20080879 Ver 2_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20181231

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring Report - Final
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: 4 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2018
Year of Completed Construction: May 2015
Submission Date: December 2018
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
NCDEQ Contract ID No. D06046 -A

Innovotion Done Right ... We Make o Difference
INTERNATI❑NAL
December 31, 2018
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
Attn: Mr. Paul Wiesner, Western Project Management Supervisor
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Response to DMS comments on the Year 4 Monitoring Report Draft Review for the
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project; Savannah River Basin - CU# 03060101;
Jackson County, North Carolina; NCDMS Project # 92515; Contract No. D06046 -A
Dear Mr. Wiesner,
Please find enclosed the final Logan Creek Year 4 Monitoring Report. We have addressed the
comments that you submitted on the draft report and our responses to your comments are the
following:
An Interagency Review Team (IRT) site visit meeting was held at the Logan Creek site on
3/28/18. 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 and MY4 reports
indicate 4,327 SMUs. The project assets, additional UTs (7 & 8) and the walking trail/s located
within the conservation easement were discussed at the March 2018 meeting. The MY4 report
notes IRT discussion regarding the walking trail located in the conservation easement. In the
revised MY4 report, please document all of the issues discussed during the 3/28/18 IRT site visit
meeting.
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. In the MY2 report, we reduced these
numbers slightly because the landowner installed afoot -bridge crossing that had been removed
during construction, so MY2 to MY4 have consistently reported the same figures. A paragraph
was added to the Executive Summary that summarized the IRT site visit, any concerns and how
they were addressed.
Executive Summary: In the executive summary, please note the proposed resolution to the
mowing encroachment reported (EA -1).
The following statement was added: 'Because the vegetation plot meets success criteria we are
not asking Lonesome Valley to move the nature trail in this area. "
• Table 2: Please update the "Data Collection Complete" cells for the As- Built Baseline Report
and MY 1.
Dates were added in the proper cells.
Table 7: In the Annual Means; MY1 is shown as 2016. MY1 data was collected in 2015. Please
update Table 7 accordingly to avoid confusion.
This date was corrected, and a note added to explain the difference between MYO & MY].
797 Haywood Koad I juite 2011 Asheville NC 28806
Q{fice:528.412.61OO 1 Fax: 825.55O.14O9

Innovation Done Right ...We Make o Difference
BHRs for MY4 should be calculated based on the attached guidance. Please revise the report
accordingly. Only MY4 (2018) data and future monitoring reports are applicable to the BHR
guidance. It is not necessary to recalculate previous monitoring years.
The BHR in the draft was calculated according to the guidance. We have added a second line to
each cross-section called Abkf which returns the MYO cross-sectional area, we have also added a
note to each cross-section and to Table 11 explaining this.
Please confirm that all bridges and crossings located within the conservation easement have been
removed from the project assets.
All bridges and crossings within the conservation easement have been removed from project
assets. As explained in #1 above, this was done last in MY2 and assets have been consistent
since that report.
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 4 Monitoring Report
Jackson County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 92515
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Vegetation Assessment.................................................................................................................3
2.2 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................................................4
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.4 Project Problem Areas.................................................................................................................................. 4
3.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix
A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Figure
2
Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)— MY4, Overview Map
Figure
2A
CCPV MY4, North Area
Figure
2B
CCPV MY4, Middle Area
Figure
2C
CCPV MY4, South Area
Appendix
B General Project Tables
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Figure
3
Project Asset Map
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes
Appendix
C Vegetation Assessment Data
Table
5
Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table
6
Vegetation Metadata
Table
7
Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Figure
4
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Figure
4.1
Trail Relocation Photos — MY4
Table
7.1
Vegetative Problem Areas
Table
7.2
Vegetation Condition Assessment at Logan Creek
Appendix
D Stream Assessment Data
Figure
5
Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table
8
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table
9
Verification of Bankfull Events or Greater than Bankfull Events
Figure
6
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure
7
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure
8
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table
10
Monitoring Year 4 Stream Summary
Table
11
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table
12
MY4 Stream Problem Areas and Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 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 (UT 1, 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 4 (MY4), our monitoring activities indicated that the planted acreage was functioning
well with most banks, benches and floodplain areas developing a diverse herbaceous community and having
good growth of planted trees. There were no new Vegetative Problem Areas identified during 2018. 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 (Veg) Plot 3 have been affected since MY3. Despite the impacts to the trees in the plot, Veg
Plot 3 still meets minimum success criteria for MY4. Because the plot meets the success criteria we are not
asking Lonesome Valley to move the nature trail in this area.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

The 11 channel problem areas (CPAs) noted in the MY3 report did not show further erosion or degradation
during 2018, and no new CPAs were noted in MY4. Most of the previously listed sites exhibited further
stabilization during MY4. Updated photos of all CPAs can be found in Appendix D.
As noted in the Baseline report, eight (8) vegetation monitoring plots were installed at this site after
construction, with seven (7) being installed along the restoration reach (Logan Creek, Reach 1) and one (1)
being installed along the enhancement reach (Logan Creek, Reach 2). The location of these vegetation
monitoring plots can be seen on Figures 2A -C. The average density of total planted stems following the MY4
growing season is 668 stems per acre (SPA). The average density of volunteer trees across all 8 vegetation
plots was 379 SPA. The total average density of all planted and volunteer stems in MY4 was 1,047 SPA.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY4 was assessed by surveying thirteen (13) cross-
sections (8 on Logan Creek, 2 on UT3, 2 on UT6 and 1 on UT8) and a profile of Logan Creek, UT3, UT6 and
UT8, evaluating the bed particle size with 3 riffle pebble counts and by observation and replicating channel
location photographs. An additional cross-section was added on UT8 during MY2 surveying so there are cross-
sections on all restored tributaries. Cross-sections of all the channels indicated that there was very little change
in the cross-sections during MY4. The average particle size observed in MY4 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
structures but one (CPA 3-5) are functioning as designed during MY4. The structures that were piping in MY3
have filled in and are no longer piping. Overall, channel morphology is responding as designed and meeting
project goals.
An Interagency Review Team (IRT) site visit to Logan Creek was held on March 28, 2018. Because this project
began before the IRT was established and members had never visited the site, it was felt that other visits in the
area offered a good opportunity for the IRT to see this site. The visit allowed IRT members to see UT7 (EII)
and UT8 (R) which were added after the Mitigation Plan was produced, when the As -Built (MYO) report was
prepared. They were also able to view the nature trail that is partially within the easement area. IRT members
did not find any issues with the two unnamed tributaries. There was concern with how close the nature trail
was in one location, near a meander that was less than 10 feet from the stream bank. Michael Baker contacted
the Lonesome Valley development on July 17, 2018 and requested that the trail be moved away from the stream.
Lonesome Valley responded the next day, saying that they would address the issue. The trail was moved away
from the creek in the area of concern and in one additional location where it was close.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the NCDMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation
components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres
to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated December 1, 2009 and other mitigation guidance (NCEEP
2009 and USACE 2003), which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The
specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections and profiles, and the crest
gauge location, are shown on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) sheets found in Appendix A.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

Vegetation monitoring plots, pebble counts, and site photo points were monitored in October 2018. Site surveys
for channel cross-sections, photos and profiles were also conducted in October 2018.
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-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (CVS
2007 and Lee et al 2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted
portion of the Site with eight plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer, per CVS
Monitoring Level 2. No veg plots were established within the undisturbed forested areas along the northern
part of the project or within the undisturbed forested areas along Reach 2 of Logan Creek and UT5. A small
area was disturbed within this enhancement reach so that structures and channel repairs could be made during
construction in April of 2015. Veg Plot 1 is located in this area where bare root trees and herbaceous
vegetation were planted. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody species and 1
square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation quadrants were established in one corner of
the larger woody vegetation plots and monitored by comparative photographs taken each year.
Trees surviving within vegetation monitoring plots were visually accessed during MY4. All vegetation was
found to be in good condition. All plots indicated that most trees were growing and in good to excellent
condition and herbaceous vegetation was well established and growing well. The average density of total
planted stems following the MY4 growing season is 668 stems per acre (SPA) with a range from 364 SPA to
931 SPA. The average density of volunteer trees was 379 SPA and the density ranged from 0 to 1,133 SPA.
The overall average, including both planted and volunteer stems, was 1,047 SPA. With an average planted
density of 668 stems per acre, the Site is on track to meet the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre by
the end of MY5.
The invasive multiflora rose (rola multiflora) that was noted in MY2 was treated in July 2017. As of MY4
monitoring (October 2018), the multiflora rose is largely under control and no new growth areas have been
noted. 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 4 vegetation
assessment information is provided in Appendix C.
Concerns about the walking trail that parallels the stream were raised by the Interagency Review Team (IRT)
during a walkthrough in March 2018. The IRT pointed out one area where the trail was within approximately
10 feet of the stream in the outside of a meander bend near station 19+50. This issue was raised with the
Lonesome Valley maintenance personnel, and during MY4 field work it was noted that the trail has been
moved in this location to an acceptable distance from the stream (called out as Stream Relocation in Figure
2B of the CCPV). The abandoned trail area will not be maintained in the future. Trees and shrubs will be
transplanted into this area in MY5 and the new trail will be flagged to ensure encroachment does not occur
in the future. The maintenance staff also moved the trail crossing of UT4 upstream on UT4 and away from
the Logan creek where it appeared to be closer than 10 feet. This area is also called out in Figure 213.
2.2 Stream Assessment
The restoration approach for the Logan Creek Site included the restoration of channels to a stable morphology
that allows for the transport of water and sediment through the Site and allows stream flows larger than
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

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 MY4. The survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements
included thalweg, water surface, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements were taken at the
head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth.
Stream geomorphological stability and performance during MY4 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
charnels 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 MY4. The Visual
Morphological Stability Assessment indicates that the Site is stable and performing at 89 to 100 percent
for all parameters. One structure (on UT8) was still piping during MY4 (CPA 3-1, CPA 3-3, CPA 3-
5). CPA 3-1 and CPA 3-3 that were noted in the MY3 report have filled in naturally and are no longer
piping. (Table 14 in e -file data). Overall, channel morphology is responding as designed and meeting
project goals.
Pebble count data for MY4 indicates an overall 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, 26.8 mm in MY3, and 34.0 mm in MY4. 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 MY4. The crest gauge indicated a water depth on the floodplain of 12.8 inches
during the first event and 11.9 inches during the second event. 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 4
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 VPAs identified during MY4. Vegetation was well established across the entire project
site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 92515
DECEMBER 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

One structure (CPA 3-5) that was experiencing piping in MY3 is still piping in MY4. The other
structures that were noted in MY3 have filled in naturally and are no longer piping. Hand repairs will
be made to CPA 3-5 during MY5.
No new erosion areas were noted in MY4. Some of the areas of erosion that were called out in MY3
(CPA 3-2, CPA 2-1, CPA 2-4, CPA 2-5, CPA 2-6) have stabilized and are fully vegetated. The
remaining areas of erosion (CPA 3-4, CPA 2-3) have not completely stabilized but have not gotten
worse in MY4 and are supporting vegetation. These areas will continue to be monitored in MY5.
The Encroachment Area (EA -1) that was first noted in 2016 is still regularly being mowed through
Vegetation Plot 3 to maintain the nature trail, 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. Despite the impacts to
the trees in the plot, Veg Plot 3 still meets minimum success criteria for MY4.
All issues discussed above reference the CCPV mapping and the Stream Problem Area table included
in Appendix D and the e -File data with associated photos.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
Harman, W.A., D.E. Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, M.A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.R.
Clinton, J.M. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. In:
AWRA Conference Proceedings, D.L. Kane, editor. American Water Resources Specialty Conference
on Water Resources in Extreme Environments. Anchorage, Alaska.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2008. Savannah River Basin Restoration
Priorities. December 2008.
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Savannah_River_Basin/Savan
nah RBRP_hcb_22dec08.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Guidance and Content Requirements for
EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1.2.1. December 1, 2009.
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team (WFAT). 2010. North Carolina Wetland Assessment Manual (NC
WAM) User Manual, Version 4.1. Dated October 2010.
NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 2001. Watershed Restoration Plan for the Savannah River
Basin.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 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 2018, MONITORING YEAR 4 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)
MY4, Overview Map
Figure 2A. CCPV MY4, North Area
Figure 2B. CCPV MY4, Middle Area
Figure 2C. CCPV MY4, 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 Vicinity Map
�I Logan Creek Stream Restoration
Counties
L� NCDMS Project 92515
USGS Hydrologic Unit Monitoring Year 4 Report
Jackson County, NC
- NCDWQ Sub -basin
Division of
Jackson County, NC 0 1 2 3 Mitigation Michael
Miles Services INTERNATIONAL

IN wall��..Cm
1W
0 Channel Problem Area
Veg. Encroachment Area
Photo Station
e Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots
Trail
I IN T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 400 800
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
DMS Project # 92515
W.
VL
ell<
agraphic Information and 4n9I�,slib
Figure 2 - Overview
Current Conditions Plan View
Monitoring Year 4
Logan Creek Site

nN '
R e 30
29
ti UT8 CPA 3-5
r +
28
�. 27
XS -1
--
r
CPA 2-3
Logan Creek
Reach 1 ;.
1
UT6 s
XS -717
XS 8
J
7-131
S
�• -
S f _
UT3
tit4
OChannel Problem Area CPA 3-4 xs
►x1-9
A Photo Station
Cross Sections CPA 2-4
Trail
XS -3 XS -4
Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank,+ '1**
Conservation Easement'tt' '
- Vegetation Plots NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Inform 1 i
Board
0 125 250 Figure 2A - North Area
Feet Current Conditions Plan View
1 inch = 125 feet Monitoring Year 4
I H T E R N A T I Q N A L DMS Project # 92515 Logan Creek Site

N
CPA 3-3
"--
17
Logan Creek
Reach 1
..
UT4 �' �.r►
16 Trail Relocation
15 o
14 Trail Relocation
U T7
CPA 3-2
CPA 3-1
EA -1?
New Trail Alignment
OChannel Problem Area
XS -5';
Veg. Encroachment Area
0 Photo Station
xs-6
® Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
CPA 2-6
— Stream Centerline
Stream Top Of Bank
-
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots
.
,,
Crest Gauge
Trail
= -
' NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Informatio
�
Board
0 125 250
Feet
1 inch = 125 feet
Figure 2B - Middle Area
Current Conditions Plan View
Monitoring Year 4
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
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 I P
Totals 3,441 SMU1 692 SMU 1136 SMU 1 58 SMU
Project Components
Project Component
or Reach ID
Stationing/ Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
RestorationMitigation
Footage or
Acreage
Ratio
STREAMS
Logan Creek
Reach 1 0+00 to 31+84
3134 LF Restoration - PI
3,131 SMU
3,131 LF
1:1
Reach 2 32+43 to 42+81
1038 LF Enhancement I
692 SMU
1,038 LF
1.5:1
UT1 0+00 to 0+71
71 LF Enhancement II
28 SMU
71 LF
2.5:1
UT2 0+00 to 0+92
92 LF Enhancement II
37 SMU
92 LF
2.5:1
UT3
Reach 1 0+00 to 0+40
40 LF Enhancement II
16 SMU
40 LF
2.5:1
Reach 2 0+40 to 1+78
138 LF Restoration - PI
138 SMU
138 LF
1:1
UT4 0+00 to 0+84
84 LF Enhancement II
34 SMU
84 LF
2.5:1
UT5 0+00 to 2+87
290 LF Preservation
58 SMU
290 LF
5:1
UT6 0+00 to 1+27
127 LF Restoration - PI
127 SMU
127 LF
1:1
UT7 0+00 to 0+54
54 LF Enhancement II
21 SMU
54 LF
2.5:1
UT8 0+00 to 0+45
45 LF Restoration - P1
45 SMU
45 LF
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland
(AC)
Buffer
(SF)
Upland (AC)
Restoration 3,441
Enhancement 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 4
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT 92515

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Mitigation Plan Prepared
Jun-07
06-07
Apr-08
Mitigation Plan Amended
Apr-13
N/A
May-13
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Jun-13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
May-13
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Jun-14
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan-15*
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Jan-15*
Planting of bare root trees and live stakes
N/A
N/A
Jan-15*
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
May-15**
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)
N/A
Mar-15
Aug-15
As-Built Baseline Report
N/A
Apr-15
Nov-15
Year 1 Monitoring
N/A
Mar-16
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
Oct-18
Nov-18
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 4
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 3. Project Contacts
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
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 Mapping and Surveying
P.O. Box 2566
Asheville, NC 28802
Contact: Brad Kee, License #C-3039; Phone: [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 4
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 4. Project Attributes
Logan Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Project Information
Project Name
Logan Creek Mitigation Project
County
Jackson
Project Area acres
12.71
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude 35.132803' Longitude -83.061046°
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
Savannah River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03060101 / 03060101010020
DWR Sub -basin
Keowee River: 0306010101
Project Drainage Area (AC)
Mainstem 1353.5 at beginning to 1714 at end, UTI, UT4, UT6, UT7 & UT8 <13, UT2 = 26; UT3 = 32,
UT5 = 128.
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
<2
USGA Land Use Classification
Deciduous Forest (76%)
Evergreen Forest (8%)Pasture
Land (4.6%)
NCDMS Land Use Classification for this
Hydrologic Unit
Forest (91%)
Shrub (1%)
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 (Bos en)
VIII
VJH
Il
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
C -E
C -E
B
Evolutionary Trend
CSE
C—E
B
Underlying Mapped Soils
NkA
SaC
NkA, SaC
Drainage Class
Poorly drained to very poorly
drained soils
Very deep, well drained, mod
permeable soils
Somewhat poorly to well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Site-specific
Average Channel Slope ft/ft
0.004
0.007
0.012
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Zone AE
None
Native Vegetation Community
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
Parameters
UT3
UT6
6 other small UTs in RI
R1 R2
Length of Reach (LF)
40 138
127
45- 127
Valley Classification os en
D
II
11
Drainage Area (AC)
32
32
.02 to .04
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
41.5
41.5
40.5-32.5
NCDWR Water Quali Classification
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
C; TR: +HQW
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 I
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Mixed Forested/Rhododendron
and grassland
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive
Vegetation
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States – Section 404
Yes
Yes
Permit: Action ID #2008-01711
Waters of the United States – Section 401
Yes
Yes
Permit: WQC #3885
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
No
Yes
Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/
Coastal Area Management Act CAMA
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No -Rise
Certification, June 27, 2016
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Notes:
1. See Figure 2.5 of Mitigation Plan for key to soil series symbols.
3. USGS Land Use Data (200 1) used rather than CGIA Land Use Classification data which is more dated (1996)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MONITORING YEAR 4
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 7
Stem Count Arranged by Plot and Species
Figure 4
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Figure 4.1
Trail Relocation Photos - MY4
Table 7.1
Vegetative Problem Areas (e -file)
Table 7.2
Vegetation Condition Assessment at Logan
Creek (e -file)

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation
Success Summary (2018, MY4)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
Stems'
Volunteers2
Tota 13
Success
Criteria Met?
1
769
0
769
Yes
2
364
283
647
Yes
3
607
526
1133
Yes
4
607
121
728
Yes
5
850
971
1821
Yes
6
688
1133
1821
Yes
7
931
0
931
Yes
8
526
0
526
Yes
Project Avg
668
379
1047
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 10/22/2018 13:37
itabase name 92515_MY4_Logan_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
itabase location L:\projects\109243 - Logan Creek\Monitoring\YR4 Monitoring\2.0 -
Monitoring Data\App C - Vegetation\Veg Data
imputer name ASHELRMYERSI
e size 46698496
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
Project Code
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems,
dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
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.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems
are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
92515
project Name
Logan Creek
This Project will restore or enhance 4823 linear feet (LF) of stream
Description
along Logan Creek.
River Basin
Savannah
length(ft)
5110
stream -to -edge width (ft)
30
area (sq m)
28481.19
Required Plots (calculated)
8
Sampled Plots
8

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Project: Logan Creek, DMS Project 392515
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
92515-01-0008
Species Type P V T P
MY4 (2018)
V
T
P
MY3 (2017)
V
T
P
MY2 (2016)
V
Current Plot Data (MY4 2018)
P
MY1 (2015)*
V
T
P
MYO (2015)*
V
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub 5 5
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
P
92515-01-0007
V
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub 3
11
3
6
10
16
2
11
2
7
13
7
3
Tree 1 1
3
6
16
6
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
18
1
1
3
3
3
green ash
3
1
1
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree 1
24
1
1
24
1
2
Hamamelis virginiana
2
4
51
4
2
7
2
5
9
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree 1
11
1
2
2
1 4
Shrub I
4
2
2
8
1
8
3
3
3
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree 5 5
4
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub 1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
Leucothoe fontanesiana
highland doghobble
Shrub
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree 2 2
11
65
76
10
35
45
9
55
64
11
11
17
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub 2 2
Tree 1 1
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
20
20
Oxydendrum arboreum
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree 1 1 1
7
8
3
3
2
3
5
24
24
1
28
29
4
eastern white pine
4
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
14
2
2
Quercus alba
white oak
1
6
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
9
9
9
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
10
12
12
13
13
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree 3
3
1
Sambucus canadensis
1
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
3
1
3
1
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
2
2 1
2
2
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
7
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
ill
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Stem count 13 0 1 13 132
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 6 0 6 11
Stems per ACRE 526 0 526 668
75
8
0.20
2
379
207
1112
1047
135
683
60
8
0.20
2
304
195
12
986
144
12
728
1 102 1
8
0.20
5
516
246
15
1244
152
12
769
1 1
8
0.20
1
5
153
13
774
170
11
860
0
8
0.20
0
0
Unknown
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
Shrub or Tree
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%
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub 11 11
Stem count 19 0 19 9
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 4 0 4 1 5
Stems per ACRE 769 0 769 1 364
7
1
0.02
1
283
16
5
647
15
6
607
13
1
0.02
2
526
28
7
1133
15
7
1 607
3
1
0.02
1
121
18
7
728
21
7
850
24
1
0.02
1
971
45
8
1821
17
6
688
28 1
1
0.02
1
1133 1
45
6
1821
23
7
931
0 1
1
0.02
0
0
23
7
931
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
This color indicates that the number includes volunteer stems
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements by 10%
Indicates that the stems per acre exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot, continued
Project: Logan Creek, DMS Project 392515
Current Plot Data (MY4 2018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
92515-01-0008
Species Type P V T P
MY4 (2018)
V
T
P
MY3 (2017)
V
T
P
MY2 (2016)
V
T
P
MY1 (2015)*
V
T
P
MYO (2015)*
V
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub 5 5
32
10
42
32
25
57
32
30
62
32
32
33
33
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree 2 2
12
12
11
11
12
12
11
11
13
13
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree 1 1
16
16
16
16
18
18
20
20
24
24
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree 2 2
22
221
22
22 1
23
23
24
24
24
24
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
51
5
7
7
9
9
11
11
Leucothoe fontanesiana
highland doghobble
Shrub I
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub 1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree 2 2
11
65
76
10
35
45
9
55
64
11
11
17
17
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree 1 1
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
20
20
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
2
2
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
14
14
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
6
6
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
9
9
9
1
9
10
10
12
12
13
13
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
7
7
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
ill
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
9
9
Stem count 13 0 1 13 132
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES) 0.02
Species count 6 0 6 11
Stems per ACRE 526 0 526 668
75
8
0.20
2
379
207
1112
1047
135
683
60
8
0.20
2
304
195
12
986
144
12
728
1 102 1
8
0.20
5
516
246
15
1244
152
12
769
1 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%
*MYO was completed in spring 2015 after the trout moratorium, MY1 data was collected after the growing season in the winter 2015. This corrects an inaccurate date show on previous reports.

11 s:
Al
r'^
y .
12``1.48'
7T .
7i', t y
w i�8
,� ,� �.f � �'� ';�• tel'
AA
r
;f
Y �
y
l
`9
40.1
,� ,� �.f � �'� ';�• tel'
AA

:�M k
x
� r
s
r"3 �
}`
t
AIL
go;4,4
"
r
� r(IS'• m
aj
4
:1 1 41SEf",
{t C
k
t
AIL
go;4,4
e
1 �
�
:1 1 41SEf",
{t C

Logan Creek Site - Vegetation Plot Photos,
Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 — Tree photo (October 12, 2018).
Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 7 — Herbaceous photo
(October 12, 2018).
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 8 — Tree photo (October 12, 2018).
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 8 — Herbaceous photo
(October 12, 2018).

Figure 4.1 Trail Relocation Photos — MV4
Photo 17. Trail Relocation 1 facing downstream — Trail was
relocated away from the stream.
Photo 18. Trail Relocation 1 facing upstream— Trail was
relocated away from stream.
Photo 19. Trail Relocation 2 facing downstream — Trail was Photo 20. Trail Relocation 2 facing downstream— Trail was
relocated away from the stream, bridge will be moved. relocated away from the stream, bridge will be moved.

Table 7.1 Vegetative Problem Areas MY4
Feature Category Station #/Range Probable Cause
Photo #
Bare Bank None
Bare Bench None
Bare Flood Plain None
Invasive /Exotic
None
Populations

Table 7.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage
7.49
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
I Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreacie
12.71
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
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
0.014
0.11%
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 ne within tqe eatsedmer�� Thi numbers ?WIculated she 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 no irec j p an ed as pa o e projec a ort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encpach� int may gccur within or c tsftof n�ed geas and will th refore be IcuJ3 ted anginst the viemll asemen?creage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroac men , e associated acreage s ou eta �ie in a relevant item (i.e., item 1, or as w as a para le al�y in item
4=.Invasiv s ma cc r in r out of I me are s, but still %thin the easeme t nd will t erefore a cal u�qla�ted a ainst the.overall oar nt a e e. I va i es of conce n/inter st a e liste . below. The lit f hi c neer
SP are �so iv h t�i o°tenti I o darect o corp tc�e�a3 esE. y n w9odny s e sin a short- erm �tss mon�oring ate9sne�allsad gyn � rea t r�gor a{�eCtst�ie cot�nn ni{Y sttrruc iffiee {or exas ine, mo estasblis��dg e tsh �
sb ands ove ttw efram s ,at ar s�i tl non �e r� egl w m berate oncern prou ar 6se speae m o , of cave. 1.cap en i over e h? r este cuood st mser eclslon Wase w e ier
e m ed I� re uelar bute a d�o a iat ration i eiorsf �heEservehr heir cY1eera a ee s evo Covera ego i �, ri u i R re a h v�a i�t b sit , orcg ca i f t�n f even mo es
re i beeeti�d are �as nn {{ bb suc a eepp �'sb t�v n evy s� a1�c�t e ract� rea a or, a ama�e,, t
?Ps s o l esu �Ja enas efrao ePd scussYed nd ?e pote a�°iriipa Riva jpp &ntreo� us Pe amou�l t&ao�e oune{ane*9 6tVicrSeste �cles wi et�e watcPhr liv ��esil� ne r� era s �dg aye otein rest as w l� tl ii5 ies to i ter
rbesee�c�oss tie �ntate wi an ency. ose in r tial` s prIsie
o� rriculee ma� f �{ 3�{ 19vk�t��i t9 f found,� rt' e
situ, Ioec ews can bel speoas 'tor assn sclegeedw�ems�i e e umbP�of.us eci a ePlimite�c�ora ly e na r vte c oin o tYiebe ecu ve su{m°sy°'yg n a ea f atudre cans e ay l bor s�r� o Id�es�r�ibe th ngsRF Qg�iry�r�ow�cop e m

Appendix D
Stream Assessment Data
Includes:
Figure 5. Stream Photos by Channel and Station
Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Figure 6. Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 7. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8. Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 10. Monitoring Year 4 Stream Summary
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table 12. MY4 Stream Problem Areas and Photos (e -file)

Figure 5. Logan Creek Stream Restoration project
Photo Points - Monitoring Year 4, (Stationing is approximate)
Photo 1. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 — Station 40+45
(October 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 2. Logan Creek Photo Point 1 — Station 40+45
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 3. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 — Station 38+60
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 4. Logan Creek Photo Point 2 — Station 38+60
(October 5, 2018) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 5. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 — Station 36+75
(October 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 6. Logan Creek Photo Point 3 — Station 36+75
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from right bank.

".►�_� s Q,v G _;_ Ff����e.,,�;. ,.� =ter f �
�. Pie

Photo 13. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+15
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from bridge.
Photo 14. Logan Creek Photo Point 7 — Station 32+00
(October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) downstream view from right bank. (October 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 17. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 18. Logan Creek Photo Point 9 — Station 26+75
(October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank. (October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) downstream view ftom left bank. (October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank. (October 5, 2018) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 25. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (October 5, 2018)
upstream view from left bank.
Photo 26. UT7 Photo Point 13 — (October 5, 2018)
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 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank. (October 5, 2018) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 29. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 — Station 17+45 Photo 30. Logan Creek Photo Point 15 — Station 17+45
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank. (October 5, 2018) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 31. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank.
Photo 32. UT4 Photo Point 16 — Station 0+40
(October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank. (October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank. (October 5, 2018) upstream view from left bank.

Photo 37. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(October 5, 2018) upstream from left bank.
Photo 39. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(October 5, 2018) upstream from left bank to vernal
pool.
Photo 38. UT3 Photo Point 19 — Station 00+60
(October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank. (October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank. (October 5, 2018) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 44. UT6 Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75
(October 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank.
Photo 45. UT6 Photo Point 22 — Station 0+75
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 46. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70 Photo 47. Logan Creek Photo Point 23 — Station 7+70
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank. (October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) downstream view from left bank. (October 5, 2018) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 50. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(October 5, 2018) upstream view from left bank.
Photo 51. UT2, Photo Point 25 — Station 0+65
(October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank. (October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank. (October 5, 2018) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 56. UT8, Photo Point 28 — Station 1+101 J
(October 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank and
confluence.
Photo 57. UT1, Photo Point 29 — Station 0+50
(October 5, 2018) 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 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank. (October 5, 2018) downstream view from right bank.

Photo 60. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 31 — Station
1+80 (October 5, 2018) downstream view from mid -
channel to confluence.
Photo 61. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 31— Station
1+80 (October 5, 2018) upstream view from mid -
channel to confluence.
Photo 62. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 32 —
(October 5, 2018) downstream view from right bank.
Photo 63. UT5 - Preservation, Photo Point 32 —
(October 5, 2018) upstream view from right bank.

Table 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Logan Creek, Reach 1 (3,184 LF), Restoration
Reach
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
18
18
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
18
18
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
18
18
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of 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. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bid >1.6?)
35
35
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
35
35
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
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
970/.
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
3,184
3,184
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cuttin ?
3,184
3,184
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
24
24
0
100
Rock/Log
12. Height aro riate?
24
24
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometryappear appropriate?
24
24
0
100
Structures'
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
24
24
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
24
24
0
100
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
24
24
0
100
100
Logan Creek, Reach 2 (1,038 LF), Enhancement Reach
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As -Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
10
10
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
10
10
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
10
10
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
10
10
0
100
5. 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. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
13
13
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
13
13
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
5
5
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
5
5
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
5
5
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
5
5
0
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
1,038
1,038
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cuttin ?
1,038
1,038
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height aro riate?
11
11
0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
11
11
0
100
Structures'
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
11
11
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
0
0
0
Boulders
2. Footingstable?
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 8. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment - Continued
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
UT6, (1 27 LF
Feature
Category
UT3 (178 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
per As -Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
3
3
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
3
3
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
3
3
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin Kinin ?
3
3
0
100
100%
5. Length appropriate?
3
3
0
100 1
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
2. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bid >1.6?)
3
3
0
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. U stream of ool structure centering? %
100
100
0
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
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
0
0
N/A
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
N/A
100
100%
4. Sufficient floodplain 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 aggradation areas bar formation
178
178
0
100
100%
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cuttin ?
178
178
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
2
2
0
100
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
4
4
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height a ro riate?
4
4
0
1 100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
4
4
0
100
100%
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
4
4
0
100
100%
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
0
0
UT6, (1 27 LF
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
3
3
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
3
3
0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
3
3
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
3
3
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
3
3
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 Bid >1.6?
2
2
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
2
2
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
127
127
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cuttin ?
127
127
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
2
2
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Heigh 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 - Continuer
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
per As -Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
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 embeddin tfinin ?
1
1
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
1
1
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggraclation or migration?)
0
0
0
2. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bld>1.6?
0
0
0
3. Length appropriate?
0
0
0
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering? %
100
100
0
100
100
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100%
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
45
45
0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cuttin ?
45
45
0
100
100%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
1
1
0
100
Rock/Log
2. Heigh 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
N/A

Table 9. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92515
Gauge Watermark Height
(inches)*
Year
Date of Data Collection
Date of Event
Method of Data Collection
Logan Creek Station
30+00
2 events: 1 in Dec -15 and 1
3/18/2016
Crest Gauge
25.75
MY2
in Jan -16.
8/17/2016
undetermined
Crest Gauge
1.56
Between 7/26/2017 and
MY3
10/26/2017
10/26/2017
Crest Gauge, Photographs
26.04
10/26/2017
10/23/2017
Crest Gauge, Photographs
17.4
Between 10/26/2017 and
3/16/2018
Crest Gauge
12.84
MY4
—3/16/2018
Between 3/16/2018 and
6/12/2018**
6/12/2018
Crest Gauge, Photographs
11.88
* height indicates the highest position of cork shavings on the dowel. ** No events recorded after 6/12/18.
Crest Gauge reading taken on 3/16/2018 shows a
distinct high flow event at 12.84 inches on the crest
Crest Gauge reading taken on 6/12/2018 shows a
distinct high flow event at 11.88 inches on the crest
gauge. gauge.
Wrack lines and debris above bankfull near station
29+00 (6/12/2018).
Debris piled up near the footbridge that crosses the
stream at station 28+50 (6/12/2018).

Figure 6. Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Permanent Cross -Section 1
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
3180
3178
LL 3176
c
0
M 3174
m
w 3172
3170
3168
Logan Creek Cross-section 1, Station 3+10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Looking at the Left Bank
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
Max
Stream BKF
BKF
BKF BH Low TOB
Feature Type BKF Area Width
Depth
Depth W/D Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev Depth
Riffle E 64.89 25.96
2.50
4.62 10.38 1.02 2.69 3173.07 3173.13 4.63
3180
3178
LL 3176
c
0
M 3174
m
w 3172
3170
3168
Logan Creek Cross-section 1, Station 3+10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Looking at the Left Bank
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross -Section 2
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Stream BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Low TOB
Feature Type BKF Area Width
Depth
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev TOB Elev Depth
Pool - 62.88 26.14
2.41
4.94 10.85 1.08 2.32
3172.34 3172.68 5.26
Logan Creek Cross-section 2, Station 3+70
Od 70
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross -Section 3
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Riffle
E
51.38
24.17
2.13
2.97
11.35
1.01
4.11
3169.03
3169.13
3.07
3173
QiiiVA
3171
U.
C 3170
0
3169
m
MU 3168
3167
3166
3165
Logan Creek Cross-section 3, Station 12+57
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Looking at the Left Bank
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross -Section 4
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Feature
Stream BKF
Type Area
BKF
Width
BKF Max BKF
Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Pool
- 73.24
26.80
2.73 4.71 9.82 1.28 3.66
3168.40
3168.98
6.28
U.
c
0
d
III
Logan Creek Cross-section 4, Station 13+00
3176
3174------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3172
3170 ---\
3168
3166
3164
3162
3160
0
20
40
Looking at the Left Bank
---o--- Floodprone
-----ABKF
---o--- Bankfull
------- MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
80 100
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross -Section 5
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF Width
BKF Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Pool
-
70.59 23.63
2.99
5.35
7.90
1.08
3.82
1 3164.28
3164.40
5.47
Logan Creek Cross-section 5, Station 25+43
3172
3170-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------c�
3168 -----
=-
0
-----------
3166
t0 ---o--- Floodprone
3164 ---------
ABKF
W ---o--- Bankfull
3162 ------- As -Built
MY1
3160 MY2
MY3
MY4
3158
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross -Section 6
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Feature
Stream BKF
Type BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Riffle
E 49.12 1 22.58
2.18
3.69
10.33
1.01
4.19
3163.60
3163.73
3.82
3168
3167
-----------
3166
U. 3165
g 3164
------
a
d 3163
LU 3162
3161
3160
3159
0
Logan Creek Cross-section 6, Station 26+09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e
---o--- Floodprone
----ABKF
---a--- Bankfull
------- MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
20 40 60 80 100
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 7
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+54
3172
3171.5
3171
3170.5
0
3170 --o-- Floodprone----------------------- -------
m ABKF
FU 3169.5 --o-- Bankfull
-------As-Built
3169 MY1
MY2 `
3168.5
MY3
3168 MY4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
BKF
Low TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
Elev
TOB Elev
Depth
Pool
-
7.29
9.05
0.81
1.28
11.17
0.89
3.4
3170.04
3170.07
1.32
UT6 Cross -Section 7, Station 0+54
3172
3171.5
3171
3170.5
0
3170 --o-- Floodprone----------------------- -------
m ABKF
FU 3169.5 --o-- Bankfull
-------As-Built
3169 MY1
MY2 `
3168.5
MY3
3168 MY4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 8
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
3171.5
3171
3170.5
c
0
3170
d
W
3169.5
3169
3168.5
I
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+69
10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------o
------------------
------------
-- 8--- Floodprone
ABKF
-- G--- Bankfull
------- As -Built
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
20 30
Station (ft)
.e
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Low TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Depth
Riffle
E
2.83
5.64
0.50
0.80
11.28
0.95
5.15
3170.05
3170.16
0.91
3171.5
3171
3170.5
c
0
3170
d
W
3169.5
3169
3168.5
I
UT6 Cross-section 8, Station 0+69
10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------o
------------------
------------
-- 8--- Floodprone
ABKF
-- G--- Bankfull
------- As -Built
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
20 30
Station (ft)
.e
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 8.5
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
3171.5
3171
3170.5
LL 3170
o 3169.5
> 3169
as
LU 3168.5
3168
3167.5
3167
UT3 Cross -Section 8.5*, Station 0+60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (Ft)
z s -
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.
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Low TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Depth
Pool
-
8.09
8.67
0.93
1.54
9.32
1.06
6.13
3169.09
3169.17
1.61
3171.5
3171
3170.5
LL 3170
o 3169.5
> 3169
as
LU 3168.5
3168
3167.5
3167
UT3 Cross -Section 8.5*, Station 0+60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (Ft)
z s -
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.
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 9
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
3171
3170.5
c
3170
0
3169.5
w 3169
3168.5
3168
3167.5
3167
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+73*
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.
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Low TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Depth
Riffle
E
3.76
5.45
0.69
1.00
7.90
0.96
5.29
3168.83
3168.87
1.08
3171
3170.5
c
3170
0
3169.5
w 3169
3168.5
3168
3167.5
3167
UT3 Cross -Section 9, Station 0+73*
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.
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 10
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Pool
-
77.11
32.98
2.34
3.58
14.09
1.25
1.80
3159.66
3160.16
4.04
3164
3163
3162
3161
0 3160
m 3159
LU 3158
3157
3156
3155
Logan Creek Cross-section 10, Station 37+05
Enhancement Reach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
0 10 20
30 40 50
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
-- a--- Floodprone
-----ABKF
-- a--- Bankfull
------- MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
E
70
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 11
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Low TOB
Depth
Riffle
B
58.32
1 34.16
1.71
3.14
1 19.98
1.14
1 1.54
3159.97
3160.44
3.64
3164
3163
3162
3161
0 3160
3159
U' 3158
3157
3156
3155
Logan Creek Cross-section 11, Station 37+20
Enhancement Reach
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Looking at the Left Bank
Station (Ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Permanent Cross-section 12
(MY4 Data - collected October, 2018)
LU
UT8 Cross -Section 12, Station 0+9.6
3175
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3174.5
3174 _
3173.5
3173
3172.5
3172
0
10
20
Station (Ft)
30
-- Floodprone
--+- ABKF
---0--- Bankfull
MY2
MY3
MY4
40 50
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.
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
Low TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Depth
Riffle
C
5.92
10.25
0.58
1.28
17.67
0.93
4.22
3173.54
3173.46
1.20
LU
UT8 Cross -Section 12, Station 0+9.6
3175
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
3174.5
3174 _
3173.5
3173
3172.5
3172
0
10
20
Station (Ft)
30
-- Floodprone
--+- ABKF
---0--- Bankfull
MY2
MY3
MY4
40 50
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.
Note: ABKF stands for as -built bankfull which represents the bankfull line held at the as -built cross sectional area.

Figure 7. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays

Profile of Logan Creek, Station 16+00 to 32+00
Comlaared to As-built Thalwea (MY0)

Profile of Logan Creek, Station 32+43 to 42+81
Compared to As -built Thalweg (MYO)
3165
3164
3163
3162
3161
3160
3159
3158
O
3157
3156 _._._..._..._..._..._._._._._._._.._..._.
W 3155
3154
3153
3152
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
------- MYO TWG
MY1 TWG
MY2 TWG
MY3 TWG
MY4 TWG ...
3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 44
Station (ft)

3169
3168.5_.............------- ...._..._..._..
3168 _. _..._..._... ..._..
3167.5---------
C 3167'
+r------- MYO
ca 3166.5 --
i

* 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 4
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT:
Logan Cr
REACH/LOCATION:
Riffle at XS
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
0% 0.125
12 -Oct -18
0%
0.25
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt / Clay
<.063
Sand
.125
Very Fine .063-125
Fine .125-25
.25
.50
Medium .25-50
Coarse .50 - 1.0
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
Very Coarse
32-45
Very Coarse
45-64
Cobble
Small
64-90
Small
90- 128
Large
128-180
Large
180-256
Boulder
Small
256-362
Small
362-512
Medium
512-1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
Total % of whole count
90
Total
MY4 2018
Class %
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0%
0.063
0% 0.125
0%
0.25
4
4%
4%
0.50
2
2%
6%
1.0
6%
2.0
6%
2.6
6%
4.0
6%
5.6
6%
8.0
3
3%
9%
11.0
9
9%
18%
16.0
10
10%
28%
22.6
16
16%
44%
32
20
20%
64%
45
18
18%
82%
64
4
4%
86%
90
5
5%
91%
126
6
6%
97%
160
2
2%
99%
256
1
1 %
100%
362
100%
512
100%
1024
100%
2046
100%
5000
100 1 100%
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16- 14.7MD100
75.9
D35 = 26.3160.7
D50 = 35.4
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
V
� 50%
IL
40%
3
30%
E
t, 20%
10%
0°%
-AB 2015
-MYl 2015
-MY2 2016
-MY3 2017
-MY4 2018
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS1
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
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% • MY4 2018
d
V
y 50%
a
H 40%
m
V 30%
20%
10%
o%
ILUALL AL"Enffidl L..J J_.
":o b° 'tib 'y' 0 'k qo ,tip `p "p 'e
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 4
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT:
Logan Cr
REACHILOCATION:
Riffle at XS3
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
12 -Oct -18
MATERIAL
I PARTICLE
ISIZE(nun)l
Total
MY4 2018
I Class % I
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
I Silt/Clay
1 <.063
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
-� 2015
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
90%
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
3
3%_
3%
0.50
Coarse
.50-1.0
2
2%
5%
1.0
-n4Y2 2016
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
5%
2.0
70%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
5%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
5%
4.0
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
6%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
2%
8%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
7
7%
14%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
23
22%
37%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
16
15%
52%
22.6
Coarse
22.6-32
20
19%
71%
32
20%
Very Coarse
32-45
16
15%
87%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
8
8%
94%
64
Small
64-90
4
4%
98%
90
Small
90-128
1
1 %
99%
128
Cobble
Large
128-18099%
0%
180
0.01
Large
180-256
1
1 %
100%
256
Small
256-362
Mainstem at XS3
100%
362
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
Small
362-512
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-10241
90%
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
■ MY1 2015
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
70%
■ MY3 2017
100%
5000
Total % of whole count 1 1 104 1 100%
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16- 11.3 D847 42.5
D35 - 15.6 D95 = 68.5
D50 - 21.6 D100-1 180-256
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS3
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
l00%
-� 2015
90%
-MYI 2015
80 %
-n4Y2 2016
70%
-MY3 2017
60%
Q
-MY4 2018
i 50%
m
CL
> 40
R 30%
E
20%
tJ
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%
M AB 2015
90%
■ MY1 2015
80%
, MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
M MY4 2018
60%
d
50%
o.
y 40
_m
U
30%
20
10%
0% 1
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross -Section Pebble Count; Monitoring Year 4
Logan Creek Mitigation Project, DMS #92515
SITE OR PROJECT:
Logan Cr
REACH/LOCATION:
Riffle at XS6
FEATURE:
Riffle
DATE:
12 -Oct -18
MATERIAL
I PARTICLE
ISIZE(mml
Total
MY4 2018
I Class % I
% Cum
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
Silt/Clay
I Silt / Clay
1 <.063
0%
0.063
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0%
0.125
Fine
.125-25 .25
0%
0.25
Sand
Medium
.25-50 .50
1
1%
1 %
0.50
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
1
1%
2%
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
80%
_MY22016
2%
2.0
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
2%
2.8
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
2%
4.0
60%
d
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1%
3%
5.6
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
2%
5%
8.0
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
3
3%
8%
11.0
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
8
8%
16%
16.0
Coarse
16-22.6
6
6%
22%
22.6
Coarse
22.6 - 32
16
16%
38%
32
Very Coarse
32-45
12
12%
50%
45
Very Coarse
45-64
27
27%
77%
64
Small
64-90
11
11%
88%
90
Small
90-128
6
6%
94%
128
Cobble
Large
128-180
6
6%
100%
180
Large
180-256
0%
100%
256
Small
256-362
100%
362
1000
Small
362-512
10000
0.01 0.1
100%
512
Boulder
Medium
512-10241
100%
1024
Large -Very Large
1024 - 2048
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
100%
2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
100%
5000
Total % of whole count I 1 100 1 100%
Summary Data
Channel materials
D16= 16.0 D84= 79.5
D35 = 30.0 D95 = 135.5
D50 = 45.0 D100= 128-180
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS6
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
-AB 2015
90%
-MYI 2015
80%
_MY22016
70%
-MY3 2017
60%
d
-MY4 2018
m 50%
IL
> 40%
M 30%
E
U 20%
10%
0%
1000
10000
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Mainstem at XS6
Reach Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
■ AB 2015
90%
■ MY1 2015
80%
MY2 2016
70%
■ MY3 2017
M MY4 2018
60%
d
50%
IL
a 40%
V
30%
20
10%
0%
py'j 1�5 pti5 pt,p 'p
p p
ryp ry6 dp 5b „O `l \Hp "b -ry 45 ;, 9p `�' -,P "', 4, '�' e
Particle Size Class (mm)

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY4 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaa©a�aaao®�a�ao®�a�ao®�a�ao
•
aaaa���®�oa�aaaaa®aaaa����®©�����©�®���o����®o�����o
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaa
.
..
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
®�®��m
����®a
�����a
®���®a
aaaa
aaaaaa
amaaaa
�aa�aa
aaaaaa
�����m
mi§�mrffl-7rlqmmrTli
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
���®®m
�����m
®����m
����®m
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
dl -35/00-01
aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aD�maaaaaa�aaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
..
a� .. .. :.
.... amaaaa2A
W.. d U­jW t.... ... .. ..
.... .. ..1,61
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
•
aaaaa�aaaaaoaaaaamaaaaaoaaaaamaaaaamaaaaamaaaaaoaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
a���aaaaaaamaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
amaaaa
a®aaaa
a®aaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
••
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
amaaaa
aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaeaaaa
a®maaaaaaaa®aaaaamaaaa®�®mm®a�aaaoa®aaaaa�aaaoa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaoa®aaaa
a��aaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa������a�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa®®®®aaa®aaaaa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
a ��a aaaaaa
a®aaaa amaaaa
�����©a�aaao
a�aaao a�aaao a�aaao
aaaa aaaaaa
a®aaaa amaaaa
�����a
a�aaao a�aaao a�aaao a®aaaa
•aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaa®®®�®©a�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa®aaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaa®�®��aa�aaaoa�aaaoa®aaaoa�aaao
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa®aaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a � �
�
as
amaaaa
aaaaaa
a
�
as
16
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
amaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
a®aaaa®aaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaoaaaa©aaaa©aaaa©aaa
aaaaaaaaaoa®aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa�aaaa�aaaa�aaaa�aaa
a ��� aaaaaa
amaaaa
aaaaaa
a®aaaa
a®aaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaamaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
•
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
aaaa aaaaaa
amaaaa
aaaaaa
amaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY4 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY4 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
BF Width (ft)
a®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®®��aa®aaaaa®aaaoaaaaoa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaiaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
a ��a aaaaaa a�aaai aaaaa ������ a�aaao a�aaao a�aaao a�aaao
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaia�aaaa®®®®�©a�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
a®a aaaaaa a®aaaaa®aaaa ®����a a�aaao a®aaaa a�aaao a�aaao
•
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaia�aaaa�����©a�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
aaaa aaaaaa a�aaai aaaaaa ®®®�®a a�aaao a®aaaa a�aaao a®aaaa
aaaa aaaaaa a®aaaa aaaaaa �����a a�aaao a�aaao a®aaaa a�aaao
,150
a aaa aaaaa a�aaai aaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaa aaaaaa a®aaaaa®aaaa ®aaaaa a®aaaaa®aaaa aaaaa aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
:.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaai aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
a � �
�
as
aaaaa
aaaaaa
a
�
as
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
amaaaa
aaaaaa
a©aaaaa©aaaa©aaaa©aaaa©aaa
BF viWiity (fp)
aaaaaaaaaoa®aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
a®aaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
a ���
aaaaaa
amaaaa
aaaaaa
a®aaaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
35
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaa�aaaa�aaaa�aaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaa
a®aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
a�aaai
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Width lit)
a®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaaa®aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
a��aaaaaaaa�aaaia�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
aaaa aaaaaa
a�aaai aaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa a�aaao a®aaaaa®aaaa
a ��a aaaaaa
a®aaaa aaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa a�aaao a�aaao a�aaao
aaaa aaaaaa
a�aaai aaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa a�aaao a®aaaaa®aaaa
•aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa®aaaaa®aaaoa�aaao
•
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaoa�aaaoa�aaao
aaaaa�aaaaa�aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa®aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaai
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaai����®oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaa�����oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaia�aaooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaamaaaa�®®��©aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
'
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaia®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
:.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
d•
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaai
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aAdditi—I
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
R-1,
a � �
�
as
aaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
amaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
a©aaaa©aaa
aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaoa®aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
a®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
a ���
aaaaaa
amaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
a®aaaa®aaaa®aaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaa®aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaa�aaaa�aaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaa
a�aaai
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaa
aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY4 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Loean Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect ID No. 92515
Logan Creek (4,172 LF)
Cross-section X-1, Station 3+10 (Riffle), Restoration Reach
Cross-section X-2, Station 3+70 (Pool), Restoration Reach
Cross-section X-3, Station 12+57 (Riffle), Restoration Reach
Cross-section X-4, Station 13+00 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
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
26.0
25.9
26.8
26.0
26.0
26.1
25.2
24.3
24.46
24.3
24.2
27.6
27.1
27.1
27.4
26.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.7
2.4
2.6
2.7
Width/Depth Ratio
9.2
9.3
8.9
8.9
10.4
10.5
11.0
10.3
10.2
10.9
12.0
11.6
11.36
11.3
11.4
12.1
10.0
11.2
10.7
9.8
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
63.0
62.4
64.8
64.7
64.9
63.9
65.2
65.5
66.2
62.9
53.2
51.2
52.7
52.3
51.4
62.8
73.8
65.4
70.2
73.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.7
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.6
5.2
5.1
5.1
4.9
4.9
3.1
2.9
3.11
3.1
3.0
5.2
5.9
5.4
5.5
4.7
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>70
>70
>70
>70
>70
>60
>60
>60
>60
>60
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
11.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
29.3
29.3
29.5
29.4
31.0
30.9
31.7
31.0
31.1
31.0
29.5
28.6
28.8
28.6
28.4
32.2
32.6
31.9
32.5
32.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
1 2.1
1 2.1
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.2 1
2.3
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 2)
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - -
d50 (mm)
13.8
1 30.7
1 15.2 1
23.3 1
35.419.2
- -
-
-
-
- - -
43
29.2
22.2
21.6 - -
-
-
-
- - -
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
MY
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BFWidth (ft)
21.3
24.0
23.9
23.8
23.6
23.6
22.6
22.5
22.4
22.6
31.0
33.4
33.4
33.3
33.0
29.2
33.9
33.9
34.1
34.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
Width/Depth Ratio
7.1
7.8
7.8
8.0
7.9
10.8
10.1
9.9
9.9
10.3
14.4
15.6
15.9
14.8
14.1
14.0
18.6
18.6
19.6
20.0
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
63.9
74.3
73.3
71.0
70.6
51.7
50.2
51.4
50.8
49.1
66.6
71.2
70.3
74.7
77.1
60.7
61.8
61.8
59.4
58.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.4
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.4
3.4
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.6
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.1
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
>80
>90
>90
>90
>90
>95
>95
>95
>95
>95
>60
>60
>60
>60
>60
>54
>54
>54
>54
>54
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.4
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
4.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
L1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.3
30.2
30.0
29.8
29.6
28.0
27.0
27.1
26.9
26.9
35.2
37.6
37.6
37.8
37.7
33.4
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1 1.9
1.9
2.0 1
2.0
1.8
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 (ft2)-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - -
d50 (mm)
24.9
1 41.1
20.7
1 35.0
45.0
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY4 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values
were calculated
using the as -built bankfull elevation,
as was done for previous monitoring
reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY4 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Loean Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect ID No. 92515
UT3 (178 LF)
Cross-section X-7, Station 0+54 (Pool)
Cross-section X-8.5, Station 0+60* (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
Cross-section X-9, Station 0+73* (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base*
MYl
MY2
MY3
774 MY5 MY+
Base
MY
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfutl elevation
9.8
9.2
-
9.4 9.7 9.16.1
-
5.8
5.8 6.0 5.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
-
0.8 0.8 0.80.8
BE Width (ft)8.6
-
0.6 0.6 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8.2
8.9
8.7 - -
6.3
5.9
5.8
6.2
5.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Mean Depth (ft)0.9
-
-
7.4 7.4 7.34.6
0.9
0.9
0.9 - -
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio9.4
-
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
9.9
9.9
9.3 - -
8.7
8.5
8.4
9.9
7.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Cross-sectional Area (ftp)7.9
-
-
8.2
8.1
8.1 - -
4.5
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Max Depth (ft)1.5
-
11.8
1.5
1.4
1.5 - -
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)32.0
-
0.5
30.9
30.9
32.4 - -
26.8
23.8
22.6
22.6
22.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio3.7
-
-
3.4
4.5
6.1 - -
4.3
4.0
3.9
4.9
5.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
-
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1 - -
1.0
1.0
1.0
L 1
1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
-
10.4
10.0
10.7
10.5 - -
7.7
7.3
7.2
7.4
6.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)0.8
-
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.8 - -
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
- - - -
- -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
-
-
- - - -
- -
-
BE Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Mean Depth (ft)
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE 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)
*Stationing is corrected in this report.
UT6 (127 LF)
Cross-section X-7, Station 0+54 (Pool)
Cross-section X-8, Station 0+69 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BE Width (ft)
9.8
9.2
-
9.4 9.7 9.16.1
-
5.8
5.8 6.0 5.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
-
0.8 0.8 0.80.8
-
0.7
0.6 0.6 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
9.5
10.7
12.1 11.2 11.28.1
-
-
9.0
9.1 9.5 11.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
10.1
7.9
-
7.4 7.4 7.34.6
-
3.8
3.7 3.8 2.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.5
1.2 1.2 1.31.1
-
-
0.9
0.9 0.9 0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
> 50
> 50
-
> 50 > 50 >50>
- 35
> 35
> 35 > 35 >35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio
3.8
4.0
-
3.1 3.3 3.46.6
-
5.6
5.4 4.9 5.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
-
1.0 1.1 0.91.0
-
1.0
1.0 1.1 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.8
1 10.9
1 11.0 1 11.3 1 10.77.7
-
-
7.1
7.1 7.3 6.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
1 0.7
-
1 0.7 1 0.7 1 0.70.6
-
0.5
0.5 0.5 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BE Width (ft)
-
-
- - - -
- -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Mean Depth (ft)
-
-
- - - -
- -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
-
-
- - - -
- -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
-
-
- - - -
- -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BE 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)
d50
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, the bank height ratio for MY4 has been calculated using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY4 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Logan Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect ID No. 92515
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY4 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515
rur,
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+
BF Width (ft)
aa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mean
Depth�:aa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depthaa�®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
aa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aa�®®aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
aa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment oaa®®�aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height oHydraulic
aa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
aa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Radius (ft)
aa���aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Width (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Mean Depth:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width/Depthaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Entrenchment oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bank Height oHydraulic
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Radius (ft)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
i
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Note: Per DMS/1RT request, the bank height ratio for MY4 has been calculated
using the as -built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation, as was clone for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
MY4 REPORT
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NO. 92515

Table 12 MY4 Stream Problem Areas and Photos
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project, Number #92515
Feature Issue
Station
Suspected Cause
Photo #
Aggradation/Bar
None
None
None
Formation
CPA 3-2. Bank slump (approx. 6 ft.) along left bank of
Station 21+00
main stem. Has stabilized and is no longer eroding.
21,22
CPA 3-4. Bank slump (approx. 8 ft.) along right bank
of main stem. The slump area has not completely
Station 11+50
stabilized but has not worsened and is still vegetated
25,26
in 2018.
CPA 2-1. Flooding during December and January
caused a small area of bank scour at this location.
Station 2+10
Bank was repaired in 2017 and remained stable in
1, 2, 3
2018 (MY4).
CPA 2-3. Flooding during December and January 2017
caused a small area of bank scour at this location.
Bank Scour
Station 4+60
The bank was repaired in 2017 and has vegetated in
7,8,9
2018 but is still eroding in places. This will be
monitored in MY5.
CPA 2-4. Flooding during December and January 2017
Station 11+70
caused a small area of bank scour at this location.
10,11,12
Bank has revegetated and stabilized in 2018.
CPA 2-5. Flooding during December and January 2017
Station 26+60
caused a small area of bank scour at this location.
13,14,15
This scour area has revegetated and stabilized.
CPA 2-6. Flooding during December and January 2017
caused a small area of bank scour at this location.
Station 27+00
Scour area was repaired in 2017 and has revegetated
16,17,18
and stabilized in 2018.
CPA 3-1. Piping of log structure has stabilized and is
Station 23+75
no longer piping in MY4.
19,20
CPA 3-3. Piping of log structure after the fabric
Station 14+75
sealing this structure tore. Structure has stabilized
23,24
and is no longer piping in 2018.
Engineered
CPA 3-4. Piping of log structure on LIT -8 near the
LIT8 Station
confluence of LIT -8 and Logan Creek. This log
Structures
00+40
structure is still piping but has not worsened. Hand
27
repairs will be made on the structure in MY5.
CPA 2-2. Piping of log structure after the fabric
sealing this structure tore during flooding of
2+00
December and January. Structure was repaired in
4 5 6
' '
2017 and was no longer piping in 2018.
EA -1. New maintenance workers mowed the nature
Station
trail (an allowance in the easement); however, they
(approximately)
Encroachments
mowed a wider width than was agreed. We
28,29
23+00 to
discussed this with staff at Lonesome Valley and they
28+00
were going to discuss this with a new trails manager.

Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project — Monitoring Year 4 Problem Area Photos
CPA 2-1
Photo 1. CPA 2-1 — Station 2+10, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January 2016.
Photo 3. CPA 2-1 — Scour area has stabilized and is no
longer eroding after repairs were made in 2017.
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.

CPA 2-2
Photo 4. CPA 2-2 — Station 2+00, Piping of log structure
after the fabric sealing this structure tore during flooding of
December and January 2016.
Photo 6. CPA 2-2 — Log structure that was repaired in 2017
has remained stable and is no longer piping.
Photo 5. CPA 2-2 — Station 2+00, Piping structure was
repaired in May 2017. Fabric was replaced and substrate was
replaced upstream of log structure.

CPA 2-3
Photo 7. CPA 2-3 — Station 4+60, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January 2016.
Photo 9. CPA 2-3 — Station 4+60, bank scour area has
vegetated but is still eroding. Will be monitored in MY5.
Photo 8. 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.

CPA 2-4
L3/18/2016
Photo 10. CPA 2-4 — Station 11+70, small area of bank scour
caused by flooding of December and January 2016.
Photo 12. CPA 2-4 — Station 11+70, Bank has vegetated and
stabilized in 2018.
Photo 11. 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.

CAP 2-5
Photo 13. CPA 2-5 — Station 26+60, small area of bank
scour caused by flooding of December and January 2016.
Photo 15. CPA 2-5 — Station 26+60, Scour area has
revegetated and stabilized.
Photo 14. 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.

CPA 2-6
Photo 16. CPA 2-6 — Station 27+00, small area of bank
scour caused by flooding of December and January 2016.
Photo 18. CPA 2-6 — Station 27+00, scour area has
revegetated and stabilized in 2018.
Photo 17. 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.

CPA 3-1
Photo 19. CPA 3-1 — Station 23+75, piping of log structure
after the fabric sealing this structure tore in 2017.
CPA 3-2
Photo 21. CPA 3-2 — Station 21+00, small bank slump area
(approx. 6 ft.) along left bank of main stem.
Photo 20. CPA 3-1 — Log structure has stabilized and is no
longer piping.
Photo 22. CPA 3-2— Area has stabilized and is fully
vegetated.

CPA 3-3
Photo 23. CPA 3-3 — Station 14+75, piping of log structure
after the fabric sealing this structure tore in 2017.
CPA 3-4
Photo 25. CPA 3-4 — Station 11+50, small bank slump
(approx. 8 ft.) along right bank of main stem.
Photo 24. CPA 3-3 — Station 14+75, piping log structure has
stabilized and is no longer piping in 2018.
Photo 26. CPA 3-4 — Station 11+50, slump area has not
stabilized but has not worsened in 2018. Will continue to
monitor in MY5.

CPA 3-5
Photo 27. CPA 3-5 — Station UT8 00+40, piping of log
structure on UT -8 near the confluence of UT -8 and Logan
Creek. Hand repairs will be made to CPA 3-5 during MY5.
Trail Encroachments
Photo 28. 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 29. EA 2-1 — In July of 2017, the path was still being
mowed wide through Veg Plot 3.