20080879 Ver 2_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Jackson County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID No. 92515; Contract No. D06046 -A
Savannah River Basin: 03060101-010020
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 2 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2016
Year of Completed Construction: May 2015
Submission Date: December 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 2 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
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Stream Assessment......................................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................5
2.2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................6
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................6
2.2.4 Project Problem Areas...............................................................................................................................7
3.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................7
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2 Current Conditions Plan View — Overview Map, MY2
Figure 2A CCPV MY2, North Area
Figure 2B CCPV MY2, Middle Area
Figure 2C CCPV MY2, 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
Appendix D Stream Assessment Data
Figure
5
Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table
8
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table
9
Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure
6
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure
7
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure
8
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table
10
MY2 Stream Summary
Table
11
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored, enhanced or preserved 5,110 linear feet (LF) of perennial
stream channel along Logan Creek and eight unnamed tributaries (UT1,UT2, UT3, UT4, UT5, UT6, UT7 and
UT8) in Jackson County, NC (Appendix A). The nearest town, Cashiers, is approximately five miles west of
the Logan Creek Project site. The site lies in the Savannah River Basin within the Targeted Local Watershed
03060101-010020 (Horsepasture River) and within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
sub -basin formerly known as 03-06-01-01 (Keowee River Subbasin). The Horsepasture River is a National
Wild and Scenic River and a state -designated Natural and Scenic River. The project involved the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of a stable channel and a Montane Alluvial/Montane Oak -Hickory Forest system
(NCWAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural
conversion including orchard development, trout hatchery development, mink farming and more recently
single-family home development.
The project goals directly address stressors identified in the Savannah River Basin Restoration Priority Plan
(RBRP) (DMS 2001 and updated 2008) such as habitat degradation, inadequate riparian buffer cover, channel
modification, and excess nutrient and sediment loading. The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the
approved mitigation plan, are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable stream channels within the Logan Creek project site.
• Protect stable areas as well as mature trees and other desirable vegetation.
• Improve water quality within the Logan Creek project area through reduction of bank erosion,
improved nutrient and sediment removal, and stabilization of streambanks.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
To accomplish these goals, 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 2 (MY2), our monitoring activities indicated that the planted acreage was functioning
well with most banks, benches and floodplain areas developing a diverse herbaceous community and having
good growth of planted trees. The access areas used during construction were particularly difficult to stabilize
but after hydro -seeding they are now well vegetated. The Vegetative Problem Area noted in the MY report
developed a good stand of herbaceous vegetation, along with the planted trees and is no longer a problem area.
Our discussions with the landowner concerning mowing encroachments along the easement line (MY I: EA -1
& EA -2) by maintenance staff and their encroachment by installing the outlet of a drainpipe within the easement
were addressed and were not an issue this year. There were no Vegetative Problem Areas identified during
2016. There was one Encroachment Area (EA -1) noted in 2016. A new maintenance staff person had the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 3
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

nature trail mowed, which is allowed under the easement; however, a wider area was mowed than we verbally
agreed should be maintained. The width was 10-12 feet wide, while we had agreed to a width that is 4-6 feet
wide, which is approximately the width of the previously existing nature trail. We discussed this with one of
the Lonesome Valley staff, they agreed to address this issue with the trail maintenance staff, and to be sure they
know the proper width for future maintenance.
The three channel problem areas noted in the MY1 report stabilized naturally. During December 2015 and
January 2016, two greater than bankfull flows occurred. The crest gauge shows a depth on the floodplain at the
gauge location of 25.75 inches and photos of wrack lines showed flooding on the floodplain more than 50 feet
from the top of the stream bank. This flooding caused five small areas of bank erosion or instability along the
project reach. We have shown photos of these areas from the summer of 2016 (Appendix D, Table 14) which
indicate that these sites are naturally stabilizing. All of these areas are less than ten feet by five feet in area and
will be further stabilized by sloping the area, seeding, mulching, matting and installing live stakes during the
winter of 2017.
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 (Logan Creek, Reach 1) and one (1) being installed along the
enhancement reach (Logan Creek, Reach 2). The location of these vegetation monitoring plots can be seen on
Figures 2A -C. The average density of total planted stems following the MY2 growing season is 728 stems per
acre (SPA). Volunteer stems were much more common this year with volunteers being observed in six out of
the eight plots and the average density of volunteer trees was 516 SPA.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY2 was assessed by surveying thirteen (13) cross-
sections (8 on Logan Creek, 2 on UT3, 2 on UT6 and 1 on UT8) and a profile of Logan Creek, UT3, UT6 and
UT8, evaluating the bed particle size with 3 riffle pebble counts and by observation and replicating channel
location photographs. An additional cross-section was added on UT8 during MY2 surveying so that we have
cross-sections on all restored tributaries. Cross-sections of all the channels indicated that there was very little
change in the cross-sections during MY2. The particle size observed in MY2 pebble counts has decreased
slightly which may be attributed to the drought conditions that this area experienced during MY2. No observed
changes indicate any instability. The Visual Morphological Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable
and performing well. All but one structure (CPA -2), are functioning as designed during MY2. CPA -2 is a log
that is part of the rock-and-roll structure and the fabric was torn during flooding (Table 14 in e -file data). This
will be repaired prior to the 2017 growing season. Channel morphology is responding as designed and meeting
project goals.
Lonesome Valley installed a trail crossing near the top of the project site. This crossing replaces a crossing that
existed prior to this project. This addition required a reduction of three feet from the total restoration footage,
restoration SMUs and a slight increase in preservation footage and SMUs. These modifications are reflected
in Table 1.
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections and profiles, and the crest
gauge location, are shown on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) sheets found in Appendix A.
Vegetation monitoring plots, pebble counts and site photo points were monitored in September 2016. Site
surveys for channel cross-sections, photos and profiles were conducted in October 2016.
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
areas along the northern part of the project or within the undisturbed forested areas along Reach 11 of Logan
Creek and UT5. A small area was disturbed within this enhancement reach so that structures and channel
repairs could be made during construction. Veg Plot 1 is located in this area where bare root trees and seed
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 two monitoring. We
found that all vegetation was in good condition. All plots indicated that most trees were growing and in good
to excellent condition and herbaceous vegetation was well established and growing well. The average density
of total planted stems following the MY2 growing season is 728 SPA (n=8) with a range from 445 SPA to
971 SPA. The average density of volunteer trees was 516 SPA and the density ranged from 0 to 1,133 SPA.
The overall SPA including both planted and volunteer stems was 1,244. With an average planted density of
728 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.
There were few invasive species observed at this site during Year 2. 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 new growth appears
to be occurring from the existing seed bank. We will continue to monitor for additional plants growing and
will treat these as needed. No areas of concern regarding the existing vegetation was observed along Logan
Creek or any of the tributaries. Year 2 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

compared to the baseline and MY1 cross-section plots to evaluate changes in the cross sections.
Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of Logan Creek, UT3 and UT6, and UT8 to
document changes during year 2 of monitoring. The survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and
measurements included thalweg, water surface (where flow was present), 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 MY2 was assessed by surveying thirteen
(13) cross-sections (8 on Logan Creek, 2 on UT3, 2 on UT6 and 1 on UT8) and a profile of these
channels as described above. The bed particle size was evaluated with three riffle pebble counts and by
observation and replicating channel location photographs. An additional riffle cross-section and profile
was added on UT8 during MY2 surveying, so that we have this information on all the restored
tributaries. Cross-sections and profiles of all the channels indicated that there was very little change in
the channel during MY2. Some pools became shallower during the year, however, this site like most
of western North Carolina, experienced severe to extreme drought that began in March and is
continuing at the time of this report. The low flow within the channel has caused sand to accumulate
within the pools. Once the drought is over and normal flows return, the pools should return to their
design depth through natural scour. The Visual Morphological Stability Assessment indicates that the
Site is stable and performing at 98 to 100 percent for all parameters. One structure (on Logan Creek
Reach 1) was piping during MY2 (CPA -2). This structure had fabric that was sealing the upstream side
of the log, torn during flooding. This issue will be repaired prior to the next growing season (Table 14
in e -file data). Overall, channel morphology is responding as designed and meeting project goals.
Pebble count data for MY2 indicates a shift back to smaller particle sizes at all of the riffles sampled.
This is the opposite of what was observed in MYL The channel had a mean D50 of 16.5 mm during
baseline sampling and 36.9 mm during MY1 but this changed to an average of 22.2 mm in MY2. This
represents a change from very coarse gravel in MY1 to coarse gravel this year. Again, this may be
related to the very low flows during the drought that has continued for most of 2016 and the streambed
will likely coarsen again when flows become more normal.
2.2.2 Hydrology
A crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the right top of bank on
Logan Creek at approximate Station 30+00. There was at least one major bankfull event recorded on
the crest gauge during MY2. The crest gauge indicated a water depth on the floodplain of 25.75 inches
during this flooding. Stream flow data from a recording station at Lake Toxaway indicates that these
storms may have occurred on December 29, 2015 or February 3, 2016. There were also physical
indications of this flooding, such as large debris and wrack lines that indicated a flooding situation that
extended well beyond the top of bank (see photos with Table 11). Crest gauge readings are presented
in Appendix D.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Reference transects were photographed at each permanent cross-section. A survey tape is normally
centered in the photograph when the tape is used to identify the transect. The water line was located in
the lower area of the frame, and as much of the bank as possible included in each photograph.
Photographs were taken at specific photo points established along each channel during year 2
monitoring. Photographs from these points are replicated each year and used to document changes
along the channel. Points were selected to include grade control structures as well as other structural
components installed during construction. Annual photographs from the established photo points are
shown in Appendix D.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

2.2.4 Project Problem Areas
Project problem areas fall into three types: Vegetation Problem Areas (VPA), Encroachment Areas
(EA), and Channel Problem Areas (CPA). All observed problem areas are shown on the CCPV maps.
There were no VPAs identified during MY2. Vegetation was well established across the entire project
site. During winter of 2015/2016, two greater than bankfull flows occurred as discussed above and this
resulted in five channel problem areas (CPA 1-6). This flooding caused five small areas of bank erosion
or instability along the project reach. In the photos included with Table 14, we have shown photos of
each CPA, with photos of some of these sites from summer 2016, which indicates that the these sites
are naturally stabilizing. All of these areas are less than ten feet by five feet in area and will be further
stabilized by sloping the area, seeding, mulching, matting and installing live stakes during the winter
of 2017.
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. There was one Encroachment Area (EA -1) noted in 2016 along the nature trail,
in the area of stations 23+00 to 28+00. A new maintenance staff person had the nature trail mowed;
however, a wider area was mowed than we verbally agreed should be maintained. The width was 10-
12 feet wide, while we had agreed to a width of 4-6 feet wide, which approximates the width of the
previously existing nature trail. We discussed this with staff at Lonesome Valley and they agreed to
address this issue with the trail maintenance staff, and to be sure they know the proper width for future
maintenance. 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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
DECEMBER 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Includes:
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure 2. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) —
Overview Map, MY2
Figure 2A. CCPV MY2, North Area
Figure 2B. CCPV MY2, Middle Area
Figure 2C. CCPV MY2, South Area

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 US -
64. The project site extends north from a road culverts under US 64 to the outfall of Trout Pond.
S"� � l v W - BEAR
SER
CR
04-04-01
LTN 1
igh
RESER
f
03-13-01
SAV1
I
04-04-02
LTN2
Project Location
03-13-02
SAV2
Municipal boundaries
Counties
USGS Hydrologic Unit
NCDWQ Sub -basin
0 1 2 3
Miles
S
04-03-01
FRB1
LAKE
TOXAWAY
Figure 1. Project Location Map
Logan Creek Stream Restoration
NCDMS Project 92515
Monitoring Year 2 Report
Jackson County, INC
Division of rrwmm
Mitigation INTERNATIONAL
Services

no
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots
,A, Photo Station
® Crest Gauge
Trail
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 400
DMS Project # 92515
JIROforGeographic InformatiLon; "'a d Analysis, N 911WMIL
,
800 Figure 2
m Feet Current Conditions Plan View
Monitoring Year 2
Loqan Creek Site

XS -6
yy
We ti .
a UT5
XS —10_kf0*
}
XS -1101
Owe
It
.p y-
—WAP 0
�. � Y � a,P r •� 1r � tr •. w. � 1
�; � �q � - � 79.F m• E t .'� �+ fir' i - "� ��r' �
*, 544* �_ ��r. t`�, - "�rF'7 . II,•#•' yl�
A Photo Station = F
® Crest Gauge w`
Trail
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline �.
Stream Top Of Bank
Q Conservation Easement.;," "
- Vegetation Plots
Vegetation Problem Area._.
Encroachment Area
OChannel Problem Area NC One ap, N'C Center for Geographic Informat on and Analysis, NC 91
Board -
0 150 300 Figure 2C
Michael Baker Feet Current Conditions Plan View
INTERNATIONAL Monitoring Year 2
DMS Project # 92515 Loqan 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 3,441 SMU1 692 SMU 1136 SMU 1 58 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
3,131' SMU
3,131' 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
290 LF Preservation
58` SMU
290` 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 3,441
Enhancement I 1,038
Enhancement II 341
Creation
Preservation 290
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
Lonesome Valley replaced a footbridge at approximately station 3+15 during September 2016. This crossing was part of their original nature
trail system. We reduced restoration footage and SMUs for this reach due to this crossing; however, additional footage was added on the
preservation reach to partially offset the loss in total SMUs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 2
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
Nov-16
Dec-16
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
completed by May 12, 2015.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 2
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 2
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
Ph iographic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
Savannah River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03060101 / 03060101010020
DWR Sub -basin
Keowee River: 0306010101
Project Drainage Area (AC)
Mainstem 1353.5 at beginning to 1714 at end, UTI, UT4, UT6, UT7 & UT8 <13, UT2 = 26; UT3 = 32,
UT5 = 128.
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
<2
USGA Land Use Classification
Deciduous Forest (76%)
Evergreen Forest (8%)
Pasture Land (4.6%)
NCDMS Land Use Classification for this
Hydrologic Unit
Forest (91 %)
Shrub (1%)
(6%) Other (.5%)
Agriculture (1.5%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Mainstem - Reach 1
Mainstem - Reach 2
UT3
R1 R2
Length ofReach LF
3,134
1,038
40 138
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
VIII
VIII
II
Drainage Area AC
1,557
1,714
32
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
52.5
52.5
41.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
type)
C -E
C -E
B
Evolution Trend
CSE
C—E
B
Underlying Mapped Soils
NkA
SaC
NkA, SaC
Drainage Class
Poorly drained to very poorly
drained soils
Very deep, well drained, mod
permeable soils
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Site-specific
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.007
0.012
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Zone AE
None
Native Vegetation Community
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
<1%
<1%
<1%
Parameters
UT6
UT5
5 other small UTs in R1
Len tb of Reach (LF)
127
290
45-127
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
H
II
H
Drainage Area (AC)
38
117
.02 to .04
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
32.5
48
40.5-32.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; TR +HQW
C; TR +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
type)
B
B-E
E- B
Evolutionary Trend
B
E
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
0-60%
0.0134 (UT6)
FEMA Classification
None
None
None
Native Vegetation Community
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
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)/
Coastal Area Management Act CAMA
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No -Rise
Certification, June 27, 2016
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 2
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 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation
Success Summary (2016, MY2)
(per acre)
Stream/
Wetland Success
Plot #
Stems' VolunteerS2 Tota 13 Criteria Met?
1
931 0 931 Yes
2
445 121 567 Yes
3
647 486 1133 Yes
4
688 0 688 Yes
5
850 1133 1983 Yes
6
769 890 1659 Yes
7
971 850 1821 Yes
8
526 647 1174 Yes
Project Avg
728 516 1244 Yes
Stem Class
Characteristics
1Stream/ Wetland
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT
Stems
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.
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 6. Vegetation Metadata
Logan Creek Stream and Restoration Project - Project #92515
Report Prepared By Micky Clemmons
Date Prepared 10/12/2016 16:28
database name 92515_Logan_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
L:\projects\109243 - Logan Creek\Monitoring\YR2 monitoring\2.0 -
database location Monitoring Data\App C - Vegetation Data\Veg
computer name ASHELMCLEMMONS
file size 46104576
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
This excludes live stakes.
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
stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for
each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
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 4823 linear feet (LF) of stream
Description along Logan Creek.
River Basin Savannah
length(ft) 5110
stream -to -edge width (ft) 30
area (sq m) 28481.19
Required Plots (calculated) 8
Sampled Plots 8

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Project: Logan Creek, DMS Project #92515.
Annual Means
Current Plot Data (MY2 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
P
MYO (2015)
V T
P
MY1 (2015)
V
T
P
Scientific Name
Common Name
92515-01-0001 92515-01-0002
P V T P V
T
P
92515-01-0003
V T
P
92515-01-0004
V T
P
92515-01-0005
V T
P
92515-01-0006
V T
P
92515-01-0007
V T
P
92515-01-0008
V
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
3 3
FShrub
6
6
12
18
2
2
7
13
7
3
11
3
6
12
6
5
15
20
Betula nigra
river birch
common persimmon
Tree
1
24
1
4
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
Tree
2
Dios ros vir iniana
common ersimmon
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
4
3
American witchhazel
3
6
6
1
11
1
Fraxinus enns Ivanica
reen ash
1
1
3
3
4
4
2
4
2
8
8
3
3
2
2
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree 9 9
northern spicebush
Shrub
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Leucothoe fontanesiana
highland do hobble
Shrub 1
1
11
9
55
64
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
1
20
1
9
9
Lindera benzoin
northern s icebush
Shrub 2 2
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
2
2
Liriodendron tuli ifera
tuli tree
Tree 1
1
eastern white pine
Tree
2
2
20
20
1
20
21
3
15
18
2
Quercus alba
2
N ssa s Ivatica
black um
Tree 1 1 1
1
2
6
2
7
1
1
Quercus rubra
2
Tree
2
1
12
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
10
Robinia pseudoacacia
2
2
1
1
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
6
6
2
2
6
6
Unknown
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree 3
3
2
2
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
IShrub
9
9
11
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
170
11
860
3
2
1
8
0.20
1
1 5
2
144
12
728
102
9
0.20
516
246
15
1244
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
0
0
0
0 0
9
0.22
0 0
0 0
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
MENEEMiIndicates
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10°/
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Viburnum dentatum
Isouthern arrowwood
Shrub 11 11
Stem count 73-1 1 23 11 1 3 1
size (ares) 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02
Species count4 4 7 1
Stems per ACRE 931 931 445 121
14
7
567
16
6
647
127
1
0.02
1
486
28
6
1133
17
7
688
17
1
0.02
7
688
21
8
850
28
1
0.02
3
1133
49
11
1983
19
6
769
22
1
0.02
2
890 1
41
7
1659
24
8
971
21
1
0.02
2
850
45
9
1821
13
6
526
16
1
0.02
2
647
29
7
1174
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
IT = 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 100%
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot, continued.
Project: Logan Creek, DMS Project #92515.
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
P
MYO (2015)
V T
P
MY1 (2015)
V
T
P
MY2 (2016)
V
T
MY3 (2017)
P V
T
MY4 (2018)
P V
T
MY5 (2019)
P V T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
33
33
32
32
32
30
62
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
13
13
11
11
12
12
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
24
24
20
20
18
18
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
24
24
24
24
23
23
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
11
11
9
9
Leucothoe fontanesiana
highland doghobble
Shrub
4
4
3
3
3
3
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
17
17
11
11
9
55
64
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
20
20
9
9
8
8
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
2
2
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
14
14
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
6
6
6
6
7
7
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
13
13
12
12
10
10
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
Unknown
IShrub or Tree
7
7
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
IShrub
9
9
11
11
11
11
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species countl
Stems per ACREJ
170
11
860
170
8
0.20
1 0 T11
1 0 1 860
152
12
769
1
8
0.20
1
1 5
153
13
774
144
12
728
102
9
0.20
516
246
15
1244
0
9
0.22
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.22
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
9
0.22
0 0
0 0
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
MENEEMiIndicates
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems.
Indicates that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements by 10%
that the stems per Acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10°/

Figure 4. Logan Creek Site — Monitoring Year 2 Vegetation Plot Photos,
DMS Project #92515
Photo 1. Vegetation Plot 1 — Tree photo (September 2016).
Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 1 — Herbaceous photo
(September 2016).
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 2 Tree photo (September 2016).
Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 2 — Herbaceous photo
(September 2016).
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 3 — Tree photo (September 2016).
Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 3 — Herbaceous photo
(September 2016).

Logan Creek Site - Vegetation Plot Photos,
DMS Project #92515 - continued
Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 4 — Tree photo (September 2016)
Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 4 — Herbaceous photo
(September 2016).
Photo 9. Vegetation Plot 5 — Tree photo (September 2016).
Photo Point 10, Vegetation Plot 5 — Herbaceous photo
(September 2016).
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 6 — Tree photo (September 2016).
Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 6 — Herbaceous photo
(September 2016).

Logan Creek Site - Vegetation Plot Photos,
Photo 13 Vegetation Plot 7 — Tree photo (September 2016).
Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 — Herbaceous photo
(September 2016).
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 — Tree photo (September 2016).
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 — Herbaceous photo
(September 2016).

Includes:
Appendix D
Stream Assessment Data
Figure 5.
Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table 8.
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 9.
Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 6.
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 7.
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8.
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 10.
MY2 Stream Summary
Table 11.
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary

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

Photo 7. Logan Creek Photo Point 4 — Station 34+80
(September 2016) downstream from left bank.
Photo 8. Logan Creek Photo Point 4 — Station 34+80
(September 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 9. Logan Creek Photo Point 5 — Station 33+60
(September 2016) upstream from right bank.
Photo 10. Logan Creek Photo Point 5 — Station 33+60
(September 2016) downstream from right bank.
Photo 11. Logan Creek Photo Point 6 — Station 32+70 Photo 12. Logan Creek Photo Point 6 — Station 32+70
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank. (September 2016) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 13. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+15
(September 2016) downstream view from bridge.
Photo 14. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+00
(September 2016) upstream view from bridge.
Photo 15. Logan Creek Photo Point 8a — Station 29+75 Photo 16. Logan Creek Photo Point 8b — Station 29+25
(September 2016) downstream view from right bank. (September 2016) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 17. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 18. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(September 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
(September 2016) upstream view from right bank. (September 2016) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 21. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 — Station 23+20
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 22. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 — Station 23+20
(September 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
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank. (September 2016) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 25. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (September 2016)
upstream view from left bank.
Photo 26. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (September 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
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank. (September 2016) 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
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank. (September 2016) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 31. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 32. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(September 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
(September 2016) upstream view from right bank. (September 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
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank. (September 2016) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 36. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(September 2016) upstream from left bank.
Photo 38. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(September 2016) upstream from left bank to vernal
pool.
Photo 37. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(September 2016) 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
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank. (September 2016) 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
(September 2016) upstream view from right bank. (September 2016) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 44. UT6 Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75
Photo 45. UT6 Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75
(September 2016) upstream view from right bank. (September 2016) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 46. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 47. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70
(September 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
(September 2016) downstream view from left bank. (September 2016) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 50. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(September 2016) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 51. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(September 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
(September 2016) upstream view from right bank. (September 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
(September 2016) upstream view from right bank. (September 2016) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 56. UT8, Photo Point 28 — Station 1+10
(September 2016) upstream view from right bank and
confluence.
Photo 57. UTI, Photo Point 29 — Station 0+50
(September 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
(September 2016) upstream view from right bank. (September 2016) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 60. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 31 — Station
1+80 (September 2016) downstream view from mid -
channel to confluence.
Photo 61. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 31 — Station
1+80 (September 2016) upstream view from mid -
channel to confluence.
Photo 62. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 32 —
(September 2016) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 63. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 32 —
(September 2016) upstream view from right bank.

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No, 92515
Logan Creek, Reach 1 (3,184 LF), Restoration
Reach
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?
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 embeddin /fnin ?
18
18
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
18
18
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
35
35
0
100
2. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bid 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 aggradation areas bar formation
3,184
3,184
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cuttin ?
3,184
3,184
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
24
24
0
100
Rock/Log
12. Height appropriate?
24
24
0
100
Drop
13. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
24
24
0
100
Structures'
14. Free of piping or other structural failures?
23
24
0
96
99%
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 I 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 embedding/fining?
10
10
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
10
1 10
0
100 1
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
13
13
0
100
2. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bid >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. cuttin ?
1,038
1,038
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
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
' Note: Due to very low water levels some piping is occurring, only one structure may need to be repaired to fix the issue. Most structures in Reach 2 were designed
to have water go under them during low water, in order to move sand through the 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?
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
1 3
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
3
3
0
100
2. Sufficient) 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. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
0
1 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. cuttin ?
178
178
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
4
4
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
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 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment- Continued
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
UT6,. (1 27 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
Pertomance
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
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
2
2
0
100
2. Sufficient) 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 cuttin ?
127
127
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
2
2
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height a ro riate?
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)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As -Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Pertomance
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 ffinin ?
1
1
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
1
1 1
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
0
0
0
2. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
0
0
0
3. Length 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 floodplain 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 cuttin ?
45
45
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
1
1
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Heigh 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 9. 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
3/18/2016 2 events: 1 in Dec -15 and 1 Crest Gauge
in Jan -16.
25.75 inches
8/17/2016 undetermined Crest Gauge
1.56 inches
* height indicates the highest position of cork shavings on the dowel.
Crest Gauge reading taken on 3/18/16 shows
highest water level recorded during high water
events that occurred during December 2015 and
January 2016.
Crest Gauge reading taken on 8/17/16 shows minimal
water level rise between 3/18/16 and 8/17/16.
Wrack lines well back from the stream, indicating
wide flooding of the floodplain during storms of late
December 2015 and early February 2016.
Large debris scattered across the floodplain indicating the
significant flooding during storms of late December 2015
and early February 2016.

Permanent Cross -Section 1
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Logan Creek Cross-section 1, Station 3+10
Max
3178
Stream
BKF BKF
BKF
3176
BH
Feature Type BKF Area
Width Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 64.8
24.05 2.7
4.32
8.92
1 2.9 3173.07
3173.16
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Logan Creek Cross-section 1, Station 3+10
3178
3177
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3176
LL 3175
r- 3174
o
ti
3173
-----------------------------
'
>
2 3172''
LU
3171
i
'
3170
---o--- Floodprone
---e--- BKF
3169
---- As -Built
MY1
3168
MY2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 2
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
BKF Area Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
65.5 25.95
1 2.52
5.1
10.28
1 1
2.3
3172.34
3172.59
Logan Creek Cross-section 2, Station 3+70
3178 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3176
LL 3174
c
-----
3172 ------------------------------------- -------
m
W 3170 ---o-- Floodprone
«•• BKF
3168 ------ As -Built
MY1
MY2
3166
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 3
(MY2 Data - collected October, 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
52.7
24.46
1 2.15
3.11
11.36
1 1
4.1
3169.03
3169.18
Logan Creek Cross-section 3, Station 12+57
3173
3172 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3171
LL 3170
a3169 - - ------ ----------------------------------;,-------------
a�
M 3168 - --- Floodprone
---o---
3167BKF
------- MYO
3166 - --- MY1
MY2
3165
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 4
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
65.4
27.09
2.41
5.41
11.23
1 1.1
3.6
3168.4
3168.72
Logan Creek Cross-section 4, Station 13+00
3176
3174------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3172
U_
r_ 3170
c ---------------------------
3168 -
d
w 3166
' -- G--- Floodprone
3164 ' -- G--- Bankfull
------- MYO
3162 MY1
MY2
3160
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 5
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
U
73.3
23.86
1 3.07
5.41
7.76
1
3.8
3164.28
3164.34
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Logan Creek Cross-section 5, Station 25+43
3172
3170
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
3168
-----
U
c 3166
;----------=
3164---
------------------------
w
3162
---0--- Floodprone
-- Bankfull
3160
------- As -Built
;� MY1
3158
MY2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 6
(MY2 Data - collected October, 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
51.4
22.51
1 2.28
3.67
9.86
1 1
4.2
3163.6
1 3163.75
Logan Creek Cross-section 6, Station 26+09
3168.00
3167.00----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3166.00
3165.00
c 3164.00 --- ---- _
�c -----------------
3163.00 ,-
w 3162.00 ;
J---0--- Floodprone
3161.00 _ - o--- Bankfull
------- MYO
3160.00 MY1
3159.00 MY2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 10
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
70.3
33.42
1 2.1
3.39
15.89
1 1.0
1.8
3159.66
1 3158.53
Logan Creek Cross-section 10, Station 37+05
Enhancement Reach
3164
3163-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3162
3161 -
y0 3160 - -
..-------------------------------------------------- ,---'
M
3159
W 3158 ---0--- Floodprone
---0--- Bankfull
3157 '
'------- MYO
3156 '- - MY1
MY2
3155
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 11
(MY2 Data - collected October, 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
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Logan Creek Cross-section 11, Station 37+20
Enhancement Reach
3164
3163
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3162
u
3161
0
3160
---------- ----------------------------------------------
m
3159
"-"
W
3158
; ; ;�---o---
Floodprone
3157
---o---
- -- --
Bankfull
-------
MYo
3156
MY1
MY2
3155
0 10 20 30 40 50
60
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 8.5
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
UT3 Cross -Section 8.5*, Station 0+60
3171.5 —
3171
3170.5 -------------------------------------------
LL 3170
r 3169.5
3169 ------------
"' ---0--- Floodprone
> 3168.5
(D --o--- Bankfull
w 3168 MY1
3167.5
MY2
3167
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (Ft)
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. The station location has been changed to match the MY2 profile.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
8.2
8.98
0.91
1.46
9.88
1
3.4
3169.09
3169.13
UT3 Cross -Section 8.5*, Station 0+60
3171.5 —
3171
3170.5 -------------------------------------------
LL 3170
r 3169.5
3169 ------------
"' ---0--- Floodprone
> 3168.5
(D --o--- Bankfull
w 3168 MY1
3167.5
MY2
3167
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (Ft)
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. The station location has been changed to match the MY2 profile.

Permanent Cross-section 9
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
3171
3170.5
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+73*
--- ------
3170
Max
3169.5
c
3169
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
-- o--- Bankfull
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
4
5.78
0.69
1.03
8.43
1
3.9
3168.83
3168.83
3171
3170.5
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+73*
--- ------
3170
.- '"------------
-------------------------------
3169.5
c
3169
------- -''" ---0--- Floodprone
3168.5
-- o--- Bankfull
W 3168
------- MYO
3167.5
MY1
MY2
3167
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
* Station location is modified with this report because station reported in previous reports was incorrect.

Permanent Cross-section 7
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+54
Max
3171.5
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
BKF
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-----
7.4
9.41
0.78
1.17
12.05
1
3.1
3170.04
3170.04
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+54
3172
3171.5
3171
=
3170.5
o
3170
---------------------
-----
m
,
w
3169.5
'�
-- G--- Floodprone
3169
�
G--- Bankfull
`
--As-Built
3168.5
MY1
MY2
3168
0 10 20
30 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 8
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
3171.5 -
3171
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+69
--------------------------------------------------------------------o
$ 3170.5
Max
'
o
----
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
"
BH
w
3169.5
" ---0-- Floodprone
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
3.7
5.83
0.64
0.9
9.11
1
5.4
3170.05
3170.09
3171.5 -
3171
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+69
--------------------------------------------------------------------o
$ 3170.5
'
o
----
3170
'----------- -
m
"
w
3169.5
" ---0-- Floodprone
---0--- Bankfull
3169
------- As -Built
MY1
MY2
3168.5
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 12
(MY2 Data - collected October, 2016)
UT8 Cross -Section 12, Station 0+9.6
3175.5
3175-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3174.5
U_
r_ 3174
0
3173.5 ---------------
°' 3173
W ---0--- Floodprone
3172.5 ---0-- Bankfull
MY2
3172 '--1 1 1J
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
This Riffle cross-section was not taken during AB or MY1 surveys but was added in MY2 and will be
continued each year going forward.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
6
8.11
0.74
1.39
10.97
1
5.3
3173.54
3173.54
UT8 Cross -Section 12, Station 0+9.6
3175.5
3175-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3174.5
U_
r_ 3174
0
3173.5 ---------------
°' 3173
W ---0--- Floodprone
3172.5 ---0-- Bankfull
MY2
3172 '--1 1 1J
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
This Riffle cross-section was not taken during AB or MY1 surveys but was added in MY2 and will be
continued each year going forward.

3175
3174
3173
3172
3171
3170
3169
O
3168
3167
3166
W
3165
3164
3163
3162
3172
3171
3170
3169
3168
3167
3166
3165
3164
3163
3162
Profile of Logan Creek, Station 0+00 to 16+00,
Compared to As -built Thalweg (MYO)
_ - X-1 X-2
..........
Low Bank
WSF
X-3 X-4 MY2 TWG
------- MYO TWG
■ Structures
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Station (ft)
Profile of Logan Creek Thalweg, Station 0+00 to 16+00,
Year to Year Comparison of Thalweg
v
------- MYO TWG
MY1 TWG
MY2 TWG
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 16C
Station (ft)

Profile of Logan Creek, Station 16+00 to 32+00
Compared to As -built Thalweg (MYO)
3169
Low Bank
3168
WSF
3167 - - - - -_ —_..-------.._..-------.._..------- MY2 TWG -
3166 - - -- -
X-5 X-6 ------- MYO TWG
Structure
3165 - -
3164 ---- ,
_......._........_........_.._.....__..._......._.........._.........._.....__...._...._................-......._...._...._...................._.....__..._......._........_........-......._...._...._........ - End of LC -R1
3163 _ - -- - ---- -- -------... -
3162
,
m3161 - —
>
3160 --- '
LU
3159 -
3158
3157
3156
1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Station (ft)
Profile of Logan Creek Thalweg, Station 16+00 to 32+00
Year to Year Comparison of Thalweg
3169
------- MYO TWG
3168 - -
3167 - MY1 TWG
3166 - MY2 TWG
3165 - -
3164 ----- -
3163 ' - -
lo
C 3162- - -- - - - - - - - --
O
3161 - - %-%
m
> 3160 - '; -- -- - - — - ---------------------------------
W 3159 - - - --
3158 - -
1`/
3157 - -- -- - - --- - - - - - - -
3156
1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Station (ft)

3165
3164
3163
3162
3161
3160
3159
C 3158
3157
3156
W 3155
3154
3153
3152
3:
a IDD
3164
3163
3162
3161
3160
3159
3158
3157
3156
W 3155
3154
3153
3152
Profile of Logan Creek, Station 32+43 to 42+81
Compared to As -built Thalweg (MYO)
3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400
Station (ft)
Profile of Logan Creek Thalweg, Station 32+43 to 42+81
Year to Year Comparison of Thalweg
R.- 1� c- Z-,* is "IF A, e, "=%. wi
------- MYO TWG
MY1 TWG
MY2 TWG
3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400
Station (ft)

Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Compared to As -built Thalweg
X
4�
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)
Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Year to Year Comparison of Thalweg
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)
3169.5
3169
3168.5
.—.
3168
3167
3167.5
3167
ca
3166
3166.5
3165
W
3166
3165.5
3165
Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Compared to As -built Thalweg
X
4�
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)
Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Year to Year Comparison of Thalweg
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)
3169
3168.5
3168
3167.5
3167
3166.5
W
3166
3165.5
3165
Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Compared to As -built Thalweg
X
4�
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)
Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Year to Year Comparison of Thalweg
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)

3171.5
3171
3170.5
3170
r 3169.5
O
+� 3169
cv
d 3168.5
W 3168
3167.5
3167
3170
3169.5
3169
C 3168.5
co
d 3168
W
3167.5
3167
Profile of UT6, Station 0+00 to 1+20
%,Omparea to f+s-puna 1 naiweg
1 { Low Bank X-7 X-8 WSF
■ Structure
------- As -Built
MY2
--------------- ----------------------
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)
Profile of UT6, Station 0+00 to 1+20
Year to Year Gomaarison of Thalwe
------- As -Built
MY1
-- - '- -= MY2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)

Note: This profile was added in MY1 because restoration credit is being requested for this reach. However, the profile onthis
Profile of UT8, Station 0+00 to 0+45
Compared to As -built Thalweg*
3174
-
3172.5
0
0 Structures
3169.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
Station (ft)
Note: This profile was added in MY1 because restoration credit is being requested for this reach. However, the profile onthis

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 2
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT:
Logan Cr
REACII/LOCATION:
Riffle at XS
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
22 -Sep -16
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
MY2 2016
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
< .063
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-.25
5
5%
5%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
5%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
10
10%
15%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
1
1 %
16%
2.0
—MYI 2015
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
1
1 %
17%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1 %
18%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
19%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
5
5%
24%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
7
7%
31%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
22
22%
53%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
15
15%
68%
22.6
a
Coarse
22.6-32
14
14%
82%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
9
9%
91%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
1
1 %
92%
64
Small
64-90
2
2%
94%
90
Small
90-128
3
3%
97%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
2
2%
99%
180
Large
180-256
99%
256
Small
256-362
99%
362
Small
362-512
1
1 %
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-1024
100%
1024
10%
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
>2048
0%
100%
5000
Total % of whole count I I 100 I 100% I
Largest particle= 128
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 2.0 D84— 34.5
D35 — 11.8 D95 — 101.2
D50 = 1 15.2 1 D100=1 362-512
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS1
100%
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
90%
_AB 2015
72777
—MYI 2015
80%
—MY2 2016
70%
60%
d
50%
a
a> 40%
30%
_R
20%
U
10%
0%
1000
10000
0.01
0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS1
100%
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
90%
AB 2015
■ MY 2015
80%
■ MY2 2016
70%
60%
d
c7
`m 50%
y 40%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 2
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT:
Logan Cr
REACH/LOCATION:
Riffle at XS3
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
22 -Sep -16
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
MY2 2016
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
I Silt/Clay
<.063
90
■ AB 2015
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
80%
0%
0.125
Fine
.125 -.25
1
1 %
1 %
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
1
1 %
2%
0.50
d
y
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
5
5%
7%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
7%
2.0
a
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
_R
V
7%
2.8
30%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1%
8%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
4
4%
12%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
V 20%
TE
10%
12%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
3
3%
15%
11.0
Medium
11.0 -16.0
12
12%
27%
16.0
0%
Coarse
16-22.6
11
11%
38%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
17
17%
54%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
19
19%
73%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
17
17%
90%
64
Small
64-90
7
7%
97%
90
Small
90-128
1
1 %
98%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180+98%
180
Large
180-256
1
1 %
99%
256
Small
256-362
1
1 %
100%
362
Small
362-512 1
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-10241
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 1 101 1 100
Largest particle= 256
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16-1 11.4 1 D84= 1 56.3
D35 = 20.8 D95 = 81.5
D50- 29.2 D100 = 256-362
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS3
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
-AB 2015
Mainstem at XS3
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
90
■ AB 2015
-MY 1 2015
■ MY 2015
80%
80%-MY2 2016
70
70./
= 60
60%
d
y
v
50%
a
� 50%
a 40
a
_R
V
40%
30%
16 30%
20%
E
V 20%
TE
10%
0%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS3
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90
■ AB 2015
■ MY 2015
80%
, MY2 2016
70./
60%
d
y
50%
a
a 40
_R
V
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 2
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT:
Logan Cr
REACHILOCATION:
Riffle at XS6
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
22 -Sep -16
MATERIAL
I PARTICLE
ISIZE(nun)l
Total
MY2 2016
I Class % I
1
% Cum I
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
I Silt / Clay
1 <.063
1
1%
1%
0.063
Very Fine
.063 -.125
1 %
0.125
Fine
.125 - .25
4
4%
5%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
9
9%
14%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
4
4%
18%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
80%
_MY22016
18%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
18%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1%
19%
4.0
c 60%
d
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
20%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
2%
22%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
9
9%
31%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
9
9%
40%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
14
14%
53%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
15
15%
68%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
14
14%
82%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
13
13%
95%
64
LEE]
Small
64-90
3
3%
98%
90
Small
90-128
2
2%
100%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
100%
180
Large
180-256
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Small
362-512
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512- 1024
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
100
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 101 1 100%
Largest particle= 90
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 0.7 D84= 47.3
D35 = 13.2 D95 = 63.9
D50 = 20.7 DI00 = 90-128
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS6
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
l00%
-AB 2015
90%
-MYI 2015
80%
_MY22016
70%
c 60%
d
50%
a
> 40%
30%
E
U 20%
LEE]
10% -
0%
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS6
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
■ AB 2015
90 %
■ MY 12015
80%
�MY22016
70%
60
d
50%
IL
a 40%
_R
V
30%
20%
10%
0%
11111.1 XM
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Monitoring Year 2 Stream Summary
T.•wvn (Trek Rect min. Prnirrt- nMC Prniert in N. 94649
rpwmrmwl
BF Width (A)
Floodpronc Width
aaaa
aaaaaaa®aaaa
a�aaaaa�aaa©a�aaao®®���o
DepthBF Me-
WidtUDepth Ratio
aaaa
aaa®aa
aaaaaa■
a®aaaa®���®©���®�®�®��®a
Bank Height Rati
aaaaa®®®®a
a®aaaaa®aaaa®��®tea®®®®tea®®®®aa
a—aaaaaaaaaaaaaa■a®aaa
��®®®a®®���©
ChmarelRadio
aaaaaa®®aaaaaaaa®aaaaa
a
aaa
::
a
•::
a®a
::
a
•::
a®a
of Curvature Ht)
aaaa®®mmaaa®aaaa®aamaaaaa
®aaaa
®aaaa
®a
a—aaaa®aaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaa®aaaaaa®aaaaaaaa
Mcmdor Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
aaaaaa®�®aaaaaa—■®aaaaaaaa®�®���®�®���®�®
Riffle Length Hi
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaa®a
Riffle Stop. (fUft)
aaaaaaaaaaa
::
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaamaaaaaa
Pont Length (ft)
a—a®a—aaaaaaaaa—■aaaaa—aa—a—aaaa®amaaaaam
Sparing
a®aaaaaaaaamaaaa■aa—--aa—a—aaa®aammaamam
Pool M- • •
a—aaaaa®aaaaaaaa■aataaaa®®®®tea®®®��aa®���®
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
d16 / d35 d50 18d95aaaa
aaaaaa■aaaaaa123.1
Reneh Shear Smss he
aaaaaaa�aaaaaaaa■
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Mu pan sin (mm) m,bilized at bonkfiAl (R-gon
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
a
aaaaaa
hop_imasrover estimate(%)
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa■
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaa
aaaaaamaaaa■a®aaaaamaaaaamaaaaamaaaa
•aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
: ;. -
a�aaaaaaaaamaaaa■a®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaa-aaa-aa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
a-aaa
::
aaaaaaaaaa■a�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a-aaaaaaaaaaaaaa■a®-a-as®-a-as®-a-as®-a-a
Water Swfom Slope (Chan" 1) HL/ft)
a-a-aaa-a-a
::: •
a-aaa
: �:
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaa-aaaa
or Other
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Mineola.
BF Width
a®®aaaaaaaa®aaaaaataaaa®®®®aaa®aaaaaaaaaa
�Jft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa■a�aaaa
��
::t
aaa
aaaaa
aaaa
D
a-aaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaa®®®®
as®aaaoa�aaao
BF Cros—tional Are'
a�®aaaaaaaa®aaaaa-a-aaaaaaaa®-a-aaa-a-a
• • . •a-aaa-aaaaaaaaaa■ate-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entron"'new Ratio
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa■
aaaaaaa®®�®aa®aaaaaaaaaa
B- Height Rim.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaa
60 orm)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Pattern
+�
Channel B�ItWidth (f)
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaa
a-aaaaaaaaa®aaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Meander W.-loonh (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Meander Width Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Profile
i
a
a
Riffle Length (ft)
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa®aaaaa®��®tea®®®��®
Riffle ••
::
aaaa
. t.
o
t tttt
o
t tttt
a
t:
a
Pont U.gih (ft)
aaa-aaaaaa
aaaaaa■
aaaaa®���®®�®®®�®��®��©
Pool Sp.effig (11)aaaaaaaaaaa
24.1
Pool Mo Depth (it)
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa®aaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
Pool Volme (ft')
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
d•,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa—aaaaa—aaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a—aaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a
a
Drainage Are, (SM)
a
a
aaaaaaaa■aaaaaaa
aaa�aaaa�aaa
loop_ions to-, estimate (%)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaa�aaa
Rciagen Classification
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa■
aaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaa©aaa
a—aaaaaaaaa®aaaa■aaa---aaaaaaa--aaa--a
BF Diselvarg. (,S)
a
���
aaaaaa
amaaaa■
aa----a®—a—a
a®
--a
a®
--a
a—aaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel length Ht�
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa®aaa
aaaa
aaaaa-aaaaaa■
aaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa®aaa
Water Sof— Slope pChamool)
a®aaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa
aaaaaaa
guft)
a-aaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aa----aa-a-as-a--aaaa--a
a-a-aaaaa-aaaaaaa-a---aaaaaaaaa--aaaa--a
:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Chromet Stability or Habitat Mernie
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Biological - Other
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY2 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 10. Monitoring Year 2 Stream Summary
I.nnan ('reek 12ectnratinn Prni-t: DMS Pool— ID No. 94"S
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY2 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
NC Pied.
Me.
Med
Mean
Med
Me.
Merl
Me.
Med
Max
Me.
Merl
Me.
Merl
a®
aa
aaaa
aaaa
aaa
®aa
aaoa
aao
aaaaaaa---ateaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaoa®aaao
'� � •
a��aaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
::
®
I :
�
::
II
a
• :
aaaoa
• •:
aaao
aaaa
aaaaaaa®aaaa
aaaaaa®®®®�aa�aaaoa�aaao
a�®aaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa®����®a�aaaoa®aaao
•.•aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa�®®®�©a®aaaoa®aaao
• •aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa®®®�®®a�aaaoa®aaao
•.
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®®®aaa®aaaoa®aaao
••: ••
a—aaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaao
aaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-••aaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
• I
a—aaaaaaaaaaaaaa®®�®�®�����®�
::
•
aaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
::
����o�����o®®®��©�®®®�®
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaoa����®®�®���®�����a
••. •�
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaa�®���o®����o�®�®®ate®��®©
•
a®aaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa®aaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
• . -
a :: �
:: aaa
aaaaaaaaaaa
::
aaa
::
aaaa
::
aaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa�aaa
••
a-aaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa®aaa
a -aa aaaaaa
a®aaaa
aaa-aa
aaa-a-a®aaaa®aaa
:•
-
a���aaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa®aaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa�aaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa�aaa
aaaaaaaaaaa
:: •
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa�aaa
a®aaaaaaaaa
:: •
aaaaaaaaaaa
:::
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
P,,-E,i,ti,g Condition'
Morgan Creek
Dinnessi.. ad S.bstr.fi, Riffle
NC Rand Min
Mean
Med Min
Med
Min
me-
Merl
Min
Me-
Merl
Min
Me-
Med
Min
SD
BF Width (it)
a®Mai
aaa
a
aaa
aaa
aaa
aaa
aa
ao
aaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaao
aaaaBF
BFMe-Depth 11)
a�®aaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Mao, Depth (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa
13F Coass_tiena[Arc
a��aaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaao
• • . ,
a®aaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaao
Entron lament Ratio
• •aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaao
aaaa aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Bcltwidlh (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Radio, of C—­
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
Rc-Bankfull width
aaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Meander Width Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Profile: —eh is to short for this dt.
Rifle Length (it)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�����oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa
:: •
aaaa
:::
::
:::•
::
:::
oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Pool
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaa�®���®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Pool Ma, Depth ft)
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Pool
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
a-aaa-aaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-
a-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa---aa-----a-----as----
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
• -
a
aaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaa
a®aaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa©aaa
BF Vci.eity (fps)
aaaa aaaaaa
a®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaa
.
F• -
a���aaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaa
aa--aaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel length
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
a--®aaaaaaa�aa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa—a�aa—
Water Surfare Slope (Channel)
a—aaaaaaaaa---
BF stop' ft/ft)
a—aaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aa--a-----a----aa—aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Biologiesi or Otheraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY2 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Loean 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
24.0
24.1
25.9
26.8
26.0
25.2
24.3
24.46
27.6
27.1
27.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.1
2.15
2.3
2.7
2.4
Width/Depth Ratio
9.2
9.3
8.9
10.5
11.0
10.3
12.0
11.6
11.36
12.1
10.0
11.2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
63.0
62.4
64.8
63.9
65.2
65.5
53.2
51.2
52.7
62.8
73.8
65.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.7
4.0
4.3
5.2
5.1
5.1
3.1
2.9
3.11
5.2
5.9
5.4
Width of Floodprone Area (11)
>70
>70
>70
>60
>60
>60
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.3
2.3
2.3
3.9
4.1
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.6
Bank Height Rat i
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
29.3
29.3
V.
30.9
31.7
31.0
29.5
28.6
28.8
32.2
32.6
31.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.0
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (fry
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 (IFC)
d50 (mm)
13.8
30.7
- - - -
15.219.2
-
- - - - -
43
29.2 - - - -
-
- - - -
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
MYI
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)
21.3
24.0
23.9
23.6
22.6
22.5
31.0
33.4
33.4
29.2
33.9
33.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
7.1
7.8
7.8
10.8
10.1
9.9
14.4
15.6
15.9
14.0
18.6
18.6
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
63.9
74.3
73.3
51.7
50.2
51.4
66.6
71.2
70.3
60.7
61.8
61.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.4
5.3
5.4
3.4
3.5
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.4
2.9
3.0
3.0
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>80
>90
>90
>95
>95
>95
>60
>60
>60
>54
>54
>54
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.4
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.2
1.8
1.8
4.5
1.6
1.6
Bank Height Rati
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.3
30.2
30.0
28.0
27.0
27.1
35.2
37.6
37.6
33.4
37.6
37.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)2.3
2.5
2.4
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.6
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 (fit)
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
- - - - -
-
-
- - - - -
-
-
- - - - -
-
-
- - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
-
-
- - - - -
-
-
- - - - -
-
-
- - - - -
-
-
- - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ff)
d50 (mm)
24.9
41.1
20.7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY2 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Loean Creek Restoration Protect: DMS Proiect H) No. 92515
UT3 (178 LF)
Cross-section X-8.5, Station 0+60* 'o.
Cross-section X-7, Station 1 '..
Cross-section .n 1
1 iBase*
1 i i i
MY1
MY2 NrY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
Myt
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 NfY5 MY+ Base Myl M -Y2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
BF Width
a��aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
���aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mean Deptha��aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BFMean Depth���aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depth.
a��aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��®aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area
a��aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
���aaaa��®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
.-'
a®®aaaa®®�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaae
®®®aaaa®��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width ofFloodprone Areaa��aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
' :o" .'���aaaa®®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaae
Entrenchment oWetted
a®�aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height Ratio
a®�aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
���aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Perimeter (ft)
a�
���aaaa®®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
11 aaaa®®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Hydraulic d
a��aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
���aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
'
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-.-
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
' ' - • ..
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1 - . -.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
.-'
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
�- -.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
_ •.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank .Hydraulic
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
' •- ;'- -
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cross Sectional Area between end �
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
i1
vaaaaaavaaaaaaaaaaaaavaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
*Stationing is corrected in this report.
UT6 (127 LF)
Cross-section X-7, Station 1 '..
Cross-section . 0+69 (Riffle)
1 i i i
BFWidth
���aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BFMean Depth���aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��®aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cross-sectionalBF
���aaaa��®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Max Depth
®®®aaaa®��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
' :o" .'���aaaa®®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaae
Entrenchment 4��®aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Height
' Ratio;
���aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��
���aaaa®®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
HydraulicRadius
���aaaa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BFWidth
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BFM.-Depth
Width/Depthaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cross-sectionalBF
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
D '
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width:o" .'
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank .Hydraulic
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Radius
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cross Sectional Area betweendp
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
'1,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY2 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Loean Creek Restoration Protect: DMS Proiect H) No. 92515
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY2 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
StationCross-section X- 12, 0+9.6
1Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
WidthBF
aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
DepthBF Mean �aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
' ' ' •
aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cross-sectionalBF
aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mas: Depth
aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width" �••aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment 'as®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height •aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted '
aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaae
HydraulicBF
aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Width
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Mean
Depth�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depth.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cross-sectionalBF
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Max: Depth
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Widthe1•' •
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment •aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height •aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Radius�
d-=
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
' - • . -'- - •
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
i1
vaaaaaavaaaaaavaaaaaavaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY2 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515