20090049 Ver 2_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20180201

MONITORING YEAR 2
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
GLADE CREEK II RESTORATION PROJECT
Alleghany County, NC
DEQ Contract 6843
DMS Project Number 92343
USACE Action ID 2009-00589
Data Collection Period: March 2017 — November 2017
Final Submission Date: February 1, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental 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
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
February 1, 2018
Mr. Harry Tsomides
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Response to MY2 Draft Report Comments
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 2 report for the Glade Creek II Mitigation Project. The following Wildlands
responses to DMS's report comments are noted in italics lettering.
DMS comment; Project overview — It is stated Table 6 (post -restoration visual assessment) describes
pre -restoration conditions. Please clarify or amend.
Wildlands response; This sentences in Section 1.1 has been revised to clarify that both pre- and post -
restoration conditions are represented in Tables 4 and 6.
DMS comment; Section 1.2 — spelling correction, "follow" to "follows" (first sentence).
Wildlands response; The text in Section 1.2 was edited to correct spelling error.
DMS comment; If possible please reformat the asset totals to reflect the nearest tenth SMU (2141 to
2140.7 "R", and 26 to 25.8 "RE").
Wildlands response, In Table 1, these asset totals were reformatted to reflect the nearest tenth SMU.
DMS comment; It is suggested that dredging out the top of UT Reach 1(preservation) would help
minimize the fine sediment accumulation and active braiding. Does Wildlands feel that this segment
would not fill in again if the preservation channel were dredged out? The watershed upstream from
the UT has always been in cattle usage; how would dredging out the channel prevent further
aggradation?
Wildlands response; The sedimentation that is occurring starts at UT to Glade Creek Reach 1 in the
Restoration Reach, approximate STA 11+00, below the preservation reach. Digging out the channel is
not a long-term preventative method. The sedimentation occurring is going to be an ongoing concern
unless it is addressed at the source, upstream of the project area. Through the few years Wildlands has
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

k rV
WILDLANDS
ENGIN EERJNC
been monitoring this project post -construction, we have observed the sediment deposits are being
flushed out over time with larger flows.
DMS comment; UT to Glade Creek field visit by DMS staff on 9/6/17 showed that noticeable
aggradation had developed in the UT Reach 2 restoration segment flowing through Wetland D and
downstream. Sediment accumulation is described as occurring around STA 11+00 (preservation reach)
but not mentioned along Reach 2. Was the sedimentation across the entire UT (Reaches 1 and 2)
observed? If so, is it all reflected in the 100 LF noted in the visual assessment table for the UP
Wildlands response; Wildlands conducted a final CCPV site walk on December 4, 2017 and did not
observe the sediment accumulation along UT1 Reach 2 as noted above from the DMS site walk in
September. A large rain event was recorded for the area in October (11" rainfall) that could have flushed
out the sediment in the lower portion of UT1 noted by DMS. Wildlands will plan to monitor this area
closely during subsequent site visits and will report any adjustments noted on site.
DMS comment; It is noted in the summary section that UT to Glade is not flowing properly due to the
sediment and vegetation in the channel. The preservation reach was noted in the narrative, however
much of the restoration reach (STA 11+29 to 14+48) showed excessive sediment accumulation during
the DMS visit. Aerials do not show recent upstream logging as of October 2016, and cattle have
always been present upstream of this reach. Has Wildlands observed upstream logging or new
impacts other than cattle that might be a sediment source?
Wildlands response; As stated in the previous DMS comment, Wildlands did not observe sedimentation in
the some locations as DMS. This is most likely due to larger rainfall events occurring between site visits.
Wildlands observed sediment deposition in the UT to Glade Creek Reach 1 restoration reach, not the
preservation reach. During the MY2 site assessments, Wildlands observed construction equipment (i.e.
bull dozer) on multiple occasions upstream of the project easement, but it is unclear what land
management activities were being conducted.
DMS comment; Would Wildlands recommend dredging out the restoration UT channel as a long-term
adaptive management solution or would the channel just fill in again because of the lack of adequate
gradient and orientation through a restored wetland? As both the project designer and monitor,
please provide more information on the long-term viability of any management actions along the
entire length of the UT so DMS can make informed decisions about any potential adaptive
management.
Wildlands response; Wildlands believes we can temporarily improve stream function on UT to Glade
Creek by hand removing the sediment that appears to be coming from erosion in the upstream pasture
and by hand removing the existing herbaceous vegetation. Together, these factors are forcing water
onto the adjacent wetland/floodplain and bypassing the channel. Wildlands cannot guarantee that this
is a long-term solution, but rather a jump start to improve channel function while the riparian vegetation
matures. Most likely as the planted trees continue to grow, they will provide shade and instream
vegetation will not be able grow as readily. The sedimentation that is occurring is going to be an
ongoing concern unless it is addressed at the source, upstream of the project area. Through the few
years Wildlands has been observing this project post -construction, we have observed the sediment
deposits are being flushed out overtime with larger flows. Wildlands will continue to monitor the
deposition and inform DMS of any changes.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
DMS comment; Visual assessment for UT - calculation for stable percent should be 78% not 88%,
based on 100 LF impacted out of 448 LF assessed. Please clarify or correct.
Wildlands response; Table 6b has been updated to show 78% of the channel is stable.
DMS comment; Stationing on maps for the UT (0+00 to 3+45, starting at the restoration reach) do not
match stationing numbering with the asset table (10+00 to 14+48 starting at the preservation reach); in
addition, Reaches 1 and 2 on the CCPV figures appear incorrectly labelled (fig. 3) or unclear (fig. 2).
Please clarify or correct.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has revised both the Asset Table 1 and the figures stationing to accurately
represent the reaches on UT to Glade Creek.
DMS comment; Changing the vertical scaling on the longitudinal profile for the Ut would help show
more subtle changes in the profiles.
Wildlands response; Longitudinal profile vertical scaling has been revised for UT to Glade Creek as
requested above.
DMS comment; Table 10 (CVS table) should be printed landscape or on a larger fold out sheet.
Wildlands response; Table 10 has been printed in landscape layout in the final submittal.
DMS comment; It would be helpful in future reports to have a wrack line photo or two to accompany
the bankfull events table, especially for smaller reaches (Ut).
Wildlands response; When possible, Wildlands will include wrack line photo(s) in future reports to
accompany the bankfull event table.
DMS comment; Long -pro plot for the UT appears upside down in the hard copy. Please make sure any
printed copy graphs and pages read right side up when printed.
Wildlands response; Hard copies of the Final Monitoring Report will be corrected for this issue.
Enclosed please find four (4) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring
Report. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x110 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 2,167
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. Planting was completed
in February 2016. The as -built survey was completed in January 2016 with Monitoring Year 0 beginning
in May 2016. Storm repairs prior to project closeout were completed in April 2016. Monitoring Year 2
(MY2) activities occurred between May and November 2017. MY2 profiles closely match the design
parameters. Cross-section widths and pool depths slightly exceed design parameters, but are within a
normal range of variability. The Site's overall average planted stem density of 580 stems/acres exceeds
the interim vegetation success criterion of 320 stems/acres for MY3. Hydrologic success criteria was
achieved for MY2 in the groundwater gage (GWG), and at least one bankfull event occurred on all
monitored reaches. The Site has fully met the hydrological success criteria since bankfull events were
also documented during MY1.
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — FINAL

GLADE CREEK II RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................1-1
Figure 2
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2
Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Table 3
1.2.1
Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Project Information and Attributes
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-2
Appendix 2
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
Table 7
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
Stream Photographs
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
Appendix 3
1.2.7
Wetland Areas of Concern.................................................................................................1-4
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
1.3
Monitoring Year 2 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Table 10
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................2-1
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Section 3:
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................3-1
Table 12
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
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — FINAL ii

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 2 Annual Report — FINAL

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 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 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 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
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 2 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 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between May and November 2017 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
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. 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.
Please refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 2 for the vegetation monitoring locations.
The MY2 vegetation survey was completed in September 2017, resulting in an average planted stem
density of 580 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 average stem height is 2.8 feet and
approximately 90% of the planted stems have a health score (vigor) of 2 or greater. However, 50% of
these stems have a vigor of 2; whereas in MY1, 50% of the stems had a vigor of 4. The increase in poor
health is a result of dry soil conditions, insects and suffocation. Vegetation monitoring plot 1 contains
only 6 stems, resulting in a density of 243 stems per acre; whereas plot 3 contains 22 stems with a
density of 809 stems per acre. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and Appendix
3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
The MY2 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed few vegetation areas of concern. Small
patches (approximately 6.3%) of bare or poor herbaceous cover in the riparian area of Glade Creek
Reach 1 and 2 were observed. Supplemental planting is recommended in vegetation plot 1 and
throughout the entire Site since the overall vigor of planted and surrounding stems have declined. Refer
to Figure 3 in Appendix 2.
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in May 2017. Results indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed. However, the Glade Creek cross-section widths and
pools depths have slightly increased compared to MY1; whereas, UT to Glade Creek cross-section
dimensions are relatively the same as MY1. In general, the substrate material within Glade Creek
remained the same as MY1; however, the D50 for UT to Glade Creek changed between MY1 and MY2.
The UT to Glade Creek reachwide material resulted in sand (0.8mm) during MY2 versus gravel material
(11.9mm) during MY1. The material in cross-section 5 resulted in a Dso of 0.7mm (sand) during MY2
whereas MY1 reflected a coarser gravel of 22.6.
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 slight change from MY1 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 and the CCPV map. Refer to Appendix 4 for the
morphological summary data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
UT to Glade Creek has experienced an increase in fine sediment throughout MY2. Approximately 6-8" of
sediment deposition has accumulated and is impeding the flow beginning at station 11+00 for
approximately 100 LF. As a result, the water has formed a braided system on the floodplain and the
pool located at the first step structure around station 11+00 has filled with sediment, leaving little pool
habitat. Land management activities upstream of the project easement are most likely contributing to
the sedimentation on UT to Glade Creek; however, cattle activity adjacent to the beginning of UT Reach
1 was observed during MY2 site visits and could be attributing to the sediment flux observed. A fallen
pine tree was also noted on UT to Glade Creek. The tree is currently crossing the channel; however, it is
not currently affecting the stream flow. The limbs are holding the tree off the ground but once the
limbs decay and break, the tree will most likely create a barrier within the channel.
There are a few areas of minor scour and erosion along Glade Creek. The brush mattress around station
18+00 has been displaced; therefore, exposing the bank and minor scouring has occurred. In addition,
the left bank between stations 23+00 and 25+00 are showing signs of scour under the brush mattress
and behind the boulders.
Minor adaptive management is recommended along UT to Glade Creek and Glade Creek. Within the
upstream section of UT to Glade Creek Reach 1, hand removal of the sediment deposit and hand
removal of the herbaceous material within the channel are recommended to temporarily improve
stream function and reduce the active braiding. Where the tree has fallen across the UT to Glade Creek,
removal of the fallen tree is recommended to prevent future blockage. Wildlands recommends
replacing the brush mattresses on Glade Creek where bank erosion is occurring, and the brush mattress
is no longer intact with the bank. Adding live stakes on the left bank between stations 23+00 and 25+00
is also recommended for bank stabilization.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At least one bankfull event occurred on all reaches during the MY2 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. A bankfull event was also recorded during MY1; therefore, the Site has met the bankfull
success criteria for the project. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data and graphs.
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

1.2.6 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%) of the
defined 168 day growing season for Alleghany County (April 26th to October 111h) under typical
precipitation conditions. The Site does not contain a rainfall gage; therefore, the daily precipitation data
was collected from closest NC CRONOS Station, Glade Valley 3.0 ENE. The GWG 1 recorded 169
consecutive days (100%), meeting the performance standard for MY2. According to the climate data
from nearby NC CRONOS station, the Site received less than typical amounts of rain in 2017; however,
October received a substantial amount of rainfall. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage
locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.2.7 Wetland Areas of Concern
Currently there are no wetland areas of concerns.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
Glade Creek appears stable and functioning as designed; however, UT to Glade Creek is not flowing
properly due to the sediment and vegetation in the channel. The average planted stem density (580
stems per acre) is currently on track to meet the MY3 success criterion. Only one plot does not meet
the interim success criterion as noted in CCPV. The Site's groundwater gage met the performance
standard for MY2 and the bankfull performance standard has been met for the project. The Site has
fully met the bankfull hydrological success criteria since bankfull events were also documented during
MY1. Some minor adaptive management would be beneficial to the Site. The areas of concern appear
minor, but repairs and maintenance of these areas would benefit the Site long term and decrease
additional impacts to the project.
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 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

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 2 Annual 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 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%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 2 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

050001030fpPF
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
drry {fid
/�;p�• U•
Project Location
i
'4 +
o�J zwz. r
. r,
�iyopRry �- C7
f /�e
S4 -d
a .y R6
•
t '
-
1.
� � r
l 4`7-
mR� 05050001030020
O
61
0505000103003(
r r
_
,6. 3
a
y
1 O n
p
4 2i
f WO Mil Rd
Glade Val •.fk
p 4
dx t
J u T
0 v '�
�4
■ &Ln ;oe
�f
0'�
o
wr
, Ru
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
r
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
r
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.
�� I
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
W0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 92343
WILDLAN17SC, ,' I I I I I Monitoring Year 2-2017
Eryry Ci ... iry
Alleghany County, NC

of
� t
�;, •. - Conservation Easement
Overhead Easement
Wetland Preservation
Wetland Restoration
Stream Restoration
A Stream Enhancement I
P
<' Stream Enhancement 1; Reduced Credit
Stream Preservation
No Credit
Non -Project Streams
Reach Breaks
Gates
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
0 100 200 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
WILDLANDS r�� I i I
ENGINEERING
Alleghany County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R R RE
Totals 2,140.7 25.8 0.33 N/A N/A N/A N/A
hill
Existing Footage/
Restoration (R) or
As -Built
Credits
Reach ID
Approach
Stationing/
Restoration Footage/Acreage Mitigation Ratio
Acreage
g
Restoration Equivalent RE
Q ( )
(SMU/WMU)
Location
STREAMS
Glade Creek Reach 1
1200 LF
P2
Restoration (R)
10+00 - 21+70
1,170
1:1
1170.0
21+70-26+41;
Glade Creek Reach 2*
1074 LF
P2
Enhancement I (R)
26+86-29+69;
1,090
1.5:1
651.7
30+59-32+60
UT to Glade Creek Preservation
129 LF
N/A
Preservation (RE)
10+00 - 11+29
129
5:1
25.8
UT to Glade Creek Reaches 1 and 2
j 197 LF
P1
Restoration (R)
11+29 - 14+48
319
1:1
319.0
WETLANDS
Wetland A, B, C
0.84 AC
I 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
* 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 11 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
167-B Haywood Rd.
December 2008
December 2008
Mitigation Plan Addendum
January 2013
January 2013
Final Design - Construction Plans
January 2015
January 2015
Construction
PO Box 1905
December 2015 -April 2016
April 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
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
Raleigh, NC 27615
February 2016
February 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Seeding Contractor
January - May 2016
June 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
October 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Survey October 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
May 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey September 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2018
November 2018
Vegetation Survey 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2019
November 2019
Vegetation Survey 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2020
November 2020
Vegetation Survey 2020
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Glade Creek 11 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
--- 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 2 - 2017
Project
Information
Project Name
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
County
Alleghany
Project Area (acres)
144.50
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project Watershed
36° 28'37.0878"N, -810 3'42.7896"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
i961%
05-07-03
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
5,120
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Reach
Forested, 35%Agriculture/Livestock, 3% Residential/Commercial
Summary Information
Parameters
Glade Creek Glade Creek
Reach 1 Reach 2
UT to Glade Greek 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-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.)
IM Regulatory
Regulation
Preservation
Considerations
Applicable? Resolved?
hydrologic/ vegetative
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3885. Action ID N 2009-00589
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)
Yes
Yes
NPDES 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 Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A
N/A
The upper portion of Glade Creek is not 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 2 - 2017
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Glade Creek 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
N/A
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
ProjectBoundary
Semi -Annual
Reference Photos
Photographs
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

vS`. ;�"'t-,. .ts •"G:: - .:cam ?°!, .�>„(P 0� " i', '" _ _ .{'" _ �" '.;R'4,..
: l �--'>�i?:: •r. _ 'F �C �: ,5i". �i1t' 1�'"•:.`� J X,y s .�/
11 -N,
. {
a. '�y` r: 3 , .����:; `moi _.M �t,'�,' •/i.� ---'�f r a ,;f- � � '.'r.
n. t ,�. ; anui ■,5
- • IIIIIIIIIII IVII�jIIIIIIIIIVIp1111110 �IIIII pIIl01 pppUll pppppl IIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII VII IIIIIIIIpIIIIIIIVIjlllllllllllllllllllllllll plll IIII I �� ,-r`
1 P•'
• � • i ' q \� 1�' i'Pk
-
yy1•1Uyy!. .
. � � . «' ray a, • l�,a ■ ,,; . �
i t
'.y., � x �M�y. ++' �. ,�. ■a■■aarrtiaaaa4�aaaaaaaat"
r•
_
Lonservation Easement Gate f Concern - MY2
C Areas o
.;�•� `} r a ` — - Overhead Easement Reach Break Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Wetland Preservation Cross-Section (XS) Scour
Wetland Restoration Bankfull ' Sediment Deposition
�. .IL z. Stream Restoration ♦ Photo Points
- Stream Enhancement I Vegetation Monitoring Plot - MY2
'� �+ — Stream Enhancement 1• Reduced Credit Criteria Not Met
Stream Preservation Critera Met
*"y ` No Credit Hydrologic Monitoring -MY2
Groundwater Gage (GWG)
= �+ Non -Project Streams
Crest Gage (CG)
OWZE
llkt�
WILDLANDS ,`
ENGINEERING
0 100 200 Feet
I I I
Figure 3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Alleghany County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2-2017
Glade Creek 12.260 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Total Number
in As -Built Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments 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%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of 6 6 100%
meander bend (Run)
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
3
50
98%
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
3
50
98%
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 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 -2017
UT to Glade Creek (448 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Total Number
in As -Built Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 1 100 78%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 5 5 100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 4 4 100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 2 2 100%
meander bend (Run)
4. Thalweg Position
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
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.
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 2 -2017
Planted Acreage 6.4
Easement Acreage 12.8
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number of Combined % of Planted
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%
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
8
0.4
6.3%
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
9
0.4
6.6%
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
9
0.4
6.6%
Easement Acreage 12.8
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of Combined % of Planted
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

Photo Point 1— view upstream UT Glade Creek (5/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 1— view downstream UT Glade Creek 5/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 2 — view upstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 2 — view downstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017)
Photo Point 2 — view upstream UT Glade Creek (5/10/2017)

Photo Point 3 — view upstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017) I Photo Point 3 —view downstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017)
Photo Point 4 — view upstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 4 — view downstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017)
Photo Point 5 — view upstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 5 — view downstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017)

Photo Point 6 — view upstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 6 — view downstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 7 — view upstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 7 — view downstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017)
Photo Point 8 — view upstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 8 — view downstream Glade Creek (5/10/2017)

Vegetation Photographs

4 •' Y �' I
PS
' y I
y
'
„
�M
f
4 •' Y �' I
PS
' y I

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Plot MY1 Success Criteria Met
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 2 - 2017
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
11/10/2017 11:32
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Glade MY2.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02161 Glade Creek II Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
RUBY
File Size
49844224
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 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Color for Density
MMs eq.wrements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
sails to meet requirements by mowthan 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
Annual Summary
Current Plot Data (MY1 2017)
Common Name
Species Type
MY2 (2017)
PnoLS P-alll T
MY1 (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2016)
PnoLS P -all I
T
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
92343-WEI-0001
PnoLSTP-all I 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
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
3
3
3
12
12
57
13
13
20
14
1
14
Carpinuscaroliniona
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
4
4
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
4
4
1
1
1
13
Shrub Tree
1
3 3
4
1
1
16
7
7
22
Carpinuscaroliniona
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
9
9
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cerciscanadensis
Eastern Redbud
Shrub Tree
Hamamelisvirginiona
Witch -hazel
Shrub Tree
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Liriodendron tulipifero
Tulip Poplar
Tree
23
23
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
24
28
28
2
2
2
Tree
4
4
3 3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
2
2
14
14
22
22
22
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
5
5
5
Hamamelisvirginiano
Witch -hazel
Shrub Tree
Stem count
4
4
4
1
1
1
2 2
2
3
3
3
size (ares)
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
6
3
3
3
12
12
12
2 2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
10
10
1 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
2
580
580
890
1 614
1 614
1 668
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
2 2
2
3
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
3
3
3
Stem count
6
6
7
16
16
28
20
20
21
16 16
18
17
17
32
1111
26
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
3
3
4
8
8
8
5
5
6
8
8
9
6
6
6
4
4
4
Stems per ACRE
243
283
647
1 647
1133
809
809
850
647
647
728
688
688
1 1295
445
445
1052
Color for Density
MMs eq.wrements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
sails to meet requirements by mowthan 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
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY2 (2017)
PnoLS P-alll T
MY1 (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2016)
PnoLS P -all I
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
3
3
4
3
3
3
6
6
6
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
12
12
57
13
13
20
14
14
14
Carpinuscaroliniona
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Cerciscanadensis
Eastern Redbud
Shrub Tree
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Hamamelisvirginiona
Witch -hazel
Shrub Tree
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Liriodendron tulipifero
Tulip Poplar
Tree
23
23
23
24
24
24
28
28
28
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
4
4
4
6
6
6
7
7
7
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
14
14
14
14
14
14
22
22
22
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Stem count
86
86
132
91
91
99
110
110
110
size (ares)
6
6
6
size (ACRES)
0.15
I
0.15
10.1481
Species count
10
10
10
1 10
1 10
1 11
1 10
1 10
10
Stems per ACRE
580
580
890
1 614
1 614
1 668
1 742
1741.9 741.9
Color for Density
MMs eq.wrements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
sails to meet requirements by mowthan 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 2 - 2017
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1Meander Wave Length was adjusted in the MY2 report.
2 Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg
�.
a
�_'VM -TM 171
�
PR
arameter
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
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
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
1
165
22
1
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(ft)
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
1
5.0
4.0
1
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
2.11.0
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
1
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
70.0
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
60
240
7
16
---
---
19
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)'
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
230
425
150
Meander Width Ratio
3.4
6.2
1.3
1.6
---
---
2.5
3.5
3.4
6.2
3.1
7.0
4.5
7.5
3.1
7.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
!-//!31/!8./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/>20
N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
--
---
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)
8.00
0.02
4.60
0.05
8.00
0.02
8.00
0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
---
---
---
--
Rosgen Classification
E4/C4
1`4/134
C4
C4/134
C4
34
C4
B4
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)
N/A
561
4
335
Q -Mannings
213
1
320
8
153
1
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/ft2
0.0038
0.048
0.0049
1
0.0473
0.0038
0.0440
1
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
1Meander Wave Length was adjusted in the MY2 report.
2 Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg

Table 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Dimension and Substrate
Cross
Base
-Section
MY1
1, Glade Creek (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MY4
Cross
MY5 Base
-Section
MY1
2, Glade Creek
MY2 MY3
(Riffle) Cross
MY4 MYS Base
-Section
MY3
3, Glade Creek (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2571.8
2571.8
2571.8
2569.7
2569.7
2569.7
2569.8
2569.8
2569.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
37.4
34.4
38.7
34.6
35.0
36.2
31.9
30.0
32.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
106
106
102
111
110
93
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.8
2.9
2.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.2
3.2
3.2
4.2
4.2
4.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
70.2
66.9
70.2
77.1
78.0
77.6
89.0
88.4
91.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.9
17.7
21.3
15.5
15.7
16.9
11.5
10.2
11.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
3.1
2.6
3.2
3.2
2.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
10.8
4,
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Cross -Section
Base
MY1
UT to Glade Creek (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4
Cross -Section
MY5 Base
MY1
5, UT to Glade Creek
MY2 MY3
(Riffle)
MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2574.0
2574.0
2574.0
2573.6
2573.6
2573.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.3
7.1
7.0
5.3
6.1
5.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
61
61
61
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.3
1.5
0.9
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
4.7
5.5
4.9
2.4
2.7
3.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.0
9.6
10.1
11.8
13.5
11.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---11.4
10.0
10.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
--
---
1.0
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 2 - 2017
Glade Creek Main
"OWParameter
As-Built/Baseline
MY -11.
MY -2
MY -3 MY -4 My -S
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
Floodprone Width (ft)
106
111
97
106
93.3
102.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.9
2.2
1.9
2.2
1.8
2.1
Bankfull Max Depth
2.9
3.2
2.9
3.2
2.8
3.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
70.2
77.1
66.9
78.0
70.2
77.6
Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
19.9
15.7
17.7
16.9
21.3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
3.2
2.8
3.1
2.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm) 1
90.0
34.3
39.8
1
47.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
33
57
20
57
20
85
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0087
0.0271
0.0065
0.0235
0.0011
0.0181
Pool Length (ft)
64
198
66
190
62
222
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.8
5.9
4.2
4.4
5.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
107
353
91
384
90
337
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern'
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
155
282
155
280
155
283
Radius of Curvature (ft)
59.0
99.0
59.0
99.0
59.0
99.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.8
3.0
1.7
2.8
1.6
2.6
Meander Wave Length (ft)
230
425
227
435
216
445
Meander Width Ratio
4.5
7.5
4.S
8.0
4.2
7.3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,120
2,120
2,120
Sinuosity (ft)
1.60
1.60
1.60
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0031
0.0030
0.0027
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0031
0.0031
0.0030
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d1OO 1/26.47/42.3/128/180/>2048 3.35/19.49/30.4/97.6/137/256.0
.4/12.5/29.6/75.6/115.5/362.
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1
0%
1
2%
'Meander Wave Length was adjusted for MYO and MY1 in the MY2 report,

Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
LIT to Glade Creek
er
As-Built/Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -4 MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.3
6.1
5.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
61
32.3
61.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft')
2.4
2.7
3.1
Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
13.5
11.4
Entrenchment Ratio
11.4
5.3
10.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
32.0
22.6
0.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6.8
32.6
17.3
51.4
5.0
42.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0193
0.0964
0.0118
0.0866
0.0148
0.1416
Pool Length (ft)
8.8
32.9
15.6
32.6
3.0
5.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.3
1.1
2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
33.0
70.0
38.8
84.0
16
99
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
75.0
75.0
75.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
30
30
30
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
5.5-6.0
5.5-6.0
5.5-6.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
150
150
150
Meander Width Ratio
3.1
7.0
3.1
7.0
3.1
7.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B4
B4
B4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
326
326
326
Sinuosity (ft)
1.16
1.16
1.16
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0397
0.0372
0.0323
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0326
0.0317
0.0318
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/>204 0.19/4.65/11.9/124.6/163.3/256 0.2/0.4/0.8/111.2/151.8/256.0
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Glade Creek Reach 1 and 2 (STA 10+00 - STA 31+20)
2574
2572
2570
-"-"-'-
---
----
-
----------------•
2568
--------
---------
---------
-----
-------
------------
0 2566
.2
2564
..�N
m
Reach
2562
x
x
x
Break
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) TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) O STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)
2574 — — — —
2572
2570
v
2568
w •
----------------------
0 2566 ----------- ------
.2 --------- --------- ----------------
m--------- ---------
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-05/2016) TW (MY1-09/2016) 4 TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) BKF (MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT Glade Creek (STA 11+29 - STA 14+48)
2582
2574
_
------------------
-----
•
------
-
-----------
2579
v
------------------
O------------------------------
0
------->
>
m
---------
W
2571
W 2576
- -
-----------
---
2568
1280 1295 1310 1325 1340 1355 1370 1385 1400 1415 1430 1445 1460
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-05/2016) TW (MY1-09/2016) TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)
2573
1100 1115 1130 1145 1160 1175 1190 1205 1220 1235 1250 1265 1280
Station (feet)
4 TW (MYO-05/2016) TW (MY1-09/2016) TW (MY2-5/2017) ------ WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) O STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)
2577
2574
_
------
-
-----------
------------------
O------------------------------
------->
>
W
2571
2568
1280 1295 1310 1325 1340 1355 1370 1385 1400 1415 1430 1445 1460
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-05/2016) TW (MY1-09/2016) TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 1- Glade Creek
12+28 Riffle
70.2
2577
38.7
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
39.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
21.3
width -depth ratio
102
W flood prone area (ft)
2.6
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
2575
2573
c
2571
v
w
0" too
60/
2569
2567
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) s MY2 (5/2017) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
70.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
38.7
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
39.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
21.3
width -depth ratio
102
W flood prone area (ft)
2.6
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 2 - Glade Creek
19+64 Riffle
77.6
2575
36.2
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
3.2
max depth (ft)
37.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.9
width -depth ratio
93.3
W flood prone area (ft)
2.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
2573-7%%*
'Aar --
2571
c
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) +MY1(09/2016) +MY2(5/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
77.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
36.2
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
3.2
max depth (ft)
37.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.9
width -depth ratio
93.3
W flood prone area (ft)
2.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 3 - Glade Creek
20+85 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
2575
width (ft)
2.8
mean depth (ft)
4.7
max depth (ft)
34.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6
width -depth ratio
2573
2571
c
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 (05/2016) s MY1(09/2016) 4 MY2 (5/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
91.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
32.5
width (ft)
2.8
mean depth (ft)
4.7
max depth (ft)
34.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 4 - UT to Glade Creek
12+48 Pool
2577
2576
2575
c
2574
v
w
2573
2572
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
+MYO(5/2016) +MY1(09/2016) +MY2(5/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
4.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.0
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
7.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 5/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section S - UT to Glade Creek
13+50 Riffle
3.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.9
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
6.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.4
width -depth ratio
61.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2576
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
c
2574
v
w
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) +MY2(5/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.9
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
6.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.4
width -depth ratio
61.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Glade Creek, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
1
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative-
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
29.6
1
75.6
D95 =
0
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
5
5
5
10
SQ$�p
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
4
4
4
14
a
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
N
50
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
15
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
17
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
2
2
19
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
7
8
8
27
JFK
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
3
7
7
34
0+11�
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
3 1
4
4
38
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
42
Coarse
22.6
32
8
3
11
11
52
Very Coarse
32
45
8
3
11
11
63
Very Coarse
45 1
64
10
5
15 1
15
78
Small
64
90
7
5
12
12
90
pS0
Small
90
128
5
Z
7
7
97
`p0
Large
128
180
1
1
1
98
Large
180
256
1
1
1
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
0'
V
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
�pJ
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1
100
Totall
51
1 50 1
101 1
100 1
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
Glade Creek, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-05/2016 --*— MYl-10/2016 t MY2-05/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
3.4
Das =
12.5
D50 =
29.6
D80. =
75.6
D95 =
115.5
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
Glade Creek, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-05/2016 --*— MYl-10/2016 t MY2-05/2017
Glade Creek, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
v
m
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
3
30
v
?
v
20
10
0 Ll
0
�6ti ytih by Oy 1 'L ,tib
P h6 'b 1ti ,y0 ti6 ,5'L ph 6P CO ,lb o50
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
0 MYl-10/2016 0 MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Glade Creek, Cross -Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
D. =
101.2
0
162.5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
0
Sp$�p
Coarse
0.5
1.0
60
0
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0
y
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
40
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
JFK
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
4
GRY
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
4
8
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
8
16
Coarse
22.6
32
4
8
24
Very Coarse
32
45
12
24
48
Very Coarse 45 64 6
12
60
Small
64
90
11
22
82
Small
90
128
3
6
88
G0�
Large
128
180
5
10
1 98
Large 180 256 1
2
100
V
Small
256
362
100
Small 362 512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
1
100
Totall
50
1 100
1 100
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
22.6
D35 =
37.4
D50 =
47.7
D. =
101.2
D95 =
162.5
D100 =1
256.0
Glade Creek, Cross -Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
E
d
60
y
a
N
50
M
U
40
30
v
v
20
10
0
obti titih by o`' ti ti ti�
o• a• o
yb titi ti� ti� 3ti �y 60 �o titin tiyo �y� �bti ytiti oya op opo
ti ti ti a
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
■ MYl-10/2016 0 MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Glade Creek, Cross -Section 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
D. =
71.7
0
117.2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
0
Sp$�p
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
2
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
2
4
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
6
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
6
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
8
JFK
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
GRY
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
10
20
Coarse 22.6 32 8
16
36
Very Coarse
32
45
11
22
58
Very Coarse 45 64 11
22
80
0�0
Small
64
90
6
12
92
Small 90 128 2
4
96
G0�
Large
128
180
1
2
98
Large
180
256
1
2
100
V
Small
256
362
100
Small 362 512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
1
100
Totall
50
1 100
100
Cross Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
19.7
D35 =
31.3
D50 =
39.8
D. =
71.7
D95 =
117.2
D100 =1
256.0
Glade Creek, Cross -Section 2
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
E
d
60
y
a
N
50
M
U
40
30
v
v
20
10
0
X01 ytih 1y Oy ti ti ti4
o• a• o
d hb 4 yy y0 ti� 5L �y 6P �O '0' '9O "'0 'p yy1 Oyb o�O o0O
ti ti ti a
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
■ MYl-10/2016 0 MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT to Glade Creek, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
3
3
6
12
12
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
4
6
12
24
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
8
16
40
SQ$�p
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
5
8
16
56
a
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
N
50
56
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
u
40
56
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
4
60
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
8
68
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
68
JFK
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
2
70
G�
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
�6ti ytih by Oy 1 'L ,ti0
P h6 1ti ,y0 ti6 15 ph 01 CO ,14 X60 e,lb �6
70
Coarse
16.0
22.6
70
Coarse
22.6
32
70
Very Coarse
32
45
70
Very Coarse
45
64 1
1
1
1 1
2
72
Small
64
90
72
pS�
`p0
Small
90
128
8
2
10
20
92
Large 128 180 3 3 6
98
Large
180
256
1
1
2
100
Small
256
362
100
67
V
Small
362
1
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
�pJ
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Total 1
30
1 20 1
50
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT to Glade Creek, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-05/2016 --*— MYl-10/2016 t MY2-05/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.2
Di5 =
0.4
D50 =
0.8
D80. =
111.2
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT to Glade Creek, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-05/2016 --*— MYl-10/2016 t MY2-05/2017
UT to Glade Creek, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
v
m
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
3
30
v
?
v
20
10
0
�6ti ytih by Oy 1 'L ,ti0
P h6 1ti ,y0 ti6 15 ph 01 CO ,14 X60 e,lb �6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
0 MYl-10/2016 0 MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT to Glade Creek, Cross -Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
9
18
18
163.7
Very fine
0.062
0.125
18
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
10
28
Medium 0.25 0.50 10
20
48
Sp$Sp
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
4
52
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0
52
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
52
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
54
M
U
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
56
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
4
60
JFK
Medium
8.0
11.0
60
GRY
Medium
11.0
16.0
60
Coarse
16.0
22.6
60
Coarse
22.6
32
1
2
62
Very Coarse
32
45
1
2
64
Very Coarse
45
64
3
6
70
obti titih by o' ti ti ti�
o• a• o
Small
64
90
3
6
76
OSS
Small
90
128
3
6
82
G0�
Large
128
180
9
18
100
Large 180 256
100
V
Small
256
362
100
Small 362 512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
1
100
Totall
50
1 100
1 100
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
Das =
0.3
D50 =
0.7
D. =
132.9
D95 =
163.7
D100 =1
180.0
UT to Glade Creek, Cross -Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
d
60
y
a
N
50
M
U
40
30
v
v
20
10
0
obti titih by o' ti ti ti�
o• a• o
o yb titi ti� tib 3ti ay o' �o titin ti,yo �y� �bti ytiti oya o�� opo
ti ti ti a
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
■ MYl-10/2016 0 MY2-05/2017

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Glade Creek, UT
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
for
�.
p. •. .
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
MY1
6/27/2016
10/4/2016
Crest Gage
Glade Creek
MY2
10/9/2017
12/4/2017
Wrackline
MY1
6/27/2016
10/4/2016
Crest Gage
UT
MY2
10/9/2017
12/5/2017
Wrackline
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland success criteria is 12.5% of growing season (21 consecutive days).
for
Gage
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results MY2
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (%)
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
1
Yes/127 Days
(75.6%)
Yes/169 Days
(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 2 - 2017
Wetland D
Glade Creek Groundwater Gage #1
C
V ^
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
v r,
20
n
b
to o
5.0
0:
o �
l7
0 0
10
0
o ~
w
4.0
0
-10
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
3.0
S
v
>
-20
w
v
f6
c
°C
3 -30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
-60
_ I _ .� J II,_ IA. ,_ I . - I
0.0
LL Q
�
a
� Q UO
>
O D
Z
Rainfall Gage #1 — — Criteria Level

Monthly Rainfall Data
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 92343
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
1 2017 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Glade Valley 3.0 ENE (NCSU, 2016)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2017)
3 No onsite data available.
Glade Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017 Alleghany County, NC
13.00
11.00
9.00
c
7.00
0
5.00
a`
3.00
1.00
1 Jan -17
Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17 Aug -17 Sep -17 Oct -17 Nov -17 Dec -17
-1.00
Date
NC CRONOS Glade Valley 3.0 ENE 30th percentile —70th percentile
1 2017 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Glade Valley 3.0 ENE (NCSU, 2016)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2017)
3 No onsite data available.