HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090049 Ver 2_Year 1 Monitoring Report _2016_20170224MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
GLADE CREEK II RESTORATION PROJECT
Alleghany County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 6843
NCDMS Project Number 92343
Data Collection Period: October 2016
Draft Submission Date: December 31, 2016
Final Submission Date: February 17, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
INC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
PREPARED BY:
�i
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
kgimbert@wildlandseng.com
Phone: 704.332.7754
Fax: 704.332.3306
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 2,167
stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 0.33 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 Cataloging Unit (CU) 05050001 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit
Code (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 4 miles northeast of the Site near Fox Trot Lane in the Town of Hooker,
Alleghany County. The land adjacent to the streams and wetlands is primarily maintained for forestry
production of White Pine trees.
The Glade Creek II Restoration Project is located within a DMS Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) (Brush
Creek, HUC 05050001030020, as documented within the 2009 River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP)
for the New River Basin. Furthermore, the project site is located within a priority subwatershed for
stream and wetland restoration (and habitat protection), Middle Glade Creek, 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
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. The as -built survey was
completed in January 2016. Planting was completed in February 2016. Monitoring Year 1 (MY1)
activities occurred September to October 2016. MY1 profiles and cross section dimensions closely match
the design parameters. Cross section widths and pool depths occasionally exceed design parameters,
but are within a normal range of variability. The Site's overall average stem density of 614 stems/acres
exceeds the requirement and is therefore on track for the interim vegetation success criterion of 320
stems/acres for MY3. Hydrologic success criteria were achieved in the groundwater gage (GWG), and at
least one bankfull event occurred on all monitored reaches.
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL
GLADE CREEK II RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Vicinity Map
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................1-1
Project Component/Asset Map
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Project Activity and Reporting History
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Project Contact Table
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-2
Project Information and Attributes
1.2.3 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Monitoring Component Summary
1.2.4 Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
Visual Assessment Data
1.2.5 Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary......................................................................................................1-3
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Section 2: METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................2-1
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Section 3: REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................3-1
Stream Photographs
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
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 6
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 10
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 13
Monitoring Data —Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plot
Monthly Rainfall Data
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL ii
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 Cataloging Unit (CU) 05050001 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (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. The drainage area
for the project site is 8.0 square miles.
The project stream reaches consist of Glade Creek and UT to Glade (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 linear feet (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 2,167 SMUs and 0.33 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. Storm repairs prior to project closeout were completed
in April 2016. Turner Land Surveying completed the as -built survey in January 2016 and the storm
repairs were judged to have not resulted in changes that would warrant a revised as -built survey. The
Site is located on a tract of land owned by the Sharon W. Beck. A 12.8 -acre conservation easement on
the tract was purchased in 2008 by the State of North Carolina and was recorded with Alleghany County
Register of Deeds. The conservation easement protects the project area in perpetuity. Appendix 1
includes detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site background
information. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are
illustrated for the Site in Figure 2. Please refer to the Project Component Map (Figure 2) for the stream
and wetland features and to Table 1 for 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, exotic
invasive plant species, and the valley fill buried hydric soils. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Tables 6 and 6a in
Appendix 2 present the pre -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
Basin Restoration Priorities Plan (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.
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL 1-1
The project objectives have been defined as follows:
• Restoration and enhancement of approximately 2260 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 (December 2008). Annual monitoring and semi-annual
site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream restoration and
enhancement reaches (Glade Creek and UT to Glade Creek) of the project were assigned specific
performance standards for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Wetland
restoration areas were assigned specific performance standards for wetland hydrology, and vegetation.
The Glade Creek Stream Restoration Project was instituted prior to 7/28/2010; therefore, the Site will be
monitored for five years post -construction.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the project. The stream
restoration success criteria for the Site follow the approved monitoring plan presented in the Glade Creek
II Restoration Plan (Ward, 2008).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of six
vegetation monitoring plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project
easement areas using a standard 10 by 10 meter plot. Please refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 2 for the
vegetation monitoring locations. The final vegetation success criterion will be 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 interim measure of vegetation success for the Site is the survival of at least
320 planted stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period.
The MY1 vegetation survey was completed in October 2016, resulting in an average stem density of 614
stems per acre. The Site has met the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre, with 5 of the 6 plots
(83%) individually meeting this requirement. The planted stem mortality was approximately 17% from
the baseline recorded in May 2016 at MYO of 742 stems per acre. There is an average of 15 stems per
plot as compared to 18 stems per plot in MYO. Approximately 25% of the planted stems scored a vigor of
2 or less, indicating that they are unlikely to survive. These low vigor ratings are due to damage from
insects deer, exposed roots, and other unknown factors. Vegetation monitoring plot 1 contains only 6
stems, resulting in a density of 243 stems per acre. Species identification during baseline monitoring was
partially incorrect, and has been updated to reflect current conditions to the best of the observer's
knowledge. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and Appendix 3 for vegetation
data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
The MY1 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed few vegetation areas of concern. Small
patches of bare or poor herbaceous cover in the riparian area of Glade Creek Reach 1 and 2 were
observed, as shown in Figure 3 in Appendix 2.
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL 1-2
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in September and October 2016. Results indicate that
the channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed. In general, the cross sections on Glade
Creek and UT to Glade Creek show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ration, or
width -to -depth ratio compared to baseline. Surveyed riffle cross sections fell within the parameters
defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type (Rosgen, 1996). In general, substrate
materials in the restoration reaches indicated maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle reaches and
finer particles in the pools. The particle size distributions for MY1 cross section 2 and 5 are similar to as -
built conditions while pebble count data for cross section 1 indicates a slight increase in smaller gravel
size particles in MY1. The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the project streams illustrates that
bedform features are maintaining lateral and vertical stability. The longitudinal profiles on Glade Creek
and UT to Glade Creek showed little change from MYO in slope (riffle, water surface, bankfull) and pool -
to -pool spacing. The overall pattern of all project streams remained the same compared to the baseline
data. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, CCPV map, and reference
photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological summary data and plots.
1.2.4 Hydrology Assessment
At least one bankfull event occurred on all reaches during the MY1 data collection, which was recorded
on crest gages and by visual indicators. Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the
restoration reaches within the five-year monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in
separate years. Therefore, the performance standard has been partially met in MY1. Refer to Appendix 5
for hydrologic data and graphs.
1.2.5 Wetland Assessment
One groundwater monitoring gage (GWG 1) was established during the baseline monitoring within the
restoration area using logging hydrology pressure transducers. 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
groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 21 consecutive days (12.5 percent) of
the defined 168 day growing season for Alleghany County (April 26th to October 111h) under typical
precipitation conditions. The onsite rainfall gage malfunctioned therefore no onsite data is available.
Daily precipitation data was collected from closest NC CRONOS Station, Glade Valley 3.0 ENE. The GWG
1 recorded 127 consecutive days (76%), meeting the performance standard for MY1. According to the
climate data from nearby NC CRONOS station, the Site received less than typical amounts of rain in
2016. The monthly rainfall in January, March and April fell below the 30th percentile for the area (USDA,
2016). Please refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater
hydrology data and plots.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
All restored streams within the Site appear stable and functioning as designed. The average stem density
(614 stems per acre) for the Site is currently on track to meeting the MY3 success criterion with one plot
not individually meeting the interim success criterion as noted in CCPV. The Site's groundwater gage
met the performance standard for MY1. The bankfull performance standard is partially met in MY1.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these annual monitoring reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan
documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
are available from DMS upon request.
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL 1-3
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 quarterly.
Hydrology attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003)
standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2
Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL 2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES
Confluence Engineering, P.C. (2013). Glade Creek II Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan Addendum.
NCEEP, Raleigh, INC.
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 Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
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%20PIanners/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%20 LWP%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 1 Annual Report -FINAL 3-1
APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures
i
05050001030020
7-
f
g?
_ a
_ 9p A A
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
05050001030030
- Wa�pp
1.21 ei�, IY�I RA
Glade Val ,,
o.9 171) leo tFr_••
Ln c�
-
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
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directons to Site:
From Charlotte, travel Interstate 77 North. Take Exit 83, US -21
Bypass toward Roaring Gap/Sparta. Travel on US -21
approximately 21 miles. Bear right onto Sheriff Road and travel
Sheriff Road approximately 0.4 mile. Turn right onto Fox Ridge
Road. The project site is located approximately 0.2 miles on the left
side of Fox Ridge Road.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
W0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 92343
WILDLANDS, I t t t I Monitoring Year 1-2016
ENGINEERING
Alleghany County, NC
'Ns
IMF
J �1 �vyyT,
�� ,�.�" ti^' _ `.
µ $ 1
Y�
7x
�s33 .- ori
��'S'", �iTM� �&�: ••.rhe `5��•y 4 ,.
r Y.�,� y -,;ry -7 +per F xM ��*• *
AM1
Conservation Easement
Overhead Easement
{
Wetland Preservation
�. ®Wetland Restoration
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
t 4- Stream Enhancement I; Reduced Credit
. Stream Preservation
� K
+I No Credit
x Non -Project Streams
Reach Breaks
Gates
• �- �• .�NEI
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
0 100 200 Feet Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
WILDLANDS
ENMINEERING Alleghony County, NC
d
All
' �i.��`M.l,•ti•t
iii••i
14
9-
�
•iill
s
uiiii=
cid
'Ns
IMF
J �1 �vyyT,
�� ,�.�" ti^' _ `.
µ $ 1
Y�
7x
�s33 .- ori
��'S'", �iTM� �&�: ••.rhe `5��•y 4 ,.
r Y.�,� y -,;ry -7 +per F xM ��*• *
AM1
Conservation Easement
Overhead Easement
{
Wetland Preservation
�. ®Wetland Restoration
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
t 4- Stream Enhancement I; Reduced Credit
. Stream Preservation
� K
+I No Credit
x Non -Project Streams
Reach Breaks
Gates
• �- �• .�NEI
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
0 100 200 Feet Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
WILDLANDS
ENMINEERING Alleghony County, NC
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R R RE
Totals 2,141 26 0.33 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Riverine
Reach ID
Existing Footage/
Acreage
Approach
As -Built
Restoration (R) or
Stationing/
Restoration Equivalent (RE) Location
Restoration Footage/Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Credits
(SMU/WMU)
STREAMS
Glade Creek Reach 1
1200 LF
P2
Restoration (R)
10+00 - 21+70
1,170
1:1
1170
Glade Creek Reach 2*
1074 LF
P2
Enhancement I (R)
21+70-26+41;
26+86-29+69;
30+59-32+60
1,090
1.5:1
652
UT to Glade Creek Reach 1
129 LF
N/A
Preservation (RE)
10+00 -11+29
129
5:1
26
UT to Glade Creek Reach 2
197 LF
Pi
Restoration (R)
11+29 -14+48
319
1:1
319
WETLANDS
Wetland A, B, C
0.84 AC
N/A
Preservation (RE)
N/A
0.84
5:1
0.17
Wetland D
0.16 AC
N/A
Restoration (R)
N/A
0.16
1:1
0.16
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 1 1 1,090
Enhancement 11 MENEEMENNEEN
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 1- 2016
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete Completion
or Scheduled Delivery
Plan
December 2008
December 2008
Mitigation Plan Addendum
January 2013
January 2013
Final Design - Construction Plans
January 2015
January 2015
Construction
December 2015 -April 2016
April 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area 1
December 2015 - April 2016
April 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
December 2015 - April 2016
April 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
February 2016
February 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
May 2016
June 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
September -October 2016
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
2017
November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
2018
November 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
2019
November 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
2020
November 2020
'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 1- 2016
--- Data not provided
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
167-B Haywood Rd.
Andrew Bick, PE, CFM
Asheville, NC 28806
828.774.5547
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.
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Wetland Enhancement
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Plugs
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110
--- Data not provided
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Project
Information
Project NameGlade
Creek II Restoration Project
County
AI leghany
Project Area (acres)
144.50
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude;
Project Watershed
36° 28'37.0878"N, -81` T 42.7896"W
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
_70WO, Reach
161% Forested, 35%Agriculture/Livestock, 3%Residential/Commercial
Summary Information
Parameters
Glade Creek Glade Creek
Reach 1 Reach 2
UT to Glade Creek Reach 1
UT to Glade Creek Reach 2
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,170 1,090
129
1 319
Drainage area (acres)
5,120
13
NCDWR stream identification score
47
31
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; Tr
Morphological Desription (stream type;
C4
B4
Underlying mapped soils
Suncook
FEMA classification
no regulated floodplain
no regulated floodplain
Native vegetation community
White Pine Plantation
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-Restoratior
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 Qualit
Certification No. 3885. Action ID # 2009-00589
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)
Yes
Yes
NIECES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCGO10000
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Glade Creek II Restoration Project; Ward Consulting
determined "no affect" on Alleghany County listed
endangered species
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No recommendations received.
Coastal Zone Management AM (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A
N/A
The upper portion of Glade Creek is not currenity mapped as
a regulated flood zone
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
--- Data not provided
Table S. Monitoring Component Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Glade Creek
Quantity/ Length by Reach
UT to Glade Creek Wetlands
Frequency
Dimension
Riffle Cross Section
2
1
N/A
Annual
Pool Cross Section
1
1
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
Yes
Yes
N/A
See Footnote'
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Yes
Yes
N/A
Annual
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW) / Riffle
100 Pebble Count (RF)
RW -1, RF 1
RW -1, RF -1
N/A
Annual
Stream Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
1
N/A
Semi -Annual
Wetland Hydrology
Groundwater Gages
N/A
I N/A
I Enhancement I (R)
Semi -Annual
Vegetation
CVS Level 2
6
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
Y
Y
Y
Semi -Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation
Semi -Annual
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
Reference Photos
Photographs
9
Annual
-Pattern measurements will include sinuosity and meander width ratio and will be pertormed yearly. Measurements of radius of curvature will be monitored on newly constructed
meanders for the first year only.
APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
ktvv
WILDLANDS ,
ENGINEERING
Figure 3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
P
50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Alleghany County, NC
Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1-2016
Glade Creek (2,260 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number
in As -Built Unstable
Segments
Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
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 6 6 100%
meander bend (Run)
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
6 6 100%
meanderbend(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
dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
7
7
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
7
7
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
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 1-2016
UT (448 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of
Total Number
in As -Built Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0 0
100%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 5 5
100%
3. Meander Pool
100%
Depth Sufficient 4 4
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 4 4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of 4 4
meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of
4 4
meander bend (Glide)
100%
100%
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
dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
7
7
100%
3. Engineered
Piping 2a. Pi
p g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
7
7
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1 -2016
Planted Acreage 6.4
Easement Acreage 12.8
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 0 0.0 0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(acres)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
7
0.4
6.3%
1
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
1
0.025
0.4%
criteria.
Total
8
0.4
6.6%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0
0
0.0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
8
0.4
6.6%
Easement Acreage 12.8
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Number of Combined % of Planted
Threshold (SF) Polygons Acreage Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 0 0.0 0%
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
fa
x �a -
Photo Point 1— view upstream UT Glade Creek (10/04/2016) Photo Point 1— view downstream UT Glade Creek (10/04/2016)
Photo Point 2 — view upstream UT Glade Creek (10/04/2016)
Photo Point 2 — view upstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016) Photo Point 2 — view downstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016)
Photo Point 3 — view upstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016) 1 Photo Point 3 — view downstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016) 1
7
Photo Point 4—view upstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016) 1 Photo Point 4—view downstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016)
.
Photo Point 5 — view upstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016) Photo Point 5 — view downstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016)
Photo Point 6 — view upstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016) 1 Photo Point 6 — view downstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016) 1
#
�13
x 5,
Photo Point 7 — view upstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016) Photo Point 7 — view downstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016)
Photo Point 8 — view upstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016) 1 Photo Point 8 — view downstream Glade Creek (10/04/2016)
Vegetation Photographs
�.,
1114 ;
A '
S �. .. yl
h� ..
A
Vegetation Plot 1- (10/04/2016)
Vegetation Plot 2 - (10/04/2016)
f
%l T�
��aA ND a w 1�, t •$.
�•a
• N
�
Vegetation Plot 3 - (10/04/2016)
Vegetation Plot 4 - (10/04/2016)
Vegetation Plot 5 - (10/04/2016)
Vegetation Plot 6 - (10/04/2016)
APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Plot MY1 Success Criteria Met
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 N
83%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Report Prepared By
Alea Tuttle
Date Prepared
10/10/2016 12:17
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Glade MY1.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02161 Glade Creek II Mon itoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
ALEA
File Size
147894528
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
River Basin
Length(ft)
Stream -to -edge Width (ft)
Area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
6
Sampled Plots
6
Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2016)
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
92343-WEI-0001
PnoLS P -all T
92343-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
92343-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
92343-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
92343-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
92343-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
Alnus serrulate
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
7
7
14
13
13
20
14
14
14
Corpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
Cercis canadensis
Eastern Redbud
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
10
10
10
11
11
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch -hazel
Shrub Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
Liriodendron tulipifero
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
3
3
12
12
12
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
24
24
24
28
28
28
Nysso sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
7
7
7
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
S
S
S
2
2
2
3
3
3
14
14
14
22
22
22
Sambucus canodensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
Stem count
6
6
6
17
17
18
22
22
22
17
17
17
17
17
17
12
12
19
91
91
99
110
110
110
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.15
Species count
3
3
3
8
8
9
6
6
6
8
8
8
6
6
6
4
4
4
10
10
11
10
10
10
Stems per ACRE
243
243
243
688
688
728
890
890
890
688
688
688
688
688
688
486
486
769
614
614
668
742
742
742
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
N/A': The rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable
N/A z: Donstream of the confluence with overflow channel, hydraulic regime not applied
*: Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg
Pre
-Restoration
Condition
Reference Reach
Data
D-
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
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
17.7
38.5
5.2
9.9
36.3
48.8
6.2
11.1
33.0
5.4
34.6
37.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
47 115 7 12 69 118 14 46 99 T 165 22 33 106
111
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
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
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ftz
46.9 79.0 2.1 5.1 45.6 64.1 3.8 5.1 76.5 1.7 70.2
77.1
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
Entrenchment Ratio
1 2.7 3.1 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.3 4.1 3.0 1 5.0 4.0 6.0 2.8
3.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 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 1 31.0 7.0 90.0
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
33
57
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
0.0087
0.0271
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
5
---
64.0
197.8
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
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
---
107
353
Pool Volume(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
60
240
7
16
---
---
19
26
112
205
17
155
282
Radius of Curvature (ft)
21
114
---
---
---
---
30
59.0
99.0
30
59.0
99.0
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
Meander Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
230
620
Meander Width Ratio
3.4
6.2
1.3
1.6
---
---
2.5
3.5
3.4
6.2
3.1
7.0
3.4
6.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
-/-/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
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ftZ
N/A
0.48
0.52
0.82
0.11
0.12
Max part size (mm) mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
8.00
0.02
4.60
0.05
8.00
0.02
8.00
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
--- -
Rosgen Classification
E4/C4 1`4/84 C4 C4/84 C4 134 C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.8
5.3 3.8
4.9 3.1 4.4 4.5 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)
561 4 335
Q -Mannings
213 320 8 153 1 228
Valley Length (ft)
--- --- --- --- 1,322 280 1,322
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1200 197 --- --- 2,120 197 2,120
Sinuosity
1.68 1.04 1.18 1.09 1.68 1.14 1.60
Water Surface Slope ft ft z
0.0038 0.048 0.0049 0.0473 0.0038 0.0440 0.0031
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--- I I -- -- -- --- 0.0031
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
N/A': The rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable
N/A z: Donstream of the confluence with overflow channel, hydraulic regime not applied
*: Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg
Table 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Glade Creek 11 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
---: not applicable
Dimension and Substrate
Cross
Base
Section 1, Glade
MYl MY2
Creek (Riffle) Cross
MY3 MY4 MYS Base
Section
MYl
2, Glade Creek (Riffle) Cross
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS Base
Section 3, Glade Creek (Pool)
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2571.8
2571.8
2569.7
2569.7
2569.8
2569.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
37.4
34.4
34.6
35.0
31.9
30.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
106
106
111
110
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.9
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.8
2.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.9
3.2
3.2
4.2
4.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
70.2
1 66.9
77.1
1 78.0
89.0
88.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.9
17.7
15.5
15.7
11.5
10.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
3.1
3.2
3.2
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2574.0
2574.0
2573.6
2573.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.3
7.1
5.3
6.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
61
61
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
4.7
5.5
2.4
2.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.0
9.6
11.8
13.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
11.4
10.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
1.0
1.0
---: not applicable
Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Glade Creek Main
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
Floodprone Width (ft)
106
111
97
106
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.9
2.2
1.9
2.2
Bankfull Max Depth
2.9
3.2
2.9
3.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
70.2
77.1
66.9
78.0
Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
19.9
15.7
17.7
Entrenchment Ratiol
2.8
3.2
2.8
3.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
90.0
34.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
33
57
20
57
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0087
0.0271
0.0065
0.0235
Pool Length (ft)
64
198
66
190
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.8
5.9
4.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
107
353
91
384
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
155
282
155
280
Radius of Curvature (ft)
59.0
99.0
59.0
99.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.8
3.0
1.7
2.8
Meander Wave Length (ft)
230
620
230
620
Meander Width Ratio
3.4
6.2
3.9
6.3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,120
2,120
Sinuosity (ft)
1.60
1.60
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0031
0.0030
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0031
0.0031
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d3S/d50/d84/d95/d100 1/26.47/42.3/128/180/>2048
3.35/19.49/30.4/97.6/137/256.0
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
LIT to Glade Creek
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.3
6.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
61
32.3
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
2.4
2.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
13.5
Entrenchment Ratiol
11.4
5.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
32.0
22.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6.8
32.6
17.3
51.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0193
0.0964
0.0118
0.0866
Pool Length (ft)
8.8
32.9
15.6
32.6
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
33.0
70.0
38.8
84.0
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
75.0
75.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
30
30
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
5.5-6.0
5.5-6.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
150
150
Meander Width Ratio
3.1
7.0
3.1
7.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B4
B4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
326
326
Sinuosity (ft)
1.16
1.16
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0397
0.0372
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0326
0.0317
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 .11/0.63/13.3/176/241.4/>20410.19/4.65/11.9/124.6/163.3/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1
0%
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Glade Creek Reach 1 and 2 (STA 10+00 - STA 31+20)
2574
2572
2572
2570
m
Reach
X
2570
x
x Break
w 2568
m
0 2566
2568
a
m
W 2564
_0 2566
+.
't -'-------
2562
>
- ------' -----i'
--"----- ------- -
w 2564
2560
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-05/2016) TW (MYl-09/2016)------- WSF (MYl-09/2016) ♦ BKF (MYl-09/2016) • STRUCTURE (MYl-09/2016)
2574
2572
m
Reach
X
2570
x
x Break
2574
2572
2570
2568
_0 2566
+.
't -'-------
>
- ------' -----i'
--"----- ------- -
w 2564
_________
2562
2560
2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750 2800 2850 2900 2950 3000 3050 3100 3150 3200 3250 3300
Station (feet)
—�— TW (MYO-O5/2016) —s— TW (MYl-09/2016) WSF (MYl-09/2016) ♦ BKF (MYl-09/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYl-09/2016)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT Glade Creek (STA 11+29 - STA 14+48)
2585
a �+
2583 X
2581
2579
d
2577
2575
0
2573 ----------------- ------ -
--- --------
-------------------
W 2571 -
2569
2567
2565
1280 1295 1310 1325 1340 1355 1370 1385 1400 1415 1430 1445 1460
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-05/2016) TW (MYl-09/2016) WSF (MYl-09/2016) ♦ BKF (MYl-09/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYl-09/2016)
2585
2583
Reach
.Break
2581
2579A
•
m
m
2577
0
2575
-
q
2573
w
W
2571
2569
2567
1100 1115 1130 1145 1160 1175 1190 1205 1220 1235 1250 1265 1280
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-05/2016) t TW (MYl-09/2016)------- WSF (MYl-09/2016) ♦ BKF (MYl-09/2016) • STRUCTURE (MYl-09/2016)
2585
a �+
2583 X
2581
2579
d
2577
2575
0
2573 ----------------- ------ -
--- --------
-------------------
W 2571 -
2569
2567
2565
1280 1295 1310 1325 1340 1355 1370 1385 1400 1415 1430 1445 1460
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-05/2016) TW (MYl-09/2016) WSF (MYl-09/2016) ♦ BKF (MYl-09/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYl-09/2016)
Cross Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 1- Glade Creek
12+28 Riffle
2577
2575
x -section area (ft.sq.)
34.4
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
-
max depth (ft)
35.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
2573
c
width -depth ratio
106
W flood prone area (ft)
3.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
0
2571
v
w
2569
2567
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
tMYO (5/2016) MYl (09/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
66.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
34.4
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
2.9
max depth (ft)
35.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.7
width -depth ratio
106
W flood prone area (ft)
3.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 2 - Glade Creek
19+64 Riffle
2575
2573
x -section area (ft.sq.)
35.0
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.2
max depth (ft)
36.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.7
width -depth ratio
110
W flood prone area (ft)
3.2
entrenchment ratio
2571
c
low bank height ratio
0
2569
v
w
2567
2565
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
+MYO(5/2016) —4 MY1(09/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
78.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
35.0
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.2
max depth (ft)
36.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.7
width -depth ratio
110
W flood prone area (ft)
3.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 3 - Glade Creek
20+85 Pool
2575
2573
30.0
width (ft)
2.9
mean depth (ft)
4.2
max depth (ft)
32.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.2
width -depth ratio
2571
c
0
2569
v
w
2567
2565
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
4 MYO (05/2016) —e MY1 (09/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
88.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
30.0
width (ft)
2.9
mean depth (ft)
4.2
max depth (ft)
32.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 09/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 4 -UT Glade Creek
12+48 Pool
2577
2576
2575
c
0
> 2574
W
w
2573
2572
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) s MY1(09/2016) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.1
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
7.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 5 - UT Glade Creek
13+50 Riffle
2577
2576
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.1
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
6.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
61
W flood prone area (ft)
10.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
2575
c
o
2574
i
v
w
2573
2572
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) MY1 (09/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.1
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
6.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
61
W flood prone area (ft)
10.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Glade, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
3.35
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
30.4
DS4 =
97.6
D95 =
0
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
8
8
12
a ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
13
v
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
15
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
15
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
50
2
2
2
17
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
3
3
20
E
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
3
3
23
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
25
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
4
6
6
31
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
3
7
7
38
Coarse
22.6
32
12
2
14
14
52
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
6
6
58
Very Coarse
45
64
6
3
9
9
67
Small
64
90
9
5
14
14
81
Small
90
128
7
6
13
13
94
Large
128
180
4
1
5
5
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
.....
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
Glade, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
3.35
D35 =
19.49
D50 =
30.4
DS4 =
97.6
D95 =
137.0
D100 =
256.0
Glade, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Individual Class Percent
SandGvel
100
90
le
er
gp
80
c
v
a ro
0 70
v
60
a
60
m
50
u
40
50
v
30
>
E
=a
20
i? 40
10
0
00 oy o
rod` �p ,tit0 o
$O h6 6ti yti ,yP 0 'CO
titi. ti ti 3 5 do ,yo�
Particle Class Size (mm)
a 30
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--O— MVO -05/201E - MYI-10/2016
Glade, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
v
70
v
60
a
m
50
u
40
v
30
>
=a
20
10
0
00 oy o
rod` �p ,tit0 o
$O h6 6ti yti ,yP 0 'CO
titi. ti ti 3 5 do ,yo�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -05/2016 MYl-10/2016
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Glade, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
19.32
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
34.3
D80. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
90
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
M
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
u
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
Coarse
16.0
22.6
22
22
26
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
46
Very Coarse
32
45
20
20
66
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
82
Small
64
90
8
8
90
Small
90
128
2
2
92
Large
128
180
6
6
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small362
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
P
a 20
10
0
0.01
Glade, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-05/2016 - MYI-10/2016
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
19.32
D35 =
26.43
D50 =
34.3
D80. =
69.7
D95 =
151.8
D100 =l
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
P
a 20
10
0
0.01
Glade, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-05/2016 - MYI-10/2016
Glade, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
N
M
40
u
3
v
30
20
10
0
pati yti5 o lh Oh
'Y ti ,y41 a h6 y1 y�o ,LC� 3ti p5 �A CO ylW 'p 'g yy'L
0 0
yO,Lh
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 MYl-10/2016
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Glade, Cross Section 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
19.02
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
35.4
D80. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
90
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
0
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
M
Fine
4.0
5.6
u
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
v
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
22
Coarse
22.6
32
22
22
44
pati yti5 .lh Oh
o•
Very Coarse
32
45
20
20
64
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45
64
20
20
84
Small
64
90
10
10
94
Small
90
128
2
2
96
Large
128
180
96
Large
180
256
2
2
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small362
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100 1
100
1 100
100
90
80
F 70
> 60
50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
Glade, Cross Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-05/2016 - MYI-10/2016
Cross Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
19.02
D35 =
27.76
D50 =
35.4
D80. =
64.0
D95 =
107.3
D100 =l
362.0
100
90
80
F 70
> 60
50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
Glade, Cross Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-05/2016 - MYI-10/2016
Glade, Cross Section 2
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
N
M
40
u
3
v
30
20
10
0
pati yti5 .lh Oh
o•
'Y ti ,y41 b h6 yti y0 ,L� 3ti p5 �d CO ti -'% $O 56 0ti titi ,tih X41 A6
ti ti ti 3 h
o, o.
do yo ao
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 MYl-10/2016
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT Glade, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.19
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
8
8
8
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
12
a ro
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
4
7
7
19
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
4
23
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
23
50
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
24
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
25
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
4
6
6
31
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
5
9
9
40
a 30
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
6
6
46
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
1
3
3
49
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
1
5
5
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
2
5
5
59
Coarse
22.6
32
59
Very Coarse
32
45
2
Particle Class Size (mm)
2
2
61
Very Coarse
45
64
5
1
6
6
67
Small
64
90
5
5
5
72
Small
90
128
11
2
13
13
85
Large
128
180
11
3
14
14
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
iiiiiiii
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
60
1 40 1
100 1
100 1
100
UT Glade, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.19
D35 =
4.65
D50 =
11.9
D84 =
124.6
D95 =
163.3
D100 =
256.0
UT Glade, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Gvel
1
100
gp
90
er
a ro
0 70
80
c
> 60
v
70
50
60
a
m
50
u
40
i? 40
00E
v
30
>
a 30
=a
20
a 20
10
0
00 oy o
�p ,tit0 $O h6 6ti yti ,yP 0 'CO'
titi. ti ti 3 5 do ,yo�
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016 MYl-10/2016
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6- MVO -05/201E - Myl-10/2016
UT Glade, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
v
70
v
60
a
m
50
u
40
v
30
>
=a
20
10
0
00 oy o
�p ,tit0 $O h6 6ti yti ,yP 0 'CO'
titi. ti ti 3 5 do ,yo�
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016 MYl-10/2016
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT Glade, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.27
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
22.6
D80. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
90
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
14
14
Medium
0.25
0.50
20
20
34
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
36
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
36
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
6
42
M
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
44
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
2
44
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
46
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
48
Medium
11.0
16.0
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
50
Coarse
22.6
32
50
Very Coarse
32
45
50
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
52
Small
64
90
2
2
54
Small
90
128
28
28
82
Large
128
180
12
12
94
Large
180
256
6
6
100
Small
256
362
100
Small362
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
F 70
> 60
50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT Glade, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ; I --iF I i
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-0-MYO-05/2016 - MYI-10/2016
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.27
D35 -
0.71
D50 =
22.6
D80. =
135.5
D95 =
190.9
D100 =l
256.0
100
90
80
F 70
> 60
50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT Glade, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ; I --iF I i
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-0-MYO-05/2016 - MYI-10/2016
UT Glade, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
N
M
40
u
3
v
2
30
20
10
0
o�ti tiye by oy
ti ti tiw 06 til do ti� 3ti o-� �a oo tie $0 56 oti titi ya p 0
ti ti ti 3 h 1yo
do ao
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 MYl-10/2016
APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Glade Creek, UT
Glade Creek 10/4/2016 6/27/2016 1 Crest Gage
UT 10/4/2016 6/27/2016 1 Crest Gage
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland success criteria is 12.5% of growing season (21 consecutive days).
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (%)
Gage
Year 1(2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
1
Yes/127 Days
(75.6%)
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 1- 2016
Wetland D
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c >on a +� > u
i m Q m 5 - = n O O (U2 g a z
Rainfall Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.0
3.0
c
c
2.0
Feel
0.0
Glade Creek Groundwater Gage #1
V) -
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
V
O
_
o �
N
o
l7 0
a
r
o -
0 o -
m
N
�
w
c >on a +� > u
i m Q m 5 - = n O O (U2 g a z
Rainfall Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
5.0
4.0
3.0
c
c
2.0
Feel
0.0
Monthly Rainfall Data
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
1 2016 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Glade Valley 3.0 ENE (NCSU, 2016)
z 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2016)
3 Onsite rainfall gage malfunctioned. No onsite data available.
Glade Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2016 Alleghany County, NC
13.00
11.00
9.00
S
7.00
r
0
m
Y
.Q
Z
5.00
v
a
3.00
1.00
Jan -16 Feb 16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16
-1.00
Date
NC CRONOS Glade Valley 3.0 ENE
-30th percentile
-70th percentile
1 2016 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Glade Valley 3.0 ENE (NCSU, 2016)
z 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2016)
3 Onsite rainfall gage malfunctioned. No onsite data available.