20090049 Ver 2_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20210121

MONITORING YEAR 5
ANNUAL REPORT

Final

GLADE CREEK II RESTORATION PROJECT
Alleghany County, NC
DEQ Contract 6843
DMS Project Number 92343
USACE Action ID 2009-00589

Data Collection Period: March – November 2020
Draft Submission Date: November 23, 2020
Final Submission Date: January 8, 2021

PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

January 8, 2021

Mr. Harry Tsomides
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801

RE: Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) Report – Draft Submittal
Glade Creek II Mitigation Project
DMS Project # 92343
Contract Number 6843
New River Basin - CU# 05050001 - Alleghany County, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Tsomides:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 5 report for the Glade Creek II Mitigation Project. DMS’s comments are
noted below in bold. Wildlands’ responses to those comments are noted in italics.

DMS comment: Please adjust the asset table upper section for riparian wetlands to remove the
rounding error; the unrounded number should be 0.328

Wildlands response: The rounding error has been corrected in Table 1 and the report text.

DMS comment: Figure 2 – Powerline and stream crossing cutouts are noted as “Reduced Credit” in the
legend. If no credit is being generated by these segments they should be titled “No Credit”.

Wildlands response: As noted in Table 1, there is a 50% reduction in credit for the segment of Glade
Creek under the overhead powerline easement. Further downstream, no credit is being generated for the
segment of Glade Creek within the conservation easement break at the stream crossing. In Figures 2 and
3, the “No Credit” line color has been darkened to better differentiate with the “Reduced Credit” line
color.

DMS comment: In Appendix 6 please include the complete IRT memo rather than just the two as built
plan sheets. This is attached to this email.

Wildlands response: The complete IRT memo has been included in Appendix 6.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring
Report and all digital support files. Please contact me at 704-941-9093 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Project Manager
[e-mail]

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed design and construction management on a design-
bid-build project at the Glade Creek II Restoration Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) in Alleghany County, NC. The project components included restoring and enhancing
2,579 linear feet (LF) and preserving 129 LF of perennial stream, restoring 0.16 acre of wetlands, and
preserving 0.84 acre of existing wetland. Riparian buffers were also established by removing exotic
invasive plants and installing a variety of native vegetation. The Site is expected to generate 2,166.467
stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 0.328 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for the Glade Creek
watershed (Table 1). The Site is located off US Highway 21 in the northern portion of Alleghany County,
NC in the New River Basin, eight-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 05050001 and the 14-digit HUC
05050001030020 (Figure 1). The project streams consist of one unnamed tributary, UT to Glade Creek,
and two reaches along Glade Creek mainstem (Reach 1 and Reach 2) (Figure 2). Glade Creek flows into
the Little River four miles northeast of the Site near Fox Trot Lane in the Town of Hooker, North
Carolina. The land adjacent to the streams and wetlands is primarily maintained for forestry production
of White Pine trees.
The Glade Creek II Restoration Project is located within a DMS Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) (Brush
Creek, HUC 05050001030020), as documented within the 2009 River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP)
for the New River Basin. Furthermore, the project site is located within Middle Glade Creek, a priority
subwatershed for stream and wetland restoration (and habitat protection), as identified within 2006
Local Watershed Plan and Preliminary Project Atlas for Little River and Brush Creek. Primary stressors
within the Brush Creek TLW and the Middle Glade Creek subwatershed include stream channelization,
livestock access, degraded riparian buffers, and Christmas tree farming. Glade Creek is also classified as
a trout water and the project will help improve trout habitat in the watershed.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan addendum (Confluence, 2013) were completed with
careful consideration of goals and objectives described in the RBRP and to address stressors identified in
the LWP. The following project goals established include:
• Improve water quality by repairing eroding stream banks and establishing riparian buffers;
• Improve the community structure of the buffers;
• Improve stream function and habitat by re-establishing stream-to-floodplain connections;
• Restore long-term stability through the restoration of channel dimension, pattern and profile;
• Improve in-stream habitat using in-stream structures; and
• Remove exotic invasive plant species.
The Site construction was completed between December 2015 and April 2016. Planting was completed
in February 2016. The as-built survey was completed in January 2016 with Monitoring Year (MY) 0
beginning in May 2016. MY5 activities occurred between March and November 2020. An additional year
of monitoring (MY6) will occur in 2021 and the Site is anticipated to be presented for closeout in 2022.
The MY5 morphological surveys and visual assessments indicate that the majority of Glade Creek
appears stable and functioning as designed; however, sediment deposition has continued to cause a loss
of channel function along a portion of UT to Glade Creek. The vegetation assessment resulted in an
average planted stem density of 465 stems per acre and is exceeding the final success criterion of 260
stems per acre. In addition, all six plots individually exceeding this requirement. The Site’s groundwater
gage met the performance standard for MY5. The bankfull performance standard was met for the
project in MY2. The visual assessment also revealed that adaptive management activities have nearly
eradicated many invasive species on the Site, alleviated areas of bank instability, and benefited the long-
term ecological function of the Site.

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL ii
GLADE CREEK II RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activity ................................... 1-2
1.2.3 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1-3
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activity ......................................... 1-3
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment ....................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment .......................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.7 Wetland Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activity ....................................... 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-4
Section 2: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 3-1

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Table 5 Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View Map
Table 6a-b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10a-b Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross-section)
Table 13a-b Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross-section Plots
Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL iii
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plot
Monthly Rainfall Data
Appendix 6 Adaptive Management Activities
Glade Creek II Repair As-built Memo – May 8, 2020

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL 1-1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is a design-bid-build contract with DMS in Alleghany County, NC. The Site is located in the New
River Basin, eight-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 05050001 and the 14-digit HUC 05050001030020
(Figure 1). Located in the Blue Ridge Belt (USGS,2016), Blue Ridge physiographic province, the project
watershed includes primarily agricultural and forest land uses, with a drainage area of 8.0 square miles.
The project stream reaches consist of Glade Creek and UT to Glade Creek (stream restoration). The
project wetland areas consist of restoration and preservation (Wetlands A-D). Mitigation work within
the Site included restoring and enhancing 2,579 LF and preserving 129 LF of perennial stream, restoring
0.16 acre of wetlands, and preserving 0.84 acre of existing wetland and proposes the generation of
2,166.467 SMUs and 0.328 WMUs. The stream and wetland areas were planted with native vegetation
to improve habitat and protect water quality. Construction activities were completed by Carolina
Environmental, Inc. in December 2015. Turner Land Surveying completed the as-built survey in January
2016. Storm repairs prior to end of the construction phase were completed in April 2016 and the repairs
were judged to have not resulted in changes that would warrant a revised as-built survey. A 12.8-acre
conservation easement was purchased in 2008 by the State of North Carolina and was recorded with
Alleghany County Register of Deeds. The conservation easement protects the project area in perpetuity.
Appendix 1 includes detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site
background information. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1. Project components
are illustrated in Figure 2 while Table 1 outlines the project component and mitigation credit
information for the Site.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction, the streams had been impacted by historic agricultural practices, silviculture and
valley filling. In addition, there was widespread bank erosion, especially along the outside meander
bends, and mid-channel deposition. The wetlands had been impacted by vegetation clearing, the
establishment of exotic invasive plant species, and the burial of the hydric soils layer from historic valley
fill. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Tables 6a and 6b in Appendix 2 present the pre- and post-restoration
conditions in detail.
This mitigation site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the New River Basin and
addresses habitat degradation, which is the primary water quality stressor described in the New River
RBRP (2009). While many of the benefits are limited to the immediate project area, others, such as
pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have
farther-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined
below as project goals and objectives. These project goals were met by giving careful consideration to
the goals and objectives described in the RBRP.
The project specific goals of the Glade Creek II Restoration Site included the following:
• Improve water quality by repairing eroding stream banks and establishing riparian buffers;
• Improve the community structure of the buffers;
• Improve stream function and habitat by re-establishing stream-to-floodplain connections;
• Restore long-term stability through the restoration of channel dimension, pattern and profile;
• Improve in-stream habitat using in-stream structures; and
• Remove exotic invasive plant species.
The project objectives have been defined as follows:

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL 1-2
• Restoration and enhancement of approximately 2,260 LF of Glade Creek;
• Restoration of 319 LF of the UT to Glade Creek;
• Preservation of 129 LF of UT to Glade Creek;
• Restoration of 0.16 acre of wetland by improving hydrologic connections;
• Preservation of 0.84 acre of existing jurisdictional wetland; and
• Establishment of riparian buffers by removing exotic invasive plants and installing a variety of
native vegetation.
The stream and wetland performance criteria for the Site follow approved performance standards
presented in the Glade Creek II Restoration Plan (Ward, 2008). Annual monitoring and semi-annual
site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream restoration and
enhancement reaches (Glade Creek and UT to Glade Creek) of the project were assigned specific
performance standards for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Wetland restoration areas
were assigned specific performance standards for wetland hydrology and vegetation. The Glade Creek
Stream Restoration Project was instituted prior to 7/28/2010; therefore, the Site will be monitored for a
minimum of five years post-construction. An additional year of monitoring (MY6) will occur in 2021 to
further assess repairs, with the Site anticipated to be presented for closeout in 2022.
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between March and November 2020 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved monitoring plan
presented in the Glade Creek II Restoration Plan (Ward, 2008).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
A total of six vegetation monitoring plots were established during baseline monitoring within the project
easement areas using a standard 10 by 10 meter or 5 by 20 meter plots. Please refer to the Current
Condition Plan View (CCPV) Figure 3 in Appendix 2 for the vegetation monitoring plot locations. The final
vegetation success criterion is the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along
restored and enhanced reaches at the end of year five of the monitoring period.
The MY5 vegetation survey was completed in August 2020, resulting in an average planted stem density
of 465 stems per acre. The Site is exceeding the MY5 density requirement of 260 planted stems, with all
six plots (100%) individually exceeding this requirement. Vegetation plot 1 has an increased stem
density compared to last year due to tag alder (Alnus serrulata) trees that have been present for at least
two growing seasons and are counted towards the final performance standard. In addition, the number
of volunteer woody stems have steadily increased each year with desired species including tag alder,
nine bark (Physocarpus opulifolius), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Approximately 50% of the monitored
stems have a health score (vigor) of 3 or greater, indicating that they are very likely to survive.
Moreover, about 28% of the monitored stems have a vigor of 2 indicating that they have fair plant
health with some damage present. Stems with a vigor of 1 that are unlikely to survive next year
accounted for roughly 2% of the monitored stems. These lower vigor ratings were due to damage from
deer, suffocation from dense herbaceous cover, and other unknown factors. Some of the tag alders that
were planted from bare root at as-built have low vigor or have died for reasons unknown. However, the
volunteer and transplant tag alders are numerous and thriving throughout the Site. Please refer to
Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activity
The MY5 vegetation monitoring and visual assessments revealed that very few areas of concern persist
on the Site. DMS contracted with a provider for invasive species treatment beginning in October 2019

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL 1-3
and continuing throughout 2020. Previously noted areas of invasive species were treated and observed
to have very few resprouts with less than 0.1% of the easement acreage currently affected by invasive
species. In addition, supplemental planting occurred within the wetland preservation area consisting of
350 tubling plants in April 2020. A visual assessment in November 2020 revealed that many planted
wooded stems in Wetland B had survived the growing season. Please refer to the CCPV Figure 3 in
Appendix 2 for vegetation areas of concern and Appendix 6 for adaptive management details.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY5 were conducted in May and June 2020. Along Glade Creek, the surveyed
longitudinal profile illustrates that bedform features are maintaining vertical stability for the majority of
the surveyed reaches. Profile dimensions for Glade Creek are showing little change between MY4 and
MY5. The longitudinal profile plot for UT to Glade Creek demonstrates the extent of aggradation that
has altered the channel profile, which is further discussed below in Section 1.2.4. Please refer to
Appendix 4 for longitudinal profiles with annual overlays and Table 13a-b for stream reach data
summaries.
Cross-section survey results indicate that channel dimensions are stable and continuing to function on
Glade Creek with minimal adjustments. As woody vegetation has become well established along the
banks, there is additional floodplain deposition from bankfull events thus slightly raising low bank
elevation and increasing the low bank height ratio (XS2). As observed in previous MYs, cross-sections
along UT to Glade Creek are representative of the significant sediment deposition and decreasing pool
depths occurring throughout the reach. The surveyed riffle cross-section along UT to Glade (XS5) has
maintained bed and bank elevations compared to MY4 and dimensions compared to MY0. Please refer
to Appendix 4 for cross-section plots with annual overlays and Table 12 for morphology summaries.
Along Glade Creek, the reachwide pebble counts show coarser materials in the riffles and fines in the
pools. The UT to Glade Creek reachwide channel materials resulted in a D50 of 0.4 mm (sand) during
MY5. This fining of sediment materials observed in MY3 has continued through MY5 for UT to Glade
Creek. Please refer to Appendix 4 for pebble count plots with annual overlays.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activity
UT to Glade Creek has continued to experience an increase in fine sediment throughout MY5. Large
bankfull events along Glade Creek are depositing sediment along the floodplain and within the channel
of UT to Glade Creek. In addition, land management activities upstream of the project are contributing
excessive sedimentation on UT to Glade Creek. At the start of UT to Glade Creek Reach 2, sediment
deposition has directed flow through Wetland D on the right floodplain of the channel resulting in active
braiding. However downstream of Wetland D, willows and alders have become more established along
the banks and have helped maintain channel form and function.
Along Glade Creek, areas of concern previously noted included an undercut brush mattress (station
22+95 to 23+50) and left bank hillslope erosion (station 24+25 to 24+75). DMS contracted with a
provider to complete repairs which included brush toe geolift, point bar regrading, and stabilization of
the hillslope. The repairs were completed in April 2020 and appear to be stable. Other small areas of
scour that were not addressed by the repair remain along Glade Creek. However, woody vegetation has
become well established in these areas causing them to be of minor concern to the ecological integrity
of the project. The remaining areas of concern are depicted on the CCPV Figure 3 in Appendix 2 and the
stream repair as-built plans are included in Appendix 6.

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL 1-4
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
A bankfull event was documented for Glade Creek and UT to Glade Creek on June 8, 2020 based on crest
gage measurements and wracklines found throughout the floodplain. In MY1 through MY5, there has
been at least five bankfull events for each reach documented in separate years. The performance
standard was met in MY2 with two bankfull flow events documented on restoration reaches and
occurring in separate years during the five-year monitoring period. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic
data and graphs.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
One groundwater monitoring gage (GWG 1) was established during baseline monitoring within the
wetland restoration area using a logging hydrology pressure transducer. The gage was installed at an
appropriate location so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels
throughout the wetland restoration area. The target performance standard for wetland hydrology
success consists of the presence of groundwater within 12 inches of the ground’s surface for 21
consecutive days (12.5%) of the defined growing season for Alleghany County (April 26th to October 11th)
under typical precipitation conditions. The Site does not contain a rainfall gage; therefore, the daily
precipitation data was collected from closest NC CRONOS Station, Sparta 3.5 SSW.
The GWG 1 recorded 169 consecutive days or 100% of the growing season; thereby exceeding the
performance standard for MY5. Each time that the groundwater gage was downloaded in MY5, standing
water was observed in the area surrounding the gage in Wetland D. This is corroborated by the
groundwater gage data which plots water levels above the ground’s surface for a majority of the
growing season. Monthly rainfall data in 2020 indicated higher than normal rainfall amounts occurred
during the months of April, May, August, and October and lower than normal rainfall amounts occurred
during March 2020. Please refer Figure 3 in Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage location, and
Appendix 5 for hydrology data and plots.
1.2.7 Wetland Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activity
One headcut was previously noted beginning in MY3 at the outflow of Wetland B where it meets Glade
Creek Reach 2 (near station 22+75). DMS contracted with a provider to complete repairs in April 2020
which included the installation of log sills for grade control at the wetland outflow. As discussed in
section 1.2.2, Wetland B had previously been noted to have poor woody stem growth and therefore
supplemental planting occurred in April 2020 with appropriate wetland tree and shrub species. Please
refer to the repair as-built plan in Appendix 6.
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
The MY5 morphological surveys and visual assessments indicate that the majority of Glade Creek
appears stable and functioning as designed; however, sediment deposition has continued to cause a loss
of channel function along a portion of UT to Glade Creek. The MY5 vegetation assessment resulted in an
average planted stem density of 465 stems per acre and is exceeding the final success criterion of 260
stems per acre. In addition, all six plots individually met this requirement. The Site’s groundwater gage
met the performance standard for MY5. The bankfull performance standard was met for the project in
MY2. The MY5 visual assessment revealed that treatments have nearly eradicated many invasive species
on the Site. In addition, wetland adaptive management activities and stream repairs that occurred in
Spring 2020 have alleviated previously noted areas of bank instability and have benefited the long-term
ecological function of the Site. An additional year of monitoring (MY6) will occur in 2021.
Summary information and data related to the 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 annual monitoring reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL 1-5
documents available on DMS’s website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
are available from DMS upon request.

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL 2-1
Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Longitudinal and cross-sectional data were collected using
a total station and were georeferenced. All Integrated Current Condition Plan View mapping was
recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using was Pathfinder
and ArcView. Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored semi-annually.
Hydrology attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003)
standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2
Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – FINAL 3-1
Section 3: REFERENCES
Confluence Engineering, P.C. (2013). Glade Creek II Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan Addendum.
NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2020. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Sparta 3.5 SSW. Accessed
November 2020.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018.
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2009. New River Basin Restoration Priorities.
Accessed from: https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/PublicFolder/Work%20With/Watershed%20Planners/New_RBRP_200
9.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). Little River and Brush Creek Local Watershed
Plan. Accessed from: https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/documents/files/LittleRiver-
BrushCrk%20LWP%20FactSheet.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. North Carolina Geology. Accessed from:
http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/mapview/
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. (2008). Glade Creek II Restoration Project Restoration Plan. NCEEP,
Raleigh, NC.

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures
05050 001 030020
050 5000103 003 0
030 4010106 003 0 03040 101 080010
05050 001 030015
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bo rdered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the gen eral public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contracto rs involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directons to Site:
From Charlotte, travel Interstate 77 North. Take Exit 83, US-21
Bypass toward Roaring Gap/Sparta. Travel on US-21
approximately 21 miles. Bear right onto Sheriff Road and travel
Sheriff Road approximately 0.4 mile. Turn right onto Fox Ridge
Road. Th e project site is located approximately 0.2 miles on the left
side of Fox Ridge Road.
¹Figure 1 Pro ject Vi ci nity Map
Gla de Creek II Restoratio n Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Mo nitoring Year 5 - 2020Alleghany Cou nty, NC
0 10.5 Mi les
Pro ject Lo cati on
Hyd rol ogi c Unit Cod e (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Gla de Creek
Reach 1
Glade Cre ek
Reach 2
UT to G la de
Cre ek Reach 1
UT to G la de
Cree k Reach 2
UT to G la de Creek
(Preservatio n)Wetlan d B
Wetland A
Wetland C
Wetland D
¹Figure 2 Pro ject Comp onent/Asset Map
Gla de Creek II Restoratio n Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Mo nitoring Year 5 - 2020
Alleg hany Cou nty, NC
0 200100 Feet
Conservation Ea sement
Overhead Powerl ine Easemen t
Wetla nd Preservati on
Wetla nd Resto ratio n
St ream Restoration
St ream E nhancement I
St ream E nhancement I; Red uced Credit
St ream Preservatio n
No Credit
No n-Project Streams
Reach Breaks2018 Ae rial Photograph
DMS Project No. 92343
Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Type R R R RE
Totals 2,140.667 0.328 N/A N/A N/A
Existing Footage/
Acreage Approach
As-Built
Stationing/
Location
Mitigation Ratio Credits
(SMU/WMU)
1200 LF P2 10+00 - 21+70 1:1 1170.000
1074 LF P2
21+70-26+41;
26+86-29+69;
30+59-32+60
1.5:1 651.667
129 LF N/A 10+00 - 11+29 5:1 25.800
197 LF P1 11+29 - 14+48 1:1 319.000
0.84 AC N/A N/A 5:1 0.168
0.16 AC N/A N/A 1:1 0.160
Buffer (square feet)Upland (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
0.16
0.84
* Stream Enhancement I credit reduced; 90 LF removed at break in conservation easement and 45 LF reduced by 50% at overhead power easement.
Enhancement I 1,090
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation 129
Wetland D Restoration (R) 0.16
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)Riparian Wetland (acres)Non-Riparian Wetland (acres)
Restoration 1,489
UT to Glade Creek Reaches 1 and 2 Restoration (R) 319
WETLANDS
Wetland A, B, C Preservation (RE)0.84
Glade Creek Reach 2*Enhancement I (R) 1,090
UT to Glade Creek Preservation Preservation (RE)129
Glade Creek Reach 1 Restoration (R) 1,170
RE
25.800 N/A
Project Components
Reach ID Restoration (R) or
Restoration Equivalent (RE)Restoration Footage/Acreage
STREAMS
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Mitigation Credits
Stream Non-Riparian Wetland Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
DMS Project No. 92343
Stream repairs and wetland supplemental planting
Invasive species treatment
April 2020
October 2020
May 2020
October 2020
Mitigation Plan December 2008 December 2008
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan Addendum January 2013 January 2013
Final Design - Construction Plans January 2015 January 2015
Construction December 2015 - April 2016 April 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 December 2015 - April 2016 April 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 December 2015 - April 2016 April 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments February 2016 February 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)January - May 2016 June 2016
Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey October 2016 December 2016Vegetation Survey October 2016
Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey May 2017 December 2017Vegetation Survey September 2017
Year 3 Monitoring Stream Survey June 2018 November 2018Vegetation Survey September 2018
Year 4 Monitoring Stream Survey May 2019 November 2019Vegetation Survey September 2019
Invasive species treatment October 2019 October 2019
Live staking for small eroded sections along Glade Creek April 2019 April 2019
Designer
Andrew Bick, PE, CFM
Confluence Engineering, PC
16 Broad Street
Asheville, NC 28806
Stream Survey June 2020
Vegetation Survey
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Vegetation SurveyYear 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
August 2020 November 2020
November 2021Stream Survey
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC Kirsten Gimbert
704.941.9093
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
PO Box 1905
Mt. Airy NC 27030
Planting Contractor
Keller Environmental
7921 Haymarket Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
PO Box 1905
Mt. Airy NC 27030
Seed Mix Sources Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT to Glade Creek Reach 1 UT to Glade Creek Reach 2
1,170 1,090 129 319
--
--- Data not provided
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Project Information
Project Name Glade Creek II Restoration Project
County Alleghany
River Basin New River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 05050001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 05050001030020
Project Area (acres)44.50
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)36° 28' 37.0878"N, -81° 3' 42.7896"W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Blue Ridge Mountains
CGIA Land Use Classification 61% Forested, 35% Agriculture/Livestock, 3% Residential/Commercial
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Glade Creek
Reach 1
Glade Creek
Reach 2
DWR Sub-basin 05-07-03
Project Drainiage Area (acres)5,120
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C; Tr
Morphological Desription (stream type)C4 B4
Underlying mapped soils Suncook
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration
Drainage area (acres)5,120 13
NCDWR stream identification score 47 31
Parameters Wetlands A, B & C Wetland D
Size of Wetland (acres)0.84 0.16
FEMA classification no regulated floodplain no regulated floodplain
Native vegetation community White Pine Plantation
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-Restoration 0%0%
Soil hydric status N/A
Source of Hydrology hillside seep
Restoration or Enhancement Method (hydrologic, vegetative, etc.)Preservation hydrologic/ vegetative
Wetland Type Riparian-Non Riverine
Underlying mapped soils Suncook
Drainage class frequently flooded, excessively drained
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable?Resolved?Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water
Quality Certification No. 3885. Action ID # 2009-00589Waters of the United States - Section 401
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
Glade Creek II Restoration Project; Ward Consulting
determined "no affect" on Alleghany County listed
endangered species
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes No recommendations received.
Yes Yes
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)Yes Yes NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit
NCG010000
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)N/A N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance N/A N/A The upper portion of Glade Creek is not currenlty mapped as
a regulated flood zone
Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek UT to Glade Creek Wetlands
Riffle Cross Section 2 1 N/A
Pool Cross Section 1 1 N/A
Pattern Pattern Yes Yes N/A See Footnote1
Profile Longitudinal Profile Yes Yes N/A Annual
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW) /
Riffle 100 Pebble Count
(RF)
RW-1, RF 1 RW-1, RF-1 N/A Annual
Stream Hydrology Crest Gage 1 1 N/A Semi-Annual
Wetland Hydrology Groundwater Gages N/A N/A Enhancement I (R) Semi-Annual
Vegetation CVS Level 2 Annual
Visual Assessment All Streams Y Y Y Semi-Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation Semi-Annual
Project Boundary Semi-Annual
Reference Photos Photographs Annual
6
9
1Pattern measurements will include sinuosity and meander width ratio and will be performed yearly. Measurements of radius of curvature will be monitored on newly
constructed meanders for the first year only.
Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity/ Length by Reach Frequency
Dimension Annual
APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
XY
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
!A
!A
Glade Cre ek
Reach 1
UT to Glade Cre ek
(Preservatio n)
Gla de Creek
Reach 2
UT to G la de Creek
Reach 2
UT to G la de Creek
Reach 1 XS 5XS 3
XS 1XS 4XS 2Wetland B
Wetland A
Wetla nd C
GW G
CG 2CG 1
3
8
9
7
6
5
4
2
1 4
3
5
6
2
1
Wetland D
¹Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View Map
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS P roject No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020Alleghany Cou nty, NC
0 100 200 Feet
Conservation Ea sement
Overhead Powerline Easement
Gate
Wetland Preservation
Wetland Restoration
Strea m Restoration
Strea m Enhancement I
Strea m Enhancement I; Reduced Credit
Strea m Preservat ion
No Credit
Non-Project Streams
Reach Break
Bankfull
Cross-Section (XS)
GF Photo Points
!A Groundwater Gage (GWG )
!A Crest G age (CG)
Vegetation Monitoring Plot - MY5
Critera Met
Areas of Concern - M Y5
Multiflora Rose
Bank instability
Sediment deposit ion
XY Headcut
2018 Aerial P hoto gra ph
Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 1 18 99%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 9 9 100%
Depth Sufficient 6 6 100%
Length Appropriate 6 6 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)6 6 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)6 6 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
3 35 99%3 35 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3 35 99%3 35 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.7 7 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.7 7 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. 7 7 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
7 7 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek (2,260 LF)
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 1 160 64%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 2 5 40%
Depth Sufficient 2 4 50%
Length Appropriate 2 4 50%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)2 2 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)2 2 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.7 7 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.7 7 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. 7 7 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
4 7 57%
2Applicable to only 2 meander bends because the other 2 meander bends are being impacted by sedimentation and the stream has braided.
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position2
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT to Glade Creek (448 LF)
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Planted Acreage 6.4
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0.00 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas1 Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem count
criteria.0.1 0 0.000 0.0%
0 0.0 0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor1 Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
year.0.25 0 0.0 0%
0 0.0 0.0%
Easement Acreage 12.8
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1000 2 0.01 0.1%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0 0%
Total
Cumulative Total
1Acreage calculated from vegetation plots monitored for site.

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1 – view upstream UT Glade Creek (06/04/2020) Photo Point 1 – view downstream UT Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Photo Point 2 – view upstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020) Photo Point 2 – view downstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Photo Point 2 – view upstream UT Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Photo Point 3 – view upstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020) Photo Point 3 – view downstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Photo Point 4 – view upstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020) Photo Point 4 – view downstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Photo Point 5 – view upstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020) Photo Point 5 – view downstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Photo Point 6 – view upstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020) Photo Point 6 – view downstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Photo Point 7 – view upstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020) Photo Point 7 – view downstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Photo Point 8 – view upstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020) Photo Point 8 – view downstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Photo Point 9 – view upstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020) Photo Point 9 – view downstream Glade Creek (06/04/2020)

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1 - (08/20/2020) Vegetation Plot 2 - (08/20/2020)

Vegetation Plot 3 - (08/20/2020) Vegetation Plot 4 - (08/20/2020)

Vegetation Plot 5 - (08/20/2020) Vegetation Plot 6 - (08/20/2020)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
6
Mimi Caddell
9/25/2020 11:08
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Glade MY5.mdb
L:\ActiveProjects\005-02161 Glade Creek II Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 5\Vegetation Assessment
MIMI-PC
52371456
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Damage
92343
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
6
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
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 natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
Project Code
project Name
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Description
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
Report Prepared By
Date Prepared
Database Name
Database Location
Computer Name
File Size
Metadata
Proj, planted
Proj, total stems
Plots
Vigor
Vigor by Spp
Plot MY5 Success Criteria Met
(Y/N)Tract Mean
1 Y
100%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
Table 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 3 3 3 15
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 2 2 2 1 1 7 3 2 2 5 1 1 36 6 6 26
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Shrub Tree
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel Shrub Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 3 3 3 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2
Physocarpus opulifolius Nine bark Shrub Tree 9 5 5 25 10 35
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 2 3 3 3
Quercus rubra Red Oak Tree 1
Salix Willow Tree
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree 1 1 5
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree
8 8 17 13 13 24 14 14 24 13 13 42 11 11 71 10 10 70
4 4 5 7 7 8 4 4 8 7 7 9 5 5 7 4 4 6
324 324 688 526 526 971 567 567 971 526 526 1700 445 445 2873 405 405 2833
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1 1
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
1
0.0247
Stem count
size (ares)1 1 1
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
92343-WEI-0001 92343-WEI-0002 92343-WEI-0003 92343-WEI-0004 92343-WEI-0005 92343-WEI-0006
Current Plot Data (MY5 2020)
Table 10b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 3 3 18 3 3 8 3 3 23 3 3 4 3 3 3 6 6 6
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 12 12 79 12 12 55 12 12 74 12 12 57 13 13 20 14 14 14
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam Shrub Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Shrub Tree 1
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 3
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel Shrub Tree 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 16 16 16 18 18 19 21 21 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 28 28 28
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 7 7 7
Physocarpus opulifolius Nine bark Shrub Tree 89 73
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 22 22 22
Quercus rubra Red Oak Tree 1 1
Salix Willow Tree 5
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree 7
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree 3 3 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
69 69 248 77 77 206 81 81 167 86 86 132 91 91 99 110 110 110
9 9 12 10 10 13 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10
465 465 1673 519 519 1389 546 546 1126 580 580 890 614 614 668 742 742 742
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
6
Annual Summary
MY2 (2017)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
MY4 (2019)MY3 (2018)MY1 (2016)MY0 (2016)MY5 (2020)
0.148
Stem count
Stems per ACRE
6
size (ACRES)0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148
6size (ares)6 6 6
Species count
APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)17.7 38.5 5.2 9.9 36.3 48.8 6.2 11.1 34.6 37.4
Floodprone Width (ft)47 115 7 12 69 118 14 46 99 165 22 33 106 111
Bankfull Mean Depth 2.6 2.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.5 1.9 2.2
Bankfull Max Depth 2.9 4.1 0.5 0.8 1.9 1.9 0.8 1.6 2.9 3.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)46.9 79.0 2.1 5.1 45.6 64.1 3.8 5.1 70.2 77.1
Width/Depth Ratio 6.7 18.8 17.3 26.8 40.3 37.2 6.9 24.2 15.5 19.9
Entrenchment Ratio 2.7 3.1 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.3 4.1 3.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 2.8 3.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1
D50 (mm)28.0 31.0 7.0 7.0 44.0 47.0 7.0 7.0 28.0 31.0
Riffle Length (ft)33 57 6.8 32.6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0087 0.0271 0.0193 0.0964
Pool Length (ft)64.0 197.8 8.8 32.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)4.4 6.6 0.7 1.5 3.3 4.1 0.8 1.0 3.8 5.9
Pool Spacing (ft)107 353 33.0 70.0
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)60 240 7 16 ------19 26 112 205 155 282
Radius of Curvature (ft)21 114 ------------59.0 99.0 59.0 99.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.2 3.0 ------------3.2 5.9 1.8 3.0 1.8 3.0
Meander Length (ft)1 ------------------------------230 425
Meander Width Ratio 3.4 6.2 1.3 1.6 ------2.5 3.5 3.4 6.2 3.1 7.0 4.5 7.5 3.1 7.0
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.52 0.82 0.11 0.12
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)3.8 5.3 3.8 4.9 3.1 4.4 4.5 6.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)250 300 8 25
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings 213 320 153 228
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1Meander Wave Length was adjusted in the MY2 report.
2 Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg
0.0031 0.0326------------------
1.60 1.16
0.0038 0.048 0.0049 0.0473 0.0038 0.0440 0.0031 0.0397
1.68 1.04 1.18 1.09 1.68 1.14
1,322 280
1200 197 ------2,120 197 2,120 326
------------1,322 280
8
561 4 335
493 5 352
------
3.9 4.7 ------
200 23 300 8 ------
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A
8.00 0.02 4.60 0.05 8.00 0.02 8.00 0.02
------
E4/C4 F4/B4 C4 C4/B4 C4 B4 C4 B4
------------
-/-/3.1/8.6/11.0/16.0 ----/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/8.0 0.1/3.0/8.8/77/180/-1/26.47/42.3/128/180/>2048
150
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
N/A 0.11/0.63/13.3/176/241.4/>2048
------0.48
------------
Pattern
N/A
17 75.0
30 30 30
5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0
N/A
------------
------------
------5 ---
0.8 5.0 1.5
Glade Creek UT to Glade Creek
11.4
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
7.0 90.0 32.0
76.5 1.7 2.4
14.2 17.4 11.8
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
N/A
33.0 5.4 5.3
61
Pre-Restoration Condition Reference Reach Data Design As-Built/Baseline
Glade Creek UT to Glade Creek Glade Creek Restoration UT to Little Pine Trib 1 Glade Creek
2.3 0.3 0.5
3.0 0.4 0.9
UT to Glade Creek
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Dimension and Substrate MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
bankfull elevation (ft)2571.8 2571.8 2571.8 2572.0 2572.3 2572.5 2569.7 2569.7 2569.7 2570.0 2570.1 2570.2 2569.8 2569.8 2569.8 2569.9 2570.2 2569.9
low bank elevation (ft)2571.8 2571.8 2571.3 2571.9 2572.1 2572.5 2569.7 2569.7 2569.8 2570.1 2570.6 2570.9 2569.8 2569.8 2569.6 2569.9 2570.2 2569.9
Bankfull Width (ft)37.4 34.4 38.7 34.4 32.2 32.6 34.6 35.0 36.2 36.2 38.4 37.0 31.9 30.0 32.5 32.2 35.2 31.0
Floodprone Width (ft)106 106 102 101 102 107 111 110 93 104 104 96 ------------------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)70.2 66.9 70.2 64.0 63.1 69.4 77.1 78.0 77.6 79.2 95.9 101.6 89.0 88.4 91.5 87.9 99.7 88.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 19.9 17.7 21.3 18.4 16.4 15.4 15.5 15.7 16.9 16.5 15.4 13.5 11.5 10.2 11.6 11.7 12.4 10.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.6 ------------------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1,2,3 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 ------------------
Dimension and Substrate MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
bankfull elevation (ft)2574.0 2574.0 2574.0 2574.3 2574.4 2574.5 2573.6 2573.6 2573.6 2573.7 2574.0 2574.0
low bank elevation (ft)2574.3 2574.3 2574.1 2574.3 2574.4 2574.5 2573.6 2573.5 2573.5 2573.7 2574.1 2574.1
Bankfull Width (ft)5.3 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.9 5.1 5.3 6.1 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)------------------61 61 61 36 37 35
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.9 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.5 1.3 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.7 5.5 4.9 2.6 2.1 1.1 2.4 2.7 3.1 2.2 2.8 2.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 6.0 9.6 10.1 18.0 29.8 24.5 11.8 13.5 11.4 17.8 13.5 15.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------------------11.4 10.0 10.3 5.8 6.0 5.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1,2,3 ------------------1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
---: not applicable
1Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
3BHRs that increased in MY4 were primarily due to additional floodplain deposition and not enlargement of the original baseline cross-section.
2MY3-MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions
are calculated based on the current year's low bank height. MY3 dimensions were updated in MY4.
Cross-Section 1, Glade Creek (Riffle)Cross-Section 2, Glade Creek (Riffle)Cross-Section 3, Glade Creek (Pool)
Cross-Section 4, UT to Glade Creek (Pool)Cross-Section 5, UT to Glade Creek (Riffle)
Table 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)34.6 37.4 34.4 35.0 36.2 38.7 34.4 36.2 32.2 38.4 32.6 37.0
Floodprone Width (ft)106 111 97 106 93.3 102.0 101 104 102 104 96 107
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 1.8 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.1 2.7
Bankfull Max Depth 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.9 3.5 3.0 3.9 3.3 4.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)70.2 77.1 66.9 78.0 70.2 77.6 64 79.2 63.1 95.9 69.4 101.6
Width/Depth Ratio 15.5 19.9 15.7 17.7 16.9 21.3 16.5 18.4 15.4 16.4 13.5 15.4
Entrenchment Ratio 2.8 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.2 2.6 3.3
Bank Height Ratio 2,3 <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2
D50 (mm)39.8 47.7 46.5 52.5 44.0 52.8 52.0 53.7
Riffle Length (ft)33 57 20 57 20 85 19 80 21 105 36 98
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0087 0.0271 0.0065 0.0235 0.0011 0.0181 0.0012 0.0162 0.0014 0.0189 0.0031 0.0215
Pool Length (ft)64 198 66 190 62 222 56 240 65 229 55 224
Pool Max Depth (ft)3.8 5.9 4.4 5.4 3.7 5.8 4.1 6.4 4.2 5.8
Pool Spacing (ft)107 353 91 384 90 337 86 391 88 304 108 327
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)155 282 155 280 155 283 155 283 155 283 155 283
Radius of Curvature (ft)59.0 99.0 59.0 99.0 59.0 99.0 59.0 99.0 59.0 99.0 59.0 99.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.8 3.0 1.7 2.8 1.5 2.7 1.6 2.9 1.5 3.1 1.6 3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)230 425 227 435 216 445 216 445 216 445 216 445
Meander Width Ratio 4.5 7.5 4.5 8.0 4.2 7.3 4.2 7.3 4.2 7.3 4.2 7.3
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1Meander Wave Length was adjusted for MY0 and MY1 in the MY2 report.
2Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
3MY3-MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull
dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height. MY3 dimensions were updated in MY4.
MY6
Additional Reach Parameters
Pattern1
Profile
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
MY5MY4
2.6
1.0 1.0 1.0
90.0 34.3
4.2
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3
C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4
1.60
2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120
1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60
0.0030
0.0031 0.0030 0.0027 0.0027 0.0031 0.0029
0.0031 0.0031 0.0030 0.0025 0.0032
2%
1/26.47/42.3/128/180/>20435/19.49/30.4/97.6/137/2564/12.5/29.6/75.6/115.5/3623/11.0/27.6/109.5/172.5/51.2/0.6/11.0/64.0/113.8/256 6.1/19/33/85/155.5/256
0%0%2%6%8%
Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT to Glade Creek
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio 1,2
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)6.8 32.6 17.3 51.4 5.0 42.0 3.0 24.8 7.1 29.6 3.7 18.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0193 0.0964 0.0118 0.0866 0.0148 0.1416 0.0170 0.1410 0.0351 0.0646 0.0076 0.1027
Pool Length (ft)8.8 32.9 15.6 32.6 3.0 5.0 5.0 14.7 4.6 10.0 3.6 21.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.1 2.4 1.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 0.8 1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)33.0 70.0 38.8 84.0 16 99 13 68 13 229 10 82
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio 3.1 7.0 3.1 7.0 3.1 7.0 3.1 7.0 3.1 7.0 3.1 7.0
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
2MY3-MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull
dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height. MY3 dimensions were updated in MY4.
Profile
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
MY6
5.3 6.1 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.5
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4
61 32 61 36 37 35
2.4 2.7 3.1 2.2 2.8 2.8
0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8
11.4 5.3 10.3 5.8 6.0 5.3
11.8 13.5 11.4 17.8 13.5 15.3
32.0 22.6 0.7 Silt/Clay 0.1 0.1
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
75.0 75.0 75.0
30 30 30
1.5 1.3
75.0
30
75.0
30
75.0
30
B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4
5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0
150 150 150
5.5-6.0
150
5.5-6.0
150
5.5-6.0
150
1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16
326 326 326 326 326 326
0.0326 0.0317 0.0318 0.0362 0.0337 0.0333
0.0397 0.0372 0.0323 0.0342 0.0261 0.0348
0%0%0%0%0%0%
11/0.63/13.3/176/241.4/>2019/4.65/11.9/124.6/163.3/2.2/0.4/0.8/111.2/151.8/256SC/SC/0.2/101.9/128.0/180.SC/0.1/0.3/16.0/41.3/180.0 0.1/0.2/0.4/3.1/22.6/180
DMS Project No. 92343
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek Reach 1 and 2 (STA 10+00 - STA 31+20)XS 1XS 2XS 3Reach
Break
2560
2562
2564
2566
2568
2570
2572
2574
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150Elevation (feet)Station (feet)
TW (MY0-05/2016)TW (MY1-09/2016)TW (MY2-5/2017)TW (MY3-6/2018)TW (MY4-4/2019)TW (MY5-6/2020)WSF (MY5-6/2020)BKF (MY5-6/2020)STRUCTURE (MY5-6/2020)
2560
2562
2564
2566
2568
2570
2572
2574
2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750 2800 2850 2900 2950 3000 3050 3100 3150 3200 3250 3300Elevation (feet)Station (feet)
TW (MY0-05/2016)TW (MY1-09/2016)TW (MY2-5/2017)TW (MY3-6/2018)TW (MY4-4/2019)TW (MY5-6/2020)WSF (MY5-6/2020)BKF (MY5-6/2020)STRUCTURE (MY5-6/2020)
DMS Project No. 92343
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
UT Glade Creek (STA 11+29 - STA 14+48)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Reach
Break
Stream Braiding Start2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
1125 1150 1175 1200 1225 1250 1275 1300Elevation (feet)Station (feet)
TW (MY0-05/2016)TW (MY1-09/2016)TW (MY2-5/2017)TW (MY3-6/2018)TW (MY4-4/2019)TW (MY5-6/2020)WSF (MY5-6/2020)BKF (MY5-6/2020)STRUCTURE (MY5-6/2020)XS 4XS 5Stream Braiding End2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450Elevation (feet)Station (feet)
TW (MY0-05/2016)TW (MY1-09/2016)TW (MY2-5/2017)TW (MY3-6/2018)TW (MY4-4/2019)TW (MY5-6/2020)WSF (MY5-6/2020)BKF (MY5-6/2020)
DMS Project No. 92343
Cross-Section 1 - Glade Creek
Bankfull Dimensions
69.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
32.6 width (ft)
2.1 mean depth (ft)
3.3 max depth (ft)
34.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4 width-depth ratio
107 W flood prone area (ft)
3.3 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:6/2020
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Cross-Section Plots
2568
2570
2572
2574
2576
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
12+28 Riffle
MY0 (5/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (5/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY4 (4/2019)MY5 (6/2020)
Bankfull (6/2020)Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
DMS Project No. 92343
Cross-Section 2 - Glade Creek
Bankfull Dimensions
101.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
37.0 width (ft)
2.7 mean depth (ft)
4.1 max depth (ft)
39.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5 width-depth ratio
95.9 W flood prone area (ft)
2.6 entrenchment ratio
1.2 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:06/2020
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Cross-Section Plots
2566
2568
2570
2572
2574
2576
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
19+64 Riffle
MY0 (5/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (5/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY4 (4/2019)MY5 (6/2020)
Bankfull (6/2020)Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
DMS Project No. 92343
Cross-Section 3 - Glade Creek
Bankfull Dimensions
88.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
31.0 width (ft)
2.8 mean depth (ft)
4.3 max depth (ft)
33.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.9 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:6/2020
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Cross-Section Plots
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
View Downstream
2565
2567
2569
2571
2573
2575
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
20+85 Pool
MY0 (5/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (5/2017)MY3 (6/2018)MY4 (4/2019)MY5 (6/2020)Bankfull (6/2020)
DMS Project No. 92343
Cross-Section 4 - UT to Glade Creek
Bankfull Dimensions
1.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.1 width (ft)
0.2 mean depth (ft)
0.3 max depth (ft)
5.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
24.5 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:6/2020
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Cross-Section Plots
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
View Downstream
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
70 80 90 100 110 120Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
12+48 Pool
MY0 (5/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (5/2017)MY3 (6/2018)MY4 (4/2019)MY5 (6/2020)Bankfull (6/2020)
DMS Project No. 92343
Cross-Section 5 - UT to Glade Creek
Bankfull Dimensions
2.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.5 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
6.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.3 width-depth ratio
34.8 W flood prone area (ft)
5.3 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:6/2020
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Cross-Section Plots
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
View Downstream
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
90 100 110 120 130Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
13+50 Riffle
MY0 (5/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (5/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY4 (4/2019)MY5 (6/2020)
Bankfull (6/2020)Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 1 1 1
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)Reach SummaryParticle Count
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 1 2
Medium 0.25 0.50 1 7 8 8 10
Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 3 3 13
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 2 15SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 15
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 15
Fine 4.0 5.6 15
Fine 5.6 8.0 4 4 4 19
Medium 8.0 11.0 1 6 7 7 26
Medium 11.0 16.0 1 5 6 6 32
Coarse 16.0 22.6 1 5 6 6 38
Coarse 22.6 32 9 1 10 10 48
Very Coarse 32 45 17 5 22 22 70
Very Coarse 45 64 6 3 9 9 79GRAVEL
Small 64 90 4 2 6 6 85
Small 90 128 5 1 6 6 91
Large 128 180 3 4 7 7 98
Large 180 256 1 1 2 2 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
256.0
Channel materials (mm)
6.1
19.0
33.0
85.0
155.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
Glade Creek, Reachwide
Glade Creek, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
min max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek, Cross-Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)SummaryRiffle 100-
Count
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0
Fine 0.125 0.250 0
Medium 0.25 0.50 0
Coarse 0.5 1.0 0
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 0SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 0
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1
Fine 4.0 5.6 1
Fine 5.6 8.0 1
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 3
Medium 11.0 16.0 4 4 7
Coarse 16.0 22.6 7
Coarse 22.6 32 7 7 14
Very Coarse 32 45 29 29 43
Very Coarse 45 64 17 17 60GRAVEL
Small 64 90 27 27 87
Small 90 128 7 7 94
Large 128 180 4 4 98
Large 180 256 2 2 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
Cross-Section 1BOULDERTotal
256.0
Channel materials (mm)
32.8
41.0
52.0
86.7
139.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
Glade Creek, Cross-Section 1
Glade Creek, Cross-Section 1
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
min max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek, Cross-Section 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)SummaryRiffle 100-
Count
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0
Fine 0.125 0.250 0
Medium 0.25 0.50 0
Coarse 0.5 1.0 0
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 0SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 0
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 0
Fine 4.0 5.6 0
Fine 5.6 8.0 0
Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 1
Medium 11.0 16.0 2 2 3
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 2 5
Coarse 22.6 32 12 12 17
Very Coarse 32 45 21 21 38
Very Coarse 45 64 24 24 62GRAVEL
Small 64 90 14 14 76
Small 90 128 12 12 88
Large 128 180 12 12 100
Large 180 256 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
Cross-Section 2BOULDERTotal
180.0
Channel materials (mm)
31.1
42.9
53.7
113.8
156.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
Glade Creek, Cross-Section 2
Glade Creek, Cross-Section 2
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 6 5 11 11 11
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT to Glade Creek, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)Reach SummaryParticle Count
Very fine 0.062 0.125 4 8 12 12 23
Fine 0.125 0.250 6 9 15 15 38
Medium 0.25 0.50 9 14 23 23 61
Coarse 0.5 1.0 4 3 7 7 68
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 5 2 7 7 75SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 75
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 75
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 3 3 78
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 4 4 82
Medium 8.0 11.0 3 2 5 5 87
Medium 11.0 16.0 4 4 4 91
Coarse 16.0 22.6 4 4 4 95
Coarse 22.6 32 2 2 2 97
Very Coarse 32 45 1 1 1 98
Very Coarse 45 64 98GRAVEL
Small 64 90 98
Small 90 128 1 1 1 99
Large 128 180 1 1 1 100
Large 180 256 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
180.0
Channel materials (mm)
0.1
0.2
0.4
9.1
22.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT to Glade Creek, Reachwide
UT to Glade Creek, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
min max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 30 30 30
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT to Glade Creek, Cross-Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)SummaryRiffle 100-
Count
Very fine 0.062 0.125 20 20 50
Fine 0.125 0.250 50
Medium 0.25 0.50 20 20 70
Coarse 0.5 1.0 30 30 100
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 100SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 100
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 100
Fine 4.0 5.6 100
Fine 5.6 8.0 100
Medium 8.0 11.0 100
Medium 11.0 16.0 100
Coarse 16.0 22.6 100
Coarse 22.6 32 100
Very Coarse 32 45 100
Very Coarse 45 64 100GRAVEL
Small 64 90 100
Small 90 128 100
Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
Cross Section 5BOULDERTotal
1.0
Channel materials (mm)
Silt/Clay
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0 (05/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (05/2017)MY3 (07/2018)MY4 (05/2019)MY5-06/2020
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT to Glade Creek, Cross-Section 5
UT to Glade Creek, Cross-Section 5
APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Glade Creek, UT
Reach MY of
Occurrence
Date of
Occurrence
Date of Data
Collection Method
MY1 6/27/2016 10/4/2016 Crest Gage
MY2 10/9/2017 12/4/2017 Wrackline
MY3 2/11/2018 4/2/2018 Wrackline
MY4 2/24/2019 3/11/2019 Crest Gage
MY5 5/21/2020 6/8/2020 Wrackline
MY1 6/27/2016 10/4/2016 Crest Gage
MY2 10/9/2017 12/5/2017 Wrackline
MY3 2/11/2018 4/2/2018 Crest Gage
MY4 2/24/2019 3/11/2019 Crest Gage
MY5 5/21/2020 6/8/2020 Crest Gage
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY4 (2019)MY5 (2020)
1 Yes/127 Days
(75.6%)
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
Wetland success criteria is 12.5% of growing season (21 consecutive days).
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for MY5
Gage Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (%)
Glade Creek
UT
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland D
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Start of Growing Season
4/26/2020
End of Growing Season
10/11/2020169 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 -2020
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 Criteria Level
Glade Creek Groundwater Gage #1
Monthly Rainfall Data
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
1 2020 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Sparta 3.5 SSW (NCSU, 2020)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2020)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20Precipitation (in)Date
Glade Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Alleghany County, NC
NC CRONOS Sparta 3.5 SSW 30th percentile 70th percentile
APPENDIX 6. Adaptive Management Activities
Glade Creek II Stream Restoration Repairs  Page 1 
As‐Built Memorandum 

As‐Built Memorandum 
Prepared for: North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NC DMS) 
Project Title: Glade Creek II Restoration Project Repairs 
Project No: DMS No. 92343 
Wildlands No. W02188  
Date: May 8, 2020 

The Glade Creek II Restoration Project was constructed in 2015.  During the 2019 IRT post‐construction field 
review of the site, several areas were determined in need of repair.  These areas included: 
1. Wetland B: outlet headcut (approximate Glade Creek as‐built stream station 22+75) and poor woody 
stem growth (0.74 acres) 
2. Undercut brush mattress (approximate Glade Creek as‐built stream station 22+95 to 23+50) 
3. Left bank hillslope erosion (approximate Glade Creek as‐built stream 24+25 to 24+75) 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) submitted a repair plan for the above areas to NC DMS on April 7, 2020 
and received plan approval on April 14, 2020.  Wildlands Construction mobilized to the site on April 15, 2020 and 
demobilized on April 17, 2020.  Wildlands installed live stakes on April 22, 2020 and Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. 
planted tublings, containers, and bare root species on April 25, 2020.   
Changes made to the construction plans are detailed on the attached As‐Built plan set.  Planted woody species 
deviated from the plan based on nursery availability.  Installed species by area and quantity are detailed below.   
Riparian Area 
Scientific Name Common Name Type Quantity 
Nyssa sylvatica Black gum Bare Root 10 
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Bare Root 30 
Hamamelis virginiana Witch hazel Bare Root 25 
Acer rubrum Red maple Bare Root 40 
Betula nigra River birch Bare Root 40 
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Bare Root 40 
Container 5 
Salix nigra Black willow Bare Root 15 
Live stake 60‐80 
Liriodendron tulipifera Yellow poplar Container 5 
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Container 5 
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry Container 5 
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Container 5 
Wetland Area 
Scientific Name Common Name Type Quantity 
Viburnum nudum Possumhaw viburnum Tubling 76 
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Tubling 76 
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Tubling 76 
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Tubling 77 
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry Tubling 45 
Glade Creek II Stream Restoration Repairs  Page 2 
As‐Built Memorandum 

Brush toe geolift repair, left bank looking downstream Brush toe geolift repair area from right bank, looking 
downstream 

Wetland B outlet steps Point bar grading and hillslope repair 

Wetland B planting Construction access route stabilization 

Glade Creek II Stream Restoration Repairs  Page 3 
As‐Built Memorandum 
Appendix A: 

As‐Built Plan Sheets 
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]License No. F-08310'40' 80' 120'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\Shared\Projects\W02188_Glade_Repair\Cadd\Reference\02188-Design.dwgApril 7, 2020Planting ListScientific NameCommon NameSpecies TypeAcer rubrum*Red MapleTreeAlnus serrulataTag AlderShrub TreeCarpinus carolinianaAmerican Hornbeam Shrub TreeCercis canadensisEastern Redbud Shrub TreeCornus amomumSilky DogwoodShrub TreeDiospyros virginianaAmerican PersimmonTreeFraxinus pennsylvanica*Green AshTreeHamamelis virginianaWitch-hazel Shrub TreeLirodendron tulipiferaTulip PoplarTreeNyssa sylvaticaBlack GumTreePhysocarpus opulifoliusNine Bark Shrub TreePlatanus occidentalisSycamoreTreeQuercus rubraRed OakTreeSalixWillowTreeSambucus canadensisCommon ElderberryShrub Tree*No more than 5% of plantingPlanting shall be a mix of bare root and up to 25 container plants within the limits of disturbance.Supplemental plants in the wetland area shall be bare roots.W02188JCKCDBEGR1April 8, 200Glade Creek II RepairAlleghany County, North CarolinaDetailsNote:Permanent Riparian seeding inall disturbed areas withinConservation EasementBuffer Planting ZoneSpeciesCommon Name StratumDensity (lbs/acre)Panicum rigidulumRedtop PanicgrassHerb1Chasmanthium latifoliumRiver Oats Herb1Elymus virginianaVirginia Wild RyeHerb 3Dichanthelium clandestinumDeertongueHerb 3Sorghastrum nutansIndiangrassHerb 3Schizachyrium scopariumLittle Bluestem Herb2Panicum virgatumSwitchgrassHerb1Rudbeckia hirtaBlackeyed SusanHerb1Bidens aristosaShowy TickseedSunflower Herb1Helianthus angustifoliusNarrowleaf Sunflower Herb 0.6Coreopsis lanceolataLanceleaf CoreopsisHerb1Chamaecrista fasciculataPartridge PeaHerb1Heliopsis helianthoides var.helianthoidesOxeye SunflowerHerb1Juncus tenuisPath Rush Herb 0.4Approved DateTypePlanting Rate(lbs/acre)Jan 1 - May 1Rye Grain (Secale cereale)120Ground AgriculturalLimestone200010-10-10 Fertilizer750Straw Mulch4000May 1 - Aug 15German Millet (Setariaitalica)40Ground AgriculturalLimestone200010-10-10 Fertilizer750Straw Mulch4000Aug 15 - Dec 30Rye Grain (Secale cereale)120Ground AgriculturalLimestone200010-10-10 Fertilizer1000Straw Mulch4000OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOACCESS ROADSUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGIN WETLAND AREA.SEE LIST THIS SHEETTIMBER LARGE TREES ON HILL SLOPE.TERRACE HILLSIDE SLOPE FAILURE.SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 2REPLACE BRUSH MATTRESSWITH BRUSH TOE TOPPEDWITH VEGETATED GEOLIFTSEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 2REPAIR ROCK SILLS.SEE DETAIL 4, SHEET 2GRADE POINT BAR AT 5:1TRIM OVERHANGING VEGETATION.USE VEGETATION IN BRUSH TOE REPAIR.FILL AREA BEHINDLOG VANEINSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCESEE DETAIL 1, SHEET 2Tree removedScour hole in bankbackfilled withstoneArea gradedreduced slightly toavoid vegetationplot 62 log sills replacedupper 2 rock sillsdue to materialavailabilitySee as-builtmemorandum forinstalled species listAs Built Redlines - 5/8/20
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831X:\Shared\Projects\W02188_Glade_Repair\Cadd\Reference\02188-Design.dwgApril 7, 2020W02188JCKCDBEGR2April 8, 200Glade Creek II RepairAlleghany County, North CarolinaDetailsNOTES:1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).2. INSTALL BASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW ATINTERVALS ALONG BANK, RESTING ON TOP OF PARALLELBASE LOGS. BASE LOGS SHALL BE 4"-6” DIAMETER.3. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS,WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTSCOLLECTED ON-SITE AND SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE.LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.4. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLYPARALLEL AND IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLYUPSTREAM.5. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.6. INSTALL A LAYER OF LIVE WHIPS ABOVE BRUSH.7. BOTTOM OF FIRST COMPACTED EARTH LIFT TO BE PLACED6" ABOVE NORMAL BASEFLOW.8. NUMBER OF COMPACTED EARTH LIFTS TO VARYDEPENDING ON DESIGN TOP OF BANK HEIGHT.9. SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTINGAND BANK STABILIZATION PER PLANS.Plan ViewTOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)Section A-A'BASE LOG4"-6" DIAMETERDENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOILEROSION CONTROL MATTINGBACKFILL IN 12" LIFTS.WRAP MATTING AT EACH LIFTDENSELY PACK BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOILIN BETWEEN BASE LOGSBASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOWTOE OF SLOPE2' MIN5'BRUSH MATERIAL TO BEINSTALLED FLUSHWITH BANKFLOWAA'EROSION CONTROL MATTINGTOP OF BANK (TYP)TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)TOP OF BANK (TYP)BASE LOGS PARALLEL TO FLOWBACKFILLNATIVE SOILELEV. 6" BELOWPOOL DEPTHELEV. 1' ABOVEDOWNSTREAMRIFFLE INVERTFILTER FABRICWIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS6"Brush ToeNot to Scale3250'16'PUBLIC ROADCLASS A STONE8" MIN. DEPTHNOTES:1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TOACCOMMODATE LARGE TRUCKS.5. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS OFINGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED.PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE DEVICE ANDTIMELY MAINTENANCE.6. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILLPREVENT TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTOSTREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH STONE WILLBE NECESSARY.7. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUSTBE CLEANED IMMEDIATELY.8. USE CLASS A STONE OR OTHER COARSE AGGREGATEAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.9. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.12Construction EntranceNot to Scale22Terrace SlopeNot to ScalePROPOSED GRADETO BE TERRACED PERENGINEER'S DIRECTIONEXISTING GROUNDEXISTING WATER LINETIMBERED LOGS TOBE EMBEDDED AT EACHTERRACEFLOWTOE OF SLOPE (TYP)Plan ViewAA'BB'Profile A-A'EMBED 5'INTOBANK (TYP)Section B-B'SILL ELEVATIONPER PROFILETOP OF BANK (TYP)SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILETOP OF BANK5'FILTER FABRICEXTEND FILTERFABRIC 5' MIN.UPSTREAMCLASS 2 HEADER STONEFOOTER BOULDERCAN BE SUBSTITUTED WITH MIX OFBALLAST,No. 57, CLASS A/B/I MATERIALWITH ENGINEER'S APPROVALSection B-B'6" SALVAGED ONSITECOBBLE/GRAVELBED MATERIALENSURE BOULDERSOR ROCK BACKFILLTRAVELS UP BANK SLOPEA MINIMUM OF 1'1' MINMIXED STONE TOE OR BRUSH PACKIF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEERIN THE FIELDBANKS SHALL BE RAKED,SEEDED WITH A TEMPORARY MIXOF PEARL HEADED MILLET ANDFESCUE, AMENDED WITH FERTILIZERAND THAN MATTED OVER WITH700G EROSION CONTROL MATTING42Rock SillNot to ScaleRow of alder transplantsinstalled along top.As Built Redlines - 5/8/20
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831X:\Shared\Projects\W02188_Glade_Repair\Cadd\Reference\02188-Design.dwgApril 7, 2020W02188JCKCDBEGR2April 8, 200Glade Creek II RepairAlleghany County, North CarolinaDetailsNOTES:1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).2. INSTALL BASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW ATINTERVALS ALONG BANK, RESTING ON TOP OF PARALLELBASE LOGS. BASE LOGS SHALL BE 4"-6” DIAMETER.3. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS,WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTSCOLLECTED ON-SITE AND SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE.LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.4. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLYPARALLEL AND IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLYUPSTREAM.5. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.6. INSTALL A LAYER OF LIVE WHIPS ABOVE BRUSH.7. BOTTOM OF FIRST COMPACTED EARTH LIFT TO BE PLACED6" ABOVE NORMAL BASEFLOW.8. NUMBER OF COMPACTED EARTH LIFTS TO VARYDEPENDING ON DESIGN TOP OF BANK HEIGHT.9. SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTINGAND BANK STABILIZATION PER PLANS.Plan ViewTOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)Section A-A'BASE LOG4"-6" DIAMETERDENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOILEROSION CONTROL MATTINGBACKFILL IN 12" LIFTS.WRAP MATTING AT EACH LIFTDENSELY PACK BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOILIN BETWEEN BASE LOGSBASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOWTOE OF SLOPE2' MIN5'BRUSH MATERIAL TO BEINSTALLED FLUSHWITH BANKFLOWAA'EROSION CONTROL MATTINGTOP OF BANK (TYP)TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)TOP OF BANK (TYP)BASE LOGS PARALLEL TO FLOWBACKFILLNATIVE SOILELEV. 6" BELOWPOOL DEPTHELEV. 1' ABOVEDOWNSTREAMRIFFLE INVERTFILTER FABRICWIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS6"Brush ToeNot to Scale3250'16'PUBLIC ROADCLASS A STONE8" MIN. DEPTHNOTES:1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TOACCOMMODATE LARGE TRUCKS.5. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS OFINGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED.PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE DEVICE ANDTIMELY MAINTENANCE.6. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILLPREVENT TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTOSTREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH STONE WILLBE NECESSARY.7. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUSTBE CLEANED IMMEDIATELY.8. USE CLASS A STONE OR OTHER COARSE AGGREGATEAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.9. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.12Construction EntranceNot to Scale22Terrace SlopeNot to ScalePROPOSED GRADETO BE TERRACED PERENGINEER'S DIRECTIONEXISTING GROUNDEXISTING WATER LINETIMBERED LOGS TOBE EMBEDDED AT EACHTERRACEFLOWTOE OF SLOPE (TYP)Plan ViewAA'BB'Profile A-A'EMBED 5'INTOBANK (TYP)Section B-B'SILL ELEVATIONPER PROFILETOP OF BANK (TYP)SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILETOP OF BANK5'FILTER FABRICEXTEND FILTERFABRIC 5' MIN.UPSTREAMCLASS 2 HEADER STONEFOOTER BOULDERCAN BE SUBSTITUTED WITH MIX OFBALLAST,No. 57, CLASS A/B/I MATERIALWITH ENGINEER'S APPROVALSection B-B'6" SALVAGED ONSITECOBBLE/GRAVELBED MATERIALENSURE BOULDERSOR ROCK BACKFILLTRAVELS UP BANK SLOPEA MINIMUM OF 1'1' MINMIXED STONE TOE OR BRUSH PACKIF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEERIN THE FIELDBANKS SHALL BE RAKED,SEEDED WITH A TEMPORARY MIXOF PEARL HEADED MILLET ANDFESCUE, AMENDED WITH FERTILIZERAND THAN MATTED OVER WITH700G EROSION CONTROL MATTING42Rock SillNot to ScaleRow of alder transplantsinstalled along top.As Built Redlines - 5/8/20