20080879 Ver 2_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2015_20160617

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Jackson County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID No. 92515; Contract No. D06046 -A
Savannah River Basin: 03060101-010020
IWO
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 1 of 5
Year of Data Collection: November 2015
Year of Completed Construction: May 2015
Submission Date: May 2016
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
NCDEQ Contract ID No. D06046 -A

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Jackson County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 92515
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
MAY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5, DRAFT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Stream Assessment......................................................................................................................................4
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................3
2.2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................6
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................6
2.2.4 Project Problem Areas...............................................................................................................................6
3.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2 Current Conditions Plan View —Overview Map, MY1
Figure 2A CCPV MY1 Logan Creek Site — North Area
Figure 2B CCPV MY1 Logan Creek Site — Middle Area
Figure 2C CCPV MY1 Logan Creek Site — South Area
Appendix B General Project Tables
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Figure
3
Project Asset Map
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes
Appendix C Vegetation Assessment Data
Table
5
Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table
6
CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table
7
Stem Count Arranged by Plot and Species
Figure
4
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Table
8
Vegetative Problem Areas
Table
9
Vegetation Condition Assessment at Logan Creek
Appendix D Stream Assessment Data
Figure
5
Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table
10
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table
11
Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure
6
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure
7
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure
8
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table
12
Monitoring Year 1 Stream Summary
Table
13
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table
14
Stream Problem Areas and Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
MAY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5, DRAFT REPORT

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored, enhanced or preserved 5,110 linear feet (LF) of perennial
stream channel along Logan Creek and eight unnamed tributaries (UT1,UT2, UT3, UT4, UT5, UT6, UT7 and
UT8) in Jackson County, NC (Appendix A). The nearest town, Cashiers, is approximately five miles west of
the Logan Creek Project site. The site lies in the Savannah River Basin within the Targeted Local Watershed
03060101-010020 (Horsepasture River) and within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
sub -basin formerly known as 03-06-01-01 (Keowee River Subbasin).. The Horsepasture River is a National
Wild and Scenic River and a state -designated Natural and Scenic River. The project involved the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of a stable channel and a Montane Alluvial/Montane Oak -Hickory Forest system
(NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural
conversion including orchard development, trout hatchery development, mink farming and more recently
single-family home development.
The project goals directly address stressors identified in the Savannah River Basin Restoration Priority Plan
(RBRP) (DMS 2001 and updated 2008) such as habitat degradation, inadequate riparian buffer cover, channel
modification, and excess nutrient and sediment loading. The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the
approved mitigation plan, are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable stream channels within the Logan Creek project.
• 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.
During Monitoring Year 1 (MY1), our sampling indicated that the planted acreage was functioning well with
most banks, benches and flood plain areas having a developing herbaceous community and good growth of
planted trees. The access areas used during construction were particularly difficult to stabilize but after hydro -
seeding they are now well vegetated. One other area with minimal vegetative cover is labeled VPA-1 on the
CCPV map (Appendix A). This area has been replanted and appears to be improving but we will continue to
monitor it. We have had discussions with the landowner concerning a mowing encroachment (EA -1) by
maintenance staff and their encroachment by installing the outlet of a drainpipe within the easement (EA -2).
These encroachment issues have been addressed and resolved; however, we continue to monitor the site for
similar issues.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 3
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
MAY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5, DRAFT REPORT

There have been three channel problem areas noted during the year. CPA -1 is a small area of stream bank
instability near station 2+80, CPA -2 is another small area of bank instability caused by overbank flow from the
encroaching drainage pipe and lastly CPA -3 is a small hole that developed above a toewood installation. All
of these areas are less than five feet by five feet in area and will either be repaired (CPA -3) or monitored to
determine if repair is needed.
As noted in the Baseline report, we installed eight (8) vegetation monitoring plots at this site, with seven (7)
being installed along the restoration reach and one (1) being installed along the enhancement reach. The
enhancement reach had minimal disturbance of the existing vegetation during construction. The location of
these vegetation monitoring plots can be seen on Figures 2A -C. The average density of total planted stems
following the MY1 growing season is 769 stems per acre (n=8). Only one volunteer stem was observed in a
plot. With an average planted density of 769 stems per acre, the Site is on track to meet the minimum interim
success criteria of 320 stems per acre by the end of MY3, and the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre
by the end of MY5.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY1 was assessed by surveying twelve (12) cross-
sections (8 on Logan Creek, 2 on UT3, and 2 on UT6) and a profile of each channel, evaluating the bed particle
size with 3 riffle pebble counts and by observation and replicating channel location photographs. An additional
pool cross-section was added on UT3 during MY 1 surveying so that we have both a riffle and pool cross-section
on this tributary. Cross-sections and profiles of all the channels indicated that there was very little change in
the channel during MYL The Visual Morphological Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable and
performing at 100 percent for all parameters. All structures were functioning as designed during MY 1. Channel
morphology is responding as designed and meeting project goals. There were no bankfull events recorded on
the crest gauge during MY1 and there was no physical indications of over -bank flooding. Pebble count data
indicate a shift to larger particle sizes at all of the riffles sampled.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres
to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated December 1, 2009 and other mitigation guidance (NCEEP
2009 and USACE 2003), which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The
specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections and profiles, and the crest
gauge location, are shown on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) sheets found in Appendix A.
The MY monitoring data were collected between December 2015 and March 2016. Site surveys for channel
cross-sections and photos, profiles and pebble counts were conducted in December and the first week in
January. Vegetation monitoring plots and site photo points were monitored in March.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if success criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrants (veg plots) were
installed and are monitored in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1 (CVS 2007 and Lee, Peet, Roberts and Wentworth 2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum
of two percent of the planted portion of the Site with eight plots established randomly within the planted
riparian buffer, per CVS Monitoring Level 2. No veg plots were established within the undisturbed forested
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
MAY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5, DRAFT REPORT

areas along the northern part of the project or within the undisturbed forested areas along Reach II of Logan
Creek and UT5. There is a small area of disturbance within the enhancement reach and Veg Plot 1 is located
in that area where bare root trees were planted. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for
woody (tree) species and 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation quadrants were
established in one corner of the larger woody vegetation plots and monitored by comparative photographs
taken each year.
Trees surviving within vegetation monitoring plots were visually accessed during year one monitoring. We
found that all vegetation was in good condition. All plots indicated that trees were growing and in good to
excellent condition and herbaceous vegetation, while not thick, was becoming established and growing well.
The average density of planted trees following the Year 1 growing season is 769 stems per acre. There was
only one volunteer stem found in one plot at this time, which bumps total stems up to 774 stems per acre.
With an average planted stem density of 769 stems per acre, the Site is on track to meet the minimum interim
success criteria of 320 stems per acre by the end of Year 3, and the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre
by the end of Year 5.
There were few invasive species observed at this site during Year 1. Observation during monitoring activities
indicated that there were only a few scattered individual small plants of the invasive species, Multiflora rose.
Larger individual plants of this species were treated during construction and killed but some seeding appears
to have occurred from these or other nearby plants. We will continue to monitor for additional plants growing
from the existing seed bank and will treat these as needed. No other areas of concern regarding the existing
vegetation was observed along Logan Creek or any of the tributaries. Year 1 vegetation assessment
information is provided in Appendix C.
2.2 Stream Assessment
The approach for the Logan Creek Site includes the restoration of channels to a stable morphology that allows
for the transport of water and sediment through the Site and allows stream flows larger than bankfull flows
to spread onto the floodplain. Stream monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, a crest gauge to
document bankfull flooding events, surveying established stream cross-sections and channel profiles to assess
channel stability and pebble counts to assess if proper sediment transport is taking place.
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in
US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey system collects point data with
an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen 1994) and all
cross-sections were evaluated to determine if they meet design expectations. Cross-sections were also
compared to the baseline cross-section plots to evaluate change between as -built and the MY1 survey.
Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of each channel to document changes from
the as -built baseline conditions during the first year of monitoring. The survey was tied to a permanent
benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, and top of low bank. Each of these
measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY1 was assessed by surveying twelve
(12) cross-sections (8 on Logan Creek, 2 on UT3, and 2 on UT6) and a profile of each channel,
evaluating the bed particle size with 3 riffle pebble counts and by observation and replicating channel
location photographs. An additional pool cross-section was added on UT3 during MY1 surveying so
that we have both a riffle and pool cross-section on this tributary. Cross-sections of all the channels
indicated that there was very little change in the cross-sections during MYL A couple of the pool
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
MAY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5, DRAFT REPORT

cross-sections deepened slightly and there were other slight changes in pool cross-sectional
morphology; however, these slight changes are not unusual during the first year as the channel changes
to adjust with the sediment supply and discharge. No observed changes indicate any instability. The
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable and performing at 100
percent for all parameters on reaches. All structures were functioning as designed during MYL
Channel morphology is responding as designed and meeting project goals.
Pebble count data indicate a shift to larger particle sizes at all of the riffles sampled. The channel had
an average D5O of 19.3mm during baseline sampling but this has now changed to an average of
38.3mm. This represents a change from coarse gravel to very coarse gravel and likely represents and
improvement in trout spawning habitat within the stream. This data also indicates that sand particles
are being transported through the project reach. This is particularly important in the enhancement
reach, as the bed of this reach had been inundated with sand, which greatly reduced aquatic habitat.
During MY1 more gravel was observed immediately downstream of log structures within the
enhancement reach. These were installed specifically to move this sand and create better habitat. This
indicates a properly functioning system, as there were no mid -channel bars or other sediment transport
issues.
2.2.2 Hydrology
A crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the right top of bank on
Logan Creek at approximate Station 30+00. No bankfull flow events were recorded on the crest gauge
during the MY1 data collection period, which primarily extended from April 1, 2015 to November 30,
2015. There was also not evidence of greater than bankfull flows based on visual evidence such as
wrack lines or sediment deposition. Crest gauge readings are presented in Appendix D.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference transects were photographed at each permanent cross-section. A survey tape is normally
centered in the photograph when the tape is used to identify the transect. The water line was located in
the lower area of the frame, and as much of the bank as possible included in each photograph.
Photographs were taken at specific photo points established along each channel during MY1
monitoring. Photographs from these points will be replicated each year and used to document changes
along the channel. Points were selected to include grade control structures as well as other structural
components installed during construction. Annual photographs from the established photo points are
shown in Appendix D.
2.2.4 Project Problem Areas
Project problem areas fall into three types: Vegetation Problem Areas (VPA), Encroachment Areas
(EA), and Channel Problem Areas (CPA). All observed problem areas are shown on the CCPV maps.
The only remaining area of minimal vegetative cover is the stockpile area at the north end of the project
labeled VPA-1 on the CCPV map (Appendix A). We have replanted this area several times and in
September the area was tilled, reseeded and mulched. We will continue to monitor this small area
through the second year. Invasive vegetation is not a problem at this site. There are some individual
Multiflora rose plants growing at scattered locations on the site. We sprayed this vegetation during
2015 and had good success controlling it. We expect some regrowth from the existing seed bank but
will continue to monitor and use herbicides as needed. An additional issue affecting Site vegetation is
mowing encroachment. There was one area along the easement line (EA -1) where the landowner
encroached into the easement while attempting to mow the field outside of the easement line. These
areas were pointed out to the landowner and we discussed the need to avoid encroaching into the
easement. The easement line in these areas has been marked with additional posts to guide the
maintenance staff during mowing. Additionally, during the year the landowner installed a drainage
pipe that ran from a newly constructed building into the easement, emptying onto a large rip -rap pad
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
MAY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5, DRAFT REPORT

(EA -2). We contacted the landowner and DMS to inform them of this easement violation and to request
that the pipe outlet be removed from the easement and all impacts to the easement be repaired. The
pipe was removed before the end of the year, the affected area regraded, seeded, and erosion control
matting installed. While this pipe outlet was installed, excessive stormflow was directed onto the
floodplain and caused a small area of instability on the right bank where this flow entered the channel
(CPA -2). High flows caused a small area of erosion on the left stream bank at station 2+80 (CPA -1).
There apparently was an area of softer soil material incorporated in the bank and eroded during high
flows. This happened early in the summer and has been stable in the intervening time. Both CPA -1
and CPA -2 are small and are not continuing to destabilize. We do not plan to repair them at this time
but will monitor their condition and take corrective action if needed. The only other area that was
considered a Channel Problem Area was a small hole that developed on the floodplain (CPA -3) above
some woody debris that was installed in the bank. Standing water on the floodplain drains into the
ground in this area and caused this subsidence. We will be filling this hole during 2016. A nature trail
exists along the stream beginning at the lower end of Reach 1 and continuing upstream to the trout
pond. This trail falls within the easement in many locations but also passes out of the easement in
others. This was a pre-existing nature trail and the right to maintain it is allowed in the conservation
easement. All issues discussed above reference the CCPV mapping and the Stream Problem Area table
included in the e -File data with associated photos.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Guidance and Content Requirements for
EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1.2.1. December 1, 2009.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-rs-4.1.
Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
MAY 2016, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5, DRAFT REPORT

Includes:
Appendix A
General Figures and Plan Views
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) — Overview
Map, Monitoring Year 1
Figure 2A. CCPV North Area of Project
Figure 2B. CCPV Mid Area of Project
Figure 2C. CCPV South Area of Project

To reach the Logan Creek project site from Asheville, follow Interstate 26 East and take NC -280 at Exit
40. From the exit, turn right onto NC -280 and continue to the intersection with US-276/US-64 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 LIS -
64. The project site extends north from a road culvert under U5 64 to the outfall of Trout Pond.
04-04-01
LTN 1
igh
RESER
f
03-13-01
SAV1
I
ECREEK
04-04-02
LTN2
Municipal boundaries
Counties
USGS Hydrologic Unit
- NCDWQ Sub -basin
0 1 2 3
Miles
Project Location
03-13-02
SAV2
1
04-03-01
n FRB1
LAKE
TOXAWAY
Figure 1. Project Location Map
Logan Creek Stream Restoration
NCDMS Project 92515
Monitoring Year 1 Report
Jackson County, NC
Division of
Mitigation INTERNATIONAL
Services

No
Rit
r T4s
lo
P �
,a
!� Conservation Easement i
Vegetation Plots
,A, Photo Station
® Crest Gauge
"44
Trail �� � " kfrMtr,-
Cross Sections
Stream CenterlineStream Top Of Bank C NURRU , NC Center for Geographic Ii dlAnal:yis, NC 911
Board s
0 400 800 Figure 2
Michael- Feet Current Conditions Plan View
I N T E R N A T I a N A 'L Monitoring Year 1
DMS Project # 92515 Loqan Creek Site

i i5�-..` t. k..
,, , Y• YMs �i �� ... 4
w
UT5
Xs -10
r
Au
%
® Photo Station *R10
® Crest Gauge
Trail
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank
Q Conservation Easement
- Vegetation Plots1;'rw� "t `
Vegetation Problem Area
Encroachment Area r - ;%
OChannel Problem Area NC OneMap, NC' Ce ter for Ge�grap is formation and Analysis, NC 911
Boaird
0 150 300 Figure 2C
Michael Baker Feet Current Conditions Plan View
INTERNATIONAL Monitoring Year 1
DMS Project # 92515 Logan Creek Site

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

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
(AC)
Buffer
(SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration 3,444
Enhancement I 1,038
Enhancement II 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.
MONITORING YEAR 1
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 bare root trees and live stakes
N/A
N/A
Jan-15
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
May-15**
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)
N/A
Mar-15
Aug-15
As-Built Baseline Report
N/A
N/A
Nov-15
Year 1 Monitoring
N/A
N/A
Apr-16
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 (when Trout Moratorium ends) and was
com leted by May 12, 2015.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 1
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 3. Project Contacts
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 and Vegetation Monitoring
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Surveyor
Kee Mapping and Surveying
P.O. Box 2566
Asheville, NC 28802
Contact: Brad Kee, License #C-3039; Phone: [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 1
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 Mitigation 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
DWR Sub -basin
Keowee River: 0306010101
Mainstem 1353.5 at beginning to 1714 at end, UTI, UT4, UT6, UT7 &
UT8 <13, UT2 = 26; UT3 = 32,
Project Drainage Area (AC)
UT5 = 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%)
Other (.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
VIII
Drainage Area (AC)
1,557
1,714
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
52.5
52.5
NCDWR 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 Chanel Slope (ft/ft)
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
Vegetation'
<1%
<1%
Parameters
UT3
UT5
6 other small UTs in R1
R1 R2
R1 R2
Length of Reach (LF)
40 138
40 138
45- 127
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
II
II
II
Drainage Area (AC)
32
32
.02 to .04
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
41.5
41.5
40.5-32.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
B
B
E - B
type)
Evolutionary Trend
B
B
B—C—E
Underlying Mapped Soils
NkA, 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)
0.012
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
LOMR in process
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.
MONITORING YEAR 1
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Includes:
Appendix C
Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 6. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot and Species
Figure 4. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Table 8. Vegetative Problem Areas
Table 9. Vegetation Condition Assessment at Logan Creek

Table S. Vegetation Plot Mitigation
Success Summary
(per acre)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
Stems'
Volunteersz
Tota 13
Success
Criteria
Met?
1
1012
40
1052
Yes
2
445
0
445
Yes
3
809
0
809
Yes
4
688
0
688
Yes
5
850
0
850
Yes
6
850
0
850
Yes
7
971
0
971
Yes
8
526
0
526
Yes
Project Avg
769
5
774
Yes
Stem Class
Characteristics
1Stream/ Wetland
Stems
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT
include live stakes. No vines
2Volunteers
Native woody stems. Not planted.
No vines.
3Total
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Excludes live
stakes, exotics and vines.
Exceeds requirements by 10%

Table 6. Vegetation Metadata
Logan Creek Stream and Restoration Project - Project #92515
Report Prepared By Micky Clemmons
Date Prepared 4/7/2016 10:31
database name 92515_Logan_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
L:\projects\109243 -Logan Creek\Monitoring\YR1 monitoring\2.0 -
database location Monitoring Data\App C - Vegetation Data\Veg
computer name ASHELMCLEMMONS
file size 60628992
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
92515
project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
Damage
This excludes live stakes.
along Logan Creek.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year.
Proj, total stems
This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer
Damage by Plot
stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems,
28481.19
dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Project Code
92515
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
along Logan Creek.
percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for
28481.19
each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
8
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems
are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
92515
project Name
Logan Creek
This Project will restore or enhance 5,110 linear feet (LF) of stream
Description
along Logan Creek.
River Basin
Savannah
length(ft)
5,110
stream -to -edge width (ft)
at least 30 feet
area (sq m)
28481.19
Required Plots (calculated)
8
Sampled Plots
8

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Project: Logan Creek, DMS Project #92515.
Annual Means
Current Plot Data (MY1 2015)
Common Name
MYO (2015) MY1 (2015)
Species Type P V T P V
T
P
MY2 (2016)
V T
MY3 (2017)
P V
T
MY4 (2018)
P V
Scientific Name
Common Name
92515-01-0001 92515-01-0002
Species Type P V T P V
T
92515-01-0003
P V
T
P
92515-01-0004
V T
92515-01-0005
P V
T
92515-01-0006
P V
T
P
92515-01-0007
V T
P
92515-01-0008
V
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub 3
3
6
6
2
2
7
7
3
3
6
6
5
Tree 24 24 20
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
4
4
3
3
1
1
24
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree 2
2
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
6
6
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree 1
1
4
4
4
4
2
2
8
8
3
3
2
northern spicebush
2
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree 11 11
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree 17 17 11
11
Leucothoe fontanesiana
highland doghobble
Shrub 1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
1
1
1
1
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub 2 2
white oak
Tree 6 6 6
6
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree 1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
4
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree 1 1 1
1
3
3
Unknown
1
1
2
2
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree 2
2
Isouthern arrowwood
IShrub 9 9 11
2
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
0
9
0.22
0
0
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
2
2
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub 1 1
Unknown
IShrub or Tree
Viburnum dentatum
Isouthern arrowwood
IShrub 11 1 11
Stem count 25 26 11
size (ares) 1 1
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02
Species count 4 5 7
Stems per ACRE 1012 1052 445
11
7
445
20
1
0.02
7
809
20
7
809
17
7
688
17
1
0.02
7
688
21
1
0.02
8
850
21
8
850
21
1
0.02
6
850
21
6
850
24
7
971
24
1
0.02
7
971
13
6
526
1
0.02
13
6
526
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot, continued.
Project: Logan Creek, DMS Project #92515.
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
MYO (2015) MY1 (2015)
Species Type P V T P V
T
P
MY2 (2016)
V T
MY3 (2017)
P V
T
MY4 (2018)
P V
T
P
MY5 (2019)
V
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub 33 33 32
32
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree 13 13 11
11
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree 24 24 20
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree 24 24 24
24
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree 11
11
Leucothoe fontanesiana
highland doghobble
Shrub 4 4 3
3
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub 2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree 17 17 11
11
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree 20 20 9
9
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree 6 6 6
6
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree 13 13 12
12
Sambucus canadensis
lCommon Elderberry
Shrub 1
1
Unknown
I
IShrub or Tree 7 7
Viburnum dentatum
Isouthern arrowwood
IShrub 9 9 11
11
Stem count 170 0 170 152 1
size (ares) 8 8
size (ACRES) 0.20 0.20
Species counti 11 0 11 12 1
Stems per ACREJ 860 1 0 860 769 5
153
13
774
0
9
0.22
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.22
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.22
0
0
0
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%

Figure 4. Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 1 Vegetation Plot Photos, DMS Project #92515
Photo 1. Vegetation Plot 1 — Tree photo (taken March 18,
2016).
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 2 — Tree photo (taken March 18,
2016).
6"
Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 1 — Herbaceous photo (taken
March 18, 2016).
ti
eve ! ��c�• f �_' ♦ � .
Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 2 — Herbaceous photo (taken
March 18, 2016).
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 3 — Tree photo (taken March 18,
2016).
Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 3 — Herbaceous photo (taken
March 18, 2016).

Figure 4 continued. Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project Vegetation Plot Photos.
Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 4 — Tree photo (taken March 18,
2016).
Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 4 — Herbaceous photo (taken
March 18, 2016).
Photo 9. Vegetation Plot 5 — Tree photo (taken March 18,
2016).
Photo Point 10, Vegetation Plot 5 — Herbaceous photo
(taken March 18, 2016).
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 6 — Tree photo (taken March 18,
2016).
Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 6 — Herbaceous photo (taken
March 18, 2016).

Figure 4 continued. Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project Vegetation Plot Photos.
Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 — Tree photo (taken March 18,
2016).
.5�.
1 "'• m6
Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 — Herbaceous photo (taken
March 18, 2016).
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 — Tree photo (taken March 18,
2016).
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 — Herbaceous photo (taken
March 18, 2016).

Table 8. Vegetative Problem Areas
Feature Category
Station #/Range
Probable Cause
Photo #
Bare Bank
None
Bare Bench
None
This area was the soil stockpile area
during construction. It has been
Near Station 4+00, most
seeded multiple times. Good
Bare Flood Plain
of the area is outside of
1 and 2
coverage of trees but lacking in
the easement.
herbaceous vegetation. Had begun
to grow some going into fall.
Invasive /Exotic
Populations
None
Photo 1. VPA 1 - Area near station 4+00 showing Photo 2. Same area as in Photo 1 but from a
bare area of former construction entrance and different perspective.
soil stockpile area. Notice multiple trees.

Table 9. Vegetation Condition Assessment at Logan Creek
Planted Acreage'
7.49
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Limited cover of herbaceous vegetation within this area, much of which is outside of the
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
easement area. Good stand of bare root trees. Area is discussed and shown on CCPV
0.1 acres
1
0.08
1.1%
Color
and Table 7.5.
Pattern and
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Total
1
0.08
1.1%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
1
0.08
1.1%
Easement Acreage
12.71
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vecietation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acrea a
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
None
1000 SF
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Two areas shown on CCPV and in Table 12. These areas include on that is a mowing encroachment
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
and the second is an easement violation where the landowner installed the outfall of a drain pipe.
none
Pattern and
Color
2
0.07
1.0%
This last area has been removed and repaired.
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel
acreage, crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern
spcies are those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub
stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be
mapped with regularity, but can be mapped if in thhe judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation
will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu
or witO the timeframes dispanese Knotweed eussedin tand theepotentialts rimpacts owill ft eating nt ex extensive a potentially
of ground cover. e coverages of Tlihose sgium in the herb ec s with the "watch er list" designatorill not jinn gray contbecause ofthe rol
are of inteestlastwelcabut havetyet toact betobsesved achrub ross
the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history.
However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the
conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be
listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

Includes:
Appendix D
Stream Assessment Data
Figure 5.
Stream Photos by channel and station
Table 10.
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 11.
Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 6.
Cross -Sections with annual overlays
Figure 7.
Longitudinal Profiles with annual overlays
Figure 8.
Pebble Count plots with annual overlays
Table 12.
Stream Summary
Table 13.
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table 14.
Stream Problem Areas and Photos

Figure 5. Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Photo Points - Monitoring Year 1
(Stationing is the approximate location)
Photo 1. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 — Station 40+45
(March 2016) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 2. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 — Station 40+45
(March 2016) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 3. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 — Station 38+60
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 4. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 — Station 38+60
(March 2016) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 5. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 — Station 36+75
(March 2016) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 6. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 — Station 36+75
(March 2016) downstream view from right bank.

It ! ">+1
�, sr� };�5. d ��,�, �{, Y7�T � • - 4 �'n, r�� � r d -e f � 8. fir; � r ,i „Jh
h - y ' air"'` � r°-:x.a•^ s -
t _ �.5t _'�j, � i`7=rJ � t � *.i ti's :•w... .. ti ! � �
.t^
t -

Photo 13. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+15
(March 2016) downstream view from bridge.
'7W
AU
-
Photo 14. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+00
(March 2016) upstream view from bridge.
Le4
Photo 15. Logan Creek Photo Point 8a — Station 29+75 Photo 16. Logan Creek Photo Point 8b — Station 29+25
(March 2016) downstream view from right bank. (March 2016) upstream view from right bank.
A
- w
A � i
r. .1F •:S � N t a _ _
' 9
it yL Y
Photo 17. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 18. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(March 2016) 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
(March 2016) upstream view from right bank. (March 2016) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 21. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 — Station 23+20
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 22. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 — Station 23+20
(March 2016) 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
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank. (March 2016) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 25. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (March 2016)
upstream view from left bank.
Photo 26. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (March 2016)
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
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank. (March 2016) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 29. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 — Station 17+45
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 30. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 — Station 17+45
(March 2016) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 31. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank.
F{, 3 „ A
t
Photo 32. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(March 2016) 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
(March 2016) upstream view from right bank. (March 2016) 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
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank. (March 2016) upstream view from left bank.

•- .tea. Y '� s i
R
Photo 36. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(March 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 38. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(March 2016) upstream from left bank to vernal pool.
Photo 37. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(March 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 39. Intentionally left blank.
w _
Photo 40. Logan Creek Photo Point 20 — Station 10+60
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 41. Logan Creek Photo Point 20 — Station 10+60
(March 2016) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 42. Logan Creek Photo Point 21 — Station 9+40
(March 2016) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 43. Logan Creek Photo Point 21 — Station 9+40
(March 2016) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 44. UT6 Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75 (March
2016) upstream view from right bank.
Y +
Photo 46. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 45. UT6 Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75 (March
2016) downstream view from right bank.
wr
4 ,
1 tl:6"k" • � 1 ..1
Photo 47. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70
(March 2016) 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
(March 2016) downstream view from left bank. (March 2016) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 50. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(March 2016) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 51. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(March 2016) 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
(March 2016) upstream view from right bank. (March 2016) 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
(March 2016) upstream view from right bank. (March 2016) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 56. UT8, Photo Point 28 — Station 1+10 (March
2016) upstream view from right bank and confluence.
Photo 57. UTI, Photo Point 29 — Station 0+50 (March
2016) view upstream and confluence.
Photo 58. Logan Creek, Photo Point 30 — Station 0+50 Photo 59. Logan Creek, Photo Point 30 — Station 0+50
(March 2016) upstream view from right bank. (March 2016) downstream view from right bank.

.d, VIP
Im
'Ohl
Mae
"IR
vx
- wov7V
At
10 fv.
AL

Photo 64. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 33 — (March
2016) upstream view from right bank.

Table 10. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Logan Creek, Reach
1 (3,184 LF), Restoration Reach
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built stale
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
18
18
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
18
18
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
18
18
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
18
18
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
18
1 18
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
35
35
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
35
35
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
35
35
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
19
19
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
19
19
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
19
19
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
19
19
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggraclation areas bar formation
3,184
3,184
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
3,184
3,184
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
24
24
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate9
24
24
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
24
24
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
24
24
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
24
24
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
24
24
0
100
100%
Logan Creek, Reach 2 (1,038 LF), Enhancement Reach
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
10
10
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
10
10
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
10
10
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin /finin ?
10
10
0
100
5. Len th appropriate?
10
10
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
13
13
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
13
13
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
13
13
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
5
5
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
5
5
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
5
5
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
5
5
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
1,038
1,038
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
1,038
1,038
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
11
11
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
0
0
0
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
0
0
0
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
3
3
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
3
3
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
3
3
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
3
3
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
3
3 1
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggraciation or migration?)
3
3
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
3
3
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
3
3
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
0
0
2. Ofthose eroding, #w/concomitant point barformation?
0
0
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
0
0
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
178
178
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cult ing?
178
178
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
4
4
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
1 4
4
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
4
4
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
4
4
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
0
0
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
0
0

Table 10. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment -Continued
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
UTB, 127 LF:
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
3
3
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
3
3
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
3
3
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin 1finin ?
3
3
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
3
3
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
2
2
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
2
2
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
2
2
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
127
127
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cult ing?
127
127
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
2
2
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
2
2
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
2
2
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
2
2
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
UTB, (45 It
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
06
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
1
1
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
1
1
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
1
1
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin /finin ?
1
1
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
1
1
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
0
0
0
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bid >1.6?)
0
0
0
3. Len th appropriate.
0
0
0
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
4. Sufficient flood Iain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
45
45
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
45
45
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
1
1
0 1
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
1
1
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
1
1
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
1
1
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 11. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Event
Method of Data Collection
Gauge Watermark Height
(inches)*
Logan Creek
Station 30+00
Dec -15
N/A
N/A
0
height indicates the highest position of cork shavings on the dowel.

Permanent Cross -Section 1
MY1 Data - collected December, 2015.
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
62.4
24.04
2.6
3.97
9.26
1
2.9
3173.29
3173.08
Logan Creek Cross -Section 1, Station 3+10
3178
3177 ---------------------------------
3176
3175
0 3174 f
------------------------------------------------------1)
• — ---- _•------------------------------
3173
w 3172
3171
3170
3169
3168
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
---o--- Floodprone
-- ---- BKF
As -Burl
MY1
60 70 80
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 2
MY1 Data - collected December, 2015.
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
65.2
26.81
1 2.43
5.05
11.02
1 1.1
2.3
3172.34
3172.7
Logan Creek Cross -Section 2, Station 3+70
3178.00
3176.00
3174.00
o
3172.00
m
LU 3170.00
3168.00 '
i
3166.00
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
------------------------------------
-w
---o---Floodprone
«••• BKF
As -Built
MY1
50 60 70
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 3
MY1 Data - collected January, 2016.
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
51.2
24.34
1 2.1
2.88
11.58
1 1.1
4.1
3169.03
3169.26
Logan Creek Cross -Section 3, Station 12+57
3172.00
3171.00
$ 3170.00
_
c 3169.00
ca
w
3168.00
3167.00
3166.00
3165.00
0 10 20
30 40
Station (ft)
---o--- Floodprone
---�-- BKF
MY1
As -Built
50 60 70
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 4
MY1 Data - collected January, 2016.
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
73.8
27.12
1 2.72
5.91
9.97
1 1.1
3.6
3168.19
3168.77
Logan Creek Cross-section 4, Station 13+00
3174.00
3172.00-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
3170.00
.0 3168.00 --------------------- r
� 1
3166.00
LU
3164.00 ---0-- Floodprone
-- o--- Bankfull
3162.00 MY1
As -Built
3160.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 5
MY1 Data - collected January, 2016.
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
74.3
24.01
1 3.1
5.28
7.76
1
3.8
3164
3164.34
3170.00
3168.00
3166.00
c
0
3164.00
m
LU
3162.00
3160.00
3158.00
Logan Creek Cross -Section 5, Station 25+43
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 6
MY1 Data - collected January, 2016.
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
50.2
1 22.57
2.23
3.45
10.14
1
4.2
3163.6
3163.77
Logan Creek Cross-section 6, Station 26+09
3168.00
3167.00---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3166.00
3165.00
c
3164.00
----------------
3163.00
LU
3162.00
---o--- Floodprone
3161.00 -m c--- Bankfull
3160.00 MY1
As -Bunt
3159.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 10
MY1 Data - collected January, 2016.
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
60
71.2
33.35
1 2.13
3.51
15.62
1 1.1
1.8
3159.66
1 3160.09
3164
3163
3162
3161
c
3160
c�
3159
LU
3158
3157
3156
3155
Logan Creek Cross -Section 10, Station 37+05
Enhancement Reach
- Floodprone
- Bankfull
MY1
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
As -Built
0 10
20
30
40
50
60
710
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 11
MY1 Data - collected January, 2016.
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
61.8
33.92
1 1.82
2.96
18.62
1 1.2
1.6
3159.97
1 3160.43
Logan Creek Cross -Section 11, Station 37+20
Enhancement Reach
3164
3163--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3162
c 3161
o
3160 ----------------------------------------------------------
m
w 3159
3158 ---o---Floodprone
---0--- Bankfull
3157 MY1
As -Built
3156
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 7
(MY1 Data - collected December, 2015)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+54
Max
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
3171.00
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
7.9
9.18
0.86
1.47
10.65
1
4
3170.04
3170.09
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+54
3172.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3171.50
^
3171.00
c
3170.50
---------------- -----
3170.00
LU
3169.50
---0--- Floodprone
3169.00
-- o-- Bankfull
3168.50
MY1
As -Built
3168.00
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
35 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 8
(MY1 Data - collected December, 2015)
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+69
3171.50 1
3171.00
c 3170.50
w 3170.00
-- o--- Floodprone
3169.50 ---0--- Banktull
MY1
As -Built
3169.00
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
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
3.8
5.82
0.65
0.92
8.97
1
5.6
3170.05
3170.05
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+69
3171.50 1
3171.00
c 3170.50
w 3170.00
-- o--- Floodprone
3169.50 ---0--- Banktull
MY1
As -Built
3169.00
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 8.5
(MY1 Data - collected January, 2016)
UT3 Cross -Section 8.5*, Station 0+43
3171
3170.5---------------------------------------------
c
3170
3169.5
m3169 ------------
w 3168.5
---0--- Floodprone
3168 -- G--- Bankfull
3167.5
MY1
3167
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* This Pool cross-section was not taken for the baseline but was added during MY1 survey and will be
continued each year going forward.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
7.9
8.59
0.92
1.49
9.36
1.1
3.7
3169.09
3169.29
UT3 Cross -Section 8.5*, Station 0+43
3171
3170.5---------------------------------------------
c
3170
3169.5
m3169 ------------
w 3168.5
---0--- Floodprone
3168 -- G--- Bankfull
3167.5
MY1
3167
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* This Pool cross-section was not taken for the baseline but was added during MY1 survey and will be
continued each year going forward.

Permanent Cross-section 9
(MY1 Data - collected January, 2016)
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+55*
3170.50 -F-
3170.00
----------------------------------
3169.50
0
3169.00
W 3168.50 ---0--- Floodprone
3168.00 ---0--- Bankfull
MY1
3167.50
Baseline
3167.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* Stationing is modified with this report because stationing reported in the baseline report was incorrect as was
the photo location due to the photo being taken after the fact.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
4.1
5.93
0.7
1.12
8.48
1
4
3168.83
3168.83
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+55*
3170.50 -F-
3170.00
----------------------------------
3169.50
0
3169.00
W 3168.50 ---0--- Floodprone
3168.00 ---0--- Bankfull
MY1
3167.50
Baseline
3167.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* Stationing is modified with this report because stationing reported in the baseline report was incorrect as was
the photo location due to the photo being taken after the fact.

3175
3174
3173
3172
3171
3170
O
3169
d 3168
W
3167
3166
3165
3164
3163
3162
MY1 Profile of Logan Creek, Station 0+00 to 16+00
Data collected December, 2015 & January, 2016.
X-1 X-2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
* Some structures shown are random woody debris saved from the old channel and installed in the new channel.
X-3 X-4
11
.n
— Low Bank
WSF
■ Structures
MY1
—As -Built
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Station (ft)

3169
3168
3167
3166
3165
3164
O
3163
3162
W
3161
3160
3159
3158
3157
3156
MY1 Profile of Logan Creek, Station 16+00 to 32+00
Data collected December, 2015 & January, 2016.
■
A
1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Station (ft)

Some structures shown are random woody debris saved from the old channel and installed in the new channel.
MY1
Profile of Logan Creek,
Station 32+00 to 43+00
Data
collected January, 2016
Enhancement Reach
3166
Low Bank
WSF
3165
Structures
MY1
3164
-As-Built
3163
3162
XS -10
........ . . - ....... .
......... . . - ....... . ......... . . - ....... . ......... . . -
XS -11
♦
3161
............ . .......... . .......... .
......... . .......... . .......... . .......... . ......... . .......... . .......... . .......... . ......... . .......... . .......... . ...
0
3160
-- ----------------- ------------------ ---------- ---
......................... .............
.......
..................................................
3159
ED.
.. . ... ......... ..........
3158
3157
------ ------
3156
-----
---- -
-------- ---- -----
3155
...... .... ............ . . ..... -
.... ........ ...... .... . . ........ ...... .... . . ........ ...... .... . . ........ ...... .... . . ........
.... ........ .... ........ .... ........ ...... .....
3154
3153
3200
3300 3400 3500
3600 3700 3800
3900 4000 4100
4200 4300
Station (ft)
Some structures shown are random woody debris saved from the old channel and installed in the new channel.

MY1 Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Data collected January, 2016.
3169.50
XS - 8.5 XS g Low Bank
3169.00
3168.50
3168.00
= 3167.50
O
d 3167.00
W
3166.50
3166.00
3165.50
3165.00
3164.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)
* Zero station is at the 0+00 of the MY1 survey and the baseline 0+00 was adjusted to 0+15.7.
_
WSF
■ Structures
MY1
As -Built
* Zero station is at the 0+00 of the MY1 survey and the baseline 0+00 was adjusted to 0+15.7.

3171.5
3171
3170.5
3170
C
O
> 3169.5
d
W
3169
3168.5
3168
3167.5
3167
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
MY1 Profile of UT6, Station 0+00 to 1+20
Data collected December, 2015
ero station is at the 0+00 of the MY1 survey and the baseline 0+00 was adjusted to 0+15.7.

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT:
Logan Cr
REACH/LOCATION:
Riffle at XSl
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
5 -Jan -16
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
TotalClass
MY12015
%
% Co.
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
I Silt / Clay
<.063
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0%
0.125
100
Fine
.125 - .25
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-.50
6
6%
6%
0.50
—�MYI 2015
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
5
5%
11%
1.0
80
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
11%
2.0
70%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
11%
2.8
60%
d
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
11%
4.0
50%
Fine
4.0-5.6
11%
5.6
a
Fine
5.6-8.0
11%
8.0
40%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
1
1 %
12%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
3
3%
15%
16.0
E
Coarse
16-22.6
14
14%
28%
22.6
U 20%
Coarse
22.6-32
25
25%
53%
32
10%
Very Coarse
32-45
21
21%
74%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
12
12%
85%
64
0%
Small
64-90
7
7%
92%
90
Logan Creek Stream RestorationSite
Small
90-128
3
3%
95%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
3
3%
98%
180
Large
180-256
2
2%
100%
256
80%
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-10241
50%
100%
1024
D_
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
>2048
100%
5000
Total % ofwhole count I I 102 I 100%
Largest particle= 190
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 16.5 D84= 61.6
D35 = 1 24.8 D95 = 126.5
D50= 1 30.7 D100= 180-256
Logan Creek Stream
RestorationSite
Mainstem
at XS1
Pebble Count Particle
Size Distribution
100
90 —4 --AB 2015
—�MYI 2015
80
70%
60%
d
50%
a
40%
S 30%
0-4
E
U 20%
10%
1
lid
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Logan Creek Stream RestorationSite
Mainstem at XS1
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB 2015
■ MY l 2015
80%
70%
60%
v
y
50%
D_
N 40%
A
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT:
Logan Cr
REACH/LOCATION:
Riffle at XS3
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
16 -Dec -15
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
MY12015
Class %
% Ctmt
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
■ MY 1 2015
0%
0.063
70%
Very Fine
.063-.125
U
y 50%
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
U
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
1
1%—
1 %
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
1 %
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
1 %
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
1 %
2.8
0%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
Particle Size Class (mm)
1 %
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1 %
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1%
2%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
2
2%
4%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
7
7%
10%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
17
16%
26%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
9
8%
35%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
19
18%
52%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
18
17%
69%
64
Small
64-90
22
21%
90%
90
Small
90-128
7
7%
96%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
3
3%
99%
180
Large
180-256
1
1%
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count I 1 107 1 100% 1
Largest particle= 200
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 18.1 D84= 81.9
D35 = 32.3 D95 = 119.6
D50= 1 43.0 1 D100= 180-256
Logan Creek Stream RestorationSite
Mainstem at XS3
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
■ AB 2015
90
■ MY 1 2015
80%
70%
60%
U
y 50%
a
y 40
m
U
30%
20%
10%
11LA
111111
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 1
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT:
Logan Cr
REACHILOCATION:
Riffle at XS6
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
5 -Jan -16
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
MY12015
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063 -.125
0%
0.125
loo^
Fine
.125-25 .25
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-.50
3
3%
3%
0.50
tMYI 2015
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
1
1 %
4%
1.0
80
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
4%
2.0
70%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
4%
2.8
60
d
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
4%
4.0
50%
Fine
4.0-5.6
4%
5.6
li
Fine
5.6-8.0
4%
8.0
40%
Medium
8.0-11.0
4%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
4%
16.0
V 20%
Coarse
16-22.6
10
10%
14%
22.6
10%
Coarse
22.6-32
14
14%
28%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
30
30%
58%
45
0%
Very Coarse
45-64
27
27%
85%
64
Logan Creek Stream RestorationSite
Small
64-90
10
10%
95%
90
Small
90- 128
3
3%
98%
128
Cobble
Large
128 - 180
2
206
100%
180
80%
Large
180-256
70%
100%
256
Small
256-362
m
100%
362
IL
Small
362-512
a 40
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-1024
30%
100%
1024
Large-VeryLarge
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count I I 100 I 100% I
Largest particle= 128
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16 = 23.8 D84= 63.2
D35 = 34.6 D95 = 90.0
D50 = 41.1 13100 = 128 - 180
Logan Creek
Stream RestorationSite
Mainstem
at XS6
Pebble Count
Particle Size Distribution
loo^
90% tAB2015
tMYI 2015
80
70%
60
d
50%
li
40%
30%
V 20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Logan Creek Stream RestorationSite
Mainstem at XS6
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90
■ AB 2015
■ MY 1 2015
80%
70%
60
m
50%
IL
a 40
_a
V
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 12. Monitoring Year I Stream Summary
L.— Creek Restaratinn Prniert: DMS Prniert ID No- 94649
Logan Creek Mainstem
Pre -Existing Condition'
1.
t. .
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
NC Mm. Regi .. I
Med
Max
1
/
1
1
1
BF Width (fl)
a�a�®a�aaaaa�aaaa��®®®o®®�®�®
Floodipmrse Width (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa
t 11
aaaaa�aaa©a�aaa®
BF Ms. 1 •
BF Cross-sectional Area (it)
• � �
•
aaaa®®���oa�aaaaa�aaaa®���
11
®�®���®
Bank Height Ratio
aaaao®®®®0a®aaaaa®aaaa®�
11
t 11
0®�®®
t 1
0
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Pattern
Radius of Curvature (11)
aaaa®®m��aa®aaaamaamaa���
t i
®v®���®a
Meander Width Ratio
Riffle Length (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�®��®®
•
aaaaaaaaaaa
i t aaaa
1 tt
as
t It aaaaaaaa
t 1 i
i tt
t 11
i t
t li•
m
Pool Length (fl)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa��®�0
Pool Spacing (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaamaa�aaaaaaaa��®®
Pool Max Depth (fl)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Substrate and Transport Parameters
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
'`
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
1
Reach Shear Suess (conTetency) lb/F
aaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Max pan size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Roagen Curvc)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
""'-p— (transixuleapacity)
aaaaaaa�aaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Drainage Area (SM)
aend
. end .. ,
upper end ..
. towads end ol7project
2.1 at uppBF er
Impemons cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaamaaaaamaaaaamaaaa
Velocity
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
F Discharge
a®��aaaaaaamaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
35
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cbs—I length (11)
aaaaa
tt
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa
Sicursity
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa
Water Surface Slope
'
aaaaaaaaaaa
t 11 aaaaa
til
aaaaa�aaaaa
i tt
aaaa
t••
aaaaaaaaaaa
1 • aaaaa
t li
aaaaa
i tt
aaaaa
1 It
aaaa
Bankfiffl Floodplain Area (acres)
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Biological or Otheraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 12 Monitoring Year I Stream Summary
1 nnnn Nano -- i— Pminnf 1. Nn --
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Pre -Existing Condition
1
1
1
a
a
t
t
t
BF Width (11)
a®aaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa����
11
aa�aaao
Floodpmn. Width (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaao
BF Me. 1
a��aaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
11
11
11
1:1
11
11
a
l l aaao
BF Max 1
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa®®®®
11
©a®aaao
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
a�®aaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa�����aa®aaao
Wi—cptb Rah.Bank
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa�����aa�aaao
Entrenchment Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa�®®�®©a�aaao
Height Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa�®�®�aa�aaao
1Pattern
aaaaa�eaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Beltvidtb (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
lindras of Corvatme (ft)
aaaaeaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
a�aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
Meander Wavelength (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Meander Width Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
Profile
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�����o®�®��o®����©
Riffle•Slope-
aaaaaaaaaaa
I 1 • aaaa
111
11
11 1.
11
111•
©
11111
111
11
I I '1
111:•
0
11111
111 111
111
111
Pont Length (it)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaoo���®®®�����®
'aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa®aaaaoa®aaaa
"DepthSubstrate
Pool Max
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
and Transport Parameters
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
'•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
.'• ••
1
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
Reach Shour Stress (competency)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Max part size (mon) mobilized at bankfifl] (Resgen Curve)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Stream Pon -r (transport capacity)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Additional Reach Parameters
1
a 1 .1 • 11 1: aaa�aaaaaaaaaaa
1
aaa®aaa
Impervious cmer estimate (%)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaa�aaaa
a®aaa
Rosgen Classification
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaoaaa
BF
aaaaaaaaaoa®aaaa
aaaaaaa®aaaa
a�aaa
Discharge
a®��aaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaa
35
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel length
aaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa®aaa
aWater
Simussity
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaa
Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
aaaaaaaaaaa
111 • aaaaaaaaaaa
111.
aaaaa�aaa
BF slope (ft/ft)
aaaaaaaaaaa
11 • aaaaaaaaaaa
111•
aaaaaaaaaa
Bankfiall Flocalplain Area (acres)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Biological or Otheraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 12 Monitoring Year 1 Stream Summary
I.nnan ('.reek R—torah.. Prniert- IIMC Prniert In No 9,1649
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
Pre-Exisfing Condition'
1.
1
1
1
/
1
1
Min
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
a®®aaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa®®®®�®a�aaao
Fl-p,.nc
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaao
BF ep
a®�aaaaaaaa�aaaa
a®aaaa
��
1 I
I :1
11
11
a�aaa0
BF Max Depth (ff
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa®®®®
11
©a�aaao
BF Cross-sectioral Arm (it)
a®�aaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa��®�®®a�aaao
Widtb/Depth RatioBank
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa�����aa�aaao
Entrencliment Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaa®®®�®©a�aaao
Height Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa��®��aa�aaao
1
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaao
Channel BeltMdtb (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Radius of Curvature (11)
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaa
Meander Wavelength (it)
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Meander Width Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaa
111
1 1
��
111
v 1111
111
11
11 1
111
v
11
1 1 1 1
11 •1
11
a
a aaa aaaaaa
aaaaaa
a�aao©����®©�®���®
" Spacing
a aaa aaaaaa
amaaaa®��®o
®���o
����®a
� Depth
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa®aaaaoa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Subs(i ate and Transport Parameters
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
t
'dl6/d35/d5O/d84/d95aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
Reach Shear Suess (competency)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
St'em P"`er (transport capacity)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Additional Reach Parameters
'
Drainage Area (SM)
a I • 11•
I • 1 I: as a�aaaa
aaaaaaa
1 1
aaa
1 • 1
aaa
Impervious criver estimate (%)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaa
Rosgen Classification
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaa
1
aaaaaaaaaoa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaa
arge (efs)
91 ha®®�aaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel length (ft)'
aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaa
Shonsity
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaa
Water Surface Slope (Chinne,l) (ftift)
aaaaaaaaaaa
111 aaaaaaaaaaa
111,
aaaaa
11
aaa
aaaaaaaaaaa
11 • aaaaaaaaaaa
111•
aaaaaaaaaa
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Stability or Habitat
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
.••
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaeaaeeaaeaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 13. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Ltwan Creek Restoration Proiect DMS Prnfect ID 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
MY MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on Fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
24.1
24.0
25.9
26.8
25.2
24.3
27.6
27.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.7
Width/Depth Ratio
9.2
9.3
10.5
11.0
12.0
11.6
12.1
10.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
63.0
62.4
63.9
65.2
53.2
51.2
62.8
73.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.7
4.0
5.2
5.1
3. t
2.9
5.2
5.9
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>70
>70
>60
>60
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
2.9
2.3
2.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
3.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
29.3
29.3
30.9
31.7
29.5
28.6
32.2
32.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.3
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
-
- - - - - -
-
- - - - - -
-
- - - - - -
-
- - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
-
- - - - - -
-
- - - - - -
-
- - - - - -
-
- - - - - -
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
d50 (nun)
13.8
30.7
19.2
43
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+
Basc
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Basc
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
21.3
24.0
23.6
22.6
31.0
33.4
29.2
33.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
3.0
3.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
7.1
7.8
10.8
10.1
14.4
15.6
14.0
18.6
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
63.9
74.3
51.7
50.2
66.6
71.2
60.7
61.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.4
5.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.9
3.0
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>80
>80
>95
>95
>60
>60
>54
>54
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.4
4.0
4.0
4.2
1.8
4.5
1.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.3
30.2
28.0
27.0
35.2
37.6
33.4
37.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
2.5
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
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 (ftz)
d50 (mm)
24.9
41.1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MYI REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 13. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Loean Creek Restoration Proiect DMS Proiect ID No. 92515
UT3 (178 LF)
Cross-section X-8.5, Station 1
1
wamiffm
Base* Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
MRWIT"Mm,. ,
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 My� MY+
BF Width (ift)
a�aaaaa®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mean Depth (11)
a�aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depth Ratio
a�aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
a�aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
RatioBF
��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Max Depth
a®aaaaa®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
Width .
a�aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment oa®aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
®®aaaaa®�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BankHeight Ratio
a®aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted
a�aaaaa®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment o��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Hydraulic Radius (11)
a�aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height o��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Width (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mean Depth
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��� oBF
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I,
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
,
Max Depth
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width .
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-•.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height .aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
- . -.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted�
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
DO,
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cross Sectional Area between d pins
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1
aaaaaaavaaaaaavaaaaaaaaaaaaa
*This cross-sections was not taken for baseline.
Stationing is corrected in this report.
•.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
UT6 (127 LF)
Cross-section X-7, Station 0+54 (Pool)
Cross-section X-8, Station 0+69 (Riffle)
1Base
Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 My� MY+
BF Width (ft)
��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mean Depth (ft)
��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
RatioBF
��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Max Dep
®®aaaaa®�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment o��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height o��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Perimeter (ft)
��aaaaa®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Hydraulic'��aaaaa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I,
,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
�-
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-•.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
- . -.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
DO,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
�. , - • -.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cross Sectional Area = pi
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaae
i1
vaaaaaavaaaaaaaaaaaaavaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MYI REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 14. Stream Problem Areas and Photos
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project, Number #92515
Feature Issue
Station
Suspected Cause
Photo #
Aggradation/Bar
Formation
None
None
None
High flows caused a soft place in the clay
Station 2+80
bank material to scour. (CPA -1 on CCPV)
1
Overland flow from pipe encroachment
Station 24+90
(see below) caused saturation of bank
2
and bank erosion. (CPA -2 on CCPV)
Bank Scour
A hole has developed over some
embedded woody debris under a geolift.
Station 28+00
This developed from standing water on
3
the floodplain and flooding. (CPA -3 on
CCPV)
Engineered Structures
None
None
None
Maintenance workers mowed beyond
Station 11+50
easement line into buffer. (EA -1 on
4
CCPV)
Landowner installed a drainpipe from a
Encroachments
new building upslope that crossed the
easement line and diverted stormwater
Station 24+00
from the building site to the floodplain
5 to 9
within the easement. This was repaired
in November 2016. (EA -2 on CCPV)
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project — Monitoring Year 1 Stream Problem Area Photos
Bank Scour
Photo 1. Bank Scour — Station 2+80, Small area of bank
scour due to soft place in bank eroding on high flow.
Photo 2. Bank Scour — Station 24+90, Small hole on the
floodplain developed from water standing over woody
debris of geolift.

Photo 3. Bank Scour — Station 28+00, Small hole on the
floodplain developed from water standing over woody
debris of geolift.
Photo 4. Encroachment — Maintenance workers mowed
beyond easement line into buffer.
Photo 5. Encroachment by landowner who installed a
drainpipe to have its outfall within the easement.
Photo 6. Encroachment by pipe installation, showing opening
with standing water and silt on vegetation.
Photo 7. Encroachment by pipe installation showing outlet
and riprap apron.

Photo 8. Perspective similar to that of Photo 6 showing the
area after the pipe was removed.
Photo 9. View along the easement line after the pipe was
removed. Perspective is similar to Photo 5 but from the
opposite direction.