20090049 Ver 2_Year 6 Monitoring Report_CloseOut_2021_20220221

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20090049 Version* 2
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/22/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/21/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Harry Tsomides [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20090049 Version:*2
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Glade Creek II
County: Allegheny
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Gladell_92343_MY6_CloseOut_2021.pdf 12.86MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*
�0:101geWed.

� t * 6 it e { A......*-
s �t.'k � . ,'.-:' `":,'
4 it F „ �., �.
-14--,..--,,v ....-;.-...t-,,,f.47,,..,• ,,A..,,,-.--r, --,,,, _ .-..,---„,-,, ,___-„.„-...„..,_ ..,
A'''-_ ,— '..i-.4.',,k4f. .0.,:741-fgat',.--__ • •' 'It -
. .*:,_,,,,,,,r ,,,-,11,,,-,,,.,. .,,,,..5..,2,..,..„.,,..4:::77,,,t,„,_, ,,..
MONITORING YEAR 6 GLADE CREEK II RESTORATION PROJECT
Alleghany County, NC
ANNUAL/CLOSEOUT DWR No. 20090049 v.2
REPORT DMS Project Number 92343
USAGE Action ID 2009-00589
Final Data Collection Period: June October 2021
Draft Submission Date: November 23, 2021
Final Submission Date: December 10, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
17111P
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
.110
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

b‘Z
WILDLANDS
ENGiNEERJNG
December 10, 2021
Mr. Harry Tsomides
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Monitoring Year 6 (MY6) 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 6 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: In the close out summary, please note that DMS and DEQ-Stewardship have recently
assessed the easement and boundary conditions, made minor upgrades to markings and posting, and
DEQ stewardship has unofficially accepted the site for transfer.
Wildlands response: The above text has been added to the close out summary in the executive summary
and section 1.3.
DMS comment: Executive summary indicates adjacent land being used for white pine production. This
is no longer the case.
Wildlands response: This sentence has been omitted from the executive summary.
DMS comment:Aerial photos appear washed out/yellow on the hard copies. If possible, please
remove any opaque filtering and/or improve the print quality
Wildlands response: The transparency for the aerial imagery has been reduced to 0%to create a darker
background in Figures 2 and 3.
DMS comment: DMS hopes to close out this project in 2022;that said, DMS would like to thank
Wildlands for an outstanding job in their assessment, reporting, communicating with DMS, being
proactive and prompt, and helping capture all the project activities and details over the years on this
DBB project. DMS sincerely appreciates all of Wildlands efforts.
Wildlands response: Thank you for your feedback and kind words. Wildlands has enjoyed working with
DMS as well and appreciated the opportunity to work on this monitoring project.
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

11114,
‘411
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
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]
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

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 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. Annual monitoring has been completed for six years since as-built/construction.
This report presents the Site's MY6 assessment and data as well as a closeout summary/analysis.
Assessments completed over the past six monitoring years illustrate that the Site has met the success
criteria as defined in the mitigation plan (Confluence, 2013)for vegetation, stream morphology, and
stream and wetland hydrology,with the exception of a portion of UT to Glade where sediment
deposition has resulted in a loss of stream function.The MY6 visual assessment revealed that invasive
treatments have nearly eradicated many invasive species on the Site. In addition,wetland adaptive
management activities and stream repairs that occurred in the Spring 2020 to alleviate previously
identified areas of concern are performing well and have benefited the long-term ecological function of
the Site.
The as-built planted stem density averaged 742 stems per acre with the MY6 vegetation assessment
resulting in an average planted stem density of 398 stems per acre.This exceeds the final success
M Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL

criteria of 260 stems per acre and demonstrates that the Site has established a healthy riparian buffer.
Stream morphology surveys along Glade Creek throughout the six years of monitoring demonstrate that
the channel is functioning as designed and dimensions are indicative of stability.The extent of sediment
deposition along UT to Glade Creek has been documented with the annual pebble counts, longitudinal
and cross-section surveys. Bankfull events on all reaches have been documented in each post-
construction monitoring year.Therefore, the success criteria of two bankfull flow events documented
on restoration reaches and occurring in separate monitoring years was met for the project in MY2.The
wetland groundwater gage has consistently met the success criteria for all six monitoring years, which
demonstrates that the wetland hydrology has been restored on the Site. Included in Appendix 2 are
photos from MVO and MY6 to illustrate bank stability and vegetation establishment over the course of
six years of monitoring. DMS and DEQ-Stewardship have recently assessed the easement and boundary
conditions, made minor upgrades to markings and posting, and DEQ stewardship has unofficially
accepted the site for transfer.
M Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL ii

GLADE CREEK II RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 6 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 1-3
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment 1-4
1.2.7 Wetland Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activity 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 6/Closeout 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
Table 11 Stems Per Plot Across All Years
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 12 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 13 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters—Cross-section)
Table 14a-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
141 Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL iii

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 15 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plot
Monthly Rainfall Data
Appendix 5 As-Built Memorandum- Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Appendix 6 Close Out Photos
• April 2020 repairs
• Site-wide
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
141 Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL iv

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 which will protect 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
vivo
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL 1-1

• 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 were 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 was grandfathered in
to be monitored for a minimum of five years post-construction. An additional year of monitoring (MY6)
occured in 2021 to further assess repairs, with the Site anticipated to be presented for closeout in 2022.
This report presents the Site's MY6 assessment and data as well as a closeout summary/analysis.
1.2 Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between June and October 2021 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 MY6 vegetation survey was completed in September 2021, resulting in an average planted stem
density of 398 stems per acre.The Site is exceeding the final density requirement of 260 planted stems,
with all six plots (100%) individually exceeding this requirement. In addition,the number of volunteer
woody stems have steadily increased each year with desired species including tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), nine bark (Physocarpus opulifolius), red maple (Acer rubrum), and black willow(Salix nigra).
Approximately 46%of the monitored stems have a health score (vigor) of 3 or greater, indicating that
they are very likely to survive. Moreover, about 30%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 4%of the monitored stems.These lower vigor ratings were due
to damage from deer and beaver herbivory, storm events, insects, suffocation from dense herbaceous
cover, and other unknown factors.Tag alders that were planted from bare root at as-built accounted for
83%of the monitored stems found to be dead this year. 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 MY6 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
vivo
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL 1-2

and continuing throughout October 2021. 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. To increase woody stem densities in the wetland preservation area, supplemental
planting occurred in April 2020. Visual assessments in MY6 revealed that planted woody stems in
Wetland B appear healthy. Please refer to the CCPV Figure 3 in Appendix 2 for vegetation areas of
concern.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY6 were conducted in June 2021; however, longitudinal profiles were only
required for UT to Glade Creek.The longitudinal profile plot for UT to Glade Creek demonstrates the
extent of aggradation and little change compared to MY5, which is further discussed below in Section
1.2.4.
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, floodplain deposition from recent bankfull events is evident in the riffle cross-sections along
Glade Creek. 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.
However,the surveyed riffle cross-section along UT to Glade (XS5) has maintained bed and bank
elevations compared to MY5 with dimensions similar to MYO.
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 0.3 mm (sand) during
MY6.This fining of sediment materials observed in MY3 has continued through MY6 for UT to Glade
Creek. Please refer to Appendix 4 for morphological tables and plots with annual overlays.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activity
As noted in previous MYs, UT to Glade Creek has experienced an increase in fine sediment each year
after as-built. 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, the channel is actively braiding through Wetland D in the right floodplain of the original
alignment. However downstream of Wetland D, willows and alders have become more established
along the banks and have helped maintain channel form and function.
DMS contracted with a provider to completed repairs along Glade Creek in April 2020.These repairs
included installing a brush toe geolift and point bar regrading between stations 22+95 and 23+50, and
stabilization of the hillslope between stations 24+25 and 24+75. Visual assessments in MY6 revealed
that repairs appear to be stable and functioning as designed with livestakes and transplants becoming
well established.A memo with as-built repair plans can be found in Appendix 6. Other small areas of
scour that were not addressed by the repair remain along Glade Creek. However, woody vegetation is
present along the banks in these areas causing them to be of relatively minor concern to the ecological
integrity of the project. DMS also contracted with a provider to remove a beaver dam located on Glade
Creek(near station 18+70) in October 2021.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
A bankfull event was documented for Glade Creek and UT to Glade Creek on June 7, 2021 based on
crest gage measurements and recent wracklines found throughout the floodplain. In MY1 through MY6,
there has been at least six 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
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
vivo
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL 1-3

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 MY6. Each time that the groundwater gage was downloaded in MY6, 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 2021 indicated higher than normal rainfall amounts occurred
during the month of August and lower than normal rainfall amounts occurred during the months of
January and February. 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
In April 2020, DMS contracted with a provider to repair a headcut that had formed at the outflow of
Wetland B where it meets Glade Creek Reach 2 (near station 22+75).The repairs included the
installation of log sills for grade control at the wetland outflow. MY6 visual assessments reveal that the
repair appears stable and has prevented the headcut from migrating into the wetland. 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.
1.3 Monitoring Year 6/Closeout Summary
Assessments completed over the past six monitoring years illustrate that the Site has met the success
criteria as defined in the mitigation plan (Confluence, 2013)for vegetation, stream morphology, and
stream and wetland hydrology, with the exception of UT to Glade where sediment deposition has
resulted in a loss of stream function.The MY6 visual assessment revealed that invasive treatments have
nearly eradicated many invasive species on the Site. In addition,wetland adaptive management
activities and stream repairs that occurred in the Spring 2020 to alleviate previously identified areas of
concern are performing well and have benefited the long-term ecological function of the Site.
The as-built planted stem density averaged 742 stems per acre with the MY6 vegetation assessment
resulting in an average planted stem density of 398 stems per acre.This exceeds the final success
criteria of 260 stems per acre and demonstrates that the Site has established a healthy riparian buffer.
Stream morphology surveys along Glade Creek throughout the six years of monitoring demonstrate that
the channel is functioning as designed and dimensions are indicative of stability.The extent of sediment
deposition along UT to Glade Creek has been documented with the annual pebble counts, longitudinal
and cross-section surveys. Bankfull events on all reaches have been documented in each post-
construction monitoring year.Therefore, the success criteria of two bankfull flow events documented
on restoration reaches and occurring in separate monitoring years was met for the project in MY2.The
wetland groundwater gage has consistently met the success criteria for all six monitoring years, which
demonstrates that the wetland hydrology has been restored on the Site. Included in Appendix 2 are
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
vivo
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL 1-4

photos from MVO and MY6 to illustrate bank stability and vegetation establishment over the course of
six years of monitoring. DMS and DEQ-Stewardship have recently assessed the easement and boundary
conditions, made minor upgrades to markings and posting, and DEQ stewardship has unofficially
accepted the site for transfer. Repair area and site-wide comparative close out photos can be found in
Appendix 7.
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
vivo
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL 1-5

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
vivo
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL 2-1

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).
2021. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Sparta 3.5 SSW. Accessed
October 2021.
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.
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 6 Annual/Closeout Report—FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

05050001030015
Project Location
•
•
I Hydrologic Unit Code(14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
05050001030020
05050001030030
•
•
�r !'yo118ranch Glade VaiIF_ ""s*•/
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 bordered
by land under private ownership.Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not Directons to Site:
permitted.Access by authorized personnel of state and From Charlotte,travel Interstate 77 North.Take Exit 83,US-21
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in Bypass toward Roaring Gap/Sparta.Travel on US-21
the development,oversight,and stewardship of the restoration approximately 21 miles.Bear right onto Sheriff Road and travel
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their Sheriff Road approximately 0.4 mile.Turn right onto Fox Ridge
defined roles.Any intended site visitation or activity by Road. The project site is located approximately 0.2 miles on the left
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles side of Fox Ridge Road.
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
0 0.5 1 Miles
WILDLANDS17 I I N DMS Project No. 92343
ENGIN-`R NG Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Alleghany County, NC

0.y
Y f
ti kin."n . rif / 1j Y 1,,,...,-.'
' . a A�! :4 ' .
• s x R ... - :' .�...wt `. r i J .d+Ny"i.. I'4 "' �°�'.' � �
W `
! , 'l L - , kCA e I �.
a I
:. r „ � +
eti ,' � .,`r f r .rY tr
,n. 1 Ai.!. ,. . , _ ` y. i ,''
,+} A . L rya '
YR 3. t 34
• .''R 'r nte.�44.. .:I� :
��p,� A
.-'" 4 } { V V 4.4 III':' �'� f � Nw 1
UT to Glade Creek = ; r, ',r
(Preservation) . _`� '
Z Wetland A
` lade Creek 4
'' Reach 2,^
Wetland D 9d :t
1F v t
UT to Glade/ ""
Creek Reach 1 ' �' 4
f UT to Glade s / ,�,'q/ • A
-C eek Reach 2 =- _ '_—_ _� , Fox Ridge Re.
/ Glade Creek • fi� 1.' "'. A',, �s ' :x .;r ;
,A . Reach 1 0 , a' `{
its', • •Ns {r 1 r y9n 'N.``y,fram,�li� R'i yip_ .fl.
.,, ', sR iY '�1` i IIYYYt.
#�w..1' .. - A 'wF.49 Air to'µ V 1 ,
• I I Conservation Easement
•
,N-;,,.0 — — Overhead Powerline Easement
, Cam 1. T '444 .
4.rr* y \\\ Wetland Preservation
''j, Wetland Restoration
' '. Stream Restoration
i r !• Stream Enhancement I
� ' � "�, �. Stream Enhancement I; Reduced Credit
s
i�'� Stream Preservation
''C' e:
' t �►` ' A "`$ No Credit
:::c :z:::trm5
hi. . \'A� L �axu, I, _
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
kiiiivrer
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
0 100 200 Feet
WI LD LAI\D S I II N DMS Project No. 92343
`NGINTER NG Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Alleghany County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
IF-- W 11=11
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R R RE
Totals 2,140.667 25.800 0.328 N/A N/A N/A N/A
As-Built
Existing Footage/ Restoration(R)or Credits
Reach ID Approach Stationing/ Restoration Footage/Acreage Mitigation Ratio
Acreage Restoration Equivalent(RE) (SMU/WMU)
Location
STREAMS
Glade Creek Reach 1 1200 LF P2 Restoration(R) 10+00-21+70 1,170 1:1 1170.000
21+70-26+41;
Glade Creek Reach 2* 1074 LF P2 Enhancement I(R) 26+86-29+69; 1,090 1.5:1 651.667
30+59-32+60
UT to Glade Creek Preservation 129 LF N/A Preservation(RE) 10+00-11+29 129 5:1 25.800
UT to Glade Creek Reaches 1 and 2 197 LF P1 Restoration(R) 11+29-14+48 319 1:1 319.000
WETLANDS
Wetland A,B,C 0.84 AC N/A Preservation(RE) N/A 0.84 5:1 0.168
Wetland D 0.16 AC N/A Restoration(R) N/A 0.16 1:1 0.160
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream(LF) Riparian Wetland(acres) Non-Riparian Wetland(acres) Buffer(square feet) Upland(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 1,489 0.16
Preservation 129 0.84
Enhancement I 1,090
Enhancement II
Creation
*Stream Enhancement I credit reduced;90 LF removed at break in conservation easement and 45 LF reduced by 50%at overhead power easement.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan December2008 December2008
Mitigation Plan Addendum January 2013 January 2013
Final Design-Construction Plans January 2015 January 2015
Construction December 2015-April 2016 April2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal December 2015-April 2016 April 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segmentsl 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
Stream Survey October 2016
Year 1 Monitoring December 2016
Vegetation Survey October 2016
Stream Survey May 2017
Year 2 Monitoring December 2017
Vegetation Survey September 2017
Stream Survey June 2018
Year 3 Monitoring November 2018
Vegetation Survey September 2018
Live staking for small eroded sections along Glade Creek April 2019 April 2019
Invasive species treatment October 2019 October 2019
Stream Survey May 2019
Year 4 Monitoring November 2019
Vegetation Survey September 2019
Stream repairs and wetland supplemental planting April 2020 May 2020
Invasive species treatment October 2020 October 2020
Stream Survey June 2020
Year 5 Monitoring November 2020
Vegetation Survey August 2020
Livestock Fence Repair January 2021 January 2021
Beaver Treatment October 2021 October 2021
Invasive species treatment October 2021 October 2021
Stream Survey June 2021
Year 6 Monitoring November 2021
Vegetation Survey September 2021
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Designer Confluence Engineering,PC
Andrew Bick,PE,CFM 16 Broad Street
Asheville,NC 28806
Carolina Environmental Contracting,Inc.
Construction Contractor PO Box 1905
Mt.Airy NC 27030
Keller Environmental
Planting Contractor 7921 Haymarket Lane
Raleigh,NC 27615
Carolina Environmental Contracting,Inc.
Seeding Contractor PO Box 1905
Mt.Airy NC 27030
Seed Mix Sources Carolina Environmental Contracting,Inc.
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
Monitoring,POC
704.941.9093

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Project Information
Project Name Glade Creek II Restoration Project
County Allegheny
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
River Basin New River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 05050001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 05050001030020
DWR Sub-basin 05-07-03
Project Drainiage Area(acres) 5,120
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification 61%Forested,35%Agriculture/Livestock,3%Residential/Commercial
Parameters Glade Creek Glade Creek UT to Glade Creek Reach 1 UT to Glade Creek Reach 2
Reach 1 Reach 2
Length of reach(linear feet)-Post-Restoration 1,170 1,090 129 319
Drainage area(acres) 5,120 13
NCDWR stream identification score 47 31
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C;Tr - I Morphological Desription(stream type) C4 B4
Underlying mapped soils Suncook
FEMA classification no regulated floodplain I no regulated floodplain
Native vegetation community White Pine Plantation
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation-Post-Restoration 0% 0%
Parameters Wetlands A,B&C Wetland D
Size of Wetland(acres) 0.84 0.16
Wetland Type Riparian-Non Riverine
Underlying mapped soils Suncook
Drainage class frequently flooded,excessively drained
Soil hydric status N/A
Source of Hydrology hillside seep
Restoration or Enhancement Method(hydrologic,vegetative,etc.) Preservation hydrologic/vegetative
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water
Waters of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes Quality Certification No.3885.Action ID#2009-00589
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit
Division of Land Quality(Erosion and Sediment Control) Yes Yes NCG010000
Glade Creek II Restoration Project;Ward Consulting
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes determined"no affect"on Alleghany County listed
endangered species
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes No recommendations received.
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act N/A N/A N/A
(CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance N/A N/A The upper portion of Glade Creek is not currenity mapped as
a regulated flood zone
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A
---Data not provided

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity/Length by Reach Frequency
Glade Creek UT to Glade Creek Wetlands
Riffle Cross Section 2 1 N/A
Dimension Annual
Pool Cross Section 1 1 N/A
Pattern Pattern Yes Yes N/A See Footnote'
Profile Longitudinal Profile Yes Yes N/A Annual
Reach Wide(RW)/
Substrate Riffle 100 Pebble Count RW-1,RF 1 RW-1,RF-1 N/A Annual
(RF)
Stream Hydrology Crest Gage 1 1 N/A Semi-Annual
Wetland Hydrology Groundwater Gages N/A N/A Enhancement l(R) Semi-Annual
Vegetation CVS Level 2 6 Annual
Visual Assessment All Streams Y I Y I Y Semi-Annual
Exotic and nuisance
Semi-Annual
vegetation
Project Boundary Semi-Annual
Reference Photos Photographs I 9 Annual
'Pattern 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.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

', - -� •.. ,k i �_ its, .`�G�p,) I ,_# P - Cl
' yay S. _ ', 1A 4. •� w r '�F 'r - '' M' Y ,, _1'' ..'
•
•-;�,, ,�w-}1.,� rill '�. . ,`r2: '� ., Sr - , 3'
•A1', '� )4,, - 4 V-,'' , F l "" r4 9.. `' " y, eP w Y f 45 cKS' v ,.r
'c",k 1 { Tc.' y a. '+,t M{'+t- ,17, °.R - s -.1 '
• .' .+j •ice, ram. n _ ter. y '*, `1 .�.. •_f 1� ;+r' I R n` ;,,
'AC
Y '`y `r}� rt+ .�•- � � a` 2 Ar ' ,)1,
. r�- s x ._ �s`�` �' "�`. `' ., f A y
� � r r' !� 4� 'Tj �"r i� .r s. s'ai a, r �y r 14 r' a ' ice~ _ :� t # y^y,��� ✓ r ►' 'fi �/[ �r
�` •*_a T ' • I.
' h'�•• �,' 11• T'TT n r- + j 'N
,. +`• - "'r. � 4r ( • g 'Y ���, c 1#' Z1 4' 4;�y yy ; i t i�,..jAp. • e .-1 "' I
-::.'-'-
.. ... ;,. ,, a...
UT1b Glad" � , h *' ..1 • ++. ` '�r F Q >' '.
,. r .3y-: + . '�' xi: ' w''.ne*15 'x, "'Jl J a , ,,•r �I ;;�4s.#, 'y
Prese vat's. J w -et4 s* '‘7,-a'�E '� F 7F '&' Si ,k ' > ' _f' I —• ,;1 tSK"Ty 4s ,M .- .c ,`y, �'''x_ i '�✓'" . . .7a .!, __ ;� '4
•
1�
•s.. { .1- :a: � -,/e�4j� ay, � 1r�� 'r7►--_• 'i��'yy.' �. �. ` •, ` ' ,M•� �� � h. `+ ` *� +` �! .,b
h 10+00 Wetiand jahlit. -, .eX :�'- !„�, V. � � • ' .� . I `�`` ,.' .)
' . K� .V.. 7 ./•sp,r. --' - ,• ,,,,' %
Gj© ♦ w- `s`}. 'Glade reek I'S • ,•• IL . a 4;
- .. .}„ '♦ ` • _ ..r.•w....(i.�, y, _ �` ` ;roar a ° ),
ot
rtk
Aly I
�' ' .. �` �•71� - '', --^ ' - S. M ;.. , f ' '' IF,..
'� 4 $
•
IIti + ,Ity., .y-.x. O l;`• I , CS.Y, 1F +i ' -a ,,,y�.. `� f' '+ '
ilt y t a - ' Y''.'.'� _.40 9 1 i - ' fie: .• ..,. -' «,r r. x$3 w_ _� :• ,�i
Or
CG 2
'UT to Glade Cre-k .`__�,, : ,� L. Il Reach 1 .. • a ��v' •
j
... , - • A.Q.Itig No . `,..--1, ,a..• 4. — '1 , ,.. , , • •
UT to Glade Gr• ,�pp ' •• - , s� �,y. F ` A7 = , rrc Y� t' F r, l ..
�:'+ Reach.2 rw.y 4 '. - I. .
41141* ''' NINN .
,CF
r 'r d ge y y ra ., Fox Ridge Rd
`a• -.4. '''- '. e It - ,r,A ,. .._.
1
. -iff- . -71° ... .:' •, -..t '; - -" . ,' - 4 ,, .
;� •;y 4,. V GI.-- reek - . \,\ �}al1; • `' '`` ---
• .. ,. • fit
-.' r. c- Ra h 1 '' f " � ' --. I Conservation Easement Cross Section (XS)
.! ji* Overhead Powerline Easement 0 Photo Points
bs. � i - - , ,k,
f '' Gate -0 Groundwater Gage(GWG)
Vr " d st ,f Wetland Preservation - Crest Gage (CG)
1n[7} - wr'Y+ r"', . Wetland Restoration Vegetation Monitoring Plot- MY6
� = �• �++, if
t.. �. %.t-•
IL, • ' Stream Restoration Critera Met
•'� " �} Areas of Concern -MY6
� _I t t • k Stream Enhancement I
'< I, y ,+�.• e• auti:-. s ., rl .,4 Stream Enhancement I; Reduced Credit L'._._._. Kudzu
:, k
. A4 -1--
' ; ' T'it � • !` ;"'- Stream Preservation Beaver dam (removed)
•4 % >; �t y *'», aJ., 't •
Bank instability
rf' No Credit
>� ' � A ..mow -4 4c
,� �, Jf• ,fir ,I + s`_ TT Rf Sediment deposition
!( . i f1 �1. �` sy r �,. y Non-Project Streams
ti = I
`'N„' '• ` ' S' '. �." .*ice Reach Break Stream braiding
4nt
� i i s�; T Headcut
r Bankfull y
�2018Aerial Ph ��llqr ; , _ .
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View Map
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
I L D L A N D 5r
1111C4111141111:e
0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 92343
VV [IN INL«,N� I I I IV MonitoringYear6/Closeout 2021
Alleghany County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Glade Creek(2,260 IF) Assessment Date:6/7-6/8 2021
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category Performing as in As-Built Woody Woody Woody
Segments Footage Intended
Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 9 9 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 6 6 100%
1.Bed Condition Length Appropriate 6 6 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend(Run) 6 6 100%
4.Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 6 6 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 2 25 99% 2 25 100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2.Bank extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 2 25 99% 2 25 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 7 7 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 7 7 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 7 7 100%
3.Engineered p g underneath sills or arms.
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures extent
3.Bank Protection 7 7 100%
of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat "'Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6 7 7 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
UT to Glade Creek(448 IF) Assessment Date:6/7-6/8 2021
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category Performing as in As-Built Woody Woody Woody
Segments Footage Intended
Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 1 172 62%
(Riffle and Run units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 2 5 40%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 2 4 50%
1.Bed Condition Length Appropriate 2 4 50%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend(Run) 2 2 100%
4.Thalweg Position2
Thalweg centering at downstream of 2 2 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2.Bank extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 7 7 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 7 7 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 7 7 100%
3.Engineered P g underneath sills or arms.
Structures'
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent 7 7 100%
of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat "'Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6 4 7 57%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
'Applicable to only 2 meander bends because the other 2 meander bends are being impacted by sedimentation and the stream has braided.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021 Assessment Date:9/13/2021
Planted Acreage 6.4
Mapping
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Number of Combined %of Planted
Polygons Acreage Acreage
(acres)
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0.0 0.0%
1 Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,4,5,or 7 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas 0.1 0 0.0 0.0%
criteria.
Total 0 0.0 0.0%
1 Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor 0.25 0 0.0 0%
year.
Cumulative Total 0 0.0 0.0%
Easement Acreage 12.8
Mapping Number of Combined %of
Vegetation Category Definitions Easement
Threshold(SF) Polygons Acreage
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 1 0.01 0.1%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 0 0 0%
'Acreage calculated from vegetation plots monitored for site.

Stream Photographs

e "�
'-
--, 4_, ,. ..-,,li .44-1,1;' ,,,,....-4-4*.: -' `:!-';'-1-::::'''i;.....:4-'.-:- •''''
•
to 3✓k'y { r k "�' -q
rs
.y,..`-';4‘5,::.;7,-. ' :."...24::,-;,-.;..r. ;.,;-;.::---
'..' -'!",'.:5... ',2*--:, 2-,-- -11,-.::-..u._ .--*'.rffWg, '''''...."- . '-;:ciit!}';'-*„7: :!4_,'"i-- ' '-,,,,
= r•c' yr k #" r - 7 � -` y's (A'.•;�1 ,,'i,1tel'-7.4'.,'4,,1„'
r`,d s%'w x ,r }r
. , ii,i, ,:::-.,--.,:p.t.,,,,pf,ti, -;:if,-,-- , .„,e,?,-,!.. 1 J._.: --,-,,, ,t..-,
Photo Point 1—view upstream UT Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo P::::,...1;:, view upstream UT Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
eQ '
�.
\
R ?
�- ter;�" .'. sa R �y
F t
4 F
, a •
'•$ * s ram`As # W y" ws � `•
. - y k1„1 _Ik-_ y
Photo Point 1—view downstream UT Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 1—view downstream UT Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
i1 { t:
!,:.•,--.`,...4,74..--,-14.0-A),7 '--e,,,, ..-4'. .•• ";',- :'-.:41r, .:,,w"'", - --4i:',411,04-1--•-.4-, ---
1.
•;;rA= r` •- _ 1' '' ., *-�!� - r = ;'' e. � g -i
r -a l °ate J 4",r, `.
i
Photo Point 2—view upstream Glade Creek MY0(05/06/2016) Photo Point 2—view upstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)

'-j3......e.,::41.'_--1:','-',.
'pi'
M
ib
•
11 A .' k ;
)45
7.
Photo Point 2—view downstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 2—view downstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
ro,
,or
•
i i
ors _<1 ell �4 "
, r�t
kl y ', ,�wr 9' ' .r�
•
Tom.. ::]l.'
Photo Point 2—view upstream UT Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) 7 Photo Point 2—view upstream UT Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
4.
4.
z}em }'.�5 ' •''.z''7,,..e
y
zf �fa
3�.{' _ • — ors 2� e.�. IRr
r
a
er � � .
Pak - � it^ .-
Photo Point 3—view upstream Glade Creek MY0(05/06/2016) Photo Point 3—view upstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)

x, : t
y
s.rt.x4 : W c r � 7-� ` af fi
Y_ ir, i m t A , u P5 iP l py t ,.� l:y ... i
•
P a-,, m r t '-- 44 ..
-...1--,.., ,,__3- ,-,.. ''''''''',1 ij,-.1.4,4'r#-.r'-': ','.,-1/C-1.4".4.e-'1.-1:--e--e'X$'4.;',-i..
Photo Point 3-view downstream Glade Creek MY0(05/06/2016) Photo Point 3-view downstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/ 2 )
r20 1
4
...
a
Y
t
3
r :
ss* = ill ' iiy
r p, -
, ; +)' 1 fix"
0
�� 1 ,,
iO�6E a f 1`
•
Photo Point 4-view upstream Glade Creek MY0(05/06/2016) Photo Point 4—view upstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
4d -a
s � ro
t
s
p
•li
Ps
Photo Point 4-view downstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 4-view downstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)

lit
S 'S l + � ^ t°NY . flGZa- Ab$Y 3 C&F'''34 A
Aft 7C777 '. ,, r i':::, a r''�r.� ; .. e
lif.,
11 .,
,;, ifir,1p --•
4
,,,,,,,',.4:,____:-.,,, -..".....3..1.,..,,,c. .._„:„...,,, :,..,.:". 1 ,....:.:1,,,,.," 1:4.",,,., '"'.....: ". 7._._,, .....,.,„,.,,, ,
th,
__....,,,,.„ ,„__„ ,,_„...,.....:__ ,,„, ..._. . . „_,,,,„
, ,,„.___.,,,.__,, _.,,..._,_,...,,,... _c_ . . ., , ,_.„,„..,,,,.., ,,,..,_ 4'
V.
.�i `-f,,,,.., 4 ,0,-,,,,'-‘,,
Photo Point 5-view upstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 5-view upstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
yy
I �7A }�.
} F
. 'i^ :1 - :fib ' �..
eklikiit fpr' �x _y},.'2,4 k� !i ce - - ^
4 z !
l� ..gyp <`? 1� R �. + v ' '"t '" - _s 'roc;'
i�af : ash
-'teaa:ti �'
Photo Point 5-view downstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06./2016) Photo Point 5-view downstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
C, „ '
`7 Ey lr� - �F umA x
1,
Ilkifilit
yy:
y
Photo Point 6-view upstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 6-view upstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)

t, a : � " 4 e l-'y.J� . d " aM�g"Y� c' � fib rv�_ .S " 4`� ' rgy r �, ;� E 1. ui ''O -t , •�' „
F F �
: v +
'' 4 ii t tx51 t'i e l 04h.i,
fi . _ ,-,fix SA t3 • }s (. '. "i,E 't
Photo Point 6—view downstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 6—view downstream Glaade Creek MY6(0@6/,p07/2:yp0y21)
t„.„,.:_
., `'_ S -x fry cA `- '.3'p,' - :�rw mar :, r r -'
:,„„...,...„*._ _
,.,',04.,.VIL.:., 4,1', :: /'
a
'. e'y, y, 't"'4s,��. .�¢r, e i 1 '. -h yam"'"?, , 0
-14:'A;!.-i&e';;'''':‘f;IP'..5.
f d' d
•�' r �
",
Photo Point 7—view upstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 7—view upstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
f._
�a: - w
Ems: 1
� ;s ` iivti .rye _ I.. r - •
A-'" Y,-•
Photo Point 7—view downstream Glade Creek MY0(05/06/2016) Photo Point 7—view downstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)

ft ilk,
cs '3]!ri:-,-."fir ;• '
'. k y "dht Nl¢„ w,w 'iF .,
Sri y ! .O I!ie r''F'a:1 6riz d '
'—'ado ' ! • t ?;11,' jam`
f .
� wit —*41
:m
d
Photo Point 8—view upstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 8—view upstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
� �w h)- .' s'. a,_. 1!, ti .
-,:::•.-,,.-
J = - � - r
fir\ y r ak.,:.':•,'a" a5 .,,a' yam:
,,,..::-
-Ir''''' - '
1
Zr ,
I
'
Novi
Photo Point 8—view downstream Glade Creek MY0(05/06/2016) Photo Point 8—view downstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)
Wv¢ gym/. :- e i a4*` "`P , r
;^.gym i ', 4 ,
•
r g"r - +> 'fit
,�>s a� v ' r ; � � 4 -�` '- •
' T - - - _ -
'd."' —i _ .fin ' -
s
Photo Point 9—view upstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 9—view upstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)

x"';(;d C f, 31 Z S F
a
-'k
h%" 2.. 4 .k Irv" 5.
.�f� " _ —
l7,�'_ r,. 4 F r
��. ..t - e - - �- -TI !c' era'-� .�A" i r
•
Photo Point 9—view downstream Glade Creek MYO(05/06/2016) Photo Point 9—view downstream Glade Creek MY6(06/07/2021)

Vegetation Photographs

�ya ' ti
'':::41-..,,-.,--*..'....-.,..:•1-• -•; .•::-A.4it.;•*,.._:•.„"-';.:',.:'):•..A.$4 .:,. ,-444,f...*-josii,,.,.
„,...w.,....i,,_;.kr...,„•_tvw..,.,,_ .,1-,...,...4,-.,-,_...;•„..„:„...,:,..:-.A.„4..-4,-1.•,..4,....,m.,„::,..,..-1,91:4:- .,:k...--.....-!,4,4,:,..,. ."•:,1,1•71,.7.0.1....1.;
1
A 3�0v.,,,,Ailv.,.*
`a. Cam^
f ` T a 1o.?,0 . P 9
�; Yak _.c„'A a "` "c ' a+i. 4 .' ti" '
b p
1g '' r,1Yyk;ly Y'% r E " 7
Vegetation Plot 1—MYO(05/02/2016) Vegetation :o.,::::v. MY6(09/13/2021)
�`.zn 3-,�`2i.t y. r � S `
4 „+� °fi R 1 ��r. s-. s- 4
'� i 5
q� �' .t 1 is 7�
.' ga�kk k x t9�eV
• .emu - 4'°rt, c 94 8 -. r' ?'r;; k ty .p*
+yf ^ E54� , ,,4, 4 � � ':(�g` ;Y.'.- yp,. ka7 `3 _-. Xi .{S
•
'. :. -- .. - f .i ' ' .•
3 __C' t, �3
�& �"
1‘)A.'
- ,. -` "r i, ' z`35, �-,74,.s. &"'
.. , ',:('.-, ., ' i'.1.4... „,c.,...,...._......,_:,,,...,,,...„,„,_:;„..„:„.:,.,,„..:_,..,.__.
. ....,
..,.. ,...,
., „...„ „ ,,..„,,,,,„:,...... _..„+„.„.. . ..
. .,.. .
,,,:,,.,....4,__4.,,.. _,,,,!,,,,... _,:_.._„, ..... _
.. .
..„ ,. . .
:.:
, . .,..„,_ , .:,..,..
„......
,-. ... . . ,
, .. „ ..„. ..
Vegetation Plot 2—MYO(05/02/2016) Vegetation Plot
12—MY6(09/13/2021)
..,„:,,,, ,,,.,-A, --,
...„7:10..04.,;:.:4:.,1;svpo:.,,T.,....:::._-...,:.:,,,-.„11...:....:
ill
i t l I ' 's'; ' ' r,,.
s
5s j fir-- - •
a - - � s: . ti,
:A ai
E•
fk V
Vegetation Plot 3—MYO(05/02/2016) Vegetation Plot 3—MY6(09/13/2021)

.
fir. ' .'S -"} l.. , `'" }k�€-
.$.a �'-0 se. !�'C � '. `�,� Al ^T�
;'-':•-R•:-I.,.:.:/:,15'.. . .:,,;,021•:---. .;...,'''',- -77"-''::14::.-4*:".4H-.'.,,''' • '-':. ..-'-i''''',-ii:.1011;..41.:A-::..-4:..w*"-Tt-4,4•'...t'-'. ...s••'.--, ,....• ,
Vegetation Plot 4—MYO(05/02/2016) Vegetation Plot 4—MY6(09/13/2021)
9 % may e
okli
' �' .:� . < {�°g1 t4 y # 4 � � {� 5sue �+
.47
r •• • I �'-' g��vslr.- afRS J. L Ufa`, z` �x`P `" - �r�i.�
S t i !- ��t / 1 Sf..a.. 4*� x. t ''i ' ,,R:i:P �'r '. 4`!i'94�k
.-(� + xk,. 4 - iF c� k"�¢ -,y� r .`.1 i�.. A 1
� � c • yv �'x a... S � � �rr a� a, ��.7� � ,-fir,;
ti.i .are ` l- . y,A1, '! "� r x
— - \ • v 1 r x ,� yo- 77 ;� F 1 aF 4'�V'`.f�Y r
1. - • i t : #� r "1� a „`.'f
• w
Vegetation Plot 5—MYO(05/02/2016) Vegetation Plot 5—MY6(09/13/2021)
' a ,• - a'
� ,1 ' 1 T �� ,.3. 4''} ..Ptit
3� .
7 1 PPPP -
iM : S .
y
4
r•
•
f
•
fix
_ 4 �a� "' i ",," a 'ems'- •
�?A e''7— ia,'• - + _ {,� �y
9
Vegetation Plot 6—MYO(05/02/2016) Vegetation Plot 6—MY6(09/13/2021)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Plot MY5 Success Criteria Met Tract Mean
(Y/N)
1 Y
2 Y
3
100%
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Report Prepared By Mimi Caddell
Date Prepared 10/12/2021 10:00
Database Name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Glade MY6.mdb
Database Location L:\ActiveProjects\005-02161 Glade Creek II Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 6\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name MIMI-PC
File Size 52371456
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 includes live stakes,all planted stems,and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data(live stems,dead stems,missing,etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp 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.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 92343
project Name Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Description Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Required Plots(calculated) 6
Sampled Plots 6

Table 10a.Planted and Total Stem Counts
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Current Plot Data(MY6 2021)
92343-WEI-0001 92343-WEI-0002 92343-WEI-0003 92343-WEI-0004 92343-WEI-0005 92343-WEI-0006
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 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 5 25
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 2 2 2 1 1 16 5 3 50 5 5 65
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Shrub Tree
Corn us amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 3 3 3 6 6 6 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2
Physocarpus opulifolius Nine bark Shrub Tree 40 45 50 50 175
Platanusoccidentalis Sycamore Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 2 3 3 3
Quercus rubra Red Oak Tree
Salix Willow Tree
Salixnigra Black Willow Tree 5 2
Salixsericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree
Stem count 8 8 48 11 11 76 13 13 23 10 10 63 8 8 135 9 9 244
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02471 0.02471 0.02471 0.02471 0.02471 0.02471
Species count 4 4 5 7 7 9 4 4 6 6 6 8 4 4 8 4 4 5
Stems per ACRE 324 324 1942 445 445 3076 526 526 931 405 405 2550 324 324 5463 364 364 9874
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

Table 10b.Planted and Total Stem Counts
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Annual Summary
MY6(2021) MY5(2020) MY4(2019) MY3(2018) MY2(2017) MY1(2016) MVO(2016)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T 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 33 3 3 18 3 3 8 3 3 23 3 3 4 3 3 3 6 6 6
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 8 8 141 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 4 4 4
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Shrub Tree 1
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 3
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 6 6 6 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 2 2 2 3 3 3
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel Shrub Tree 5 5 5 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 14 14 14 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 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 7 7 7
Physocarpus opulifolius Nine bark Shrub Tree 360 89 73
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 22 22 22
Quercusrubra Red Oak Tree 1 1
Salix Willow Tree 5
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 7
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
Stem count 59 59 589 69 69 248 77 77 206 81 81 167 86 86 132 91 91 99 110 110 110
size(ares) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
size(ACRES) 0.1483 0.1483 0.1483 0.1483 0.1483 0.1483 0.1483
Species count 9 9 11 9 9 12 10 10 13 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10
Stems per ACRE 398 398 3973 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

Table 11.Stems Per Plot Across All Years
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
MY6(2021) MY5(2020) Y3(2018) Y1(2016) MYO(2016)
Plot Planted Total Total Planted Total Total Planted Total Total Planted Total Total Planted Total Total Planted Total Total Planted Total Total
Stems Stems Stems/Ac Stems Stems Stems/Ac Stems Stems Stems/Ac Stems Stems Stems/Ac Stems Stems Stems/Ac Stems Stems Stems/Ac Stems Stems Stems/Ac
1 8 48 1942 8 17 688 6 18 728 6 6 243 6 7 283 6 6 243 15 15 607
2 11 76 3076 13 24 971 14 35 1416 15 30 1214 16 28 1133 17 18 728 20 20 809
3 13 23 931 14 24 971 16 22 890 18 21 850 20 21 850 22 22 890 25 25 1012
4 10 63 2550 13 42 1700 15 36 1457 15 17 688 16 18 728 17 17 688 17 17 688
5 8 135 5463 11 71 2873 15 66 2671 16 56 2266 17 32 1295 17 17 688 18 18 728
6 9 244 9874 10 70 2833 11 29 1174 11 37 1497 11 26 1052 12 19 769 15 15 607

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 12.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Pre-Restoration Condition Reference Reach Data Design As-Built/Baseline
Parameter Gage Glade Creek UT to Glade Creek Glade Creek Restoration UT to Little Pine Trib 1 Glade Creek UT to Glade Creek Glade Creek UT to Glade Creek
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Shallow
Bankfull Width(ft) 17.7 38.5 5.2 9.9 36.3 48.8 6.2 11.1 33.0 5.4 34.6 37.4 5.3
Floodprone Width(ft) 47 115 7 12 69 118 14 46 99 I 165 22 I 33 106 111 61
Bankfull Mean Depth 2.6 2.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.5 2.3 0.3 1.9 2.2 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth 2.9 4.1 0.5 0.8 1.9 1.9 0.8 1.6 3.0 0.4 2.9 3.2 0.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft2) N/A 46.9 79.0 2.1 5.1 45.6 64.1 3.8 5.1 76.5 1.7 70.2 77.1 2.4
Width/Depth Ratio 6.7 18.8 17.3 26.8 40.3 37.2 6.9 24.2 14.2 17.4 15.5 19.9 11.8
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 11.4
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) 28.0 31.0 7.0 7.0 44.0 47.0 7.0 7.0 28.0 31.0 7.0 90.0 32.0
Riffle Length(ft) 33 57 6.8 32.6
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0087 0.0271 0.0193 0.0964
Pool Length(ft) N/A --- --- 5 --- 64.0 197.8 8.8 32.9
Pool Max Depth(ft) 4.4 6.6 0.8 5.0 0.7 1.5 3.3 4.1 0.8 1.0 3.8 5.9 1.5
Pool Spacing(ft) 107 353 33.0 I 70.0
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 60 240 7 16 --- --- 19 I 26 112 205 17 155 282 75.0
Radius of Curvature(ft) 21 114 30 59.0 99.0 30 59.0 99.0 30
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A 1.2 3.0 3.2 5.9 1.8 3.0 5.5-6.0 1.8 3.0 5.5-6.0
Meander Length(ft)1 --- --- --- --- --- ---
-- --- --- 230 425 150
Meander Width Ratio 3.4 I 6.2 1.3 1.6 --- --- 2.5 3.5 3.4 6.2 3.1 7.0 4.5 7.5 3.1 I 7.0
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d 50/d84/d 95/d 100 N/A -/-/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 ).11/0.63/13.3/176/241.4/>2041
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)lb/ft,
0.48 0.52 0.82 0.11 I 0.12 I
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 8.00 0.02 4.60 0.05 8.00 0.02 8.00 0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%)
Rosgen Classification E4/C4 F4/B4 C4 C4/B4 C4 B4 C4 B4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 3.8 5.3 3.8 4.9 3.1 I 4.4 4.5 I 6.1 3.9 4.7
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 250 300 8 25 200 23 300 8
Q-NFF regression(2-yr) 493 5 352
Q-USGS extrapolation(1.2-yr) N/A 561 4 335
Q-Mannings 213 I 320 8 153 I 228
Valley Length(ft) 1,322 280 1,322 280
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 1200 197 --- --- 2,120 197 2,120 326
Sinuosity 1.68 1.04 1.18 1.09 1.68 1.14 1.60 1.16
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0038 0.048 0.0049 0.0473 0.0038 0.0440 0.0031 0.0397
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0031 0.0326
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Meander Wave Length was adjusted in the MY2 report.
2 Channel was dry during survey,slope was calculated using channel thalweg

Table 13.Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Cross-Section 1,Glade Creek(Riff) Cross-Section 2,Glade Creek(Riffle Cross-Section 3,Glade Creek(Po2AIM
Dimension and Substrate MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
bankfull elevation(ft) 2571.8 2571.8 2571.8 2572.0 2572.3 2572.5 2572.5 2569.7 2569.7 2569.7 2570.0 2570.1 2570.2 2570.2 2569.8 2569.8 2569.8 2569.9 2570.2 2569.9 2570.1
low bank elevation(ft) 2571.8 2571.8 2571.3 2571.9 2572.1 2572.5 2572.2 2569.7 2569.7 2569.8 2570.1 2570.6 2570.9 2570.8 2569.8 2569.8 2569.6 2569.9 2570.2 2569.9 2570.1
Bankfull Width(ft) 37.4 34.4 38.7 34.4 32.2 32.6 30.8 34.6 35.0 36.2 36.2 38.4 37.0 35.9 31.9 30.0 32.5 32.2 35.2 31.0 30.4
Floodprone Width(ft) 106 106 102 101 102 107 102 111 110 93 104 104 96 97
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.9 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 70.2 66.9 70.2 64.0 63.1 69.4 61.2 77.1 78.0 77.6 79.2 95.9 101.6 95.9 89.0 88.4 91.5 87.9 99.7 88.0 83.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 19.9 17.7 21.3 18.4 16.4 15.4 15.5 15.5 15.7 16.9 16.5 15.4 13.5 13.4 11.5 10.2 11.6 11.7 12.4 10.9 11.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.7
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 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1
oss-Section 4,UT to Glade Creek( ross-Section 5,UT to Glade Creek(Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
bankfull elevation(ft) 2574.0 2574.0 2574.0 2574.3 2574.4 2574.5 2574.5 2573.6 2573.6 2573.6 2573.7 2574.0 2574.0 2574.1
low bank elevation(ft) 2574.3 2574.3 2574.1 2574.3 2574.4 2574.5 2574.5 2573.6 2573.5 2573.5 2573.7 2574.1 2574.1 2574.1
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.3 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.9 5.1 7.0 5.3 6.1 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.5 5.7
Floodprone Width(ft) -- 61 61 61 36 37 35 29
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.5 1.3 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.7 5.5 4.9 2.6 2.1 1.1 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.1 2.2 2.8 2.8 2.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 6.0 9.6 10.1 18.0 29.8 24.5 17.5 11.8 13.5 11.4 17.8 13.5 15.3 13.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 11.4 10.0 10.3 5.8 6.0 5.3 5.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1,2'3 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0
---: not applicable
'Prior toMY3,bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
2MY3-MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)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.
3BHRs that increased in MY4 were primarily due to additional floodplain deposition and not enlargement of the original baseline cross-section.

Table 14a. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Glade Creek
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
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 30.8 35.9
Floodprone Width(ft) 106 111 97 106 93 102 101 104 102 104 96 107 97 102
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 2.0 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 3.0 4.5
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 61.2 95.9
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 13.4 15.5
Entrenchment Ratio 2.8 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.2 2.6 3.3 2.7 3.3
Bank Height Ratio 2'3 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 <1.0 1.1
D50(mm) 90.0 34.3 39.8 47.7 46.5 52.5 44.0 52.8 52.0 53.7 25.7 57.9
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 33 57 20 57 20 85 19 80 21 105 36 98 N/A
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 N/A
Pool Length(ft) 64 198 66 190 62 222 56 240 65 229 55 224 N/A
Pool Max Depth(ft) 3.8 5.9 4.2 4.4 5.4 3.7 5.8 4.1 6.4 4.2 5.8 N/A
Pool Spacing(ft) 107 353 91 384 90 337 86 391 88 304 108 327 N/A
Pool Volume(ft3) 111 '
Pattern'
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 155 282 155 280 155 283 155 283 155 283 155 283 N/A
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 N/A
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 N/A
Meander Wave Length(ft) 230 425 227 435 216 445 216 445 216 445 216 445 N/A
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 N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120
Sinuosity(ft) 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0031 0.0030 0.0027 0.0027 0.0031 0.0029 N/A
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0031 0.0031 0.0030 0.0025 0.0032 0.0030 N/A
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100/26.47/42.3/128/180/>2045/19.49/30.4/97.6/137/251/12.5/29.6/75.6/115.5/36:/11.0/27.6/109.5/172.5/512/0.6/11.0/64.0/113.8/256 6.1/19/33/85/155.5/256 .4/12.8/30.4/92.5/124.6/2E
of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 2% 6% 8% 2% 1%
'Meander Wave Length was adjusted for MYO and MY1 in the MY2 report.
2Priorto MY3,bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
3MY3-MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)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.

Table 14b. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
UT to Glade Creek
-2111W--11111Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.3 6.1 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.5 5.7
Floodprone Width(ft) 61 32 61 36 37 35 29
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft2) 2.4 2.7 3.1 2.2 2.8 2.8 2.4
Width/Depth Ratio 11.8 13.5 11.4 17.8 13.5 15.3 13.7
Entrenchment Ratio 11.4 5.3 10.3 5.8 6.0 5.3 5.2
Bank Height Ratio 1'2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0
D50(mm) 32.0 22.6 0.7 Silt/Clay 0.1 0.1 0.1
Profile
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 7.4 35.2
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 0.0099 0.1830
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 4.9 24.5
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.5 1.3 1.1 2.4 1.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 0.8 1.7 0.8 1.4
Pool Spacing(ft) 33 70 39 I 84 16 99 13 68 13 229 10 82 53 103
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0
Radius of Curvature(ft) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0
Meander Wave Length(ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
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 3.1 7.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 326 326 326 326 326 326 326
Sinuosity(ft) 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0397 0.0372 0.0323 0.0342 0.0261 0.0348 0.0365
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0326 0.0317 0.0318 0.0362 0.0337 0.0333 0.0354
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1/0.63/13.3/176/241.4/>2l9/4.65/11.9/124.6/163.3/:2/0.4/0.8/111.2/151.8/256C/SC/0.2/101.9/128.0/1805C/0.1/0.3/16.0/41.3/180.0 0.1/0.2/0.4/3.1/22.6/180 SC/0.1/0.3/20.5/54.6/256
of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
'Prior to MY3,bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
2MY3-MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MVO)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.

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
UT Glade Creek(STA 11+29-STA 14+48)
2584
2583 I Reach
258211, 1A ��
2581 `.�1 �`� I
;Break
2580 . ���2579 — -- —
c 2578 �
.2 =�_`���_�..
ti 2577 i1
a
2576
MEOW _
2575 , .,``—
______2574
2573 I 9
1125 1150 1175 1200 1225 1250 1275 1300
Station(feet)
TW(MYO-05/2016) TW(MY1-09/2016) TW(MY2-5/2017) TW(MY3-6/2018) —TW(MY4-4/2019) TW(MY5-6/2020) TW(MY6-6/2021) WSF(MY6-6/2021) ♦ BKF(MY6-6/2021) • STRUCTURE(MY6-6/2021)
2579 -
2578
2577
2576 vx
I x
2575 1
A
9 2574 _ A I
c 2573 ♦
.2 -------w`-----
- 1
j 2572 yc 1to
W 2571 2 I
9
2570 I
m I
2569 - 1
d I
1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450
Station(feet)
TW(MYO-05/2016) TW(MY1-09/2016) TW(MY2-5/2017) —TW(MY3-6/2018) TW(MY4-4/2019) TW(MY5-6/2020) TW(MY6-6/2021) WSF(MY6-6/2021) ♦ BKF(MY6-6/2021)

Cross-Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Cross-Section 1-Glade Creek
12+28 Riffle
2576 -
2574
c 2572 - �kit-
o
03
I w,er trr.----/OF I'1.----
2570 -
4 - /✓
2568 , 1 1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width(ft)
-MYO(5/2016) MY1(9/2016) MY2(5/2017) MY3(6/2018)
-MY4(4/2019) MY5(6/2020) +MY6(6/2021) Bankfull
-Floodprone Area ——— MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions -.
61.2 x-section area(ft.sq.) ,, t� K + .. ..,
30.8 width(ft) > •.;6'..,,. �--s,; -
2.0 mean depth(ft) ' }• .,
3.0 max depth (ft) -F:1 "'�-'" , w= c; .•
34.4 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.8 hydraulic radius(ft) - t
,paw_ �:+
15.5 width depth ratio .. 1.-T4:_',., r '
102 W flood prone area(ft) _ ?N'=
3.3 entrenchment ratio r -�A. .. ..
0.9 low bank height ratio '" - •:;--;- • '
`,._' c:: - %+1. '.'K xd ...'tea
- :ri •f;: ^' *_ -:ate.:-.'°? ;
�--S mow-..- .•
Survey Date: 6/2021 '��:+��•_: ` a-''.i;+- � - -ti r ,�.
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering - - -'-T `v - ; . '" '
:fig
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Cross-Section 2-Glade Creek
19+64 Riffle
2576
2574 -
w 2572 -
c ��—�
zs7o `N , frp'
11
2568 '��
2566 , 1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width(ft)
-MYO(5/2016) MY1(9/2016) MY2(5/2017) MY3(6/2018)
—MY4(4/2019) MY5(6/2020) +MY6(6/2021) Bankfull
-Floodprone Area ——— MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions ; :,
95.9 x section area ft.s '-_t *• µ `':'' ,p"'
( a•) . '-t _ ,•y!:; fro. rC, ?l.:i C
35.9 width(ft) ';" ` ;, '� .-;5;._
2.7 mean depth(ft) - �V.� °.-- r*;i; �'.r'r- : " %'-�-_
4.5 max depth (ft) ;� 4 ." ' � - .• • � :`.-
38.5 wetted perimeter(ft) : 1. y"a'..
2.5 hydraulic radius(ft) " ti " x:A '.. . ' ••. �+;::.
13.4 width-depth ratio 'q'• ' — wa'
97.1 W flood prone area(ft) y- ,y' p - • '
2.7 entrenchment ratio r; � - x:.
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2021 - °;`"
'•�, � : Fes.-• � � '--a`�r
--E:n.':-' +tip Y,k_•'..,: �+1v::.
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering : ,,. .v.: • �•d
ti�Y_.- : -r- • �,. :
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Cross-Section 3-Glade Creek
20+85 Pool
2575 -
2573
_ice _��� /-
-
---� 2571
����
o
2569r.....-
w J�
2567 - �i"
2565 , 1 ���
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width(ft)
MVO(5/2016) MY1(9/2016) MY2(5/2017) —MY3(6/2018) - MY4(4/2019) —MY5(6/2020) tMY6(6/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions • , • ,
83.3 x section area (ft.sq.) tom; - i. °""
30.4 width(ft) a4a:_. � ..
2.7 mean depth(ft) , r. ii
4.5 max depth (ft) k - ;: =� z K _'�-""' _
33.2 wetted perimeter(ft) iry°de... c'' , .
2.5 hydraulic radius(ft) ,- -N ;" Y 4 - -
11.1 width-depth ratio ..-'
Survey Date: 6/2021 4- -, -fir. '•= - =..
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering j. • __ •y' `-
ia pi•µ`
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Cross-Section 4-UT to Glade Creek
12+48 Pool
2576 -
2575 •
���
c 2574 - - - —�'
coWri if
v
w 2573 -
Vi
2572 , 1 1 1
70 80 90 100 110 120
Width(ft)
MVO(5/2016) MY1(9/2016) MY2(5/2017) —MY3(6/2018) MY4(4/2019) —MY5(6/2020) +MY6(6/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions '- .1\=' y rw �°' ° -.. _=
2.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) •1 •..,,,:- l .,.. ''-y•�„-•••;•-.., :�+.• : •.
!' ' ., Y s� tit. l .� ..
e s'r !: I
7.0 width(ft) �: is r)...•'��;" - .�
0.4 mean depth(ft) r �'�� V � ,;e.�' '•t';F; � �'-i,`. . y� i :', ,�?�'�• / .;�•
0.8 max depth (ft) 'I" . , L '..
7.3 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) r,(,' !' `"" }'
17.5 width-depth ratio ;',:. ?` ;5
.._,,-...-r ,. ....4if.4, ,.. ,.. ._:_,, .. ,...._.2_.. .q,4
Survey Date: 6/2021 - ... -slif A
, ,• �+ ark � �
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ` .k �- �. ,. -, -- Tiii .+11t, -
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Cross-Section 5-UT to Glade Creek
13+50 Riffle
2576
2575 - ` _.........._
_........._,„
1
4_
..._.
0 -------"'"%ift:L—.41111111 "111 --2574
ca
w
2573 - /
2572 , ,
90 100 110 120 130
Width(ft)
-MYO(5/2016) MY1(9/2016) MY2(5/2017) MY3(6/2018)
—MY4(4/2019) MY5(6/2020) +MY6(6/2021) Bankfull
-Flood prone Area ——— MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions ., •,, 'L•;1.r. ••y".`-, .' 1 :`r=-j>•1':i• -i- , ; yy '.,f�dY. "�-. • _• y
2.4 x-section area(ft.sq.) ::k :� ; 'ry }',; V :. ,,T ;.•'- f
5.7 width(ft) ` '.- ,.. c •. ' _
0.4 mean depth(ft) sa" _ r� w :{y'
0.8 max depth (ft) ti :�_.' = ra' S•_ :- ; q_ +�
6.2 wetted perimeter(ft) ;s -4•„ y. ,---k ",:,• -, .11- _ y5,'•,: 17 r
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) :-, �� �' .�°+.k'" -� -+ T 'h..'
13.7 width-depth ratio • •_ :' 'r 4•- , . _
29.4 W flood prone area(ft) �r 2-- �.�}� -' :f '� -
5.2 entrenchment ratio _�;-. �� ,' 44:,1-�'_'? i.
1.0 low bank height ratio .47
-- �. - ,. �; a' .�
It
Survey Date: 6/2021 far y `.4.'r •¢t.;:A-4. a- >:'• i - umma- ":
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Sr . It•Ir ,i M1 '_ '_"' R�
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Glade Creek,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class PI
Percent Glade Creek,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 __ 0 100 1 1 1 I I I II —• r •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 _© 5 5 5 90 Silt/Clay Sand I< Gravel N
Fine 0.125 0.250 6 6 6 11 Cobble Boulder I�
gp Bedrock_
C�� Medium 0.25 0.50 _� 7 7 18
Coarse 0.5 1.0 _© 2 2 20 ;2 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 _ 2 2 22 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 ___— 22 3 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 _ME 1 1 23 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 _a 3 3 26
Fine 5.6 8.0 in 1 1 27 a 30
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 NE4 4 31 a 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 1 9 10 10 41 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 _© 3 3 44 0
Coarse 22.6 32 7 M 7 7 51 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 2 © 5 5 56 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 11 _ 13 13 69 —MVO(05/2016) —MY1(10/2016) —MY2(05/2017) —MY3(07/2018)
Small 64 90 12 _ 14 14 83 —MY4(05/2019) —MY5(06/2020) —11—MY6(06/2021)
gi , Small 90 128 11 .1. 13 13 96
Large 128 180 2 M 2 2 98
Large 180 256 1 _ 2 2 100 Glade Creek,Reachwide
10000000000000000 Small 256 362
Individual Class Percent
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 100 100__
Small 362 512 100
90
Medium 512 1024 100
80
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
... Large/Very er Large 1024 2048 100 BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 —_-- 100 c 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 w 60
a
VI 50
Reachwide v 40
Channel materials(mm)
3 30
Di6= 0.4
D35= 12.8 v 20 ..I
D*0= 30.4
Da4= 92.5
Dg5= 124.6 61'
ti5 ti5 ph '' ti Lu b � 0 ti1 yC' LC'' 3ti b (0b 0O 46 gO „i 43ti N'L ,b 0 0�
pyo � � y1Oti/oto
Dim= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO(05/2016) •MY1(10/2016) •MY2(05/2017) •MY3(07/2018) •MY4(05/2019) •MY5(06/2020) •MY6(06/2021)

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Glade Creek,Cross-Section 1
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Glade Creek,Cross-Section 1
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 t 1 1 1 * """4 • • • •
ELIIII 0.062 0.125 0 90 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 1 Cobble l.
Boulder 1 Bedrock
80
PC‘C) Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3 4 I
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 4 70
Ve Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 > 60 - 4
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 4 i0 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 4 E
I
u? 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 5
y 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 5 E
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 7 a 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 1 1 8 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 1 1 9 0 •—• -
Coarse 22.6 32 7 7 16 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 15 15 30 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 28 27 58 —MYO(05/2016) —MY1(10/2016) —MY2(05/2017) —MY3(07/2018)
Small 64 90 25 25 82 —MY4(05/2019) —MY5(06/2020) t MY6(06/2021)
Small 90 128 14 14 96
` Large 128 180 4 4 100
Large 180 256 -- 10o Glade Creek,Cross-Section 1
Individual Class Percent
€''Small 256 362 100 100
'€'I Small 362 512 100
90
€'',Medium 512 1024 100
80
1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -- 100 c 70
w
Total 102 100 100 w 60
a
N 50
Cross-Section 1 40
Channel materials(mm)
73 30
D16= 32.2 v
D35= 47.7 v 20
D50= 57.9 E 10
D84= 93.9 0 • . I . .1..61. 111.� ill Jul I L.
D95= 124.5 °�1L yti5°tih °5 'y 1, ,L'b b h� ce ,y'3. y��,yo 41, b� cob 43 y,L'b y�° ��� �0ti yyti °,yb °�'b °,,d
Dlao= 180.0 °' °' y L a
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MYO(05/2016) •MY1(10/2016) •MY2(05/2017) •MY3(07/2018) •MY4(05/2019) •MYS(06/2020) •MY6(06/2021)

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Glade Creek,Cross-Section 2
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Glade Creek,Cross-Section 2
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 t _ • •
ELIIII 0.062 0.125 0 90 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 1 Cobble Boulder l.
80 Bedrock
SP$‘0 Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 2
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 3 70 1
Ve Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 4 7 > 60 -
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 8 F
m11.0 6 6 20 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 10 10 30 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 13 13 43 0 •
Coarse 22.6 32 19 19 62 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 17 17 79 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 9 9 88 -MYO(05/2016) -MY1(10/2016) -MY2(05/2017) -MY3(07/2018)
Small 64 90 5 5 93 -MY4(05/2019) -MY5(06/2020) t MY6(06/2021)
Small 90 128 2 2 95
` Large 128 180 1 1 96
Large 180 256 3 3 99 Glade Creek,Cross-Section 2
::::.......................:::::::::......::::::. Individual Class Percent
..................................................
'',Small 256 362 1 1 100 100
€''Small 362 512 100
90
€'',Medium 512 1024 100
80
1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -- 100 c 70
w
Total 100 100 100 w 60
a
N 50
Cross-Section 2 40
Channel materials(mm)
73 30
D16= 8.9 v
D3s= 18.3 v 20 I Dso= 25.7 = 10 .I . ..i .UlialUi Il Is, .
D84= 54.7 0
D9s= 128.0 °�', 4)°.yh °5 'v 1, ,L'b b h� 4, ,,5. y��,yo ,,1L b� cob c° y,L'b y�° ��� ,40.,40.,,y� yti °,yb °�'b °,,d
Dlao= 362.0 °' °' y L a
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MYO(05/2016) •MY1(10/2016) •MY2(05/2017) •MY3(07/2018) •MY4(05/2019) •MYS(06/2020) •MY6(06/2021)

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
UT to Glade Creek,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class PI
Percent UT to Glade Creek,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 5 ® 20 20 20 100 < 1 1 1 I I I 'N� . .�.
Very fine 0.062 0.125 6 14 14 35 90 Silt/Clay sand n Gravel -
Fine 0.125 0.250 4 © 7 7 42 Cobble Boulder 14 80 Bedrock_
C�) Medium 0.25 0.50 6 EN18 18 60
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 © 3 3 63 7 70
....- ,...joy,
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 © 5 5 68 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 ___- 68 3 E
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 M 1 1 69 E__- 691 ME 2 2 71 a -
Medium 8.0 11.0 _© 2 2 73 a 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 5 ME 6 6 80 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 in 6 6 86 0
Coarse 22.6 32 6 M 6 6 92 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 2 M 2 2 94 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 2 M 2 2 96 -MVO(05/2016) -MY1(10/2016) -MY2(05/2017) -MY3(07/2018)
Small 64 90 ___- 96 -MY4(05/2019) -MY5(06/2020) tMY6(06/2021)
gi , Small 90 128 1 1 1 97
Large 128 180 1 ME 2 2 99
Large 180 256 1 M 1 1 100 UT to Glade Creek,Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
immummummummummum Small 256 362 100
_ 100
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirIIiiIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Small 362 512 100
90
Medium 512 1024 100
80
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......... Large/VeryLarge 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -_-- 100 = 70
Total 49 49 98 100 100 w 60
a
VI 50
tn
Reachwide v 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay 1
30
> 20
Dls- 0.1
D50= 0.3
Ds,= 20.5
D95= 54.6 61' ti ti ph '' ti Lu b � 0 tit yC' LC'' 3ti 5 (0b OO 46 ,,� „i OL N'L ,b 0 Ob
oyo � � ytiO 1,2 ao
D1oo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO(05/2016) •MY1(10/2016) •MY2(05/2017) •MY3(07/2018) •MY4(05/2019) •MY5(06/2020) •MY6(06/2021)

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
UT to Glade Creek,Cross-Section 5
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT to Glade Creek,Cross-Section 5
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 25 25 25 100 t 1 1 1 • • • • a •� • • • •
0.062 0.125 25 25 50 90 Silt/Clay an
Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 10 10 60 Cobble Boulder l.
80 Bedrock
SP$‘0 Medium 0.25 0.50 35 35 95
Coarse 0.5 1.0 95 • 70
Ve Coarse 1.0 2.0 95 > 60
7.
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 95 i0 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 5 5 100 E
u• 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 100
y 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 100 E
Medium 8.0 11.0 100 a 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 100 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 100 -/A
Coarse 22.6 32 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 100 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 100 -MYO(05/2016) -MY1(10/2016) -MY2(05/2017) -MY3(07/2018)
Small 64 90 100 -MY4(05/2019) -MY5(06/2020) t MY6(06/2021)
Small 90 128 100
` Large 128 180 -- 100
Large 180 256 10o UT to Glade Creek,Cross-Section 5
Individual Class Percent
€''Small 256 362 100 100
'€'I Small 362 512 100
90
€',Medium 512 1024 100
80
1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -- 100 c▪ 70
w
Total 100 100 100 w 60
o.
N 50
Cross Section 5 40
Channel materials(mm)
73 30
D16= Silt/Clay -o
D35- 0.1 :o
20
D50- 0.1 c 10
Ds4= 0.4 ill i Iji ill 6 ll i •
D95= 0.5 Orati yti5 Otih Q5 a, 1, ,L'b b h� ya. y��,�0 ,S'L b� cob cp y,L'b y�0 ,�, ,40,,,yyti O,yb 0�0 O,,d
Dlao= 4.0 °' °' y 'L a
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MYO(05/2016) •MY1(10/2016) •MY2(05/2017) •MY3(07/2018) •MY4(05/2019) •MYS(06/2020) •MY6(06/2021)

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 15.Verification of Bankfull Events
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Reach MY of ' Date of ' Date of Data Me
Occurrence Occurrence Collection
MY1 6/27/2016 10/4/2016 Crest Gage
MY2 10/9/2017 12/4/2017 Wrackline
Glade Creek 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
MY6 5/26/2021 6/7/2021 Wrackline
MY1 6/27/2016 10/4/2016 Crest Gage
MY2 10/9/2017 12/5/2017 Wrackline
UT to Glade Creek 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
MY6 5/26/2021 6/7/2021 Crest Gage
Table 16.Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for MY6 II—
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(%)
Gage MY1(2016) MY2(2017) MY3(2018) MY4(2019) MY5(2020) MY6(2021)
1 Yes/127 Days Yes/169 Days Yes/169 Days Yes/169 Days Yes/169 Days Yes/169 Days
(75.6%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
Wetland success criteria is 12.5%of growing season(21 consecutive days).

Groundwater Gage Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Wetland D
Glade Creek Groundwater Gage#1
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Start of Growing Season End of Growing Season
20 4/26/2021 10/11/2021 8.0
169 days
• •
10 — — 7.0
0 6.0
-10 5.0
c
w =-
-20 - 4.0 w
c
w '�
m cc
-30 - I 3.0
40 2.0
-SO 1� I I 1.0
-60 - I II II .11 i 1 i I 1�.. .Y •II .�d 1 L L ..1 .I iI 1l il , LI J ,•I I 0.0
C L i T C . a +' > o
(13 li g Q g —ro co 'i Q VI O z 0
Rainfall Gage#1 — — Criteria Level

Monthly Rainfall Data
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 6/Closeout-2021
Glade Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2021 Alleghany County,NC
14.00
12.00
10.00
• 8.00 -
0
'0• 6.00
a`
4.00
2.00
0.00 •
Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21
Date
NC CRONOS Sparta 3.5 SSW —30th percentile —70th percentile
2021 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name:Sparta 3.5 SSW(NCSU,2021)
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta,NC8158(USDA,2021)

APPENDIX 6
As-Built Memorandum
Prepared for: North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NC DMS)
Project Title: Glade Creek II Restoration Project Repairs
DMS No. 92343
Project No: 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 1
As-Built Memorandum

r
—
•
tir
• ° I' •
^— :m
_ '€.'dam, - _ �` _ .'w
s' " €yi,,, gy s� ',c`-ti. ',,':n•. �� „ �,` -� - .� � �- .y,
rf ,��#�,._.k, ram ` a d
Brush toe geolift repair, left bank looking downstream Brush toe geolift repair area from right bank, looking
1p downstream
rl'
•
1.
1n - iI.i pi II g . .
v I t� aim ��, r,.
is S•4'l,-. _ 4•
ii,
11"" a R T,' r,
, ..,..
. .. .
.. ... ,, ,,,,. . ...„„.........„
....
y _
.....
_.,...„, ....,..., „..,...4,,. ...,4,-,- ,r1
Y
'% - -- a; / JF%ter'`. y-
- 1- 4''f Miff t .} - kl 1 -- A-�q�"..,
,,,.a
Wetland B outlet steps Point bar grading and hillslope repair
pa .a!
•
Y wt. _ 1 ' -. g ^s.'tee �u�.�.
1� �t 3{� � x lY'b•_.: �`� �e � : �s � ��
t ;. ,i I "# La s
r ! mot_ ' y4e h3' '
Wetland B planting Construction access route stabilization
Glade Creek II Stream Restoration Repairs Page 2
As-Built Memorandum

Appendix A:
As-Built Plan Sheets
Glade Creek II Stream Restoration Repairs Page 3
As-Built Memorandum

V
i. As Built Redlines - 5/8/20 /v/OJ' v
OJ �
/ J <w �i w
FILL AREA BEHIND 3C3J OJT' 3-ax � -1g'z
LOG VANE TIMBER LARGE TREES ON HILL SLOPE. ,�,
- —3 TERRACE HILLSIDE SLOPE FAILURE. ACC OJT' ,..]7" I da=
3C O _ SEE DETAIL 2,SHEET 2 F, ...
REPLACE BRUSH MATTRESS .c •IW•'7 --3...-;..:::- -_ '
WITH BRUSH TOE TOPPED _—: "�-lop`_' °� ;; -::,i _• __ -- --__ --- J`<' J OJ
WITH VEGETATED GEOLIFT flg -`,,,11�---- si -`---" - - O
3C— SEE DETAIL 3,SHEET 2 .G�' - ^v ! ` ` • - --------------
] a f ' -_ ' - __ ------------=Scour hole in bank
3C-3C / , % / SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING -.., � - ]•`� \ ,'`�,;,`` '�``., backfilled with
3C IN WETLAND AREA. '�- ^ � •� _ .I \\\ \
SEE LIST THIS SHEET /` �V= '11• II II All II N ',`GRADE POINTBARAT5:1 33
g 7 ILK = u n = = stone `
3 C—30 / z z z z z z z z z z z , 'm ' -11 •'` \\
�Ji_ , _ ,
—3C z(z z z z , �, ,j;,, �I ,'�� ;�11 = .111 u i'0_h-\ \1 VI IV e 1 ,\ %I/ ��;: =_ -
'/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/ /, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/. '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, 1 - ---- _----- - _
1 ) " IA11 1 \ " o-"
/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, '/, r '/, '/, '/, '/, % ,� '(I "�1 \ \\O: i ;, '\,``,� ; ---�---' -'--'_ - =--
ditt =
/ / / / / / / / / / / Y/ / / / / / . . . .'`,. oo g �` ' \�,` `' ` ' --..___
2 logsills replaced '! o -- - ,-.- -
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z;z z z z z z \ '` ,p • _-
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , upper 2 rock sills
REPAIRROCKSILL5.11\` • Area graded
due to material SEE DETAIL4,SHEET2 �;_,..,, ,. - \"„ /
' _ � ` �` �,` `�,- �`o�:;:• ,�; reduced slightly to
.__--------_ TRIM OVERHANGING VEGETATION., Tree remove , \O _ } \`,`, `,,,
availability ___
' ' '/, / - - USE VEGETATION IN BRUSH •TOE REPAIR. - ``�`` `, ``, • \ avoid vegetation __ ' " 1111
.=
\;,``;'', '; plot 6 —��--goo 1 ,',; ,;
, ,
, , , ,
, , , ,_:,_„:„_,- __ ,:___ „ „.., ,,
- -_„ \ il 007 OJ ACCESS ROA= N r''
J O
„I )\‘'J 0 , I
J
tlI� / /Z
• �/
gyp fi
T
J
1r`� -
_
is'
J
,
j
U
0
,' /'i;'% {�'$:::,` 'ji; I;H% ' i CC`' z C CE, -_-- _ __�_i,,� 1'`k %INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 4
/; ' ` /, /' " i - -' "O ,' ''C`F._ ----- --_ „P=_?=="--SEE DETAIL 1,SHEET 2 W3
cam_ . CE E E E�CE ,—.1
Planting List Approved Date Type Planting Rate Buffer Planting Zone
(lbs/acre)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Typ Rye Grain(Secale cereale) 120 Species Common Name Stratum Density(lbs/acre)
-rrubrum* Red Maple Tre- Ground Agricultural Panicum rigidulum Redtop Panicgrass Herb 1 Note:
Alnus ;rulata Tag Alder S •Tree Jan 1-May 1 Limestone 2000 Chasmanthium lati olium
f River Oats Herb 1 Permanent Riparian seeding in
Carpinus caro ..na American Hornbeam Shrub Tree 10-10-10 Fertilizer 750 Elymus virginiana Virginia Wild Rye Herb 3 all disturbed areas within
Straw Mulch 4000 Deertongue Conservation Easement
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Shrub Tree Dichanthelium clandestinum g Herb 3
Corn us amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree German Millet(Setaria 40 Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass Herb 3
Diospyros virginiana ` erican Persimm.- Tree italics) Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem Herb 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica* ` een As, Tree May 1-Aug 15 Ground Agricultural Limestone 2000 Panicum virgatum Switchgrass Herb 1
§ Hamamelis virginiana Witc. -.zel Shrub Tree Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan Herb 1
10-10-10 Fertilizer 750
A Lirodendron tulipifera .ip Popla Tree Straw Mulch 4000 Showy Tickseed
Bidens aristosa Sunflower Herb 1 N
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree Rye Grain(Secale cereale) 120
Physocarpus opulifolius Nine Bark Shrub Tree Helianthus angustifolius Narrowleaf Sunflower Herb 0.6
Ground Agricultural 2000 Coreopsislanceolata Lanceleaf Coreopsis Herb 1 i .1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree Aug 15-Dec 30 Limestone
u Quercus rubra Red Oak Tree 10-10-10 Fertilizer 1000 Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea Herb 1 O g
Sali Willow Tre- Straw Mulch 4000
Heliopsis helianthoides var.
z helianthoides Oxeye Sunflower Herb 1
Sambu canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree o °'
31 Juncos tenuis Path Rush Herb 0.4 N m._
*No m.--than 5%of planting .. 3
Pla - g shall be a mix of bare root and up to 25 container plants within th limits of disturbance. dw
.pplemental plants in the wetland area shall be bare roots. See as-built
E
memorandum for
0' 40' 80' 120'
gz ; '
N installed species list (HORIZONTAL) v w� 1 �x o
j
".. J

/ V
As Built Redlines - 5/8/20 u-,
0
zLI
� .-0
3,x
fl! :I
- E Fr/ IIIII '
IIII --�\
/ IIIII \\
N
A° \ PROPOSED GRADE
/ g9 �, \ TO BE TERRACED PER
•�• \� ENGINEER'S DIRECTION
/ QJ0 • •
• • i • t /
• . ,
• • • ,• • • 50'
II II IIIII/ • �l • • •
,,,,,.
IIIII •:•••••••,••• \\ /,/
nlllllllll ••••• •tWOA s l� EXISTING WATER LINE ,'
IIIIII •_i••••••••••, \ /'� EXISTING GROUND
CLASSASTONE :?••••••��••.v\ \
8"MIN.DEPTH •••••-��� f\ TIMBERED LOGS TO NN = /
<!Gi;•' 16' BE EMBEDDED AT EACH N /
"<' TERRACE ----
NOTES:
1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMMODATE LARGE TRUCKS.
5. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS OF
INGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED.
PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND
TIMELY MAINTENANCE.
6. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL
PREVENT TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO
STREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH STONE WILL
BE NECESSARY. O Construction Entrance O Terrace Slope O
7. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST 2 Not to Scale 2 Not to Scale S�
BE CLEANED IMMEDIATELY. U
8. USE CLASS A STONE OR OTHER COARSE AGGREGATE
APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 0
9. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE. / 0
_ I z
5' WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
Row of alder transplants ,x �, .
installed alon t� BACKFILL IN 12"LIFTS
g p WRAP MATTING AT EACH LIFT
EROSION CONTROL MATTING TO OF BANK(BANKFULL) U
ELEV.1'ABOVE NXN/r/// /jam FILTER FABRIC ///\%/\�%\�%\\�i:: " U
DOWNSTREAM '\//\///� DENSELY PACKED BRUSH,WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL /\j\\j�\/ 2,2
} MIXED STONE TOE OR BRUSH PACK "0
RIFFLE INVERT \\\ \//\�X\/' w IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEER
%/ \7 /V/// j/ a �IN THE FIELD
j\// /\\//\\/%//\�\ co9 J 6"SALVAGED ONSITE
BASE LOG \� TOE OF SLOPE ////\%/\�j\//\ _ m O BEOD MATER ALEL (�
4"-6"DIAMETER '` j\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \jce\\X\ A
BACKFILL CLASS 2 HEADER STONE
ELEV.6"BELOW 2'MIN NATIVE SOIL Mt-ft-�
POOL DEPTH ����������•.
Section A=A' ll, 11 u n n1�..�1
��A�1= FOOTER BOULDER
B 6'
1 CAN BE SUBSTITUTED WITH MIX OF
A A BALLAST,No.57,CLASS A/B/I MATERIAL
DENSELY PACK BRUSH,WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL EROSION CONTROL MATTING EXTEND FILTER WITH ENGINEER'S APPROVAL
IN BETWEEN BASE LOGS SILL ELEVATION FABRIC 5'MIN.
OF'CP�\ Pl
NOTES: -cO BASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW PER PROFILE UPSTREAM FILTER FABRIC
BASE LOGS PARALLEL TO FLOW Plan View Profile A-A'
P TOP OF BANK
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3'OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK(BANKFULL). Pl SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILE a
Eb 2. INSTALL BASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW AT 5\.,0C) c.r,cc 0 Le LT 0-.
g INTERVALS ALONG BANK,RESTING ON TOP OF PARALLEL -cOEOF >'�\S%c%, S�% �`\�'�����'���' + Z O
`� BASE LOGS. BASE LOGS SHALL BE 4"-6"DIAMETER. FV,O ,�.(P) 1'MIN O m m 2
3. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, \,QPEI r m
WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS OF S EMBED 5' i cc O u,
QE 0 BANKS SHALL BE RAKED, N cC_1 LU g
x" COLLECTED ON-SITE AND SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE. PrCC'( TOcc
A' BRUSH MATERIAL TO BE SEEDED WITH A TEMPORARY MIX BANK TYP
w O a¢ "
LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER. F� INSTALLED FLUSH OF PEARL HEADED MILLET AND Section B-B' ( ) cc
WITH BANK ~
a 4. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY FESCUE,AMENDED WITH FERTILIZER
z PARALLEL AND IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY AND THAN MATTED OVER WITH
UPSTREAM. 700G EROSION CONTROL MATTING o N LIi
tl 21 5. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS. Plan View ''
a 6. INSTALL A LAYER OF LIVE WHIPS ABOVE BRUSH.
3 7. BOTTOM OF FIRST COMPACTED EARTH LIFT TO BE PLACED
6"ABOVE NORMAL BASEFLOW.
- 8. NUMBER OF COMPACTED EARTH LIFTS TO VARY O Rock Sill
O Brush Toe s
A DEPENDING ON DESIGN TOP OF BANK HEIGHT. 3 2 Not to Scale ' w ''
N 9. SEED,MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING 2 Not to Scale v a w 1 t
X
AND BANK STABILIZATION PER PLANS. �` a �" rs dJ T,

APPENDIX 7 — Close Out Photos
April 2y020 Repair,1 Photos
ma's 6 r, "'", P1 �"'�g r�. f�Fy,, ,
wg m
t ';,
6 q
iii.....
ill p°ae %` _jtf{
\*
ar
'leAatla.::,-;"*.'''':::..;.','-;:tt‘':, ' . -•'.'" ';'.''''', - , ,k^:!'-':;:''''''.:4?!:-,.If ."4,',..
..,0,4,00„..-,... :,._,,,w,-,-....,.,:-':, ' ,,,,,,..;
_ 9 � � Fdl". � f ';ems
-' '..i'::'';'0„..--,0 ioP.,:-.,.'-,,• ., , 2,.....-111.,-i,L•-,i7-,\--,,s--;=.• -.'. :,--;,-.I. -.
li,
-\,
-d '^. 'P`
d
.yj d�� �a, ,x am +� r
# 9
� �.,e � n'-,yr �t �
_- 1 .,a

LEFT BANK UNDERCUT BRUSH MATTRESS (STA 22+25)
Pre-construction - November 2019
v ,� „_+�
l • l �' l:C L
'.I lOtealliic: " ' A*
1y
r
AV ii. i
•
111P.P... .
1 s.
V
Post construction -June 2020
,4,40.. ;. PP r;,
15 .ry a M5pn'i,. / C
3 - µ "Of _ '" .b �..„ / ,41
r
f.
b_
r
ff
n,
4.,�yy
_ 1^ -

OUTER BEND EROSION AREA(STA 22+25 to STA 23+25)
Pre-construction - November 2019
e
-•��+ f d,.�f +. C of Tk 1;.�'�r'.
•
•
�d3 i'!d'� µ yo { .4K �z�(f yj `" :.-. -%=4- ✓ .-,,,,,it.;,
. P i �.
}
avi
,` _- _ • _
- -. _: t `:
II. ! `pis
- ` i . ' a—
1 _
Post construction -April 2020
�- �� "
, c
r b!
.� e
.sN;,s mu- - �'-=' '
14
r _
t�l$ .". -t--'tom`.-
.x�''' � Rom _t. _.
as�',: r',�'°L _�.�/ ,'y - -...-' -Post construction -Sep 2020
s `' r ,
„;--,,,. z , r 5 A "-tii,J;Ri f '�fb --- w
3'
fr .. ..ate q.

LEFT BANK HBr
ILLSLOPE EROSION AREA(STA 23+50)
mop
Pre-construction November 2019
r_ - -- pi-. ._ _ .04,,i4r.,-,:c.,,-...-v:.",-:';..., ,,,.-kirf,,... _
....,...„2.,..., : _„,,_, . . .., _ . , ...,.. 1,.,..., . ,.. ,„,,z..,.. .„,_;.,,.., ,...., ,
...Itt.„.......t,,,..(..,....,,,,z.,. ..„.._, . ,,, ___ .,.... . _.... 1... .... „.....„....,, _,„:.
._- --,-ii"T''' 4iift.
a� r�
y
�.. Y_
Post construction April 2020
.,...-- 7Ner4,1,,,.--- , - :.e.,- \ _A, .. . -,...ii,-.. _
i i
s
v ,
w
Post construction -June 2020
-r
4.
'''',--:'f.:'-'4"-',-.; 1...-;-%:.'- .4-fA:',.,'' , r;tie-°`•-T. - ...,;' ',
' fix � ye _
,air n -,.,'
m
1.
. II!

W R0
Pre-constructionetlandBOutlet - Noveepairmber(STA 22+20190)
by 1,,r•J y,t ..:...? ..:`::: ,.a.� 1 !l
1 �s�+
Post construction -June 2020
F 3'�.' bra, 'r�4 :Y i
a
!� �� - _
i� � 4 g� E Y 1
•fix
Sb
.-
Y
+
r1, rEt
3.i_- ice-
ANL
Post construction -August 2020
s� p j
p 3 ,.I'3�z z e
� � x �� ; -sy w k�' 4,.kit •
tom'.. � YF N� � Y3, ,,s$"1
^ ,, r as
'r4,
x . r* ;
z « r�s�

WETLAND SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING (Wetland B 350 Stems)
April 2020
Wetland Area
Scientific Name Common Name Type Quantity
Viburnum hudurn Possumhaw viburnum Tut in. 76
A Plus serrulota Tag Alder Tub ing 76
Cepholan thus occiden(mid Buttonbush Ti'_ in. 76
Cvrnusamumurra Silky dogwood —_7 in. 77
3arnbucus caravder srs Elderberry —_:in E 4S
_Sti fat or r
Wetland B(0.74 acres),supplemental wetland planting .f
, 91- ' - ,
r' `� 4 Icy + _: ��
- r
_ . 4. ,
ui, r,
. . , A:tv..4k ,.
•Y` E Itt y 1...•
Gate:acres _ -
t i.
rr
y1r . l.

Site-wide Photos
1+.71,.' :':1;?Alirg:..'.:'1.?e,4 7 .1.1f::. '-''! , olltp.
44...S.,'.°V..'.C,.:•......-; •.- ' .'''47:' .• -. .• - ." .-.,:;zie,1!,,,,....-.:..-• ...-,•:.: :..: . . ....,:-.5....-..'_:-::,. .;:: :••,..0-,,,•--,•*--..,7,_.. ,-4:. ,.. L...-;:.5,
-_.'M 7-. i s _ -e. .:;x: v ..- yy.�, .. >f^
M.
,'y'., A _ -YT '°:4 P°.� ! ? -mow... :- S'•.., • -,Syr _'
•
'• may_:: 'n1.• Y• • •- s 1:_. '� -; J -
�S .w .F,".� M '
- 'sue 4 .:.�:`'':'^ �'• �..:-. ..�.. `
�..�>. :., x v. '-idk. .;:' ,may,;'::.
"J
....�: „�� • �y
',:.:.'-.-�' ,. -b ��5-�z• ..dry=:x,•'_ �t�' 4K.5. � .:�,. ? apt • ����7.: '.�-.'.
�u;� -..:,�.�-de:. �-ti` -;;� •-r�- �.ei*��a �'ai,:'".'•3+... �.'+.r -:s� • .. ";'4E"-
a''A i.b11';.:
.. yy�
�f:.'. "'7i.=:s'' r:.`...yE:.,sP:! r.>>.� ':.'�! .n`i..s �.} s.�:..li':�?:':`T
.9
+_yp'
, 44....
• C
-14
-.:' • %{�"�';T !-1",•- .�1.�.=� .���' — i`�'. sr'��1. ...'�'• d{''• a_ .F'�.'.�.,A,,...:;-?Y..,yi i .:�:aiS.. ,�G
irP7-:•••:;';'::.1.';''%itri.1:--47'.':,.. •:V..14:tt$t::.•;.,..• ....'••,..VM:1,...W.;
' ' �-a[yt4•'.� ''• _ .�.�.:4.4.� :,��� .. .7, • Yra,ir='.y'�s' �,,h'
...:0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,r,,,
;r I
:.
{ ti4 F -S
:,...,,,,r,,,,,,,t..,-,H.,4..,,,,.*TP..." :.::,.7.1*.i::,:,':-.:,..:'',:r.:7'::..c.:.:::;-:::::'-- ._ ."..::::i4:'•'4"'?"-....
..�i�:;it .-�y �Y 'fix,
1 -
, s
•:•:;,:v-.1:^,.,u7N„.:...-4.-4i:k• •...•...;..:.,-!'•-.4",-,..4...•?:.1';-.‘„ .77-A,... .i.:,-,1.*:,=:.. ,--,......-,- ..
,�. ,.. .3 ^y:;t �"Im . i •+
4
4a .o� +e a° :.F`%' t,,la`g. ' �_. ,,, a,. _' : : " r t�' i a E f? I' `r .
•
L.
5•'_M.:,..'x� �c... ...:, -J.'r.;, iti.405:), d4.. '..Y 'i.,: _u 4' .r.'s'� ,,:'i il.,fifi + ..
'ei'�!i,,., 14 '3:' i.`.F 5•:; 1: ''}81ti'� _sdd'..1 '' ..�i by.f ..y .:15 vy..
,_,
..,.. F •_� '..,Fy, s1. u:,,.;a•�€.��.r .'..'.*y , s,°'�: .i ,., .- �.',x z. r•, '. !+.y,., ,a.
MY6/June 2021

Pre-Construction Glade Creeks(May 2006)
r
'• Mrs'.
Pp *
..^ - �y.� .
sue• {•
w.s.. . A; -
�^
3

As-Built-Construction Glade Creek (January 2016)
sI
.� .
- ,
t
��-.....,,''v-.- M 7 ._Acirlp-
t 5 f 4. 4e
''PM'
_'w v ,V, •1
s-:__ _- - --
. raw __ - _ _- . .
ems.-� . -a
f
y,Y
�� y4
•
.e. -�, '� • .
.• �. F 4,,• 7 .ig
g

Monitoring Year 6 Glade Creek(June 2021)
•
Y h vT .1.`£ 3' .tea i y -
„t
�c
Y f 4-
t
3 g
4", }d ? 9.
X gg� �
fi .x.i9
w 7 .y,.i,� -A b K z.
s- c .
`-. aE -A„,,,
\., ;mot. '� ;.
Nth . k
1
�} � .�. - "fit:... K •

As-Built-Construction Unnamed Tributary and Wetland B (January 2016)
.,��f. _ ,fir_ � 4�. � . .,•�
I
L - -r '
A N'-.
j o� 5
�.`.. s
.� r a - fm
w. _
•
•
3"^• i, -4- :.:,rags _
d]�Vc S`*6.
h 1
•
5 - -
..
�5W3p°' l
ym
r
-01413:9 2(9 ;'

Monitoring Year 6/2021 Unnamed Tributary
r N 's as "R ,4 „ r s,
/ �' ig! : �-i �',. t W <'� tom- r
S ��1c ' �-..; gr, � "+'-- v� it • ��r,
r� G_ , � R `. . ,a yyf��r iii F `-__ ti
�s �d _ 9k 4 f L.� y \� F
„,±w., , ,,i
...._
�7 � �.� 'a� f�� yea ��` �L�'Y+ � �:Irf'('�� ��� ti �� n ^��"�y�q
•
I x, � x _: , r .s`� � FS,e�.-r �._ d •°`a
__if. :-•
�4x tI'V(' °�"V`r r N t i t'' d .n d Ci ,__i 11
emotc\
y.r y pH,v R, ;may, a �Pa - f.'^ ° k
..1.---.% -'. :%' .'•' ',,X.Y4iiji.„.;:t.r ..,:;':;,,'..,; 4',''''41 Af*-"-;442-f. ,7-.: '''''' -:,._.,'). :.'..•i.v--- ' '4- - • _ . ,' • _
.* „ .,,.. .,,,,,, ,....,:l. „,,,. ...,„:,.:5:..1 .,
,„,,....t...,,,.,. 70.,,;,„T,....1.... ,.4i.;„.._ .,.. . ,.....4„,i,.,.....,..,... .•_,..,....„...,..
. , ...„ .._„_ ., _._:iix.,:iiiteg,. ,
� i t
y •
� � 1
-r i' E -�
s �,�t 1 s° , r v
ti \
.11\
I../ - ,\ 6 \'S rvl- ,� �s, J'.. '�sty ,.5,- �'fi
NS +' ,y A. YF�44 5 g _ • f3� s. f� ��.`� .1 Y - _
r .�'W d !q r. ,}x� '" 4'g ;•ti �'�q{: 6� - + '+M @a�4i1 )•1 k. , 'r ��
s,