
3161
3160
3159
3158
3157
3156
1600
As -built Profile of Logan Creek, Station 16+00 to 32+00
Data collected May, 2015
1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Station

C
O
W
As -built Thalweg Profile of Logan Creek Enhancement Reach,
Station 32+00 to 42+00, Data collected May, 2015
3161
3160
3155
3154 4--
3200.0
3300.0 3400.0 3500.0 3600.0 3700.0 3800.0 3900.0 4000.0 4100.0 4200.0
Station

As-built Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+80
Data collected May, 2015
3171
t LTB
3170
RTB
3169 - --- - -- - --- _ --- - X-9 WSF
0
0 1 tTWG
3168
W
3167 -
3166
3165
3164
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station

As -built Profile of UT6, Station 0+00 to 1+30
Data collected May, 2015
3171
3170.5
3170 X_7
O X-8
O
3169.5
W
3169
--F- LTB
3168.5 RTB
- WS 3168
tTWG
3167.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station

Cross -Section Pebble Count (MS); Monitoring AB
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT: Logan Cr
REACH/LOCATIOM Riffle at XSl
FEATURE: Riffle
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
AB 2015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
50%
IL
40%
0%
0.063
Very Fine
063-125
1
1 %
1 %
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
4
4%
5%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
9
9%
14%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
5
5%
19%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
10
10%
28%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
28%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
2
2%
30%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
3
3%
33%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
2%
35%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
9
9%
44%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0-16.0
10
10%
54%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
17
1 17%
71%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
12
12 %
82%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
9
9%
91%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
7
7%
98%
64
Small
64-90
1
1 %
99%
90
Small
90-128
99%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
99%
180
Large
180-256
1
1 %
100%
256
Small
256-362
100 %
3s2
Small
362-512
100 %
512
Boulder
Medium
512- 1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2049
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
>2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count
102
100
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 0.7 D84=
34.1
D35— 7.6 D95 =
54.8
D50= 13.8 D100=
1 180-256
Logan Creek Site
Mainstem at XS
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
l00
90%
EmAB 2015
80%
70%
60%
v
y
50%
IL
40%
a
_m
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count (MS); Monitoring AB
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS # 92515
SITE OR PROJECT: Logan Cr
REACIULOCATIOM Riffle at XS3
FEATURE: Riffle
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
AB 2015
Class %
% Cum
Distrmution
Piot si=e (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
1 <.063
D50 =
1 19.2 1 13100-1
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0 %
0.125
Fine
.125-.25
1
1%
1%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-.50
2
2%
3%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
3
3%
6%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
2
20/o
80/6
2.0
U
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
20%
8%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
10%
8%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
9%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
3
3%
12%
8.0
Medium
8.0-11.0
8
8%
20%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0-16.0
22
22%
42%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
15
15%
57%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
24
24%
81%
32
Very Coarse
32 - 45
10
10 %
91 %
45
Very Coarse
45-64
6
6%
97%
64
Small
64-90
2
2%
99%
90
Small
90-128
1
1 %
100%
128
Cobble.
Large
128-180
100%
180
Large
180-256
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-10241
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
12048
100%
5000
Total% ofwhole count
100
100%
Summary Data
Logan Creek Site
Channel materials
Riffle at XS3
D,16-1
9.4 1 D84=
1 35.4
D35 =
1 14.2 1 D95 =
1 56.9
D50 =
1 19.2 1 13100-1
90-128
Logan Creek Site
Riffle at XS3
100%
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
90%
■ AB 2015
80
70%
60%
c
v 50%
`w
d 40
N
Na
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring AB
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS # 92515
SITE OR PROJECT: Logan Creek
REACIFLOCATIOM
XS7
FEATURE:
Riffle
MATERIAL PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
AB 2015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Sin (mm)
Sift/Clay
Silt / Clay
1.063
0%
o.Os3
Very Fine
.063-.125
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-,25
6
6%
6%
0.25
Sand
Medium
25-50 .50
3
3%
9%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
9%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
3
3%
12%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
12%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1%
13%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
13%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
2%
15%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
5
5%
20%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
8
8%
28%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
16
16%
44%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
23
23 %
66%
32
Very Coarse
32 - 45
18
18%
84%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
10
10%
94%
64
Small
64-90
4
4%
98%
90
Small
90- 128
2
2%
100%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
100%
18000%
Large
180-256
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512- 1024
100%
1 1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total %
of whole count
101
100
100%
90%
80%
70%
c 60%
N
50%
a
> 40%
m 30%
E
U 20%
10%
0%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
50%
d
IL ao%
N
a 30%
U
20%
Summary Data 10%
Channel materials 0%
D16= 8.6 D84= 44.9
D35 = 18.8 D95 = 69.4
D50= 24.9 D100= 90-128
0.01
�11-11320'1'5
■ AB 2015
Logan Creek Site
Mainstem at XS7
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
f
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
Logan Creek Site
Mainstem at XS7
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
Particle Size Class (mm)
1000 10000

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Data (Tables 7 and 8),
Vegetation Plot Photo Log, Raw Vegetation
Data

Table 7. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Total
Number of
Stems
Riparian Tree Plantings
760 Stems/Acre
Betula nigra
River Birch
16%
800
Diospyros virginica
Persimmon
16%
800
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
13%
600
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip poplar
16%
800
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
13%
600
Quercus alba
White oak
13%
600
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
13%
600
Total
4,800
Riparian Shrub Plantings
880 Stems/Acre
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
87%
1000
Leucothoe fontanesiana
Highland doghobble
9%
100
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
4%
50
Total
1,150
Riparian Live Stake Plantings
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
35%
1,750
Physocarpus opulifolius
Ninebark
15%
750
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
30%
1,500
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
20%
1,000
Total
5,000
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 8. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Tree Species
Current Plot Data (MYO 2015)
Annual Means
Species
Scientific Name Common Name Type
92515-01-0001
P T
92515-01-0002
P T
92515-01-0003
P T
92515-01-0004
P T
92515-01-0005
P T
92515-01-0006
P T
92515-01-0007
P T
92515-01-0008
P T
MYO(2015)
P T
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
4
4
6
6
2
2
7
7
4
4
5
5
5
5
33
33
Betula nigra river birch Tree
1
1
4
4
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
13
13
Diospyros, vir iniana common persimmon Tree
14
14
3
3
6
6
1
1
24
24
Fraxinus permsylvanica green ash Tree
1
1
4
4
4
4
2
2
8
8
3
3
2
2
24
24
Leucothoe fontanesiana highland do hobble Shrub
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
Liriodendron tuli ifera tuli tree Tree 1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
5
5
3
3
17
17
N ssa s Ivatica black um Tree
1
1
2
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
20
20
Quercus alba white oak Tree
3
3
2
2
1
1
6
6
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree
4
4
2
2
1
1
4
4
2
2
13
13
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub
9
9
9
9
Unknown Tree
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
7
7
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species coun
Stems per ACREI
25
1
0.02
4
1012 1
25
4
1012 1
15
7
607
15
1 1
0.02
1 7
1 607 1
21
7
850
21
1 1
0.02
1 7
1 850 1
19
7
769
19
1 1
0.02
1 7
1 769 1
22
8
890
22
1
0.02
1 8
1 890
25
1 1
0.02
6 1
1 1012 1
25
1
6
1012 1
27
9
1093
27
1 1
0.02
1 9
1 1093 1
16
7
647
16
1
0.02
7
647
170
11
860
170
8
0.20
11
860
Exceeds requirements by 10%
P = Planted
T = Total
No Volunteers at this point.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Logan Creek Site Vegetation Plot Photos
Photo 1. Vegetation Plot 1 — Tree photo.
Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 1 — Herbaceous photo.
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 2 — Tree photo.
Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 2 — Herbaceous photo.
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 3 Tree photo.
Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 3 Herbaceous photo.

Logan Creek Site Vegetation Plot Photos - continued
Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 4 Tree photo.
Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 4 Herbaceous photo.
Photo Point 10, Vegetation Plot 5 — Herbaceous photo.
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 6 — Tree photo.
Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 6 — Herbaceous photo.
.. e
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 6 — Tree photo.
Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 6 — Herbaceous photo.

Logan Creek Site Vegetation Plot Photos - continued
Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 Tree photo.
Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 — Herbaceous photo.
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 — Tree photo.
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 Herbaceous photo.

14 !
f�
N
dmb.
a
W
j
DIVISION +`7F MTIGA TION SER VICES
Lagan Creek Restoration Project
Jackson CT'ounty,, [*,�Vpc�rrth Carolina
f'}pe C)f Tllil"k r7,.7 - dJ UILT PL.s'!!■
rNDFXOFSHEETS
1 .................... Tdtle
2-5 ................... Alan
8.11 ...... 1. ....... ...- PrvRles
GRAPHIC SCALES
30 0 30 60
PLANS '
20 0 20 417
PROME (HORIZONTAL)
2 0 2 4
11
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
PREPARED RED FOR THE OFFICE OF.
NCDEQ
DIVISIaN OF MITIGATION SER111 ES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1652
NCEEP PROJECT MGR.: PAUL WIESNER
NCEEP REVIEW +GOO RDINA7Yi R LIN XU
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF.
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Baker
1117 Haywood Road. Sur".e 201
Michael A5t e"flle, (NORTH CAROLINA 78506
Pn�rrar4�a.3�a.lal'e
FaX: 678-3W.1409
1NTE=RNAT10INALDoen%et:F-1094
JACOB M. BYERS, PE
PROJECT ENGfNEFR
MICKY CLE MMONS, PROJECT MANAGER
PR41£L7MCNAG£R
10/28/2015
PATE
PROJEC ENGI EER
"cwt I�*1 CA/j0//,
i
:cL SEAL
r - D�9201
GIN
P.F..
sf
DE 7IG1 1' SUMMAR i
NAME
STATIONS
LINEAR FT.
TYPE
SMU
Logan Creek
R1
0400-31484
3134
Restonatlon
3,134
R2
32+43.42+81
1038
Enhancement 1
692
UTi
p+Dp - 1+T7
71
Erthancaernant 11
28
l}T2
0+00-0492
92
Entlancernent II
37
UT3
I:R1
0+00-0+40
40
Enhancement 11
16
R2
0+4D - 1+78
138
Reslaration
138
UT4
0+0D -0+g4
84
Enhoncernenlll
34
UT5
0+()0-2+87
287
Preservatitm
57
Urs
0+00 -1+27
127
Restaretlon
127
UT?
0+00-0+54
54
Enharimment II
21
1178
0+00-0+45
45
Restoma on
45
5,110
4.329
PREPARED RED FOR THE OFFICE OF.
NCDEQ
DIVISIaN OF MITIGATION SER111 ES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1652
NCEEP PROJECT MGR.: PAUL WIESNER
NCEEP REVIEW +GOO RDINA7Yi R LIN XU
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF.
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Baker
1117 Haywood Road. Sur".e 201
Michael A5t e"flle, (NORTH CAROLINA 78506
Pn�rrar4�a.3�a.lal'e
FaX: 678-3W.1409
1NTE=RNAT10INALDoen%et:F-1094
JACOB M. BYERS, PE
PROJECT ENGfNEFR
MICKY CLE MMONS, PROJECT MANAGER
PR41£L7MCNAG£R
10/28/2015
PATE
PROJEC ENGI EER
"cwt I�*1 CA/j0//,
i
:cL SEAL
r - D�9201
GIN
P.F..
sf

I �`
Z �4vfii��
BEGIN UT2 STA. 0+00 %
BEGIN UTi STA 0+00 � N
END UTi STA 0+71
=Y,
p
� NO U7l
R
1
>HOTB
01a-
�.
n a o /R
'fl UT8 ST +45 IB
q/p E STA. 0+00
REEK \
LOG SILL
0 O LOG VANE/CROSS VANE
�Q
®O JHOOK LOG VANE
LOG STEP
I6 NATURE L
BEGIN
END UT6
9 a SEAL
L-5034

a
�a
6VERNRLI
'die
UT3 STA 0+00
sP
x�
— P
p
\ END 3 STA. 1+7
Op
LOG SILL ®O J HOOK LOG VANE
OO LOG VANE/CROSS VANE
LOG STEP
BEGINtSTAN
rE "NG W WRE 71MLL
a
NUU4 slaw
V
N
a�
SGzm
$
0
$ 9Mid5i
s
CA
7Z
m
+aesos
SEAL
u
L5034 = _
sonnnas
xvxu o.. DDe
�SURVE{-`V1
¢sc¢v
o.w3x.
s all

{
_ —
_ _ _ A
POOL . , )
.
° / , . HOOK . .}
.
-
�/ x a_
. m
PHOTO z
To
(p` _ _, _ pry ¥ . i %
$ &~91
OT
PON
k} 2
MOT , `` \\ ` - ■!
a d \
^co/
-��a
x x�»^
(`
��
® ~�.o A L
~ �,
\SEAL\
' \
L-5034 ±
%L L G� `

INUEPENOENT EMENT , nppp
¢O Z
q 1 n
N $ HANGING o
/ ^ � COVER LOG
W �
PHOT Of 2
Pary LOG SILL 3 �
o CH 1ST .31+84 u & o
Pn To / O O LOG VANE/
P!)Y! BEGREACH 2 STA. 32+q
a a—a—a a—a— SA rj u CROSSVANE
qqyypo MMMryryry S 1A*
S a O POINTYf E�N�eN� / CARQ �j' Oum
1 \yp1�
FES �1.
LOGVA
LOG VANE
ui�
02):a _ r^ v _ - �I�Y.I LOG STEP
Fri
/ RY
�tGB&3
� =
103V1015
G.`i\`\\ X34
san

317
317
316
316
31
EXI NG GROUND
r N,
315
€'iyz
15+00
EXISTIN3
GROUND
18+50 19+00 19+51
3170
RMT
ON
20 p ;o a0
_❑ _+ y y�
LEGEND OF PROFILES
®
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
_
Olv 2 r'
1(/
LOGAN CREEK PROFILE
PROPOSED THALWEG
2 q z, a
%qc�..1 E.P Q4`�
10+00-20+00
AS-BUILTTHALWEG
rOB/y10`e���
— — — - EXISTING GROUND
PROFILE
w
z
2
3160
l
3170
a
z
� y
6
3165
3160big
w
I
\
sig
1
PROPOSED GRi
UND
AS -BUILT THAL
EG
In+nn
10+5n
11+nn
11+Fn 19+nn
17+sn
13+nn
13+5n
14+nn
14+5n
15+nI
EXI NG GROUND
r N,
315
€'iyz
15+00
IIIA 1 1
15+5Q��H D 16+50
17+00 17+50 18+00
18+50 19+00 19+51
3170
RMT
ON
20 p ;o a0
_❑ _+ y y�
LEGEND OF PROFILES
®
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
_
Olv 2 r'
1(/
LOGAN CREEK PROFILE
PROPOSED THALWEG
2 q z, a
%qc�..1 E.P Q4`�
10+00-20+00
AS-BUILTTHALWEG
rOB/y10`e���
— — — - EXISTING GROUND
PROFILE
w
3175
€'iyz
�m
.g8gs?
3170
RMT
ON
a
z
1 0
3165
.F
z
w
z
2
3160
l
3170
a
z
� y
6
3165
3160big
w
sig
SEAL
L-5034
M�tr
T M 11

3170"-g
317
D
EXISTING GROW
61
1PU
31
3165
w
zItw
I
BY
6
PRO
ED GROUND
AS -BUILT THAL
O
5
3160
31
+ +
+
+ +
z
+ +
a
w
24+
24+50
25+00
z
Z
31 3155
20 00 20 50 21 00 21 50 22 00 22 50 23 00 23 50 00
..
316 3165
w
u
EXISTING G OUND
z
-----
o
r--��.------- —�
a
(
`
3160
a
316
r��
J
O
PROPOSED
GROUND
315
AS-BUILTTHA
WEG
3155
s
150
0
315
25+00 25+�a 26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50 28+00 28+50 29+00 29+50
Illn/�,
CARO�i�
t ........
`=?. oFessioy.!y�
ovaa
�? LEGEND OF PROFILES
_ ; i SEAL r'.y =
101ZBYe016
ao p ;o ao
® - `- LOGAN CREEK PROFILE PROPOSED THALWEG
- L-5034 _
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) II •• l3 C } + AS-BUILT THALWEG
20 00 - 30 00
Z — — — — — — - EXISTING GROUND
[y�.:
QQ�\
'9SHA(L GE�\V��
PROFILE
D
I
I
6
PRO
ED GROUND
AS -BUILT THAL
G
5
+ +
+
+ +
+ +
+
24+
24+50
25+00

3165 3165 g�
ELLS"
� >MIS
s k'
316 3160 °
J
315 3155 ..
z
w
r
z
315 3150 —
30+00 30+50 31+00 31+50 32+00 32+50 33+00 33+50 34+00 34+50 35+00
r
U
316 3165 c <
g�
o
r g
0
o � J
PROP ED GROUND 2 5
BUILT THALWE g
316 3160 w
U
_
J
315 3155
w $
H.
/EXISTING G OUND E w
315 3150 601
35+00 35+50 36+00 36+50 37+00 37+50 38+00 38+50 39+00 39+50 40+00
\\\\wuugt�
/Q (,=i==,papESSioy y�10820.4
�a p ;a ao is y _ LEGEND OF PROFILES = a SEAL �':
PROFILE (® C 2 L r• _ PROPOSED THALWEG = ' L-5034 10fB20'6
�p } LOGAN CREEK PROFILE AS -BUILT THALWEG %9"0
2 4 + irtrt�o 'p '. SO RVE .'C��C� axr.0
30+00 - 40+00 — — — — -- - EXISTING GROUND e.N`�.`,m,
PROFILE(WRnCAU !�� •11\k `` � ���lu u�\\\`
s mn
EN REACH 1 EGIN REACH 2 pgpp0 ED GROUND
AS UILT THALWEG ST 31+84 TA. 32+43
EXISTING GRO NO
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

9a_s
g�Ra,
�F
€m
316
3165
PROPOSE
Ea
NOTT 8URRNOEUYED
J
AS-BUILT TH WEO
316
3160
z
0
a
z
315
3155
w
z
EXIS77NG GRO NO
U
W
6 2
315
3150
a —
40+00
40+50 41+00 41+50
42+00 42+150
43+100
6
o�
0
LEGEND OF PROFIES
PROPOSED THALWEG
— — —
AS-BUILTTHALWEG
– EXISTING GROUND
a L �'�
aw
--- ---- --
EXISTING GROUND
039�9A `_
g3
'_
NOT SURVEYED
•Aip�//NEpP���
6'1%
\
a
_
o
�QQ-. , ESSia
ry.em
imu3
zs p zo ao
LOGAN CREEK PROFILE
�='a SE AI �
c _
L.e03a _
isnens�s
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
40+00-42+81
= p :
o:
is9 �aQ SU R�F:.�V��
vnwxenmm
'�gSHALL
1111\
PROFILE
u��
omn
PROPOSE
GROUND

317
317
Ma
31611
0+00
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
UTDU IrUU IrDU LTUU
LIT3 PROFILE
0+00-11+78
R71Ilk"
317
�i6
GIF
OUND NOT SURV
D
AS-UILT
THALWEG
A5 -BUILT
HALWEG
PROPOSED
GROUND
7
EXI
TING GROUND
1
EXISTING
GROUND
31611
0+00
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
UTDU IrUU IrDU LTUU
LIT3 PROFILE
0+00-11+78
R71Ilk"
317
�i6
316
0+00
v ITUV ITDU
LIT6 PROFILE
0+00-1+27
3175
3170
3165
3160
3175
3170
M�m
.�jaS�F
mrcgg�
a E mggt
�wP�€LL
J
z
a
o
u —
z
w
z
z
o a
az
o�
66
w
Y
W W
arc x
c3
G
LEGEND OF PROFILES
PROPOSEDTHALWEG sV
AS -BUILT THALWEG fl
EXISTING GROUND
3165 --- _____
EXISTING GROUND
NOT SURVEYED
J````�NII
CAN t U
�Op E /
:( O N ',9 G 10BN3
3160 — e AL ❑ is SEAL=iansrzws
03 ZO - - _ L-5034 e; _
o we
WX
y(,,P��sua�`D
///l/r181� IO Qp'I�Alll1111\
an
IST. GI
OUND NOT SURV
EYED
AS-UILT
THALWEG
PROPOSE
GROUND
EXI
TING GROUND
316
0+00
v ITUV ITDU
LIT6 PROFILE
0+00-1+27
3175
3170
3165
3160
3175
3170
M�m
.�jaS�F
mrcgg�
a E mggt
�wP�€LL
J
z
a
o
u —
z
w
z
z
o a
az
o�
66
w
Y
W W
arc x
c3
G
LEGEND OF PROFILES
PROPOSEDTHALWEG sV
AS -BUILT THALWEG fl
EXISTING GROUND
3165 --- _____
EXISTING GROUND
NOT SURVEYED
J````�NII
CAN t U
�Op E /
:( O N ',9 G 10BN3
3160 — e AL ❑ is SEAL=iansrzws
03 ZO - - _ L-5034 e; _
o we
WX
y(,,P��sua�`D
///l/r181� IO Qp'I�Alll1111\
an

APPENDIX E
Log of Photo Points on Logan Creek,
and each unnamed tributary.

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Photo Points
(Stationing is the approximate location)
Photo 1. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 — Station 40+45
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 2. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 — Station 40+45
(August 2015) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 3. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 — Station 38+60
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 4. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 — Station 38+60
(August 2015) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 5. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 — Station 36+75
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 6. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 — Station 36+75
(August 2015) downstream view from right bank.

PSS`, t
WI
r/
i
L
999FF�
Y
�
T

Photo 13. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+15
(August 2015) downstream view from bridge.
Photo 14. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+00
(August 2015) upstream view from bridge.
Photo 15. Logan Creek Photo Point 8a — Station 29+75
(August 2015) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 16. Logan Creek Photo Point 8b — Station 29+25
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 17. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 18. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(August 2015) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 19. Logan Creek Photo Point 10 — Station 25+25 Photo 20. Logan Creek Photo Point 10 — Station 25+25
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank. (August 2015) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 21. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 — Station 23+20
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 22. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 — Station 23+20
(August 2015) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 23. Logan Creek Photo Point 12 — Station 21+20 Photo 24. Logan Creek Photo Point 12 — Station 21+20
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank. (August 2015) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 25. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (August 2015)
upstream view from left bank.
Photo 26. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (August 2015)
downstream view from left bank.
Photo 27. Logan Creek Photo Point 14 — Station 19+45 Photo 28. Logan Creek Photo Point 14 — Station 19+45
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank. (August 2015) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 29. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 — Station 17+45 Photo 30. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 — Station 17+45
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank. (August 2015) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 31. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 32. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(August 2015) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 32. Logan Creek Photo Point 17 — Station 15+50 Photo 33. Logan Creek Photo Point 17 — Station 15+50
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank. (August 2015) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 34. Logan Creek Photo Point 18 — Station 12+90 Photo 35. Logan Creek Photo Point 18 — Station 12+90
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank. (August 2015) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 36. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(August 2015) upstream from left bank.
Photo 38. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(August 2015) upstream from left bank to vernal pool.
Photo 37. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(August 2015) downstream from left bank.
Photo 39. Intentionally left blank.
Photo 40. Logan Creek Photo Point 20 — Station 10+60 Photo 41. Logan Creek Photo Point 20 — Station 10+60
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank. (August 2015) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 42. Logan Creek Photo Point 21 — Station 9+40 Photo 43. Logan Creek Photo Point 21 — Station 9+40
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank. (August 2015) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 44. Logan Creek Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75 Photo 45. Logan Creek Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank. (August 2015) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 46. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70 Photo 47. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank. (August 2015) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 48. Logan Creek, Photo Point 24 — Station 5+70 Photo 49. Logan Creek, Photo Point 24 — Station 5+70
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank. (August 2015) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 50. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(August 2015) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 51. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(August 2015) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 52. Logan Creek, Photo Point 26 — Station 3+80 Photo 53. Logan Creek, Photo Point 26 — Station 3+80
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank. (August 2015) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 54. Logan Creek, Photo Point 27 — Station 1+12 Photo 55. Logan Creek, Photo Point 27 — Station 1+12
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank. (August 2015) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 56. UT2, Photo Point 28 — Station 1+10 (August Photo 57. UTI, Photo Point 29 — Station 0+50 (August
2015) upstream view from right bank and confluence. 2015) view upstream and confluence.
Photo 58. Logan Creek, Photo Point 30 — Station 0+50 Photo 59. Logan Creek, Photo Point 30 — Station 0+50
(August 2015) upstream view from right bank. (August 2015) downstream view from right bank.

r
4f
-' - Moir-
7;P,jig
-
• yl �'4
yk
r
ar
I�
ar

Photo 64. UT8 - Preservation, Photo Point 33 — (August
2015) upstream view from right bank.