20140869 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2020_20210128

ID#* 20140869 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/29/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/28/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140869
Existing IDI
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Vile Creek
County: Alleghany
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: VileCreek 96582_MY4_2020.pdf 85.43MB
Rease upload only one PDF of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 4
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
VILE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Alleghany County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 5999
DMS Project No. 96582
DWR No. 14-0869
USACE Action ID 2014-01585
Data Collection Period: April — November 2020
Submission Date: January 19, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

WILDLANDS
January 19, 2021
Mr. Harry Tsomides
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Response to MY4 Draft Report Comments
Vile Creek Mitigation Project
DMS Project # 96582
Contract Number 5999
New River Basin - HUC# 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 4 report for the Vile Creek Mitigation Project. DMS comments are noted
below in bold, Wildlands responses to DMS report comments are noted in italics.
DMS Comment: Please update the asset tables to reflect the current reporting format (Project
Components, Length and Area Summations, and Overall Assets Summary).
Wildlands, response: The project components and mitigation credits table were revised to reflect the
current reporting format (Table 1).
DMS Comment: Wildlands notes up to 12 bankfull events and up to 16 geomorphically significant
events for 2020 across the site. While it was a wetter than normal year, is there an explanation of
why such an unexpected number of apparent bankfull/geomorphic events occurred in 2020? Please
consider confirming bankfull elevations in the field in MY5 due to so many recorded events.
Wildlands, response: The top of banks and eye bolt elevation were surveyed at each stream's crest gage
during MY4. The crest gages were also resurveyed during the MY4 so a shift in elevation that effected
the whole project during the monitoring year is unlikely. During the stream survey in MY5 and
corresponding data will be adjusted if necessary, Wildlands will confirm bankfull elevations in the field.
The only current explanation for the abundance of bankfull/geomorphic events that occurred in 2020 is
the wetter than normal year. Wildlands' noted similar occurrences of above average
bankfull/geomorphic events throughout most, if not all, of our NC monitoring projects during 2020.
DMS Comment: Please double -side the final hard copy pages.
Wildlands, response: Wildlands has double -sided the final 8 %" x 11' hard copy pages.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

k
WILDLANDS
Digital Support File Comments
DMS Comment: Last year DMS requested updated spatial features. The digital submittal addressed all
reaches and wetlands, except for UT1 Reach 1. The feature for UT1 Reach 1 does have a length that
matches the "As Built Footage/Acreage" column (1114 ft), but not the "Creditable As Built
Footage/Acreage" column (1088 ft). The notes state that the 25 ft differences between these 2
columns is due to the easement break, which is excluded in the digital submittal, but the feature is
still 1114 ft. Please update the feature to address this difference, or indicate why the feature is
different from the Creditable As Built Footage/Acreage column.
Wildlands, response: The current lengths for UT1 Reach 1 in the digital submittal shopefile are correct.
The issue is that the "As Built Footage/Acreage" and the "Creditable As Built Footage/Acreage" for UT1
Reach 1 in the Baseline Report were incorrectly reported in Table 1 and were subsequently carried
forward and reported incorrectly in MY1 — MY4's draft report. The correct lengths should have been
reported in the baseline reports as 1,139 for the "As Built Footage/Acreage" and 1,114 for the Creditable
AS Built Footage/Acreage'which excludes the 25 foot easement crossing break. Since the Project
Components and Mitigation Credits Table in the Final MY4 Report has been reformatted, the listed
lengths of 1,114 in the AS Built Footage/Acreage column is correct.
DMS Comment: If available, please include features that connect the creditable stream reaches (e.g.
stream segments in easement breaks). DMS wants to be able to have segmented, but continuous
stream shapes within a project's footprint.
Wildlands, response: Wildlands updated the shape file to include the stream segments in easement
breaks. The updated shape file is provided with the digital submittal data.
Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring
Report. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x101 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
s
Kristi Suggs,
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, hic. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

PREPARED BY:
%W$SW
WYLDLANDS
E N G IN EER I N G
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed a full -delivery stream and wetland mitigation project
at the Vile Creek Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to
restore and enhance a total of 8,056 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream and to restore
6.40 acres of riparian wetlands in Alleghany County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 5,053.000
stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 5.703 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for the New River
Basin (Table 1). The Site is located approximately one mile east of the Town of Sparta, NC in the New
River Basin eight -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 05050001 and the 14-digit HUC 05050001030020
(Figure 1). The Site streams consist of Vile Creek and five unnamed tributaries (UT) to Vile Creek
including UT1, UT1b, UT1c, UT2, UT3, and a portion of Little River (Figure 2). Vile Creek flows into Little
River near the downstream project boundary. The land adjacent to the streams and wetlands is
primarily maintained cattle pasture and forest.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) identified in the New River Basin Restoration
Priority (RBRP) plan (NCDENR, 2009). The Site is also located within the planning area for the Little River
& Brush Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The LWP identified the following stressors to watershed
function: Heavily grazed deforested buffer, livestock access to the streams, heavily eroded stream
banks, land -disturbing activities on steep slopes, non -point source pollution from the Town of Sparta
and surrounding areas, and drained and deforested wetland areas (NCDENR, 2007).
The project goals defined in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016) were established with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to meet DMS mitigation
needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift with the watershed. The project goals
established in the Mitigation Plan focused on permanent protection for the Site, re-establishing natural
hydrology and vegetation, reducing water quality stressors, and enhancing terrestrial and aquatic
habitat.
The Site construction and as -built survey were completed in February 2017. Monitoring Year (MY) 4
assessments and Site visits were completed between April and November 2020 to assess the conditions
of the project.
Overall, the Site has partially met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for
MY5 and is on track to meet MY7 performance standards/success criteria. All restored and
enhancement I streams are geomorphically stable and functioning as designed. During MY4, 9 bankfull
events were recorded on Vile Creek Reach 2 and 7 bankfull events were recorded on UT1 Reach 2.
However, bankfull event criteria was already met in MY2. Multiple geomorphically significant events
were recorded on Vile Creek Reach 2 and UT1 Reach 2. Pebble counts reflect no significant change in
restoration and enhancement I stream substrate material. All ten gages in the wetland re-establishment
and rehabilitation areas are either meeting or exceeding hydrology success criteria.
Invasive species continue to be present within and around the site. Currently, 11.6 % of the conservation
easement contains an invasive species population. Treatments performed in September MY4 will be
evaluated in MY5.
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final

VILE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
1.2.1 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-4
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan.................................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary......................................................................................................1-6
Section2: METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section3: REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component 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
Meeting Summary - Vile Creek Mitigation Site IRT Meeting
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-f Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Bog Vegetation Photographs
Photos — Stream Areas of Concern
Appendix 3* Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 9b
Planted Herbaceous Cover (Bog Cells)
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary*
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)*
Table 12a-b Monitoring Data — Cross-section Plots*
Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13a-b Verification of Bankfull and Geomorphically Significant Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Recorded Geomorphic Significant and Bankfull Event Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
*Content not required for monitoring year 4 report
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located approximately one mile east of the Town Sparta in eastern Alleghany County, NC. The
project is within the New River Basin eight -digit HUC 05050001 and the 14-digit HUC 05050001030020
(Figure 1). Located in the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province (USGS, 1998), the project watershed
primarily includes managed herbaceous, mixed upland hardwoods, and other forested land. The
drainage area for the project streams range from 0.01 square miles to 2.69 square miles.
The project streams consist of Vile Creek and five unnamed tributaries (UT) to Vile Creek including UT1,
UT1b, UT1c, UT2, UT3, and a portion of Little River. Stream restoration reaches include Vile Creek
(Reaches 1 and 2) and UT1 Reach 2, which together comprise 3,047 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream
channel. Stream enhancements reaches include UT1 Reach 1, UT1b, UT1c, UT2, UT3, and a portion of
Little River, totaling 5,009 LF. Wetland components include 3.02 acres of wetland rehabilitation and 3.38
acres of wetland re-establishment.
Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in February 2017. Planting and
seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in February 2017. The land required
for construction, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project included portions of five
parcels resulting in 25.04 acres of the conservation easement. The project is expected to generate
5,053.000 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 5.703 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs). Annual
monitoring will be conducted for seven years with close-out anticipated to commence in 2024 given the
success criteria are met.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the New River Basin. While many of
these benefits are limited to the Vile Creek 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 and objectives were established with careful consideration of goals and
objectives that were described in the RBRP and to address stressors identified in the LWP.
The following project specific goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016) include:
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final 1-1

Goals
Objectives
Reduce pollutant inputs to streams including fecal
coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous.
Exclude cattle from streams and buffers by installing
fencing around conservation easements adjacent to
cattle pastures. Install wells and drinkers to provide
alternative water sources for cattle.
Reduce inputs of sediment into streams from
eroding stream banks.
Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions.
Add bank revetments and in -stream structures to
protect restored/enhanced streams.
Return a network of streams to a stable form that
is capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and
water quality functions.
Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable
pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and
sediment inputs to the system, the landscape setting,
and the watershed conditions.
Improve aquatic communities in project streams
Install habitat features such as constructed riffles, cover
and provide improved habitat for trout migrating
logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced streams.
from Little River into Vile Creek. Note: Presence of
Add woody materials to channel beds. Construct pools of
aquatic organisms and trout will not be tied to
varying depth.
project success criteria.
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final 1-2

Goals
Objectives
Raise local groundwater elevations and allow for
more frequent overbank flows to provide a source
Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate bankfull
of hydration for floodplain wetlands. Reduce shear
dimensions and depth relative to the existing floodplain.
stress on channels during larger flow events.
y gy, soils, and plant
Restore wetland hydrology,
Restore riparian wetlands by raising stream beds,
plugging existing ditches, removing fill material over
communities.
relict hydric soils, and planting native wetland species.
Improve and expand Southern Appalachian bog
habitat to support bog species such as bog turtles.
Widen low lying ditched areas that represent bog
Note: Presence of bog turtles will not be tied to
conditions.
project success criteria.
Create and improve riparian and wetland habitats
by planting native vegetation. Provide a canopy to
shade streams and reduce thermal loadings. Create
Plant native tree and shrub species in riparian zone and
a source of woody inputs for streams. Reduce flood
wetland areas other than bog areas. Bog areas will be
flow velocities on floodplain and improve long-
planted with herbaceous species.
term lateral stability of streams. Improve bog
habitat by planting herbaceous wetland plants.
Ensure that development and agricultural uses that
would damage the site or reduce the benefits of
Establish conservation easements on the site.
project are prevented.
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly Site visits were conducted during MY4 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success
criteria presented in the Vile Creek Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016).
1.2.1 Stream Assessment
MY4 is a reduced monitoring year that does not require morphological surveys; therefore, no cross -
sectional survey was performed this year. Pebble counts were conducted in MY4 and found no
significant change in stream bed material throughout the site.
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events and geomorphically
significant (60% of bankfull flow) events must have occurred in separate years within the restoration and
enhancement reaches.
During MY4, Twelve bankfull events and sixteen geomorphically significant events were documented on
UT1 Reach 2, while nine bankfull events and fourteen geomorphically significant events were
documented on Vile Creek Reach 2. With at least three bankfull events occurring in separate years
documented on UT1 Reach 2 and at least two bankfull events occurring in separate years documented
on Vile Creek, the success criteria for bankfull and geomorphically significant events has been met on all
monitored reaches.
Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots.
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final 1-3

1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment
MY4 is a reduced monitoring year that does not require detailed vegetation inventory and analysis;
therefore, no vegetation plot monitoring was performed this year. Visual assessments in MY4 indicate
isolated areas on -site are exhibiting low stem heights and vigor. See the Adaptive Management Section
below for more detail.
Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs.
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment
A total of ten groundwater hydrology gages (GWG) and two soil temperature gages were established
during baseline monitoring within the wetland rehabilitation, wetland re-establishment, and bog areas.
A barotroll logger, used to measure barometric pressure and aid in the calculation of groundwater
levels, was also installed on -site. Groundwater monitoring gages are downloaded on a quarterly basis
and maintained as needed. Under typical precipitation conditions, the final performance success criteria
for groundwater hydrology is the documentation of free groundwater within 12 inches of the ground
surface for 14 consecutive days (8.5%) of the defined 169-day growing season (April 26 — October 11) for
wetlands and 20 consecutive days (12%) of the defined 169-day growing season (April 26 — October 11)
for bog areas.
All the Site's GWGs met the success criteria for MY4, with the measured hydroperiod ranging from 26%
to 100% of the growing season. The attainment criteria for hydrologic success for all the wells increased
or remained the same in comparison to previous years. A manual measurement of each GWG water
elevation was taken during MY4. GWGS 5 and 9 show inconsistencies with the manual measurement
and the barotroll gage data. Multiple manual measurements will be conducted at each GWG in MY5 to
further evaluate any inconsistencies in data.
Rainfall data collected from the NC-AG-1-Sparta 3.5 SSW(NCCRONOS) rain gage, showed average to
above average rainfall for a majority of the growing season. Refer to the CCPV Maps in Appendix 2 for
the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology and average rainfall
summary data and plots.
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan
Overall, the streams are geomorphically stable and riparian and wetland vegetation is performing well.
However, isolated stream and vegetation problem areas do exist on -site. The following areas are
experiencing localized bank instability and include: Vile Creek Reach 1 station 103+90-104+20, Vile Creek
Reach 2 stations 118+50-118+80, 120+70-121+00, and 122+80-123+00, UT1 Reach 1 station 206+40-
206+60, UT2 stations 305+00-305+50, 306+30-306+70, and 310+00-310+15. Localized areas of
aggradation along enhancement II reaches, UT2 (Stations 309+70 (32'), UT1b (station 251+20 (51')), and
UT1c (Station 271+50 (115')), have resulted in sheet flow onto the floodplain rather than maintaining flow
within a single thread channel. The stormwater best management practice (BMP) at the top of UT2 has
formed a headcut at the intake from a natural crenulation flowing into the BMP. An area of instability
along UT1 Reach 1 (Station 205+10-205+60) that was previously mention in the MY3 report, naturally
realigned itself (Approximately 21-feet) in MY4; thereby, abandoning an existing meander bend and
creating an ox bow. The newly created channel appears to be stable and will be closely monitored for
instability. If necessary, soil amendments and live stakes will be added to the abandoned oxbow channel,
see areas of concern photos 7 & 8. Stream structures currently failing include: Log sill UT1 Reach 1 station
204+90, Rock Sill UT1 Reach 2 station 220+98, and Log sill Vile Creek Reach 1 station 104+10. Wildlands
plans to address areas of localized bank instability across the Site and further evaluate headcut/s,
structure failures, and aggradational areas of concern during winter 2020/2021. All completed repairs will
be included in MY5 monitoring report.
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final 1-4

The headcut at the intake of the BMP located at the top of UT2 was repaired with hand tools and live
stakes in March of 2020. The live stakes have started taking root; however, further repairs will be
needed to fix the headcut. In addition, a large undercut bank was repaired with live brush on UT2 at
station 306+30. These repairs will be further evaluated during MY5 site walks.
Though invasive species, including Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Oriental bittersweet
(Celastrus orbiculatus), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) continue to be present within and around
the Site, previous invasive species treatments of cutting the plants and applying glyphosate to the
stumps or stems have reduced their populations from 13.2% in MY3 to 11.6% in MY4. Invasive
treatments were also conducted in September of MY4 and included spraying all fence lines and UT3 for
barberry. Although the presence of invasive species are not impacting survival rates of planted stems at
this time, these areas will likely warrant additional treatment to prevent any advancement within the
conservation easement and future impacts to the Site. Wildlands will continue to monitor the areas of
concern and take action as necessary.
Less than 1% of the easement contains areas of poor herbaceous cover. These areas are located
between GWGs 8 and 9, along the right bank of UT2 near station 305+00, and along the left bank
boulder toe on Vile Creek Reach 3 between stations 124+00 and 124+50. Although, these areas were
reseeded in June of MY3 and are starting to establish herbaceous vegetation, these areas were still
included MY4 as exhibiting poor herbaceous cover.
During winter MY3 and MY4 areas of low stem density and height were documented on site and amount
to 18.2% of the planted conservation easement. These areas include: A portion of the left floodplain on
UT1 Reach 1, an area along the right floodplain of UT1C, which continues downstream to Vile Creek
Reach 2, and along the left floodplain of UT2 just below the BMP. Supplemental planting of 300 1-gallon
trees were completed in the spring of 2020 on the right bank UT1 R2 starting at UT1C and continuing
down to Vile Creek Reach 2. Elderberry plugs were also planted along UT1 as streamside plantings to
further shade out the stream. All of the 1-gallon plantings were considered unsuccessful because the
deer population located on -site are grazing the tops off newly planted stems; therefore, causing a
mortality rate of greater than 50% of the supplementally planted stems. A second supplemental planting
in this area, as well as along the left floodplain of UT1 Reach 1 is proposed. Installation will be planned
when nursery stocks of deer resistance plant material becomes available.
Easement encroachment from mowing on the left floodplain of UT1 Reach 1 continues to be an issue. In
MY4, Wildlands further delineated the easement boundary in this area with additional signs. The
additional signs installed along the boundary helped reduce the mowing encroachment but did not
eliminate it. Wildlands will add additional signage between existing posts to help continue reduce
mowing within the easement.
Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment table, the CCPV maps, and area of concern
photos.
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final 1-5

1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary
The streams within the Site appear to be stable and functioning as designed. Multiple bankfull and
gemorphically significant events were documented for UT1 and Vile Creek; therefore, the site has met
the stream hydrological success criteria. All ten groundwater gages met the success criteria for MY4.
Planned management and maintenance will continue to address any areas of concerns that should
advance or arise.
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 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.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final 1-6

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were 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). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using either a Trimble or Topcon handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder
and ArcGIS. Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly.
Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2016) standards. Planted woody vegetation is being
monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation
Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006).
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
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. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from http://deq.nc.gov/document/cvs-eep-protocol-v42-lev1-2.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2009. New River Basin Restoration
Priorities. Retrieved from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-
planning/watershed-planning-documents/new-river-basin.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2007. Little River & Brush Creek
Local Watershed Plan (LWP) Project Atlas. Retrieved from
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/new-river-basin.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018.
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2020. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID NC-AG-1-Sparta 3.5 SSW.
Accessed October and November 2020.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. WETS Station: SPARA 3.5 SSW, NC. NRCS. 1971-
2020. https://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/climate/navigate wets.html
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-geological-
s u rvey/.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2016. Vile Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2017. Vile Creek Stream Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and
As -Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — Final 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

V j
r
, C
fO- s Indepe
!r`1`
0 Project Location
F
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
. - .,
�
', � r
ram. f . � • �
�
y
�._._._ _
N—A—.--_
f/
_ — _
AROLINA ._,_._._,
05050001030015
!
.1
/ dSo� rP,4
�J p,1e
05050001030020
Ab rue
N ) �, 0505000103
de
�� ps 1
18 1
n �
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of
the North Carolina 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.
Directions to Site:
To reach the site from Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West toward
US70/Greensboro/Winston-Salem. Keep right at the fork to
continue on 1-40 Business West/US-421 North. Take exit 6B for
US-52 North/US-311 North/NC-8 North toward Mount Airy/Smith
Reynolds/Airport. Merge onto US-311 North/US-52 North and
continue to follow US-52 North. Continue on 1-74 West. Take exit 6
for NC-89 toward Mount Airy. At the end of the exit ramp, turn left
onto NC-89 West. Travel 13.7 miles, turn left onto NC-18 South.
Travel 14.4 miles, cross over Vile Creek. Napco Road will be on
the right. Take the next left onto a gravel farm road to access the Site.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
W T L, D 1, AN T) S 0 1 2 Mile DMS Project No. 96582
"`!r, ' m ` ' ' ' ' ' '1' Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Alleghany County, NC

Figure 2 Project Component Map
&,w
r
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
VVTLT]LA�IDS
0 300 600 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
L NL IN L L I:I`�L� I I I I I
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Alleghony County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
LM
PROJECT
COMPONENTS
Existing
Mitigation
Mitigation Mitigation Ratio
As Built Footage/
Project Credit
Project Area/Reach
Footage (LF)
Plan Footage
Restoration Level Priority Level
Notes
Category (X:1)
z
Acreage
i z
(SMU/WMU)
or Acreage
(LF)/Acreage
Vile Creek Reach 1
962
920
Warm
Restoration
P1
1:1
882
882.000
Alignment changed from mitigation plan/final design due to bedrock obstruction.
Vile Creek Reach 2
1,247
1,260
Warm
Restoration
P1
1:1
1,311
1,311.000
Alignment changed from mitigation plan/final design due to bedrock obstruction.
Vile Creek Reach 3
714
714
Warm
Enhancement II
N/A
2.5:1
713
279.000
As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
UT1 Reach 1
1,143
1,107
Warm
Enhancement I
N/A
1.5:1
1,114
630.000
Excludes one 25 foot easement crossing break from 207+13 - 207+38. As -Built credits were reduced for areas
where easement is restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
Excludes 77 feet of stream outside of conservation easement from 215+68 - 216+45. Alignment changed from
UT1 Reach 2
989
825
Warm
Restoration
P1
1:1
777
750.000
design due to bedrock obstruction. As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is restricted and the
full buffer width is not possible.
UT1B
128
128
Warm
Enhancement II
N/A
2.5:1
128
48.000
As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
UT1C
234
228
Warm
Enhancement II
N/A
2.5:1
228
89.000
As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
UT2
1,226
1,226
Warm
Enhancement II
N/A
2.5:1
1,226
490.000
UT3
1,316
1,236
Warm
Enhancement II
N/A
2.5:1
1,236
461.000
Creditable length reduced by 45 LF to account for 45 LF of alignment that does not have the full bankfull width
within the CE.
Little River
284
284
Warm
Enhancement II
N/A
2.5:1
284
114.000
Wetland Rehabilitation
3.02
3.02
Warm
Rehabilitation
1.3:1
3.02
2.323
The reduction in wetland re-establishment acreage from design to as -built stages was mainly due to Vile Creek
Reaches 1 and 2 having wider top widths in the as -built survey than in the design wetland area calculations. Thus,
Wetland Re-establishment
0
3.50
Warm
Re-establishment
1:1
3.38
3.380
Vile Creek cut more into the wetland area in the as -built plans than it did in the design calculations, resulting in
lower as -built wetland acreage.
As -Built credits kSMIUs) have been adjusted where the easement is restricted and the full buffer Width and/or bankfull width is not fully Contained within the Conservation easement. The reductions are greater In the as -built compared to the mitigation plan. I he as -built credit reductions t011ow5 the Updated 2016
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation update.
2Stream mitigation credits and stationg noted above are based on the as -built stream centerline.
Restoration Level
Project Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Coastal Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riv
Restoration
2,943.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Re-establishment
3.380
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rehabilitation
2.323
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
630.000
N/A
N/A
Enhancement 11
1,481.000
N/A
N/A
Creation
Preservation
Total
5,053.000
N/A
N/A
5.703
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Activity or Report
Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Complete
N/A
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
June 2016
Final Design - Construction Plans
N/A
June 2016
Construction
N/A
February 2017
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
N/A
February 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
N/A
February 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for
reach/segments
N/A
February 2017
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
March 2017
April 2017
Vegetation Survey
April 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
September 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey
September 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
April 2018
November 2018
Vegetation Survey
September 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
April 2019
December 2019
Shrub Planting
June 2019
Invasive Treatment
June 2019
Vegetation Survey
September 2019
Year 4 Monitoring
Supplimental Planting
March 2020
November 2020
Stream Repairs
March 2020
Invasive Treatment
September 2020
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2021
November 2021
Vegetation Survey
2021
November 2021
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2022
November 2022
Vegetation Survey
2022
November 2022
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2023
November 2023
Vegetation Survey
2023
November 2023
'Seed and mulch was added as each section of construction was completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Jeff Keaton, PE
Charlotte, NC 28205
704.332.7754
Land Mechanics Design, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanics Design, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.; Foggy Mountain Nursery, LLC
Plugs
Wetland Plants Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kristi Suggs
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4- 2020
PROJECT• •
Project Name
IVile Creek Mitigation Site
County
JAlleghany County
Project Area (acres)
125.04
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
136.510530o N,-80.1040920 W
PROJECT• SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province
River Basin
New
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
05050001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
05050001030020
DWR Sub -basin
05-07-03
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
22,912
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Managed Herbaceous (50%), Forested (45%), Mountain Conifers (3%), Impervious (2%)
REACH SUMMARY • •
Parameters
Vile Creek Vile Creek Vile Creek
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT113 UT1C UT2 Little River UT3
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
882
1,311
713
1,114
854
128 228 1,226 284 1,316
Drainage Area (acres)
1,375
1,639
1,720
190
218
8 8 80 22,912 38
NCDWR Stream Identification Score - Pre -Restoration
45.5
45.5
45.5
43
43
28.25 26 27, 42.5 49.5 33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
C3
C4
C4
E4b
F4b
E4b
E4b
B4
C4
B4a
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
III
III
II
I
III
Alluvial land, wet (Nikwasi); Chandler silt loam; Chandler stony silt loam; Chester loam; Chester stony loam; Clifton loam; Fannin silt loam; Stony Steep
Underlying Mapped Soils
Land; Tate loam; Tusquitee loam; Watauga loam
Very poorly drained (Alluvial land, wet (Nikwasi); Well Drained (Chester loam, Chester stony loam, Clifton loam, Fannin silt loam, Tate loam, Tusquitee
Drainage Class
loam, Watauga loam); Somewhat excessively drained (Chandler silt loam, Chandlery stony silt loam); Excessively drained (Stony steep land).
A/D (Nikwasi); A (Chandler silt loam, Chandler stony silt loam, Tusquitee loam, Stony steep land); B (Chester silt loam, Chester stony loam, Clifton loam,
Soil Hydric Status
Fannin silt loam, Tate loam, Watauga loam)
Valley Slope - Pre -Restoration
0.017 1 0.016 1 0.015 1 0.032 0.033 0.071 1 0.067 1 0.048 N/A 0.070
FEMA Classification
AE
Native Vegetation Community
Montane Alluvial Forest, Southern Appalachian Bog
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration
<1%
EGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulation
Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3885.
Action ID# SAW-2014-01585
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Vile Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion (CE) Approved 9/15/2014
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 7/25/2014)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
No
N/A
N/A
(CAMA)
No impact application was
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
prepared for local review. No
Vile Creek Final Mitigation Plan (June 2016) and Vile Creek Categorical Exclusion (CE)
post -project activities
Approved 9/15/2014
required.
Vile Creek Final Mitigation Plan (June 2016) and Vile Creek Categorical Exclusion (CE)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
No
Approved 9/15/2014

ktwv
WILDLANDS
E N 0 1 N E E R I N 0
MEETING SUMMARY
Vile Creek Mitigation Site IRT Meeting
Meeting Date: July 18, 2017
Meeting Attendees
Todd Tugwell/USACE
Andrea Hu hes/USACE
Kim Browning/USACE
Mac Haupt/NCDWR
Marella Buncick/USFWS
Sue Cameron/USFWS
Gabrielle Graeter/NCWRC
Paul Wisener/NCDMS
Harry Tsomides/NCDMS
Shawn Wilkerson/Wildlands
Jeff Keaton/Wildlands
On July 18, representatives from Wildlands Engineering met with several members of the Inter -Agency Review
Team and NC Division of Mitigation Services on site to observe and discuss the construction and performance of
the bog habitat built on site. The key topics of the discussion are described below.
Break up flow paths in bog area
The middle bog area on the left floodplain along Vile Creek Reach 1 has some concentrated flow
paths that seem to consistently convey water through the bog. These are a risk for headcutting.
The flow will be dispersed by placing three coir logs across the concentrated flow paths. They
will be staked in place. The coir logs are only intended to be a temporary measure to prevent
erosion until the vegetation becomes fully established. The approximate location for the coir
logs is shown on the attached map.
Lowering of bog area berm
The most downstream bog area has approximately 6 to 10 inches of water backed up behind the
berm (see attached map). This particular berm was constructed slightly too high. Wildlands has
agreed to lower the spillway elevation on this berm by about six inches to reduce the depth of
water ponded behind the berm. This will be done with manual labor in order to minimize the
impacts on the surrounding wetlands and vegetation.
3. Transplant Gray's Lily
Because one or two specimens of Gray's Lily identified on site were graded over during
construction, Wildlands located a source for the flowers to transplant on the site. During the
site visit, a Gray's Lily was found adjacent to a bog area on the left floodplain of Vile Creek Reach
2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives asked Wildlands to install the transplants in the
same area as the existing plant. On Thursday, July 20 Wildlands planted three Gray's Lily bulbs
in this location (see attached map).
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

4. Remove trees from shrub planting zones and replant with shrubs
In a couple of areas along Vile Creek, at least some trees were planted in shrub zones. This is a
problem because the shrub zones were planned to minimize shade on the bog areas. Trees will
create undesirable shade on the bogs. Wildlands will remove the trees from these areas and
replant with shrubs. The primary areas where trees are planted in shrub zones are shown on
the attached map. Action Item: Please review the attached map and coordinate with Jeff
Keaton if there are other areas where trees are planted in a shrub zone. Please also review
the approved planting plan map submitted with the final mitigation plan (also included) to
make sure the any additional areas are within planned shrub zones.
Improve floodplain outlet
At the upstream end of Vile Creek Reach 2, there is a floodplain outlet that is not functioning
properly (see attached map). Most of the water draining out of a nearby bog area is not
entering the channel through the constructed outlet but is draining over a brush toe where the
brush overlaps with the riffle. After some discussion, it seems like the best solution is to
relocate the outlet to the location where the water wants to flow. Wildlands will relocate the
outlet.
6. Meander bend erosion
At the downstream end of Vile Creek Reach 2 there is some erosion beginning on the outside of
a meander bend. The group agreed that this area does not need remedial action at this point
but Wildlands agreed to continue to watch this area going forward. If remedial action becomes
necessary, Wildlands will stabilize the bank and correct the problem.

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
WW I L D L A N D S 0 225 450 Feet New River Basin 05050001
E N G I N E E R I N G I I -i t
Alleghany County, NC

2010 Aerial
cD %
; \ i 25' culverted crossing , \
i �� •' external to easement
mi
w •�
25' Ford crossing \
(no cattle access)
Pho6raphy
Gfee* \. \
file Creekpilf
'
I . 11' u , \

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

k�p
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
0 300 600 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Alleghany County, NC

i Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Bog Cell
0 Stormwater BMP
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Non -Project Stream
Cross -Section (XS)
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY4
= Not Monitored
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY4
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4
Bed Aggradation
Headcut
Scour/Erosion
��• Stream Realignment
• Structure Issue
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Multiflora Rose
Barberry
Multiflora Rose and Barberry
Multiflora Rose and Bittersweet
0 Low Stem Density, Height, and Vigor
Poor Herbaceous Cover
Easement Encroachment - Mowing
-- -- Bankfull
Q Reach Break
0 Photo Point
+ Crest Gage (CG)
Barotroll Gage
Structures
Riffles
Brush Toe
k�ry
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING ki
_:�, �O Olt
,`,
:1 ..
AK'
o
_ � I
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
1 i i i I Monitoring Year 4- 2020
Alleghany County, NC

9
1
/nt=r
F
9703
M
k�p
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING L71
-�� Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Bog Cell
Stormwater BMP
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4
Bed Aggradation
Headcut
Scour/Erosion
-�-� Stream Realignment
• Structure Issue
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Multiflora Rose
Non -Project Stream
Barberry
Cross -Section (XS)
Multiflora Rose and Barberry
Vegetation Monitoring Plots -
MY4 Multiflora Rose and Bittersweet
Not Monitored
0 Low Stem Density, Height, and Vigor
Herbaceous Bog Plots
Poor Herbaceous Cover
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY4 Easement Encroachment - Mowing
Criteria Met
- - - - Bankfull
'�
♦ Criteria Not Met
Q Reach Break
%♦
,
I
x ♦�
Y �
0 100 200 Feet
I I I I
0 Photo Point
+ Crest Gage (CG)
Barotroll Gage
Structures
Riffles
Brush Toe
k
,I-",'.-
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Alleghany County, NC

J
r
,
W`'
1 �
I� I � .�� ✓ $d *' s i,����� - fit, ♦.
�• r.+ ` ��
s°
•' s'
' A®� ,
ktww
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING L71
i Conservation Easement
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
g
Wetland Rehabilitation
Multiflora Rose
Wetland Re-establishment
Barberry
Bog Cell
Multiflora Rose and Barberry
Stormwater BMP
Multiflora Rose and Bittersweet
Stream Restoration
Low Stem Density, Height, and Vigor
Stream Enhancement I
Poor Herbaceous Cover
Stream Enhancement 11
Easement Encroachment - Mowing
Non -Project Stream
- - - - Bankfull
Cross -Section (XS)
Q Reach Break
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY4
Photo Point
= Not Monitored
+ Crest Gage (CG)
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4
Barotroll Gage
"m Bed Aggradation
Structures
Headcut
Riffles
Scour/Erosion
Brush Toe
---• Stream Realignment
• Structure Issue
0 100 200 Feet
I I I
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Alleghany County, NC

Conservation Easement Vegetation Areas of Concern MY4
Wetland Rehabilitation Multiflora Rose •�'
i Wetland Re-establishment Barberry
® Bog Cell Multiflora Rose and Barberry
1 '
Stormwater BMP Multiflora Rose and Bittersweet .L`1 `�'`6 -c,-
'' are
Stream Restoration 0 Low Stem Density, Height, and Vigor
Stream Enhancement I Poor Herbaceous Cover b *, 41. 1'Q►'
Stream Enhancement II Easement Encroachment - Mowing``±.
Non -Project Stream - - - - Bankfull
Cross -Section (XS) Q Reach Break
., ,: '`'►
Vegetation Monitoring Plots- MY4 0 Photo Points
Not Monitored + Crest Gage (CG)
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4 + Barotroll GageInk"« , a ,, t► '� ar
Bed Aggradation , r► i�'�t►'^;`y y r `'yam' 'y .. +� ..
Headcut�' ,+ •�^+°�! s�.� �, -„
- Scour/Erosion . _ ,�, ':.
*
y- Stream Realignment7111
# • Structure Issue
16
17
a
k�ry
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 100 200 Feet
I I I
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Alleghany County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1 (1,114 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
Aegradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
22
22
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
14
14
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
14
14
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend Run
14
14
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
14
14
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
16
99%
0
0
99%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
2, Undercut
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
16
99%
0
0
99%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
36
37
97%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
29
30
97%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
29
30
97%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
36
37
97%
3. Engineered
Structures'
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
36
37
97%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
UT1 Reach 2 (854 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
11
11
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
11
11
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend Run
11
11
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
11
11
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
2, Undercut
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
32
33
97%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
21
22
95%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
21
22
95%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
32
33
97%
3. Engineered
Structures'
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
32
33
97%
baseflow.
`Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek Reach 1 (882 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
8
8
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
8
8
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend Run
8
8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
8
8
1007
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
35
99%
0
0
99%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2, Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
F3Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
35
99%
0
0
99%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
15
16
94%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
7
8
88%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
8
88%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
15
16
94%
3. Engineered
Structures'
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
15
16
94%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek Reach 2 (1,311 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
10
10
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
9
9
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend Run
9
9
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
9
9
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
3
99
96%
0
0
96%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2, Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
Mass Wasting
F
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
3
99
96%
0
0
96%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
16
16
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
7
7
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
16
16
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
16
16
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek Reach 3 (713 LF)
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
1
1
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
1
1
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
1
1
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend Run
1
1
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
1
1
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
2, Undercut
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
1
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
UT2: Stations (763 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
Aggradation
1
32
96%
Degradation
0
0
100%
and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
N/A
N/A
n/a
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
N/A
N/A
n/a
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
N/A
N/A
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
N/A
N/A
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
N/A
N/A
n/a
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
3
97
94%
0
0
94%
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
r3-ass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
3
97
94%
0
0
94%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
2
2
N/A
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
N/A
baseflow.
`Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
N/A- Not applicable: No Engineered Structures applies to UT2

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Planted Acreage 17
Mapping
Number
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Polygons
s
Acreage
Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
2
0.1
0.6%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas*
0.1
4
3.1
18.2%
criteria.
Total
6
3.2
18.8%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor*
0.25 Ac
4
3.1
18.2%
year.
Cumulative Total
6
3.2
18.8%
*Low stem density areas and poor growth areas are the same areas on -site.
Easement Acreage 25
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
13
2.9
11.6%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
1
0.03
0.1%

Stream Photographs
Monitoring Year 4

Photo Point 1— view upstream Vile Creek R1 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 1— view downstream Vile Creek R1 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 2 — view upstream Vile Creek R1 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 2 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 3 — view upstream Vile Creek R1 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 3 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (411312020) 1

1 •�
t
k1"df
A
fFyL '%h✓ �F FW i, 1 +;Y y 1 ' �5 S` 4 1''',.
� � e� � 1 a'.7 � � } #ar "� a ➢ 'r"Pr. '"ti" �
� ....i: � 3'� �� �i
�'
�y a
� � .
Photo Point 4 — view upstream Vile Creek R1 (411312020)
Photo Point 4 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (411312020)
�V �
aP �
' fix y,,A 7 y 1 E R, `. xdp p }
i •"e y�.
AN
Li
S
-
��
. . '. • 1 1
. . '. •• 1 1
t �
�
ry
�� �' ✓ f - �7 4 }�lac
y��+ !`; ���� MJ'gr
TOW
4
Photo '. • 1 1
Photo '. ••(411312020)

(OZOZ/£I/ti) Tb laaa:) al!A WeaAISUMop Main-6;uiod o;oyd (OZOZ/ET/P) Tb laaAD al!A weaalsdn Main-6;uiod o;oyd
(OZOZ/£I/ti) Tb laaAD al!A WeaAISUMop Main — g luiod o;oyd (OZOZ/ET/ti) Tb PaAD al!A weaalsdn Main — 8 lulod o;oyd
(OZOZ/ET/ti) Tb laaAD al!A WeaalsuMop Main— L;uiod o;oyd (OZOZ/ET/ti) Tb PaAD al!A weaalsdn Main— L;uiod o;oyd

Photo Point 10 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) Photo Point 10 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020)
Photo Point 11— view upstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 11— view downstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 12 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 12 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1

Photo Point 13 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 13 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 14 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 14 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 15 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 15 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1

Photo Point 16 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 16 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 17 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 17 —view downstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 18 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 18 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (411312020) 1

Photo Point 19 — view upstream Vile Creek R3 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 19 — view downstream Vile Creek R3 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 20 — view upstream Vile Creek R3 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 20 — view downstream Vile Creek R3 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 21— view upstream Vile Creek R3 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 21— view downstream Vile Creek R3 (411312020) 1

Photo Point 22 — view upstream Vile Creek R3 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 22 — view downstream Vile Creek R3 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 23 — view upstream Little River (411312020) 1 Photo Point 23 — view downstream Little River (411312020) 1
i
Photo Point 24 — view upstream UT1 R1 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 24 —view downstream UT1 R1 (411312020) 1

Photo Point 25 -view upstream UT1 R1 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 25 -view downstream UT1 R1 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 26 - view upstream UT1 R1 (4/13/2020) 1 Photo Point 26 -view downstream UT1 R1 (4/13/2020) 1
Photo Point 27 - view upstream UT1 R1 (4/13/2020) 1 Photo Point 27 - view downstream UT1 R1 (4/13/2020) 1

Photo Point 28 —view upstream UT1C (411312020) 1 Photo Point 28 — view downstream UT1B (411312020) 1
Photo Point 29 — view upstream UT1 R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 29 —view downstream UT1 R2 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 30 —view upstream UT1 R2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 30 —view downstream UT1 R2 (411312020) 1

Photo Point 31— view upstream UT2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 31— view downstream UT2 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 31— view of UT2 BM P (811312020) 1
Photo Point 32 — view upstream UT2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 32 — view downstream UT2 (411312020) 1

Photo Point 33 — view upstream UT2 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 33 — view downstream UT2 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 34 — view upstream UT3 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 34—view downstream UT3 (411312020) 1
Photo Point 35 — view upstream UT3 (411312020) 1 Photo Point 35 — view downstream UT3 (411312020)

Photo Point 36—stormwater wetland (411312020) 1

Vegetation Photographs
Monitoring Year 4

Vegetation Plot 1 - (811312020) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 - (811312020) 1
Vegetation Plot 3 - (811312020) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 - (811312020) 1
Vegetation Plot 5 - (811312020) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 - (811312020) 1

Bog Vegetation Photographs
Monitoring Year 4

Bog Vegetation Plot 1- (811312020) 1 Bog Vegetation Plot 2 - (811312020) 1
Bog Vegetation Plot 3 - (811312020) 1 Bog Vegetation Plot 4 - (811312020) 1
Bog Vegetation Plot 5 - (811312020) 1 Bog Vegetation Plot 6 - (811312020) 1

Photos — Stream Areas of Concern
Monitoring Year 4

Photo 1— Vile Creek R1: Station 103+90 — Right bank piping and scour Photo 2 — Vile Creek R1: Station 103+90-104+20 — Right bank scour and
around log sill. 4-14-2020 1 piping around structures in constructed riffle. 4-14-2020
Photo 3 — Vile Creek R2: Station 118+50—118+80 — Bank scour. 11-6-2020 1 Photo 4 — Vile Creek R2: Station 120+70-121+00 — Bank scour. 11-6-2020 1
Photo 5 —Vile Creek R2: Station 122+80-123+00 — Bank scour. 11-6-2020 I Photo 6 — UT1 R1: Station 204+90 — Structure missing. 11-6-2020 I
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — 2020

O,
�� wl,�v
nF
z >� �• ^art �:. ,
a
k
Y
t'
AWL
y,' r
4
� t
y
r � —
f� A
p
0i
411
y 4.
mac, r
4, f
44

WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — 2020 3

WVile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — 2020

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation assessment and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 4

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross -sectional morphological surveys and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 4

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
6
6
.:'..
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
5
11
�1
�!
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
4
5
5
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
6
6
22
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
4
26
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
26
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
3
29
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
31
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
7
8
8
39
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
2
5
5
44
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
4
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
2
5
5
53
Coarse
22.6
32
5
3
8
8
61
Very Coarse
32
45
7
2
9
9
70
Very Coarse
45
64
4
1
5
5
75
Small
64
90
6
2
8
8
83
Small
90
128
7
7
7
90
Large
128
180
5
5
5
95
Large
180
256
4
4
4
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
1 048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.5
D15 =
6.7
D50 =
18.4
D84 =
94.6
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
362.0
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
Silt/Clay
Cobble
_
Sand
Gravel
Boulder
Bedrock
70
j 60
50
E
40
U
w 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO-03/2017—MY1-09/2017 —MY2-09/2018 —MY3-04/2019 --o—MY4-09/2020
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
60
a
�n
50
m
U
40
30
v
20
10
0
�0'L .ti5 by 5 1 'L 4 k 6 4 ,y'y ti6 6 �ti b5 �b 90 .tip �O �( �0'L ,'L .Lb b� 41
O Oti O. Oti5�,�'- ti 1 'L '3 5 ,10 .ti0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 MY2-09/2018 ■ MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Percent
min
max
Count
Class Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
9
5P
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
11
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
11
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
11
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
11
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
12
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
14
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
16
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
19
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
29
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
30
Very Coarse
32
45
11
11
41
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
49
Small
64
90
12
12
61
Small
90
128
10
10
71
Large
128
180
11
11
82
Large
180
256
8
8
90
Small
256
362
9
9
99
Small
362
512
99
Medium
512
1024
99
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
99
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
1
1
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross-section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.0
D35 =
37.4
Dye =
65.8
D94 =
196.6
D95 =
310.3
Dlaa =
>2048
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
Silt/Clay
Boulder
and
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
70
0
> 60
50
v 40
y
30
a
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO-03/2017—MY1-09/2017 —MY2-09/2018 —MY3-04/2019 --o—MY4-09/2020
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
`w
60
a
50
m
40
v
3
30
>
20
�
10
0
O�ti �.LS oti5 Oy 'y
ti ,ti4 b 56 'b ti1 ,y�o C� .b- by Cab oiO ,y,L'b ,yg1O �y6 3�ti ytiti O,yk Op O0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Percent
min
max
Count
Class Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
''. Fine
0.125
0.250
2
1
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
3
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
5
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
13
Medium
8.0
11.0
13
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
17
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
24
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
31
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
37
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
50
Small
64
90
14
14
64
Small
90 1
128
10
10
74
Large
128
180
12
12
86
Large
180
256
6
6
92
Small
256
362
2
2
94
Small
362
512
5
5
99
Medium
512
1024
1
1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
IBedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross-section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
14.6
D35 =
40.2
Dye =
64.0
D84 -
170.1
D95 =
388.0
Dlaa =
1024.0
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
Silt/Clay
a d
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
44.
70
0
> 60
3
50
E
I
V 40
30
COL 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO-03/2017—MY1-09/2017 MY2-09/2018 —MY3-04/2019 --o—MY4-09/2020
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
`w
60
a
50
m
40
v
3
30
>
20
�
10
W%1
I, — I -
0
o�'L y.Lh O,tih Oh 1
p p.
'L ,L� P yC� ,y1 16 �ti ,5'L by o, �O 1•L% 'p "p ��ti y1ti O1ti Op rb
, - bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
S►LTICLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
7
7
7
7
''.. Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
2
9
91p
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
4
5
5
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
5
19
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
3
4
4
23
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
3
4
4
28
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
30
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
4
34
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
3
5
5
39
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
3
4
4
43
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
8
8
51
Coarse
22.6
32
4
3
7
7
58
Very Coarse
32
45
4
3
7
7
65
Very Coarse
45
64
4
1
5
5
70
Small
64
90
5
2
7
7
77
Small
90
128
8
8
8
85
Large
128
180
2
2
2
87
Large
180
256
5
5
5
92
Small
256
362
5
5
5
97
Small
362
512
1
1
1
98
Medium
512
1024 j
2
j j
2
j 2 1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.7
D35 _
8.5
D50 =
21.6
D84 -
122.5
D95 =
315.2
D100 =
1024.0
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
SiltlClay
III
Sand
90
gp
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
70
j 60
50
E
40
U
y 30
T
COL 20
10
0
Hfl�
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-03/2017-MY1-09/2017 -MY2-09/2018
-MY3-04/2019 tMY4-09/2020
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
30
v
>
20
i5
10
0
�0'L .ti5 by 5 1 'L 4 k 6 4 ,y'y ti6 11 �ti b5 �b 90 .tip �O �( r0'L ,'L .Lb b� 06
O 01 OOti5titi" ti 1 'L '3 5 ,10 .ti0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Percent
min
max
Count
Class Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
6
5P
Coarse
0.5
1.0
7
7
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
14
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
14
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
15
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
16
Medium
8.0
11.0
16
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
19
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
23
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
30
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
38
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
46
Small
64
90
11
11
57
Small
90
128
12
12
69
Large
128
180
10
10
79
Large
180
256
9
9
88
Small
256
362
3
3
91
Small
362
512
3
3
94
Medium
512
1024
4
4
98
1arge/Very Large
1024
2048
1
1
99
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048
1 1 1
1
100
Total
1 100 1
100
100
Cross-section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.0
D35 =
39.6
D50 =
72.4
D84 -
218.9
D95 =
608.9
D100 =
>2048
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
SiIt/Clay
a d
Gravel
)bole
Boulder
Bedrock
70
> 60
50
E
U 40
w
30
u
a
20
10
L
0
0-1--
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-03/2017-MY1-09/2017 -MY2-09/2018
-MY3-04/2019 tMY4-09/2020
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
60
a
50
m
40
U
30
0
20
is
10
0
Obti ytih Q1.
p p
ob �O �.y`b ��O �yC� �6'L yy'L otiP Op O0
1 L b
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Percent
min
max
Count
Class Percentage
Cumulative
S/1T/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
''. Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
7
7
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
14
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
14
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
15
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
16
Medium
8.0
11.0
16
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
19
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
23
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
30
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
38
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
46
Small
64
90
11
11
57
Small
90
128
11
11
68
Large
128
180
10
10
78
Large
180
256
9
9
87
Small
256
362
3
3
90
Small
362
512
3
3
93
Medium
512
1024
5
5
98
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
1
1
99
BEDROCK
JBedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross-section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.0
D35 =
39.6
D50 =
72.4
D84 -
227.6
D95 =
675.6
D100 =
>2048
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
a d
90
gp
Silt/Clay
Boulder
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
70
> 60
E 50
U 40
w
LA
30
u
a
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-03/2017-MY1-09/2017 -MY2-09/2018
-MY3-04/2019 tMY4-09/2020
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
60
a
50
m
40
U
30
0
20
is
10
0
O�ti �ti5 Otih Oh
1 'L ,L4 b 5� 'b ,�1 ,y0 �, � ,S'L by (oP �O yti`b y�O �yb ��ti ytiti otiP Obi O�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
StI
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
5
5P
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
5
5
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
9
10
10
20
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
20
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
20
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
22
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
4
26
Fine
5.6
8.0
1 5
5
5
31
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
3
5
5
36
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
5
8
8
44
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
3
11
11
55
Coarse
22.6
32
7
3
10
10
65
Very Coarse
32
45
11
3
14
14
79
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
10
89
Small
64
90
4
1
5
5
94
Small
90
128
1
1
2
2
96
Large
128
180
1
1
1
97
Large
180
256
3
3
3
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Total 1
50
1 50 1
100
1 100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.8
D35 =
10.3
Dye =
19.3
D84 =
53.7
D95 =
107.3
Dlaa =
256.0
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
Silt/Clay
Sand
Gravel
�blBoulder
Bedrock
70
�
j 60
50
U 40
y 30
t
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-03/2017-MY1-09/2017 -MY2-09/2018
-MY3-04/2019 tMY4-09/2020
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
60
a
�n
50
m
U
40
30
v
i
20
'v
10
0
O Oti O. O
p OC
ti5�ti. ti ti ti "3 5 ,y0 .ti0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 7
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Percent
min
Fmax
Count
Class Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
4
P�0
S
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
14
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
23
23
45
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
65
Very Coarse
32
45
22
22
87
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
95
Small
64
90
95
Small
90
128
1
1
96
Large
128
180
2
2
98
Large
180
256
1
1
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK -... Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross-section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.7
D35 =
19.4
D50 =
24.7
D84 =
43.0
D95 =
64.0
D100 =
512.0
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SiltlClay
send
Cobble
Gravel
80
o
r
Bedrock
70
j 60
50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-03/2017-MY1-09/2017 -MY2-09/2018
-MY3-04/2019 MY4-09/2020
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
60
a
50
v
40
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
O6ti yti5 Otis Oh 1
O O
'L ,L`b b y�o ,1 ,C� �,L6 .�'L kh 6b 00 yti'b 1cbO �y�o 36ti ytiti O,tib Oaf 091
1 'L b
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Percent
min
max
Count
Class Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
0
Veryfine
0.062
0.125
0
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
4
{i
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
10
Fine
4.0
5.6
0
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
14
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
0
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
23
23
45
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
65
Very Coarse
32
45
22
22
87
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
95
Small
64
90
0
95
Small
90
128
1
1
96
Large
128
180
2
2
98
Large
180
256
1
1
99
Small
256
362
0
99
Small
362
512
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
0
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
0
100
BEDROCK
IBedrock
2048 1
>2048
0
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross-section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.7
D35 =
19.4
D50 =
24.7
D84 =
43.0
D95 =
64.0
Dlaa =
>2048
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
a d
Gravel
-
Boulder
Bedrock
80
1Cobble
70
0
> 60
50
v 40
y
30
a
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-03/2017-MY1-09/2017 -MY2-09/2018
-MY3-04/2019 tMY4-09/2020
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
`w
60
a
50
m
40
v
3
30
>
20
�
10
0
pbti �ti5 pti5 Oh
p p.
1 'L ,L� P y�o 4 ,�1 1� �, 3ti by <oa �p ti,L� yip ��6 ��ti ytiti e
ti ti b
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
5
5
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
8
8
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
13
Fine
4.0
5.6
13
Fine
5.6
8.0
13
Medium
8.0
11.0 1
3
3
3
16
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
18
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
5
23
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
9
32
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
40
Very Coarse
45
64
17
17
17
57
Small
64
90
14
14
14
71
Small
90
128
12
12
12
83
Large
128
180
11
11
11
94
Large
180
256
4
4
4
98
Small
256
362
98
Small
362
512
98
Medium
512
1024
2
2
2
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
IBedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
100
0
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.0
D35 =
36.4
D. =
55.4
D. =
132.0
D95 =
1966.
Dlcc =
1024.0
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
a d Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
j 60
50
j
E
40
1?
y 30
op
a 20
lo
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-03/2017-MY1-09/2017-MY2-09/2018
- MY3-04/2019 MY4-09/2020
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
m
70
60
m
a
50
N
m
40
v
j
30
v
.�
20
'v
10
0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MY1-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-section 11
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle
Class
Riffle 100-
Percent
min
max
Count
Class Percentage
Cumulative
SfLTICLAY
` Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
10
17
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
17
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
17
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
17
Fine
4.0
5.6
17
Fine
5.6
8.0
1 1
1
18
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
26
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
27
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
34
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
39
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
52
Small
64
90
21
21
73
Small
90 1
128
7
7
80
Large
128
180
9
9
89
Large
180
256
10
10
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross-section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.9
D35 =
34.3
D50 =
60.6
D. =
148.9
D95 =
222.4
D100 =
362.0
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
SlitlClay
and
90
Gravel
Cobble
80
if J I
o
er
Bedrock
70
j 60
50
E
40
u
y 30
u
20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-03/2017 - MY1-09/2017 - MY2-09/2018
- MY3-04/2019 t MY4-09/2020
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
60
`m
a
50
m
40
u
3
30
v
>
20
v
E
10
0
o�ti yti5 by Oy
o. o, o
1 'L ,LW b yto W y1 yC� ,Lro ,6'L b5 �b �O .y'b �O h� �ti yti .yb lb fro
ti ti ti ti 3 5 do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MYl-09/2017 I MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-04/2019 0 MY4-09/2020

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13a. Verification of Bankfull Events
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4- 2020
Reach
Vile Reach 2
Monitoring Year
M Y1
Date of Occurrence
3/31/2017
Crest Gage
4/24/2017
10/8/2017
M Y2
9/16/2018
10/11/2018
M Y4
1/11/2020
1/22/2020
2/7/2020
4/13/2020
5/20/2020
5/27/2020
8/15/2020
9/29/2020
10/29/2020
UT1 Reach 2
M Y1
5/5/2017
10/8/2017
M Y2
10/11/2018
M Y3
6/17/2019
8/1/2019
9/30/2019
M Y4
1/11/2020
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
4/13/2020
4/29/2020
5/20/2020
5/27/2020
7/23/2020
8/15/2020
9/12/2020
9/29/2020
10/29/2020

Table 13b. Verification of Geomorphically Significant Events
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4- 2020
Reach
Monitoring Year
Date of Occurrence
Vile Reach 2
M Y3
2/23/2019
Crest Gage
4/14/2019
4/19/2019
6/17/2019
7/5/2019
8/1/2019
9/30/2019
M Y4
1/11/2020
1/21/2020
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
4/13/2020
4/29/2020
5/20/2020
5/27/2020
8/3/2020
8/15/2020
9/12/2020
9/29/2020
10/11/2020
10/29/2020
UT1 Reach 2
M Y3
2/23/2019
4/14/2019
4/19/2019
6/17/2019
7/30/2019
8/1/2019
9/30/2019
M Y4
1/11/2020
1/21/2020
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
4/13/2020
4/29/2020
5/20/2020
5/27/2020
7/19/2020
7/23/2020
8/15/2020
8/20/2020
9/12/2020
9/29/2020
10/11/2020
10/29/2020

Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Gage
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years I through
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1 (2017)
Year 2 (2018)
Year 3 (2019)
Year 4 (2020)
Year 5 (2021)
Year 6 (2022)
Year 7 (2023)
1*
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/ 129 Days
Yes/33 Days
Yes/15 Days
Yes/70 Days
2
(77%)
(20%)
(9%)
(41%)
Yes/169 Days
Yes/73 Days
Yes/14 Days
Yes/85 Days
3
(100%)
(43%)
(8.5%)
(50%)
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
4
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
5
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
6
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/ 129 Days
Yes/33 Days
Yes/24 Days
Yes/85 Days
7
(77%)
(20%)
(14%)
(50%)
Yes/125 Days
Yes/14 Days
No/4 Days
Yes/44 Days
8
(74%)
(8%)
(2%)
(26%)
Yes/40 Days
Yes/33 Days
Yes/106 Days
Yes/169 Days
9
(24%)
(20%)
(63%)
(100%)
10*
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
*Gages are located in bog habitat.
Growing season is April 26th -October 11th.
Success criteria for wetlands is 14 consecutive days (8.5%) and 20 consecutive days (12%) for bogs.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Bog Rehabilitation
° Vile Creek Groundwater Gage #1
n O Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
oN
20
3
6.0
10
0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
`w
M
-30
-40
-50
�m
-60
C i T C t]p O. +' > U
�
Li Q -7i In O O Z
Rainfall Gage #2 — — Criteria Level O Manual Measurement

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
`w
M
3 -30
-40
-50
-60 -H
c
o
Vile Creek Groundwater Gage #3
v
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
tt,
0o
o14
Consecutive Days
t2 0
C7 4
o
o
�
w
U
An-
L W 0.
Rainfall Gage#3 — — Criteria Level O Manual Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0
> U
O v
Z 0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0'
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
c
0
v Vile Creek Groundwater Gage #4
cMonitoring Year 4 - 2020
_ o
> N
14 Consecutive Days
0 v
0
t=
m
Y
0
O
H
m
Ln O
O O
_ N
o
t7 0
o
td
I
JiIF
"_I
I
ILI
I i
—Oi tw Q V
LL g ¢ 5 < Ln O
Rainfall Gage #4 — — Criteria Level O Manual Measurement
0 N
Z 0
6.0
5.0
4.0
C
3.0 m
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Rehabilitation
20
10
0
F -10
w
-20
`w
M
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
T C W CL +' > V
LL g Q g Q Ln O Z o
Rainfall Gage #5 — — Criteria Level O Manual Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0'
F -10
GJ
-20
`w
M
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c
0
Vile Creek Groundwater Gage #6
W o Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
� o
� N
14 Consecutive Days
o
t=
rIV
o
m
v o
W N
O
N
3 �
o r
t7 0
Ji,
W 0.L > V
Q -7i Q VI 0 z 0
Rainfall Gage #6 — — Criteria Level O Manual Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
3: -30
-40
50
60
W O. +' > u
�
In O O Z
Rainfall Gage#7 — — Criteria Level O Manual Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
s
rWI
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
W O. +' > V
In O O � Q Z
Rainfall Gage#8 — — Criteria Level O Manual Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
M
z
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0'
F -10
3: -30
-40
-50
-60
c
0
v
Vile Creek Groundwater Gage #9
o Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
.5 0
5
o 14
Consecutive Days
C7 �
0 v
0
t=
m
Ln
O
Ln o
—
a — — — — — _
_ — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
N
O
_ N
o
t7 0
0
0
c
w
W 0.L > V
Q —7i Q VI 0 z 0
Rainfall Gage #9 — — Criteria Level O Manual Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
C
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Wetland Bog Rehabilitation
20
10
0
-10
m
3, -20
`w
M
m
?� -30
-40
-50
-60
f0
c
° Vile Creek Groundwater Gage #10
n O Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
O
'3 N
o LO
c7
0 20 Consecutive Days
M II
-0 i > C W Q > V
LL Q Q Ln O Z 0
Rainfall Gage #10 — — Criteria Level O Manual Measurement
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
s
2.0
1.0
0.0

Recorded Geomorphic Significant Flow and Bankfull Events
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
2692
2691
2690
2689
w
w
2688
3
2687
2686
2685
Vile Creek: Vile Creek Reach 2 (#1)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
> o
Q S Q vvi O Z 0
Rwrifall111111111111111I—Vile Creek Reach 2 (#1) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation • Bankfull • Geo Sig Event (60% Bankfull)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 m
c
z
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Recorded Geomorphic Significant Flow and Bankfull Events
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek: UT1 Reach 2 (#2)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
2715
2714
2713
x
w
w
2712
`w
m
3
2711
2710
2709
c > c — m a +• > o
ii Q S Q vvi O Z 0
Rainfall — UT1 Reach 2 (#2) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • BankFull •Geo Sig Event (60% Bankfull)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
c
z
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 4 - 2020
Vile Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020
15
14
13
12
11
10
c 9
c
0 8
a 7
m
a` 6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
Cronos Station NC-AG-1- Sparta 3.5 SSW -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
2020 rainfall collected by Cronos Station NC-AG-1- Sparta 3.5 SSW
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from Wets Station Sparta 3.5 SSW, NC (Years 1971- 2020)