20140869 Ver 1_Supplemental Planting SAW-2014-01585_20210222

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 10:42 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Leslie,
Andrea J; Bowers, Todd; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Hamstead, Byron A
Cc: Tsomides, Harry
Subject: [External] Vile Creek Supplemental Planting / Alleghany County / SAW-2014-01585
Attachments: Vile Creek Performance Standards.pdf, Vile Creek MY3 Veg Data.pdf, Figure 4 -
Topographic Map.pdf, Figure 5 - Soils Map.pdf, Vile Creek 2021 supplemental
planting list.xlsx; Fig1 Vile Supplemental Planting.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to Report Spa m.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Good morning IRT,
Attached is an excel spreadsheet with a proposed planting list for a portion of the NCDMS Vile Creek Site. The
site is currently in MYS. Some of the species are different from those in the final mitigation plan. About 14%
of the site needs supplemental planting due to heavy deer browse. Please let me know if you have any issues
with the proposed species, and if you think an additional year of veg monitoring is necessary by March 2,
2021.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 1:47 PM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tsomides, Harry <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Kristi Suggs
<[e-mail]>; Joe Lovenshimer <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Vile Creek Supplemental Planning
Kim - The four attached files should provide most of what you asked for. The MY3 monitoring report pages
include the veg plot monitoring data and the veg plot criteria attainment table. The veg plot monitoring data
does not include species mortality. We could provide an estimate of that by veg plot if you want us to
calculate it. Let me know if you want us to do that. Also note that we recently submitted the MY4 report but
no veg data were required for MY4. The performance standards section from the mitigation plan is also
included which includes a summary table. The topo and soils maps from the mitigation plan are also attached.
Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks.

We are planning a replanting this year at our Vile Creek site up near Sparta in Alleghany County. The project
is now early in MYS. We have discussed this with the DMS PM, Harry Tsomides. He asked us to send you this
email to get approval on this replanting plan. It is our understanding that our area to replant is small enough
that an Adaptive Management Plan is not necessary. We will be replanting 3.0 acres of the 20.7 acre planting
area, which is 14.5% of the original planted area. The proposed planting list is attached as a spreadsheet. Also
attached is a map that shows the area to be replanted.
Heavy deer browse is the primary cause of tree mortality for most of the replanting area. Tree mortality in a
smaller portion of the replanting area is possibly related to degraded soils in cut areas. Soil amendments will
be applied to these areas.
There are some differences in the species we are proposing to replant and the original planting list (see
attached spreadsheet). The species were selected primarily for their deer resistant qualities. Sycamore and
boxelder were added to add early successional species that are expected to grow well in the environmental
conditions at the site. Some species from the original planting list were discontinued based on palatability to
deer, low performance at the site, nativity to area, and susceptibility to insect pests.
Deer mitigation measures will be taken to protect the planted trees. These include tree shelters, Repellex
tablets (Blockedhttps://www.forestry-
suppliers.com/product_pages/products.php?mi=79731&itemnum=17052
<Blockedhttps://Blockedwww.forestry-
suppliers.com/product_pages/products.php?mi=79731&itemnum=17052>, and possibly some other
measures (Blockedhttps://www.forestry-
suppliers.com/product_pages/products
<Blockedhttps://Blockedwww.forestry-
suppliers.com/product_pages/products
php?mi=45051&itemnum=17033
php?mi=45051&itemnum=17033> )
Please let me know if this supplemental planting plan is approved or if you need additional information.
Thanks.
Jeff Keaton, PE I Senior Water Resources Engineer
0:919.851.9986 x103 M:919.302.6919
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <Blockedhttp://Blockedwww.wiIdlandseng.com/>
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence,
Site boundary
marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions
and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed
will be repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed basis.
Ford and Culvert
Ford crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation
Crossings
Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor
agreements.
If beaver dams are observed on site, Wildlands will remove the dams and attempt to
Beaver/Wildlife
remove the beavers from the site. If wildlife herbivory becomes a problem for the
Management
plantings, Wildlands will take measures to manage wildlife on the site.
11.0 Performance Standards
The stream and wetland performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance
criteria presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.3, 12/18/2014), the Annual
Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Template (February 2014), and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines
issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the
condition of the finished project. The stream restoration and enhancement reaches and wetland re-
establishment and rehabilitation zones of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria
components for stream geomorphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance criteria will be
evaluated throughout the (up to) seven-year post -construction monitoring. If all performance criteria
have been successfully met and at least two bankfull events and at least two other geomorphically
significant events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose to terminate stream
and/or vegetation monitoring after five years. Table 16 summarizes the performance standards for each
project goal. Further explanation of certain performance criteria components is necessary and is
included below in this section. The monitoring program designed to verify that performance standards
are met is described in Section 12.
Table 16: Summary of Performance Standards
Goal
Objective
Performance
Standard
Monitoring Approach
Exclude cattle from streams
Reduce pollutant
and buffers by installing
Fencing remains intact
inputs to streams
fencing around conservation
throughout the
including fecal
easements adjacent to cattle
monitoring period and
Visual assessment
coliform, nitrogen,
pastures. Install wells and
no signs livestock
and phosphorous.
drinkers to provide alternative
s
access to streams
water sources for cattle.
wetlands are observed
Reduce inputs of
Reconstruct stream channels
Riffle cross sections
sediment into streams
with stable dimensions. Add
will remain stable over
Visual assessment and
from eroding stream
bank revetments and in-
time (note description
surveying of riffle cross
banks.
stream structures to protect
of stability in Section
sections
restored/enhanced streams.
11.1.1)
W Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 48

Goal
Objective
Performance
Monitoring Approach
Standard
Return a network of
Construct stream channels
Visual assessment.
streams to a stable
that will maintain a stable
Stream profile and
Surveying of longitudinal
form that is capable of
pattern and profile
pattern must remain
profiles and/or planview
supporting hydrologic,
considering the hydrologic
stable (note
pattern if visual assessment
biologic, and water
and sediment inputs to the
description of stability
indicates potential
quality functions.
system, the landscape setting,
in Section 11.1.2)
instability
and the watershed conditions.
Improve aquatic
communities in
project streams and
Install habitat features such as
Habitat features such
provide improved
constructed riffles, cover logs,
as constructed riffles,
habitat for trout
and brush toes into
cover logs, and other
migrating from Little
restored/enhanced streams.
habitat features
Visual assessment
River into Vile Creek.
Add woody materials to
described in Section
Note: Presence of
channel beds. Construct pools
9.3.1 will remain
aquatic organisms and
of varying depth.
intact
trout will not be tied
to project success
criteria.
Raise local
groundwater
elevations and allow
for more frequent
Reconstruct stream channels
Two bankfull or
overbank flows to
with appropriate bankfull
greater flow events
Crest gauges and
provide a source of
dimensions and depth relative
will be documented
continuous stage recorders
hydration for
to the existing floodplain.
during the monitoring
floodplain wetlands.
period
Reduce shear stress
on channels during
larger flow events.
Free groundwater
surface within 12
inches of the ground
Restore riparian wetlands by
surface for 8.5 % of
Restore wetland
raising stream beds, plugging
the growing season
hydrology,
y gy, soils, and
existing ditches, removing fill
for wetland areas
Groundwater monitoring
plant communities.
material over relict hydric
other than bogs.
gauges
soils, and planting native
Note: Bog hydrologic
wetland species.
performance standard
and vegetation
performance standard
described below.
Improve and expand
Free groundwater
Southern Appalachian
surface within 12
bog habitat to support
Widen low lying ditched areas
inches of the ground
Groundwater monitoring
bog species such as
that represent bog conditions.
surface for 12% of the
gauges
bog turtles. Note:
growing season for
Presence of bog
bog areas.
turtles will not be tied
W Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 49

Goal
Objective
Performance
Monitoring Approach
Standard
to project success
criteria.
Create and improve
riparian and wetland
habitats by planting
Trees: Survival of 210
native vegetation.
planted stems per
Provide a canopy to
acre at MY-7. Survival
shade streams and
of at least 320 planted
reduce thermal
Plant native tree and shrub
stems at MY-3 and at
loadings. Create a
species in riparian zone and
least 260 stems per
source of woody
wetland areas other than bog
acre at MY-5.
inputs for streams.
areas. Bog areas will be
Shrubs: 160 surviving
Vegetation plot monitoring
Reduce flood flow
planted with herbaceous
plants at year 3, 130
velocities on
at year 5, and 105 at
floodplain and
species.
year 7. Herbaceous:
improve long-term
80% coverage of the
lateral stability of
vegetation plots with
streams. Improve bog
planted or volunteer
habitat by planting
vegetation at year 7.
herbaceous wetland
plants.
Ensure that
development and
Record and close
agricultural uses that
Establish conservation
conservation
would damage the
easements on the site.
easement prior to
None
site or reduce the
implementation
benefits of project are
prevented.
11.1 Streams
11.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration and Enhancement I reaches should be stable and should show
little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio over time after
geomorphically significant flow events (defined in Section 11.1.4). Per DMS guidance, bank height ratios
shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 (C stream type reaches only) for
restored channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross sections should fall within the parameters
defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be
evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Changes in the channel
that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth
ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if
channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
11.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Restoration and Enhancement I reaches must remain vertically stable throughout the monitoring period
with little indication of downcutting or significant aggradation. Deposition of sediments at certain
W Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 50

locations (such as the inside of meander bends) is expected and acceptable. Changes in pool depth are
not an indication of vertical instability. Restoration and Enhancement I reaches must remain laterally
stable and major changes planform pattern dimensions and sinuosity should not occur. However,
migration of meanders on alluvial channels is not an indication of instability if cross -sectional
dimensions continue to meet the requirements described in Section 11.1.1.
11.1.3 Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance
of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features.
11.1.4 Hydrology
Two bankfull flow events, occurring in separate years, must be documented on the restoration and
enhancement reaches within the seven-year monitoring period. In addition, two other geomorphically
significant events must be documented. For these purposes, a geomorphically significant event is a flow
event that is between 60% of the bankfull flow and the bankfull flow. The confirmation that such an
event has occurred will be based on measurements of stage converted to discharge with a stage -
discharge relation developed with a hydraulic model. Stream monitoring will continue until success
criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate years and two additional geomorphically
significant events have been documented.
11.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria for planted trees will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in
the riparian corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of
vegetative success for the trees on the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at
the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of
monitoring. Planted trees must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year of
monitoring. The success criteria for shrubs will be 160 surviving plants at year 3, 130 at year 5, and 105
at year 7. There will be no height criteria for shrubs. The success criteria for herbaceous plants will be
80% coverage of the vegetation plots with planted or volunteer vegetation at year 7. If these
performance standards are met by year five and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less
than 260 five -year -old trees/acre, no less than 130 five -year -old shrubs/acre, and 80% coverage of
herbaceous veg plots), monitoring of vegetation on the site may be terminated with written approval by
the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team. The extent of invasive species
coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period
(year five or seven).
11.3 Wetlands
The final performance standard for wetland hydrology will be a free groundwater surface within 12
inches of the ground surface for 8.5 % of the growing season for wetland for all wetland zones other
than bog areas which is measured on consecutive days under typical precipitation conditions. The final
performance stand for bog areas will be a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground
surface for 12 % of the growing season. If a particular gauge does not meet the performance standard
for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be compared to
that of the reference wetlands to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during the
monitoring period. A soil temperature probe will be installed onsite to collect additional information to
define the start and end of the growing season.
W Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 51

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Plot
MY3 Success Criteria Met
Tract Mean
1
Y
82%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
N
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
N
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
13
Y
14
N
15
Y
16
Y
17
Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Report Prepared By
Jordan Hessler
Date Prepared
10/7/2019 15:28
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Vile MY3.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02147 Vile Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3 (2019)\Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJ ECT SU M MARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
96582
project Name
Vile Creek Restoration Project
Description
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Required Plots (calculated)
17
Sampled Plots
17

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Vegetation Plot 1*
Vegetation Plot 2*
Vegetation Plot 3
P. i
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 7
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
6
6
6
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
13
13
13
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
7
7
7
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
ITulip Poplar
Tree
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Isycamore
Tree
1
4
1 4
1 4
1
1 1
1 1
2
1 2
1 2
2
2
1 2
Quercus pagoda
JCherrybark Oak
Tree
1
2
1 2
1 2
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
1 2
Stem count
4
1 4
1 4
10
10
10
14
1 14
1 14
13
1 13
1 13
5
1 5
1 5
16
16
16
12
12
1 12
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
3 3 3
3 3 3
2
2 2
4
4
4
3
3 3
5
5 5
3
3 3
Stems per ACRE
162 162
405 405 405
567
567 567
i
1 526
Wigma
1 526
,. Elio
526
202
202 202
647
647 647
486
486 486
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation
Plot 10
JiLgLum
Vegetation Plot 11
Vegetation
Plot 12
Vegetation
Plot 13
Vegetation
Plot 14
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
6
6
6
1
1
1 1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
JTree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
JTree
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
JTree
2
1 2
1 2
3
1 3
1 3
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
Stem count
13
1 13
1 13
6
6
6
18
1 18
1 18
13
13
13
13
13
14
12
12
12
3
3
3
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
5
4 4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
2
2
2
Stems per ACRE
526
526
526
243
243
728
728
728
526
526
526
526
526
567
486
486
486
121
121
1 121
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
�.
Vegetation Plot 15 Vegetation Plot 16 Vegetation Plot 17
MY3 (9/2019) MY2 (9/2018)
MY1 (9/2017) MYO (3/2017)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
3
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
2
2
2
8
8
8
1
1
1
27
27
27
29
29
29
43
43
43
55
55
55
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
13
13
13
16
16
16
21
21
21
21
21
21
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
8
8
8
12
12
12
12
12
1 12
14
14
14
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
17
17
17
17
17
19
16
16
16
19
19
19
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 7
7
7
9
9
9
11
11
11
12
12
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
34
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
36
35
35
35
Lindera benzoin
I Northern Spicebush
IShrub Tree
2
2
2
7
7
7
11
11
11
14
14
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
ITree
1
1
1
3
3
3
15
15
16
18
18
18
24
24
24
38
38
38
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
JTree
6
6
6
1
3
1 3
3
37
37
37
38
38
39
40
40
40
40
40
1 40
Quercus pagoda
JCherrybark Oak
JTree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
26
26
26
29
29
29
35
35
35
39
1 39
1 39
Stem count
14
1 14
1 14
9
9
9
12
12
12
187
187
188
211
211
218
250
250
250
288
1 288
1 288
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
Species count
6
6
6
2
2
2
7 7
1 7
11 11
11
11
11
12
11
11
11
11 11
11
Stems per ACRE
567
567
567
364
364
364
486 486
486
445 445
448
502
502
519
595
595
595
686 686
1 686
* MY3 - MY7 vegetation plots one and two will use shrub density requirements to determine if success critera is met.
Color For Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% or greater
txceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
ails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9b. Planted Herbaceous Cover (Bog Cells)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Plot ID
Base
MY3
Percent
MY2
Cover
MY3
%
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
1
<5
30
65
100
2
10
75
100
100
3
<5
75
95
95
4
<5
90
100
100
5
<5
80
90
100
6
<5
85
95
100
7
<5
100
100
100
8
50
95
100
100

I 4
Project Location
■ r I -
�' Proposed Conservation Easement
$M28
s �
t?� •7 .11
Gagin a,
45
Spa
IS
f
Sparta East, USGS 7.5 minute topographi
Figure 4 Topographic Map
W I L D LA N D 5 0 750 1,500 Feet Vile Creek Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G Ii� t New River Basin 05050001
Alleghany County, NC

�y �I
I
WaE
Talf
00 CeC FnE2
C rIt •�� �`
I
1 C
- ♦ Cam ��
♦ WaE r
7 I I
I
• � a � I I
CmsE WaCj
r I �
I
jI FnC2
I
FnE2 j
FnE2 WafK
,,. TIC
0i
f •,� .I�I WaE
•,
CeB i
�.� CmC
CeC
FnE2
CaF
FnC2 ,. .,� CdF
t
ProjeCtLoCation CaF-Chandler silt loam, 25-45% slopes CmC- Clifton loam, 6-10% slopes - TaD- Tate Loam, 10-15%slopes
wit
Proposed Conservation Easement CdF- Chandler stony silt loam, 25-45%slopes CmE- Clifton loam, 10-25%slopes - TIC- Tusquitee loam, 6-10% slopes
Proposed Streams CdG- Chandler stony silt loam, 45-65%slopes FnC2- Fannin silt loam, 6-10%slopes WaC- Watauga loam, 6-10%slopes
Existing Streams CeB- Chester loam, 2-6%slopes FnE2- Fannin silt loam, 10-25% slopes WaE- Watauga loam, 10-25%slopes
- Ad- Alluvial Land CeC- Chester loam, 6-10%slopes - St F- Stony Steep Land WsF- Watauga stony loam, 15-45%slopes
Figure 5 Soils Map
W I LD LA N D 5 0 300 600 Feet Vile Creek Mitigation Site
ft,,, ENGINEERING I I I New River Basin 05050001
Alleghany County, NC

Riparian Zone Plant List
Species
Common Name
Percentage
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
10%
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
10%
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
15%
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
15%
Betula nigra
River Birch
15%
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
15%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
10%
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
10%
Understory Zone Plant List
Species
Common Name
Percentage
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
25%
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
25%
Ilex verticillata
Winter Berry
25%
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
25%
Wetland Shrub Zone Plant List
Species
Common Name
Percentage
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
15%
15%
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Ilex verticillata
Winter Berry
15%
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
15%
Sambucus nigra
Elderberry
10%
Vaccinium corymbosum
Highbush Blueberry
15%
Cephalanthus occidentalis L.
Common Buttonbush
15%

Common Name
black gum
black gum
river birch
boxelder
beech
sycamore
sycamore
sycamore
Canadian serviceberry
Persimmon
Persimmon
American holly
Ironwood
Witch hazel
Botanical Name
Nyssa sylvatica
Nyssa sylvatica
Betula nigra
Acer negundo
Fagus grandifolia
Platanus occidentalis
Platanus occidentalis
Platanus occidentalis
Amelanchier canadensis
Diospyros virginiana
Diospyros virginiana
Ilex opaca
Carpinus caroliniana
Hamamelis virginiana
Stock Type Total Stems % of Total
3 gallon
76
9%
1 gallon
30
4%
1 gallon
150
18%
3 gallon
6
1%
1 gallon
100
12%
3 gallon
30
4%
1 gallon
50
6%
Bare Root
100
12
1 gallon
25
3%
1 gallon
145
17%
3 gallon
40
5%
1 gallon
25
3%
3 gallon
51
6%
3 gallon
26
3%
tota 1
854
100
Per Acre Rate 285
Species
black gum
river birch
boxelder
beech
sycamore
Canadian serviceberry
Persimmon
American holly
Ironwood
Witch hazel
Total Stems by Species
106
150
6
100
180
25
185
25
51
26
854
Total % by Species
12.4%
17.6%
0.7%
11.7%
21.1%
2.9%
21.7%
2.9%
6.0%
3.0%
100.0%

Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Bog Area
Stormwater BMP
F/7;1 Supplemental Planting Area
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Non -Project Stream
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY4
V
Not Monitored
Herbaceous Bog Plots
Reach Break
0 300 600 Feet
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Fin
Adol I
FRO
IL
'Figure 3.3
Aa
Fig.1 Supplemental Planting
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DIVIS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 5 - 2021
Alleghany County, NC