20080879 Ver 2_Year 3 Monitoring Report 2017_20180206

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Jackson County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID No. 92515; Contract No. D06046 -A
Savannah River Basin: 03060101-010020
DWR # 20080879 Ver. 2, SAW ID: 2008-01711
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 3 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2017
Year of Completed Construction: May 2015
Submission Date: December 2017
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
NCDEQ Contract ID No. D06046 -A

Innovation Done Right ... We Make a Difference
INTERNATI❑NAL
December 11, 2017
NCDENR - Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
Attn: Mr. Paul Wiesner, Western Project Management Supervisor
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Response to DMS comments on the Year 3 Monitoring Report Review for the Logan
Creek Stream Restoration Project; Savannah River Basin - CU# 03 060 10 1; Jackson
County, North Carolina; NCDMS Project # 92515; Contract No. D06046 -A
Dear Mr. Wiesner,
Please find enclosed the final Logan Creek Year 3 Monitoring Report. We have addressed the
comments that you sub mitted on the draft report and our responses to your comments are th e
following:
The 2013 project mitigation plan proposed 4,249 SMUs and did not include UT 7 and UT8. The
As -Built Baseline (MYO) report indicates 4,329 SMUs and the MY3 report indicates 4,327
SMUs. The IRT did not review the 2013 mitigation plan and most of the IRT members have not
been to the project site. During MY2, DWR staff noted concerns about adding UT7 and UT8
after the mitigation plan stage. DMS recommends scheduling an IRT site visit to see the site in
2018 (MY4) and resolve any potential credit issues prior to project closeout. DMS can help
facilitate this IRT site visit.
The footage and SMUs for the As-built-MYO and MY] report were the same based on the post
construction survey when we determined the actual footage. Last year in the MY2 report, we
reduced these numbers slightly because the landowner installed afoot -bridge crossing that had
been removed during construction, so MY2 and MY3 have consistent figures. We agree that a
meeting with the IRT early in 2018 could be helpful in addressing any concerns that they may
have about this project.
• Please be sure to describe the 2018 structure repair efforts in the MY4/ 2018 monitoring report.
We will describe any repairs made in 2018 in the MY4 report.
• Please be sure the MY3 invoice for contract D06046 -A matches the credits presented in the final
MY3 report (4,327 SMUs).
The invoice for Task 9 is based on 4,327 SMUs and the total fee requested reflects a credit
applied for over payment from previous years due to those invoices being based on a larger
contract value.
Table 1 — Asterisks are shown for Logan Creek (Reach 1) and UT 5; however, no foot notes are
included in the table. Please update the table with the appropriate footnotes.
There should be no footnotes for this year and the asterisks were removed.
797 Haywood Roadl Suite 2011 Asheville NC 28806
oma _Lti KASEMAN �SALLYPDRT MBAKERINTL.COM Office: 828.350.14081 Fax: [phone]

Innovation Done Right ...We Make o Difference
• Table 2 — The second footnote has three asterisks but should only have two based on the "End of
Construction" row.
The additional asterisk was removed.
• Table 10 —The MY3 column is mislabeled for UT6 & UT8. Please update accordingly.
The mislabeled headers have been changed.
If you have any questions or find any issues that need to be addressed, please contact me directly
at [phone]. I am submitting an invoice for this task to Ms. Debby Davis in the Raleigh
DMS Office and will be providing you an email copy.
Sincerely,
Micky Clemmons,
Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Page 2

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 3 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 Q N A L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Vegetation Assessment.......................................................................................................................................4
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
3.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................7
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
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project
Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure
2
Current Conditions Plan View — Overview Map, MY3
Figure
2A
CCPV MY3, North Area
Figure
2B
CCPV MY3, Middle Area
Figure
2C
CCPV MY3, 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
MY3 Stream Summary
Table
11
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored, enhanced or preserved 5,110 linear feet (LF) of perennial
stream channel along Logan Creek and eight unnamed tributaries (UT1,UT2, UT3, UT4, UT5, UT6, UT7 and
UT8) in Jackson County, NC (Appendix A). The nearest town, Cashiers, is approximately five miles west of
the Logan Creek Project site. The site lies in the Savannah River Basin within the Targeted Local Watershed
03060101-010020 (Horsepasture River) and within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
sub -basin formerly known as 03-06-01-01 (Keowee River Subbasin). The Horsepasture River is a National
Wild and Scenic River and a state -designated Natural and Scenic River. The project involved the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of a stable channel and a Montane Alluvial/Montane Oak -Hickory Forest system
(NCWAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural
conversion including orchard development, trout hatchery development, mink farming and more recently
single-family home development.
The project goals directly address stressors identified in the Savannah River Basin Restoration Priority Plan
(RBRP) (DMS 2001 and updated 2008) such as habitat degradation, inadequate riparian buffer cover, channel
modification, and excess nutrient and sediment loading. The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the
approved mitigation plan, are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable stream channels within the Logan Creek project site.
• Protect stable areas as well as mature trees and other desirable vegetation.
• Improve water quality within the Logan Creek project area through reduction of bank erosion,
improved nutrient and sediment removal, and stabilization of streambanks.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
To accomplish these goals, the following actions were taken:
• Restore the existing eroding or over -wide stream reaches by creating a stable channel that has access
to its floodplain.
• Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools, providing woody debris for habitat, moving sand deposits through the reach and
reducing bank erosion.
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation to increase storm water runoff filtering
capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water temperature, provide cover,
improve wildlife habitat and protect this area with a permanent conservation easement.
• Improve terrestrial habitat by increasing the density of tree species that root deeply, by thinning the
thick stands of rhododendron within the easement area and planting a more diverse native plant
community.
During Monitoring Year 3 (MY3), our monitoring activities indicated that the planted acreage was functioning
well with most banks, benches and floodplain areas developing a diverse herbaceous community and having
good growth of planted trees. There were no Vegetative Problem Areas identified during 2017. The
Encroachment Area (EA -1) that was noted in 2016 is still mowed as a part of the nature trail, although no new
trees in Vegetation Plot 3 have been affected since MY2. Despite the impacts to the trees in the plot, Veg Plot
3 still meets minimum success criteria for MY3.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

The six channel problem areas noted in the MY2 report did not show further erosion and degradation during
2017. The sites were stabilized by sloping the banks, seeding, mulching, installing matting, and planting live
stakes. These areas are now stable and if they remain stable through 2018 they will be removed from the
monitoring report in MY4. Updated photos of these areas, labeled 2-1 through 2-6 on the MY3 CCPV, can be
found in Appendix D.
There were two additional areas of erosion and three instances of piping log structures noted in MY3 (labeled
3-1 through 3-5). The erosion areas will be monitored in the coming year to see if they stabilize naturally, and
the piping structures will be repaired.
As noted in the Baseline report, eight (8) vegetation monitoring plots were installed 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 MY3 growing season is 683 stems per
acre (SPA). The average density of volunteer trees across all 8 vegetation plots was 304 SPA.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY3 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 MY3. The particle size observed in MY3 pebble counts increased slightly
in two of the pebble counts and remained the same in the third. No observed changes indicate any instability.
The Visual Morphological Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable and performing well. All but
three structures (CPA 3-1, 3-3, and 3-5), are functioning as designed during MY3. These structures are all
instances of fabric tearing and allowing water and sediment to wash under the log structure over time (Table 14
in e -file data). These will be repaired in 2018. Overall, channel morphology is responding as designed and
meeting project goals.
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
(NCDMS 2009 and USACE 2003), which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring
years. The specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections and profiles,
and the crest gauge location, are shown on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) sheets found in Appendix
A.
Vegetation monitoring plots, pebble counts and site photo points were monitored in September 2017. Site
surveys for channel cross-sections, photos and profiles were conducted in October 2017.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

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 II 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 herbaceous
vegetation were planted. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody species and 1
square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation quadrants were established in one corner of
the larger woody vegetation plots and monitored by comparative photographs taken each year.
Trees surviving within vegetation monitoring plots were visually accessed during year three 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 MY3 growing season is 683 stems per acre (SPA) with a range from 405
SPA to 931 SPA. The average density of volunteer trees was 304 SPA and the density ranged from 0 to 1,012
SPA. The overall SPA including both planted and volunteer stems was 986. With an average planted density
of 683 stems per acre, the Site has met the minimum interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre by the end
of MY3, and is on track to meet the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre by the end of MY5.
The invasive multiflora rose that was noted in MY2 was treated throughout the site in July 2017. As of MY3
monitoring (October 2017), the multiflora rose is largely under control across the site. Any new growth that
is noted in the future will be treated as needed. No other areas of concern regarding the existing vegetation
were noted along Logan Creek or any of the tributaries. Year 3 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.
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen 1994) and all
cross-sections were evaluated to determine if they meet design expectations. Cross-sections were also
compared to cross-section plots from previous monitoring years to evaluate changes in the cross
sections. Morphological survey data is presented in Appendix D.
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of Logan Creek, UT3 and UT6, and UT8 to
document changes during year 3 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 MY3 was assessed by surveying thirteen
(13) cross-sections (8 on Logan Creek, 2 on UT3, 2 on UT6 and 1 on UT8) and a profile of these
channels as described above. The bed particle size was evaluated with three riffle pebble counts and by
observation and replicating channel location photographs. Cross-sections and profiles of all the
channels indicated that there was very little change in the channel during MY3. Many of the surveyed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

pools deepened slightly since MY2 and pools throughout the site seem to have returned to their design
depth after the drought conditions of 2016. The Visual Morphological Stability Assessment indicates
that the Site is stable and performing at 98 to 100 percent for all parameters. Three structures (two on
Logan Creek Reach 1, one on UT8) were piping during MY3 (CPA 3-1, CPA 3-3, CPA 3-5). The
fabric that should have sealed the upstream side of these structures had torn allowing water under the
structure instead of over it. 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 MY3 indicates a shift to larger particle sizes as compared to the MYO data. The
channel had a mean D50 of 16.5 mm during baseline sampling, 36.9 mm during MY1, 22.2 mm in
MY2, and 26.8 mm in MY3. This represents a general coarsening of particle size since baseline
sampling.
2.2.2 Hydrology
A crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the right top of bank on
Logan Creek at approximate Station 30+00. There were two major bankfull events recorded on the
crest gauge during MY3. The crest gauge indicated a water depth on the floodplain of 2.17 feet during
the first event and 1.45 feet during the second event. Rainfall data from the nearest CRONOS weather
station (SASS) in Pickens, SC indicates that the first storm may have occurred on October 8, 2017 and
the second event occurred on October 23, 2017. There were also physical indications of this flooding,
such as large debris and wrack lines that indicated a flooding level that extended well beyond the top
of bank (see photos with Table 9). 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 3
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.
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 WAS identified during MY3. Vegetation was well established across the entire project
site.
During MY3, three structures (CPA 3-1, 3-3, and 3-5) were noted that were experiencing piping. These
structures are all instances of fabric tearing and allowing water and sediment to wash under the log
structure over time. These structures will be repaired in 2018.
There were also two additional areas of erosion noted in MY3 (labeled CPA 3-2 and CPA 3-4). These
areas both have sufficient vegetative cover, and will be monitored in the coming year to see if they
stabilize naturally.
The Encroachment Area (EA -1) that was noted in 2016 is still regularly being mowed through
Vegetation Plot 3, although no new trees in the plot have been affected since MY2. The mowed path
through the plot is still approximately 10-12 feet wide. This issue will be addressed again with
Lonesome Valley maintenance staff. Despite the impacts to the trees in the plot, Veg Plot 3 still meets
minimum success criteria for MY3.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

All issues discussed above reference the CCPV mapping and the Stream Problem Area table included
in Appendix D and the e -File data with associated photos.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Guidance and Content Requirements for
EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1.2.1. December 1, 2009.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-rs-4.1.
Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT,
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 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, MY3
Figure 2A. CCPV MY3, North Area
Figure 2B. CCPV MY3, Middle Area
Figure 2C. CCPV MY3, 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 culvert under US -64 to the outfall of Trout Pond.
04-04-01
LTN 1
igh
03-13-01
SAV1
04-04-02
r LTN2
hie
R CREEK
ERVOIR
Project Location
03-13-02
SAV2
04-03-01
FRB1
LAKE
TOXAWAY
Municipal boundaries Figure 1. Project Location Map
Logan Creek Stream Restoration
Counties
L� NCDMS Project 92515
USGS Hydrologic Unit Monitoring Year 3 Report
Jackson County, NC
- NCDWQ Sub -basin
Division of
Jackson County, NC 0 1 2 3 Mitigation Michael
Miles Services INTERNATIONAL

CPA 3-3
UT4
r .ti
re's'
ti
le
UT7
13 �
CPA 3 -
Logan Creek �12
Reach 1
OChannel Problem Area
C Veg. Encroachment Area
1 Photo Station
® Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank
Q Conservation Easement
- Vegetation Plots
Trail
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
CPA 3-1
10 ° +
D
Xs -5
6
CPA 2-5
CPA 2-6
0 125 250
Feet
DMS Project # 92515
8B
#1
Figure 213
Current Conditions Plan View
Monitoring Year 3
Logan Creek Site

#1
N
7N A
8A
.d
Ik
;i
`x,
-41
Agr t
Iwo
Logan Creek — 4 1, �'4 ET:5]
Reach 2JI
_ q.\ 31
3 33;
�xs-101 32
did' 6Xs-11 Mti a �
Ah
Z Ar
iv
• TWNA
444 ♦ �0-7
-
10
1 Photo Station
® Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank `� A
Q Conservation Easement
- Vegetation Plots N OO neMa.p, N enter for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911
Board
Michael 0 125 250 Figure 2C
Feet Current Conditions Plan View
Monitoring Year 3
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L DMS Project # 92515 Logan Creek Site

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

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type R EI EII P
Totals 3,441 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 1
692 SMU
1,038 LF
1.5:1
UT1 0+00 to 0+71
71 LF Enhancement 11
28 SMU
71 LF
2.5:1
UT2 0+00 to 0+92
92 LF Enhancement 11
37 SMU
92 LF
2.5:1
UT3
Reach 1 0+00 to 0+40
40 LF Enhancement 11
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 11
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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 3
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
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
Jun-07
06-07
Apr-08
Mitigation Plan Amended
Apr-13
N/A
May-13
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Jun-13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
May-13
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Jun-14
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan-15*
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan-15*
Planting of bare root trees and live stakes
N/A
N/A
Jan-15*
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
May-15**
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)
N/A
Mar-15
Aug-15
As-Built Baseline Report
N/A
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
Oct-17
Dec-17
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 3
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
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, 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 Survevor
Kee Mappiniz and Surveving
P.O. Box 2566
Asheville, NC 28802
Contact: Brad Kee, License #C-3039; Phone: [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 3
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
Count
Jackson
Project Area acres
12.71
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude 35.132803° Longitude -83.061046°
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
Savannah River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03060101 / 03060101010020
DWR Sub -basin
Keowee River: 0306010101
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 (I%)
Developed (6%) Other (.5%)
Agriculture (1.5%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Mainstem - Reach 1
Mainstem - Reach 2
UT3
R1 R2
Length of Reach (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
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 girassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation'
<1%
<1%
<1%
Parameters
UT3
UT6
6 other small UTs in R1
R1 R2
Length of Reach (LF)
40 138
127
45-127
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
II
II
II
Drainage Area (AC)
32
32
.02 to .04
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
41.5
41.5
40.5-32.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream
B
B
E - B
Evolutionary Trend
B
B
B—C—E
Underlying Mapped Soils
NkA, SaC
NkA, SaC
NkA, SaC
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.012
0.0134 (UT6)
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
<1%
<1%
<1%
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 3
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

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

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation
Success Summary (2017, MY3)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
Stems'
Volunteers2
Tota 13
Success
Criteria Met?
1
809
0
809
Yes
2
405
607
1012
Yes
3
607
607
1214
Yes
4
647
202
850
Yes
5
850
0
850
Yes
6
688
1012
1700
Yes
7
931
0
931
Yes
8
526
0
526
Yes
Project Avg
683
304
986
Yes
Stem Class
Characteristics
1Stream/ Wetland
Stems
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT
include live stakes. No vines
2Volunteers
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
3
Total
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes.
Excl. exotics. Excl. 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 Russell Myers
Date Prepared 10/31/2017 9:24
database name 92515_MY3_Logan_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
L:\projects\109243 - Logan Creek\Monitoring\YR3 Monitoring\2.0 -
database location Monitoring Data\App C - Vegetation\Veg Data
computer name ASHELRMYERS
file size 46358528
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
Metadata project(s) and project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
Proj, planted This excludes live stakes.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
Proj, total stems
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
project Name
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
Plots
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.
length(ft)
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
Damage
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.
Sampled Plots
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and
natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
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 392515
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
92515-01-0001
Species Type P V T P
92515-01-0002
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
Alnusserrulata
hazel alder
Shrub 3
10
13
6
15
21
2
32
2
7
32
7
3
33
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
Tree 1 1 2
1
11
1
3
12
3
3
11
3
1
13
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree 1
Tree 5 5 1
1
1
16
1
2
18
2
4
20
4
2
24
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree 1
Tree 3 3 2
1
2
22
2
4
23
4
2
24
2
8
24
8
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree 7 7
Tree
7
1
7
9
9 1
11
1
11
Leucothoe fontanesiana
highland doghobble
Shrub
Shrub 1 1
1
1 1
3
3
3
3
4
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub 2 2
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree 1
5
6
2
10
35
2
5
7
64
11
1
25 1
26
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree 1
Tree 1 1 1
1
2
7
2
7
8
2
9
2
9
20
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
Tree
2
2
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
Tree
14
14
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree 1 3
1
3
7
2
1
2
2
6
2
6
6
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Tree 2 2
3
9
3
1
10
1
1
12
1
2
13
2
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
ITree
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Shrub
1
1
Unknown
I
lShrub or Tree
Shrub or Tree
1
7
Viburnum dentatum
isouthern arrowwood
IShrub 11 11
Shrub I 1
11
1 1
11
11
1
11
11
11
99
Stem count 20 0 20 10
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 3 0 3 6
Stems per ACRE 809 0 809 405
15 1
1
0.02
2
607
25
6
1012
15
6
607
15
1
0.02
1
607
30
6
1214
16
7
647
1 5
1
0.02
1
202
21
7
850
21
7
850
0
1
0.02
0
0
21
7
850
17
6
688
25
1
0.02
1
1012
42
6
1700
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements by 10%
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements by 10%
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot, continued
Project: Logan Creek, DMS Project 392515
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
92515-01-0007
Species Type P V T P
92515-01-0008
V
T
P
MY3 (2017)
V
T
P
MY2 (2016)
V
T
P
MY1 (2016)
V
T
P
MYO (2015)
V
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub 6 6 5
S
32
25
57
32
30
62
32
32
33
33
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree 1 1 2
2
11
11
12
12
11
11
13
13
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree 5 5 1
1
16
16
18
18
20
20
24
24
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree 3 3 2
2
22
22
23
23
24
24
24
24
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
7
1
7
9
9 1
11
1
11
Leucothoefontanesiana
highland doghobble
Shrub 1 1
1
1 1
3
3
3
3
4
4
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree 4 4 2
2
10
35
45
9
55
64
11
11
17
17
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree 1 1 1
1
7
7
8
8
9
9
20
20
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
2
2
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
14
14
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree 2 2
9
9
10
10
12
12
13
13
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
ITree
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
7
7
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub I 1
11
1 1
11
11
1
11
11
11
99
Stem count 23 0 23 13
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 8 0 8 6
Stems per ACREI 931 0 931 526
0
1
0.02
0
0
13
6
526
135
12
683
60
8
0.20
2
304
195
12
986
144
12
728
102
8
0.20
5
516
246
15
1244
152
12
769
1
8
0.20
1
5
153
13
774
170
11
860
0
8
0.20
0
0
170
11
860
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements by 10%
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%

Figure 4. Logan Creek Site — Monitoring Year 3 Vegetation Plot Photos,
DMS Project #92515
Photo 1. Vegetation Plot 1 — Tree photo (October 2017).
Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 1 — Herbaceous photo
(October 2017).
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 2 — Tree photo (October 2017).
Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 2 — Herbaceous photo
(October 2017).
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 3 — Tree photo (October 2017).
Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 3 — Herbaceous photo
(October 2017).

Logan Creek Site - Vegetation Plot Photos,
DMS Project #92515 - continued
Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 4 — Tree photo (October 2017).
Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 4 — Herbaceous photo
(October 2017).
Photo 9. Vegetation Plot 5 — Tree photo (October 2017).
Photo 10, Vegetation Plot 5 — Herbaceous photo
(October 2017).
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 6 — Tree photo (October 2017).
Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 6 — Herbaceous photo
(October 2017).

Logan Creek Site - Vegetation Plot Photos,
Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 — Tree photo (October 2017).
Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 — Herbaceous photo
(October 2017).
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 — Tree photo (October 2017).
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 — Herbaceous photo
(October 2017).

Table 8. Vegetative Problem Areas MY3
Feature Category Station #/Range Probable Cause
Photo #
Bare Bank None
Bare Bench None
Bare Flood Plain None
Invasive /Exotic
None
Populations

Table 9 Vegetation Condition Assessment at Logan Creek
Planted Acreage
7.49
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Pol ons
Acreaa
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Pattern and
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
1 0.1 acres
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage
12.71
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vecietation Cateqory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreacie
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
None
1000 SF
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
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
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3
trail. We discussed this with staff at Lonesome Valley and they agreed to address this issue with the
none
Light Blue
2
0.01
0.19%
trail maintenance staff, and to be sure they know the proper width for future maintenance.
During MY3 monitoring, it was noted that the trail through Veg Plot 3 was still being mowed. This
issue will be addressed with the trail maintenance staff again.
1 = Enter theplantedacre �e within tqe eas mer�lt Thifs r�umberi4s fMculated Whe easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel
acreage, crossings or any o er a emen s not deirec y p an a as pa o e prolec a ort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Enc�oachfnlnt ma 4c ur within or �utsi�ebof IIanaed reas and ill th ref4{e bel alcy� ted a Inst the o�er 11 easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroac men , e ass cia ed acreage s ou a tapllie in a relevant t1ill (i..e., i em , or as w as a para a ally in i em

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 or Greater than Bankfull Events
Figure 6. Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 7. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8. Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 10. Monitoring Year 3 Stream Summary
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary

Figure 5. Logan Creek Stream Restoration project
Photo Points - Monitoring Year 3, (Stationing is approximate)
Photo 1. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 — Station 40+45
(October 2017) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 2. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 — Station 40+45
(October 2017) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 3. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 — Station 38+60
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 4. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 — Station 38+60
(October 2017) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 5. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 — Station 36+75
(October 2017) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 6. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 — Station 36+75
(October 2017) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 7. Logan Creek Photo Point 4 — Station 34+80
(October 2017) downstream from left bank.
Photo 8. Logan Creek Photo Point 4 — Station 34+80
(October 2017) upstream from left bank.
Photo 9. Logan Creek Photo Point 5 — Station 33+60
(October 2017) upstream from right bank.
Photo 10. Logan Creek Photo Point 5 — Station 33+60
(October 2017) downstream from right bank.
Photo 11. Logan Creek Photo Point 6 — Station 32+70 Photo 12. Logan Creek Photo Point 6 — Station 32+70
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank. (October 2017) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 13. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+15
(October 2017) downstream view from bridge.
Photo 14. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+00
(October 2017) upstream view from bridge.
Photo 15. Logan Creek Photo Point 8a — Station 29+75 Photo 16. Logan Creek Photo Point 8b — Station 29+25
(October 2017) downstream view from right bank. (October 2017) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 17. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 18. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(October 2017) 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
(October 2017) upstream view from right bank. (October 2017) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 21. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 —Station 23+20 Photo 22. Logan Creek Photo Point 11 —Station 23+20
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank. (October 2017) 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
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank. (October 2017) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 25. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (October 2017)
upstream view from left bank.
Photo 26. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (October 2017)
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
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank. (October 2017) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 29. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 — Station 17+45
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 30. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 — Station 17+45
(October 2017) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 31. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 32. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(October 2017) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 33. Logan Creek Photo Point 17 — Station 15+50 Photo 34. Logan Creek Photo Point 17 — Station 15+50
(October 2017) upstream view from right bank. (October 2017) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 35. Logan Creek Photo Point 18 — Station 12+90 Photo 36. Logan Creek Photo Point 18 — Station 12+90
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank. (October 2017) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 37. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(October 2017) upstream from left bank.
Photo 39. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(October 2017) upstream from left bank to vernal pool.
Photo 38. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(October 2017) downstream from left bank.
Intentionally left blank.
Photo 40. Logan Creek Photo Point 20 — Station 10+60 Photo 41. Logan Creek Photo Point 20 — Station 10+60
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank. (October 2017) 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
(October 2017) upstream view from right bank. (October 2017) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 44. UT6 Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75 (October Photo 45. UT6 Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75 (October
2017) upstream view from right bank. 2017) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 46. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 47. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70
(October 2017) 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
(October 2017) downstream view from left bank. (October 2017) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 50. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(October 2017) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 51. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(October 2017) 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
(October 2017) upstream view from right bank. (October 2017) 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
(October 2017) upstream view from right bank. (October 2017) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 56. UT8, Photo Point 28 —Station 1+10 (October Photo 57. UTI, Photo Point 29 —Station 0+50 (October
2017) upstream view from right bank and confluence. 2017) view upstream and confluence.
Photo 58. Logan Creek, Photo Point 30 — Station 0+50 Photo 59. Logan Creek, Photo Point 30 — Station 0+50
(October 2017) upstream view from right bank. (October 2017) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 60. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 31 — Station
1+80 (October 2017) downstream view from mid -
channel to confluence.
Photo 61. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 31 — Station
1+80 (October 2017) upstream view from mid -channel
to confluence.
Photo 62. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 32
(October 2017) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 63. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 32 —
(October 2017) upstream view from right bank.

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Lagan 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 embedding/fining?
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. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
35
35
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
35
35
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
17
19
0
89
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
19
19
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
19
19
0
100
4. Sufficient flood Iain access and relief?
19
19
0
100
97%
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 cutting?
3,184
3,184
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
24
24
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
24
24
0
100
Drop
3. An le and qeometry appear appropriate?
24
24
0
100
Structures"
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
22
24
0
92
98%
G. Wads/
1. Free ofscou'
24
24
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
24
24
0
100
100
Logan Creek, Reach 2 (1,038 LF), Enhancement Reach
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Rif0es
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. Len th a ro riate?
10
10
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
13
13
0
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
13
13
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
13
13
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
5
5
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
5
5
0
100
3. Apparent Re within spec?
5
5
0
100
4. Sufficient flood Iain access and relief?
5
5
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
1,038
1,038
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
1,038
1,038
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Structures"
4, Free of piping or other structural failures?
11
11
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
0
0
0
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
0
0
0
" 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.

Table S. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Lagan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Feature
Category
UT3 (1 76 LF)
(# 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
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
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
3
3
0
100
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
3
3
0
100
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
3
3
0
100
100
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
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
3
3
0
100
100
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
3
3
0
100
100
100%
3. Length appropriate?
3
3
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100
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
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
0
0
N/A
N/A
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
0
0
N/A
N/A
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
N/A
N/A
100
100%
4. Sufficient flood Iain access and relief?
0
0
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
127
127
0
100
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggraclation areas bar formation
178
178
0
100
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
178
178
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
2
2
0
100
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
4
4
0
100
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100
tures
StiouIders
4. Free of in or other structural failures?
4
4
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ad/
1. Free of scour?
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Footingstable?
0
0
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Rif0es
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 Re within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
4. Sufficient flood Iain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
127
127
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
127
127
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
2
2
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
2
2
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
2
2
0
100
Structures
4, Free of piping or other structural failures?
2
2
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
UT8, (45 LF
(# 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?
1
1
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
1
1
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
1
1
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
1
1
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
1
1
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
0
0
0
2. Sufficiently dee Max Pool D:Mean Bk` >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 flood Iain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
45
45
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
I cutting or head cutting?
45
45
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
1
1
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
1
1
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
1
1
0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
0
1
0
0
75%
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
NIA

Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Gauge Watermark
Date of Data
Method of Data
Height (inches)*
Date of Event
Logan Creek
Collection
Collection
Station 30+00
2 events: 1 in Dec-15 and 1 in
3/18/2016
Crest Gauge
25.75 inches
MY2
Jan-16.
8/17/2016
undetermined
Crest Gauge
1.56 inches
Between 7/26/2017 and
10/26/2017
Crest Gauge, Photographs
26.04 inches
MY3
10/26/2017
10/26/2017
10/23/2017
Crest Gauge, Photographs
17.40 inches
* height indicates the highest position of cork shavings on the dowel.
Crest Gauge reading taken on 10/26/2017 shows
two distinct high flow events, the lower of which
likely occurred on 10/23/2017.
Crest Gauge reading taken on
10/26/2017 shows two distinct high flow
events, the lower of which likely occurred
on 10/23/2017.
Wrack lines well back from the stream, indicating
wide flooding of the floodplain during the storms in
October.
Large amounts of debris scattered across
the floodplain indicating significant flooding
in October.

MY3 Stream Problem Areas and Photos
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project, Number #92515
Feature Issue
Station
Suspected Cause
Photo #
Aggradation/Bar
None
None
None
Formation
Bank slump (approx. 6 ft.) along left bank of main
Station 21+00
stem. Will be monitored to see if the bank
14
stabilizes in MY4 (CPA 3-2 on CCPV)
Bank slump (approx. 8 ft.) along right bank of
Station 11+50
main stem. Will be monitored to see if the bank
16
stabilizes in MY4 (CPA 3-4 on CCPV)
Flooding during December and January caused a
Station 2+10
small area of bank scour at this location. (CPA 2-
1,2
1 on CCPV)
Flooding during December and January caused a
Bank Scour
Station 4+60
small area of bank scour at this location. (CPA 2-
5,6
3 on CCPV)
Flooding during December and January caused a
Station 11+70
small area of bank scour at this location. (CPA 2-
7,8
4 on CCPV)
Flooding during December and January caused a
Station 26+60
small area of bank scour at this location. (CPA 2-
9,10
5 on CCPV)
Flooding during December and January caused a
Station 27+00
small area of bank scour at this location. (CPA 2-
11,12
6 on CCPV)
Piping of log structure after the fabric sealing this
Station 23+75
structure tore (CPA 3-1 on CCPV)
13
Piping of log structure after the fabric sealing this
Station 14+75
structure tore (CPA 3-3 on CCPV)
15
Piping of log structure on UT -8 near the
Engineered
UT8 Station 00+40
confluence of UT -8 and Logan Creek (CPA 3-5 on
17
Structures
CCPV)
Piping of log structure after the fabric sealing this
structure tore during flooding of December and
2+00
January. (CPA 2-2 on CCPV)
3,4
Will be removed from list in MY4
New maintenance workers mowed the nature
trail (an allowance in the easement); however,
Station
they mowed a wider width than was agreed to.
Encroachments
(approximately)
18,19
We discussed this with staff at Lonesome Valley
23+00 to 28+00
and they were going to discuss this with a new
trails manager. (EA -1 on CCPV)
New Problem Areas for MY3
Existing/Old Problem areas from MY2

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project — Monitoring Year 3 Stream Problem Area Photos
Photo 1. CPA 2-1 — Station 2+10, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January.
Photo 2. CPA 2-1 — Station 2+10, same area as shown in
photo 1 during October 2017 with vegetation stabilizing site.
Bank was graded, matting was reinstalled, and live stakes
were added during October 2017.
Photo 3. CPA 2-2 — Station 2+00, Piping of log structure
after the fabric sealing this structure tore during flooding of
December and January.
Photo 4. CPA 2-2 — Station 2+00, Piping structure was
repaired in May 2017. Fabric was replaced and substrate was
replaced upstream of log structure.

Photo 5. CPA 2-3 — Station 4+60, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January 2016.
Photo 6. CPA 2-3 — Station 4+60, bank scour area was
regraded, matting was reinstalled, and herbaceous vegetation
was transplanted in May 2017. Livestakes were installed in
October 2017.
Photo 7. CPA 2-4 — Station 11+70, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January 2016.
Photo 8. CPA 2-4 — Station 11+70, scour area noted in MY2
has stabilized for the most part. Livestakes were planted in
the scour area as well as the bank downstream of the problem
area in October 2017.
Photo 9. CPA 2-5 — Station 26+60, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January 2016.
Photo 10. CPA 2-5 — Station 26+60, bank scour area was
regraded, matting was reinstalled, and herbaceous vegetation
was transplanted in May 2017. Livestakes were installed in
October 2017.

Photo 11. CPA 2-6 — Station 27+00, small area of bank
scour caused by flooding of December and January 2016.
Photo 12. CPA 2-6 — Station 27+00, bank scour area was
regraded, matting was reinstalled, and herbaceous vegetation
was transplanted in May 2017. Livestakes were installed in
October 2017.
Photo 13. CPA 3-1 — Station 23+75, piping of log structure
after the fabric sealing this structure tore in 2017. This
structure will be repaired in 2018.
Photo 15. CPA 3-3 — Station 14+75, piping of log structure
after the fabric sealing this structure tore in 2017. This
structure will be repaired in 2018.
Photo 14. CPA 3-2 — Station 21+00, small bank slump area
(approx. 6 ft.) along left bank of main stem. Will be
monitored to see if the bank stabilizes in MY4
Photo 16. CPA 3-4 — Station 11+50, small bank slump
(approx. 8 ft.) along right bank of main stem. Will be
monitored to see if the bank stabilizes in MY4

Photo 17. CPA 3-5 — Station UT8 00+40, piping of log
structure on UT -8 near the confluence of UT -8 and Logan
Creek
Encroachments
Photo 18. EA 2-1 — Maintenance workers mowed the nature
trail wider than the 4-6 feet that had been agreed to earlier,
near stationing 23+00 to 28+00.
Photo 19. EA 2-1 — In July of 2017, the path was still being
mowed wide through Veg Plot 3.

Permanent Cross -Section 1
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Logan Creek Cross-section 1, Station 3+10
3178
3177
3176
LL 3175
c 3174
o _
3173
°' 3172
W ---o--- Floodprone
3171 -- o--- BKF
3170-------As-Built
MY1
3169 - MY2
MY3
3168
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF BKF BH
Feature Type
BKF Area Width
Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E
64.69 23.95
2.70 4.26 8.87 1.00 2.91 3173.07 3173.07
Logan Creek Cross-section 1, Station 3+10
3178
3177
3176
LL 3175
c 3174
o _
3173
°' 3172
W ---o--- Floodprone
3171 -- o--- BKF
3170-------As-Built
MY1
3169 - MY2
MY3
3168
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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-
66.22
25.98
2.55
4.88
10.19
1.06
2.33
3172.34
3172.66
3178
3176
3174
c
0
3172
m
Iw 3170
M081
3166
Logan Creek Cross-section 2, Station 3+70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
- o--- Floodprone
BKF
-------As-Built
MY1
MY2
MY3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 3
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
52.30
24.29
2.15
3.05
11.30
1.03
4.08
3169.03
3969.11
Logan Creek Cross-section 3, Station 12+57
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
3173
3172
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3171
U_
c
3170
0
a
3169
-------------
--------
-- - - -
W
3168
- -o--- Floodprone
---o--- BKF
3167
------- MYo
MY1
3166
MY2
MY3
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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-
70.16
27.38
2.56
5.49
10.70
1.02
3.57
3168.40
3168.54
Logan Creek Cross-section 4, Station 13+00
3176
3174------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3172
U_
a 3170
0 ------------------------
3168
a�
W 3166 - o--- Floodprone
---o--- Bankfull
3164 ------- MYo
MY1
3162 MY2
3160 MY3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 5
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH Ratio
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool -
71.03
23.77
1 2.99
5.42
7.95 1.01
1 .80 3164.28 3164.37
Logan Creek Cross-section 5, Station 25+43
3172 —
3170----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
LL 3168
0 3166 .---------
ca
3164 -------------- -- -- -
W - -o--- Floodprone
3162 - -o--- Bankfull
-------As-Built
3160MY1
MY2
MY3
3158
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross -Section 6
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
tream BK BKF Max BK
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E 1 50.79 1 22.40 1 2.27 1 3.59 1 9.87 1 1.04 4.21 3163.60 1 3163.73
LU
Logan Creek Cross-section 6, Station 26+09
3168
3167----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3166
3165
3164 - ---------
G --- Floodprone
.__ .
3162
3161
3160
o---Floodprone
-
--o--- Bankfull
------- MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
3159
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 10
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
tream BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width
1 1
BKF
Depth
Max BK
Depth W/D BH Ratio
1 1
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
1
Pool - 74.72 33.28
2.25
3.54 14.79 1 1.01
1.78 3159.66 3159.80
Logan Creek Cross-section 10, Station 37+05
Enhancement Reach
3164
3163-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3162
3161
0 3160
3159 - --------------------------------------------
W 3158 - -o--- Floodprone
-
--o --- Bankfull
3157 ------- MYo
MY1
3156 - MY2
MY3
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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
Stream BK BKF Max BK
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 1 59.43 34.08 1 1.74 2.90 19.59 1 1.11 1.54 3159.97 3160.26
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
o3160
------------------------------------------------ -
3159
W
315$
- o--- Floodprone
---o--- Bankfull
3157
------- MYo
MY1
3156
MY2
MY3
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
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
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.
UT3 Cross -Section 8.5*, Station 0+60
Max
3171.5
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF BKF BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth Depth W/D Ratio
ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool
-
8.05
8.93
0.90 1.44 9.92 1.07
4.52 3169.09 3169.17
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.
UT3 Cross -Section 8.5*, Station 0+60
3171.5
3171
3170.5
------------------------------------------
U.
3170
o
3169.5
>
3169
- o--- Floodprone
W
3168.5
- o--- Bankfull
3168
MY1
3167.5
MY2
MY3
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.

Permanent Cross-section 9
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+73*
3171
3170.5 ------ --------
3170
c--------------------------
0
3169.5
>
0 3169
W ----
3168.5 - o--- Floodprone
---o--- Bankfull
3168 ------- MYo
MY1
3167.5 MY2
MY3
3167
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* The stationing shown on this cross section plot has been changed to correct an error shown in
the MYO plots.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF BKF BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
3.81
6.16
0.62 1.02 9.94 1.06 4.86 3168.83
3168.90
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+73*
3171
3170.5 ------ --------
3170
c--------------------------
0
3169.5
>
0 3169
W ----
3168.5 - o--- Floodprone
---o--- Bankfull
3168 ------- MYo
MY1
3167.5 MY2
MY3
3167
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
* The stationing shown on this cross section plot has been changed to correct an error shown in
the MYO plots.

Permanent Cross-section 7
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
4111 VA
3171.5
3171
= 3170.5
0
3170
M 3169.5
3169
3168.5
3168
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+54
.--------------------------------------------------------------------o
-------------------- -
--o--- Floodprone
--o--- Bankfull
-------As-Built
MY1
MY2
MY3
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
40
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH BKF
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Pool
-
7.41
9.70
0.81
1.24
11.23 1.08 3.27 3170.04 3170.09
4111 VA
3171.5
3171
= 3170.5
0
3170
M 3169.5
3169
3168.5
3168
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+54
.--------------------------------------------------------------------o
-------------------- -
--o--- Floodprone
--o--- Bankfull
-------As-Built
MY1
MY2
MY3
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
40
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 8
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+69
3171.5
3171
3170.5
0 *_�Nn -----------
3170
a�
w
3169.5
3169
3168.5
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Max
Stream
BKF BKF
BKF
BH
Feature
Type
Area Width
BKF Depth Depth W/D
Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle
E
3.78 6.01
0.63 0.88 9.54
1.05 4.93 3170.05 3170.09
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+69
3171.5
3171
3170.5
0 *_�Nn -----------
3170
a�
w
3169.5
3169
3168.5
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

Permanent Cross-section 12
(MY3 Data - collected October, 2017)
UT8 Cross -Section 12, Station 0+9.6
3175
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3174.5
U_ 3174
c
3173.5
a�
w 3173
o--- Floodprone
3172.5 Bankfull
MY2
MY3
3172
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
5.83
8.43
0.69
1.24
12.22
1.00
5.09
3173.54
3173.54
UT8 Cross -Section 12, Station 0+9.6
3175
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3174.5
U_ 3174
c
3173.5
a�
w 3173
o--- Floodprone
3172.5 Bankfull
MY2
MY3
3172
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
LV 3165
3164
3163
3162
0
Profile of Logan Creek, Station 0+00 to 16+00,
Compared to As -built Thalweg (MYO)
3172
3171
3170
3169
3168
3167
C
O 3166
cv
> 3165
LV 3164
3163
3162
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
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 16+00 to 32+00
Year to Year Comparison of Thalweg
Profile of Logan Creek, Station 16+00 to 32+00
Compared to As -built Thalweg (MYO)
3169
3168
— --------------
-
Low Bank
3167
-
- - -------------- ----
WSF
3166
- - - -
- - - -
------- MYO TWG
X-5 X-6
MY3 TWG
3165
--
-
3164
-.----.--
----------------- ----------._._._._._.
--------------
'•.,
...,
End of LC -R1
------ --
----
0
3162
.. -
�'•- ------------- ----
------
---_____________
____ ____ _____-------
._
3161
a
_.._..._ _._._._..._..._..._. _ __... _...
_... ....................................................................................................
_________......... _._._._._.._
_
'
3160
,.........�..
r ................ ___'' _.... _..._..._..._... ...._..
Uj
3159
Y
........ _ _.. _..._..._.._._._._..._..---- - - - .........
-
3158
- --,., , ,
r10,
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

Profile of Logan Creek, Station 32+43 to 42+81
Compared to As -built Thalweg (MYO)
3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200
Station (ft)
Profile of Logan Creek Thalweg, Station 32+43 to 42+81
Year to Year Comparison of Thalweg
4300 4400
3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 44
Station (ft)

Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Compared to As -built Thalweg
XS -8.5 XS -9
Low Bank
WSF
------- MYO
MY2
MY3
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
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16
Station (ft)
3171
3170
.-.
3169
3167.5
C
3168
3166.5
>
3167
a)
3166
W
3165.5
3166
3165
0
Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Compared to As -built Thalweg
XS -8.5 XS -9
Low Bank
WSF
------- MYO
MY2
MY3
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
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16
Station (ft)
3169
3168.5
3168
3167.5
3167
3166.5
>
W
3166
3165.5
3165
0
Profile of UT3, Station 0+00 to 1+60
Compared to As -built Thalweg
XS -8.5 XS -9
Low Bank
WSF
------- MYO
MY2
MY3
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
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16
Station (ft)

3172
3171.5
3171
3170.5
3170
p 3169.5
3169
3168.5
W
3168
3167.5
3167
0
Profile of UT6, Station 0+00 to 1+20
Compared to As -built Thalweq
3170
3169.5
3169
c
p 3168.5
:r.
ca
> 3168
W
3167.5
3167
0
20
20
40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Profile of UT6, Station 0+00 to 1+20
Year to Year Comparison of Thalwec
FAI
40 60 80
Station (f
120 140 160
-------As-Built
MY1
MY2
MY3
v
100 120 140 160

* Note: This profile was added in MY1 because restoration credit is being requested for this reach. However, the profile on this
reach was not surveyed and included in the MYO report.

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 3
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT: Logan Cr
REACH/LOCATION: Riffle at XSl
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE: 26 -Oct -17
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
MY3 2017
:;,; r_......'7■Illiiili■1111111■11'���1111111■■1111111
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
1.063
0%
0.063
• AB 2015
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0%
0.125
■
Fine
.125 - .25
2
2%
2%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25750 .50
8
8%
10%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
5
5%
15%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
■��������■■1111111■■1111111/1111111■■1111111■■1111111
15%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
,,.,
15%
2.8
y 40%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
15%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
15%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1 %
16%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
5
5%
21%
11.0
.
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
12
12%
33%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
15
15%
48%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
2727%
74%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
12
12 %
86%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
6
6% 1
92%
64
Small
64-90
4
4%
96%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
2
2%
98%
128
Large
128-180
1
1 %99
%
180
Laze
180-256
+C
to
256
Small
256 - 362
99%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
1
1 %
100%
512
Medium
512-L0
00%
1024
az Le
Le-Ve az
1024 - 2048
100 %
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count I 1 101 1 100% 1
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 8.1 D84= 42.3
D35 = 16.9 D95 = 82.3
D50 = 23.3 D100 = 362 - 512
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
:;,; r_......'7■Illiiili■1111111■11'���1111111■■1111111
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
• AB 2015
■ MYl 2015
■
■■1111111■■1111111■■�l�lll■■1111111■■1111111
■ MY2 2016
70%
:,, ,
60%
■
, ■■1111111■■1111111■�
/111111■■1111111■■1111111
d
50%
■��������■■1111111■■1111111/1111111■■1111111■■1111111
a
,,.,
y 40%
,., ■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIII,/lllllllll■■1111111■■1111111
_R
U
300/
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111%//1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,
. , , ,
LE
.
■■1111111■■1111111■■11_��illl//lllllllll■■1111111■■1111111
]0%
0%
;.; ■■1111111■■IIIIIII.II�Illl�il///,1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Particle Size Class (mm)
■■1111111■■1���'s.
���:��i�J■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
;,; ■■1111111�!iilll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
1 1
1
11 111 1
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS1
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
• AB 2015
■ MYl 2015
80%
■ MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
60%
d
50%
a
y 40%
_R
U
300/
20%
LE
]0%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 3
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT: Logan Cr
REACIVLOCATION: Riffle at XS3
FEATURE: Riffle
DATE- 26 -Oct -17
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
I SIZE mm
Total
MY3 2017
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
90%
0%
0.063
2015
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
-MYl 2015
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
80 %
-MY2 2016
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
70%
-MY3 2017
0%
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
OV -/o TTFrFW
d
0%
1.0
50%
Very Coarse
1 1.0-2.0
50%
a.
0%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
a
0%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
40%
0%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1%
1%
5.6
20%
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1 %
2%
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
10
10%
12%
11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
21
21%
33%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
18
18%
51%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
28
28%
79%
32
Very Coazse
32 - 45
14
14%
93%
45
0.1
Very Coarse
45-64
6
6%
99%
64
Small
64-90
99%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
99%
128
Large
128-180
1
1%
100%
180
Large
180-256
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
100%
512
Medium
512-1024
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count I 1 100 1 100% 1
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 11.8 D84= 36.1
D35 = 16.6 D95 = 50.6
D50= 1 22.2 D100 = 1 128 - 180
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS3
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
l00%
-AB 2015
Mainstem at XS3
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
90
2015
-MYl 2015
1 201580%
:AB
2 20163
80 %
-MY2 2016
2017
70%
-MY3 2017
60%
OV -/o TTFrFW
d
50%
50%
a.
V)40%
a
_m
U 30%
40%
16 30%
20%
E
U 20%
10%
0%
JL
Particle Size Class (mm)
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
2015
1 201580%
:AB
2 20163
2017
60%
m
y
50%
a.
V)40%
_m
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
JL
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 3
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT: Logan Cr
REACH/LOCATION: Riffle at XS6
FEATURE: Riffle
T)ATF- 26 -Oct -17
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
I SIZE mm
Total
MY3 2017Distribution
Class %
% Cum
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay<.063
Mainstem at XS6
0 o
0.063
Very Fine
.063 -.125
0%
0.125
t00%
Fine
125 - .25
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
2
2%
2%
0.50
90%
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
3
3%
59/6
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-20
5%
2.0
80%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
59/6
2.8
70%
Ve Fine
2.8-4.0
59/6
4.0
E 60%
d
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1%
69/6
5.6
50%
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
2%
79/6
8.0
Gravel
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
10
9%
179/6
11.0
40%
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
9
8%
259/6
16.0
—° 30%L
Coarse
16-22.6
13
129/6
379/6
22.6
E
Coarse
22.6-32
9
8%
469/6
32
20%
Very Coarse
32 - 45
17
16%
62%
45
V
Ve Coarse
45 - 64
21
20%
81 o
64
10%
Small
64-90
10
9%
91%
90
Cobble
Small
90-128
7
7%
97%
128
0%
Large
128-180
3
3%
100%
180
Particle Size (mm)
Large
180-256
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
100%
256
Small
256-362
100
101
362
Boulder
Small
362-512
101
512
Medium
512-10241
100%
1024
80%
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 1 1 107 1 100% 1
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 10.7 D84= 70.6
D35 = 1 21.1 D95 = 1 113.7
D50= 1 35.0 DIN= 1 128-180
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS6
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
t00%
—AB 2015
90%
—MY1 2015
80%
—MY2 2016
70%
—MY3 2017
E 60%
d
50%
a
40%
—° 30%L
E
20%
i
V
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 1 2015
80%
, MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
60
m
y
50%
o.
H 40
tc
V
30%
20%
10%
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Monitoring Ycat 3 Stream Summary
Lngan Creek Restoration Project; DMS Project ID No. 94605
11,11-en,IA, oew n,1 uzkeR 1111, MAc„re mce o,u e E a t,Pa"" ,”"" n „aMonoaos,•e,1,1, A— --e•oce - LI-,- —11111—-ilt, - 1-1111-111 -11 -11-111, 1111,11, All -,I
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY3 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
.. 1
Me. Med Mi.
Mi.
Med
Med
M-aa
Med
Med
Med
BF Width
a®®aMill
aaaaaaa
aaa�
aaoa
aaoa
aao
Fl-dplt,,te Width (ft)
a
aaa
aaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaaa
a®aaaa
a�aaao
a�aaao
a�aaao
a
��a
aaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaa
�����
a�aaao
a�aaao
a�aaao
a
aaa
aaaa aaaaa
aaWiddi/Depth
aaaaa
®®®®�©a®aaao
a�aaao
a�aaao
a
��a
aaaaaa a®aaaa
aaaaa
�����©a�aaao
a�aaao
a�aaao
Lit
a
aaa
aaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaa
�����©a�aaao
a�aaao
a�aaao
a
aaa
aaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaaa®®�®©a�aaao
a�aaao
a�aaao
B,,k Height Mi
a
aaa
aaaaaa a®aaaa
aaaaaa
�����©a�aaao
a�aaao
a®aaao
,150
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa0aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Riffle Ledgth
Riffle SI.pe
Depth
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa®aaaaoa®aaaaa®aaaaa
aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
1
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
••
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a
�
aaa�aaaaaaaaaaa
aaa�aaaa�aaaa�aaa
a
aaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
a
aaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaa
a0aaaa
aaaaa
a©aaaa©aaa
BF -1.6ty
aaaaaaaaaoa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa�aaaa�aaa
a
���
aaaaaa
a0aaaa
aaaaaa
a®aaaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
a
aaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaa
a®aaaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
a
aaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaa
11,11-en,IA, oew n,1 uzkeR 1111, MAc„re mce o,u e E a t,Pa"" ,”"" n „aMonoaos,•e,1,1, A— --e•oce - LI-,- —11111—-ilt, - 1-1111-111 -11 -11-111, 1111,11, All -,I
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY3 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 10. Monitoring Ycat 3 SMcam Summary
Logan Creek Restoration Prajeet;, DMS Project ID No. 90605
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY3 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
a®®aaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa®®®��®a®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaao
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaao
a�®aaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa®�®���a�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa®®®®�©a�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
a ��a
aaaaaa
a®aaaaa®aaaa
®����©a�aaao
a®aaao
a�aaao
••aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa®����©a�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
••aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa®®®�®©a�aaaoa®aaaoa�aaao
•
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa®®®®�aa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaao
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaoaaaaao
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa®aaaaoa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
••
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
•
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
a ��a
aaaaaa
aaaaa
a®aaaa aaaaaa
aaaaaa
a�aaao
a�aaao
a a
aaa®aaaaa®aaaaa aea�aaaa�aaoa�aao
••aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa�aaoa®aao
•
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa®aaoa®aao
••aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa�aaoa®aao
a aaa
aaaaa
aaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa
a®aaa a®aaa a®aaa
00000000000�00000000000000000�0000�0000�000
00000000000.�00000000000000000�0000�0000�000
00000000000.�0000000000000000000000000000000000
•
o0000000000�0000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000.rxa�aa�rsa.uaa�saa�a
000000000000000000000000
.'
00000000000ra0000■sa�ua�r.■ta000000000000000000000000
l1
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
k 1;
6
o000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
.•.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-
o�������000.�00000000000000000000000��0000��000
00000000000�00000000000000000000000��0000��000
00000000000�00000000000000000000000��0000��000
o00000000�0�00000000000000000000000��0000��000
o�.�000000000000000000000000000000��0000��000
15
0
-
aaaaa®00000000000®00000000000000000��0000��000
00000000000®00000000000000000000000��0000��000
00000000000®00000000000000000000000��0000��000
00000000000®0000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000 000000000000000000000000
0 0 0 0
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
- t
o000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY3 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
f.noan Creek Rectarntian Prni-t- DMS Prniert ID Nn- 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
MY]
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (ft)
24.1
24.0
24.1
24.0 - - -
25.9
26.8
26.0
26.0 - - -
25.2
24.3
24.46
24.3 - - -
27.6
27.1
27.1
27.4 - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.1
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.3
2.7
2.4
2.6
Width/Depth Ratio
9.2
9.3
8.9
8.9
10.5
11.0
10.3
10.2
12.0
11.6
11.36
11.3
12.1
10.0
11.2
10.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
63.0
62.4
64.8
64.7
63.9
65.2
65.5
66.2
53.2
51.2
52.7
52.3
62.8
73.8
65.4
70.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.7
4.0
4.3
4.3
5.2
5.1
5.1
4.9
3.1
2.9
3.11
3.1
5.2
5.9
5.4
5.5
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
>70
>70
>70
>70
>60
>60
>60
>60
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
29.3
29.3
29.5
29.4
30.9
31.7
31.0
31.1
29.5
28.6
28.8
28.6
32.2
32.6
31.9
32.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.2
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
d50 (mm)
13.8
30.7
15.2
23.3
-
19.2
43
29.2
22.2
-
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
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width (11)
21.3
24.0
23.9
23.8
23.6
22.6
22.5
22.4
31.0
33.4
33.4
33.3
29.2
33.9
33.9
34.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.7
Width/Depth Ratio
7.1
7.8
7.8
8.0
10.8
10.1
9.9
9.9
14.4
15.6
15.9
14.8
14.0
18.6
18.6
19.6
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
63.9
74.3
73.3
71.0
51.7
50.2
51.4
50.8
66.6
71.2
70.3
74.7
60.7
61.8
61.8
59.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.4
5.3
5.4
5.4
3.4
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.5
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
>80
>90
>90
>90
>95
>95
>95
>95
>60
>60
>60
>60
>54
>54
>54
>54
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.4
3.8
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
4.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.3
30.2
30.0
29.8
28.0
27.0
27.1
26.9
35.2
37.6
37.6
37.8
33.4
37.6
37.6
37.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
1 2.5
2.4
2.4
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9 1
1.9
2.0
1.8
L6
1.6
1.6
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
BF Max Depth (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - -
d50 (mm)-
24.9
41.1
20.7
35
-
-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY3 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Stationary
L.— Creek 11-t—ti.. P—i—t- DMS Prni—t ID No- 92515
UT3 (178 LF)
Cross-section X-8.5, Station 0+60*
1
1
r17F.111 I I �11
Base*
Myl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
Myl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY[ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
BF Width (ft)
a���aaa�®��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
®��aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a���aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
����aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depth Ratio
a���aaa�®��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��®®aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
a���aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
����aaa
��®�aaa
aaaaaaa aaaaaaa
a®®�aaa®®��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
®®®®aaa®���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
a���aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
����aaa®®®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment Ratio
a®�®aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
��®®aaa®��aaa
Bank Height Ratio
a®�®aaa®��®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
���®aaa®®�®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
a�
���®aaa®®®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
11 �aaa®®®�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
a���aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
����aaa�®®�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaa
�D
BFMcan
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depthaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depthaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width ofFloodprone Area (11)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1
vaaaaaavaaaaaavaaaaaavaaaaaa
vaaaaaavaaaaaavaaaaaavaaaaaa
*Stationing is corrected in this report.
UT6 (127 LF)
1
0+69 (Riffle)
1Base
MY 1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
Myl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY[ Base Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
BF Width (fit)
®��aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Me. Depth (fit)
����aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depth Ratio
��®®aaa����aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
����aaa
��®�aaa
aaaaaaa aaaaaaa
DepthEntrenchment
®®®®aaa®���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width of Floodprone Area (11)
����aaa®®®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Ratio
��®®aaa®��aaa
aaaaaaa aaaaaaa
Bank Height
oHydraulic
���®aaa®®�®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
���®aaa®®®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Radius (11)
����aaa�®®�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Width (fit)
aaaaaaa
as aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mean Depth�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depthaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
DepthEntrenchment
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width of Floodprone Area (11)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height Ratio
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (fit)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•••�
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
vaaaaaavaaaaaavaaaaaavaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY3 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Smmnary
L.— Creek 11-t—ti.. P—i—t- DMS Prni—t ID No- 92515
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY3 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
1
1
BF Width (ft)
ae��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mean Depth�aa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
oaa�®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
aa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Dep
aa�®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
aa�®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment oaa®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height ,Hydraulic
aa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
aa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Radius (ft)
aa��aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Width (fl)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mean Depth�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Dep
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height oHydraulic
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Radius (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
�
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY3 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515