20140869 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20140814

2 0 1 4 0 8 6 9
Part 5 - Technical Approach
JUL 2 3 2014
The Vile Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Alleghany County approximately
one mile northeast of the Town of Sparta (Figure 1). The project involves restoration and enhancement
of Blue Ridge streams and wetlands. The project is located within the EEP targeted watershed for the
New River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 05050001030020 and NCDWQ Subbasin 05 -07 -03 and is
being submitted for mitigation credit in the New River Basin HUC 0505001.
The proposed Site is located within the
Little River & Brush Creek Local Watershed
Plan (LWP) and is discussed in EEP's 2009
New River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP). The document cites HUC
05050001030020 as having the highest
number of animal farms in the New River
Basin leading to increased direct cattle
access to several streams. Cattle access on
tributaries to the Little River is specifically
noted and fecal coliform impacts have
been seen in receiving waters. In addition,
it is noted that 41 percent of non - forested
riparian buffers within the targeted
watershed are degraded. Restoration of
the Site would directly and indirectly
address stressors identified in the RBRP including removing cattle access to Vile Creek and other
tributaries to the Little River, restoring a forested riparian buffer that is currently lacking, and reducing
fecal coliforms to receiving waters.
The Little River watershed is also discussed in the 2005 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's
Wildlife Action Plan. In the report, aquatic habitat degradation is attributed to erosion and sedimentation
within the watershed. Causes of erosion and sedimentation are cited as poorly managed livestock grazing
resulting in increased run -off and stream bank degradation along with general loss of riparian vegetation.
Restoration at the Site will directly address non -point source stressors by removing cattle from the
streams, creating stable stream banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing 26.9 acres of land under
permanent conservation easement.
This project will slow surface runoff, increase retention times, and reconnect the streams to their historic
floodplains which will reduce sediment and nutrient loading. In addition, restoration will provide and
improve instream, terrestrial (riparian), and wetland habitats while improving stream stability, wetland
hydrology, and overall hydrology. The Site will be fenced to eliminate livestock grazing and re- establish a
native riparian buffer. The proposed project directly and indirectly addresses many issues presented in
both the LWP and RBRP documentation.
Sources:
NC EEP. 2009. New River Basin Restoration Priorities.
NC DWQ. 2005. New River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.1
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

4 3
N
-
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The malor,goals of the proposed stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the New River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level,
providing floodplain habitat,and ecological function, and restoring a Montane Alluvial Forest community
as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) Specific enhancements to water quality and ecological
processes are outlined below in Table S.1
Table 5.1 Ecological and Water Quality Goals, of the Mitigation Proiect
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Vile Creek,Mitigation Site — Part 5
0
Page'S 2
SMINIMENJOLW Quality Goals
Decrease nutrient and
Nutrient, chemical, and bacterial input, specifically fecal coliform, will be decreased
adverse chemical and'
by cattle exclusion throughout the-Site Off -site nutrient -laden runoff from adjacent
bacteria levels
farms will be absorbed on -site by filtenng,flodd flows through, restored floodplain
(RBRP goal to implement
areas and vernal pools where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation
agricultural BMPS in rural
Increased surface water residency time will provide contact treatment time and
sub - watersheds to address
groundwater recharge potential
nutrient stressors)
Decrease sediment input
A large volume of sediment is being contributed to the system through the failure of
(LWP,goal) (RBRP goal to
onsite +stream banks and cattle disturbance Sediment input from unprotected
implement agricultural
stream banks will be reduced by installing bioengineering and instream structures
BMPS in rural sub-
while creating a stable channel form using natural channel design principles on the -
watersheds to address
restoration reaches Sediment input from trampled stream banks on,enhancement
sediment stressors)
reaches will be decreased by preventing furthercattle disturbance and planting the
banks Sediment from off -site sources will be captured by allowing deposition on
restored floodplaih areas where native,vegetation will'slow overland_ flow.velocities
Decrease water
Stream bed form will be restored and woody structures will be installed "to promote
temperature and increase•
re- aeration, this will also help to maintain oxygen levels in the perennial stream
dissolved oxygen
reaches Creation of deep pool zones will lowier temperature, helping to maintain
concentrations
dissolved oxygen concentrations Establishment and maintenance of riparian
buffers will create long -term shading of the channel flow taminimize,thermal
heating
Ecologica1=5a
Provide and improve
Adjacent riparian buffer areas will be restored by plaritmg - native vegetation These
terrestrial habitat
areas will receive more regular inundating flows, encouraging establishment of a
native.natural community that connects with other forested areas
Provide and improve
A stable channel form and structure appropriate for the streams on the project site
instream habitat
will be constructed Introduction oflarge woody debris, root wads, brush toe
meander'bends, and native stream bank'vegetation will substantially, increase
habitat value
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Vile Creek,Mitigation Site — Part 5
0
Page'S 2

5.2 Project Description
The following section describes the existing conditions at the Site in terms of geomorphic condition,
watershed, soils, geology, cultural resources, species of concern, regulated floodplain zones, and site
constraints.
5.2.1 Existing Site Conditions
The Site is located just east of the town of Sparta, NC, and is currently maintained for cattle pasture with
some wooded areas. The proposed conservation easement for this Site will connect the Site to a wooded
buffer along Little River, which is considered a Significant Natural Heritage Area. The Site is characterized
by moderately sloped valleys dominated by pasture grasses. Wooded areas are present along the
southern and eastern project boundaries. Based on a review of historical aerials (presented in the
Appendix), the land use directly adjacent to onsite streams has been maintained in this configuration since
1964.
The Site contains Vile Creek, five unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Vile Creek (UT1, UTib, UT1c, UT2, and
UT2a), Little River, and one UT to Little River Creek (UT3). Vile Creek generally flows west to east through
the property to join Little River. UT1 flows southwest to northeast to join Vile Creek and UTib and UT1c
both flow southeast to northwest to join UT1. UT2 flows north to south to join Vile Creek and UT2a flows
northeast to southwest to join UT2. Little River enters the project area from the south, joins with Vile
Creek, and turns east in a large meander bend. UT3 joins Little River near the downstream project
boundary. UTib, UT1c, UT2 above its confluence with UT2a, and UT2a were identified as intermittent
streams on December 2, 2013 using the NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms. All other onsite streams,
which includes Vile Creek, Little River, UT1, UT2 below its confluence with UT2a, and UT3 were identified
as perennial. Copies of these forms are included in the Appendix. The streams are all depicted on Figure
2. Details about the existing streams are provided in Section 5.2.2, below.
5.2.2 Existing Conditions - Streams
Vile rroole
Vile Creek flows into the project area from an
upstream parcel owned and operated by Duke
Energy. Within the project area, Vile Creek's
floodplain is managed as pasture. Cattle have full
access to Vile Creek and actively graze right up to
the top of the stream banks and wallow in the
stream. Streamside vegetation consists of primarily
pasture grasses such as fescue (Fescue spp.) with
some soft rush (Juncus effusus), straw - colored
flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), common boneset
(Eupatorium perfoliatum), beggarstick (Bidens L.),
and unknown sedges (Carex spp.) present. Clusters
of the shrub coralberry (Symphoricarpos
orbiculatus) are present towards the back of the
floodplain in spots.
From the upstream project boundary to the UT1 confluence, Vile Creek's stream banks are unstable due
to the lack of streamside vegetation and frequent cattle access. The banks alternate between a steep,
eroding condition and a low, trampled condition. The stream exhibits a high width to depth ratio, a high
entrenchment ratio, and is incised with a high bank height ratio. The d50 of onsite riffles is very coarse
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.3
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

gravel, and stream sediments consist predominately of gravels and cobbles with some bedrock influence.
The stream is most closely classified as an incised Rosgen C4 -type stream.
Vile Creek is joined by UT1 approximately 1,000 LF
downstream of the upstream project boundary.
Below this confluence, Vile Creek widens
significantly and large mid - channel bars are present.
An old meander scroll exists in a patch of mature red
maples (Acer rubrum) in the left floodplain. Vile
Creek continues in its overly -wide condition until it
begins to follow the right valley wall. The right valley
wall is wooded with pockets of rhododendron
(Rhododendron L.) present. Here, the stream
narrows some but continues to exhibit eroded
stream banks, likely due to cattle access. Vile Creek
goes through a very sharp meander bend where the
left valley pinches in: here the stream is extremely
eroded and confined against the left valley wall.
Downstream of this area, several bedrock outcrops
are present, and Vile Creek quickly regains stability
with only spot areas of bank erosion present. Vile
Creek is in a stable condition as it is joined by UT2
and continues with stable form as it joins Little River.
Cross sectional surveys were conducted on Vile
Vile Creek below sharp bend stable Creek and are provided in the Appendix for review.
with spot erosion in distance Two riffle cross sections are provided; XS1 and XS5.
Bankfull was called at the top of depositional
features on both riffles. A riffle 100 -count and a bar
sample were conducted on XS5 to characterize the sediment delivered by the watershed. The pebble
counts are also provided for review in the Appendix. The locations of the cross section surveys and
sediment samples are provided on Figure 2.
UTI
UT1 flows into the project area from a wooded parcel
located west of the project. Similarto Vile Creek, UT1
flows through a pasture where cattle have full access
to the stream, resulting in areas of shear, eroding
stream banks. Riparian vegetation is of similar
composition as that seen on Vile Creek and is
dominated by fescue.
As UT1 enters the project area, the stream meanders
broadly to the right and exhibits severe outer bend
erosion. Downstream of this area, UT1 is connected
to the floodplain and alternates between a narrow,
stable cross section and an overly wide cross section
where cattle have trampled the banks. In- stream
deposition has occurred in the overly wide sections of the stream
WWildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
UT1 has a riffle d50 which corresponds
Page 5.4

to coarse gravel. Substrate in the stream is dominated by gravels with some cobbles and sands present.
This length of UT1 most closely classifies as a Rosgen E4 -type stream in the stable sections and an unstable
Rosgen C4 -type stream in the overly wide sections.
Upstream of UT1's confluence with UT1c, a thicket
of shrubs including silky dogwood (Corpus
omomum) and tag alder (Alnus serrulato) are
present along the banks of UT1. From here, UT1 -
briefly flows through three fenced rear yards before
flowing back out into the pasture. UT1 becomes
incised and disconnected from the floodplain here.
Approximately 63 LF of UT1 within this fenced area
is currently outside of the project limits. Back out in
the pasture, the stream maintains incision and
exhibits eroded banks; however, in some areas, the '
stream has recreated a stable channel within the larger incised chahnel
larger incised channel. Here UT1 most closely
resembles an incised Rosgen E4 -type stream. UT1 continues in its incised condition down to its
confluence with Vile Creek.
Cross sectional surveys were conducted on UT1 and are provided in the Appendix for review. Two riffle
cross sections are provided to showcase the different forms of UT1; one on the upstream portion of UT1
where the stream is connected to the floodplain (XS3), and one where the stream has formed a stable
cross section within the larger, eroded section (XS4). A riffle 100 -count conducted on XS4 to characterize
the sediment delivered by the watershed. The pebble count is also provided in the Appendix.
The locations of the cross sections and sediment surveys are provided on Figure 2.
UT1b and UT1c
UT1b and UT1c are both small tributaries which join UT1 from the right floodplain. These streams flow
from an upstream, wooded parcel onto the project site. Both streams are located within active pastures
and cattle have full access to the channel. These streams exhibit small, stable baseflow channels within
larger, incised channels, similar to the downstream portion of UT1. The stream bank and floodplain
vegetation on both of these streams is a mix of pasture grasses with coralberry present at the very
upstream extent of UT1b.
The last 100 feet of UT1c exhibits unstable bed and banks in a confined valley
(XS2) was conducted on this unstable portion of UT1c
and is provided in the Appendix for review. UT1c in
this are most closely classifies as a Rosgen F -type
stream. The location of the cross section is provided
in Figure 2.
UT2 and UT2a
UT2 originates at the upstream project boundary as
an intermittent stream and is quickly joined by UT2a
within the project limits. Below this confluence, UT2
becomes perennial. UT2 flows through a confined
valley vegetated by pasture grasses and a few mature
trees such as red maples. The stream is relatively
. A cross sectional survey
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.5
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

stable with coarse bed substrate and a few bedrock outcroppings along the channel bottom. Spot areas
of bank erosion are present in some meander bends.
UT2a is an intermittent stream which originates at a
springhead upstream of the project area. The entire
floodplain is vegetated with pasture grasses, and the bed
and banks of the stream are impaired from cattle
trampling. No trees are present along UT2a.
Little River
Little River enters the project area from an offsite, wooded
parcel and flows along the southern project boundary.
Little River is geomorphically stable, resembling a Rosgen
C -type channel. Little River has a wooded buffer on both
the left and right bank, but is accessible to cattle from the
adjacent pasture land.
5.2.3 Existing Conditions - Wetlands
UT3
UT3 is a perennial stream which begins at a seep within an
active pasture. The stream is relatively stable with spot
areas of bank erosion. UT3 flows through a sparse buffer
vegetated with white pines (Pinus strobus) at its upstream
most extent. The riparian vegetation transitions to a fully
wooded white pine buffer as the stream approaches Little
River. Pasture vegetation along the upstream portion
consists of pasture grasses, sedges, beggarstick, and soft
rush.
The proposed stream and wetland restoration project includes 2.9 acres of proposed wetland re-
habilitation and up to 3.1 acres of wetland re- establishment. These proposed wetland restoration areas
are located near the base of the surrounding hillslopes and within the floodplain of Vile Creek and a couple
unnamed tributaries. Ditches have been excavated through existing wetlands to increase the drainage
effect. Soils in these areas are mapped primarily as alluvial land (Ad) which is listed on the National Hydric
Soil list. These areas lack vegetation typical of Montane Alluvial Forest wetlands. Herbaceous species
including soft rush, straw - colored flatsedge, and pasture grasses are the primary vegetation. On -site
investigations by a registered soil scientist indicated three soils units. Soil Unit 1 is characterized by relic
hydric soils typically occurring within 15 to 20 inches of the existing surface. Portions of the placed fill
have developed into hydric soil that supports wetland vegetation and are likely to be classified as
jurisdictional wetlands. Soil Unit 2 is characterized as a relic hydric soil typically occurring within 20 inches
of the existing surface. Similar to Unit 1, portions of the unit had overburden placed on top of the hydric
soils likely for agricultural purposes. Portions of the overburden on top of Soil Unit 2 have developed
hydric soils that support wetland vegetation and are likely to be classified as jurisdictional wetlands. Soil
Unit 3 was a non- hydric soil. It is the opinion of the soil scientist that Soil Units 1 and 2 provide
opportunities for wetland restoration. The soil scientist report is included in the Appendix.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
Page 5.6

5.2.4 Watershed Characterization
The Site m located within the Targeted Local Watershed 05050001030020 and NCDWQ subbasin 05 -07-
03. All onsite tributaries drain to the Little River which is classified as Class C water by NCDWQ. Class C
waters, are used as secondary recreation, wildlife, fish consumption; aquatic life including propagation,
survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses involving human body contact,with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
The,Site topography, as indicated,on the Sparta East, NC,USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, shows
mostly moderately sloped areas throughout the Site with some steep,contours in various areas (Figure 3).
Drainage areas for the project reaches were delineated using 2 -foot contour intervals derived from the
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program's 2007 Light Detection,and Ranging'(LiIDAR) data (Figure 4).
Land uses draining to the project reaches are primarily managed herbaceous cover /pasture, forest, and
mountain conifers. The watershed areas and current land use are,summarized,in Table 5 2, below.
Table 5.2 Drainage,Areas and Associated Land Use
Reach
Existing
NCDWQ Stream
Intermitte t,
Watershed
Predomin' a t LandLU`s'e
Name
Reach
Identification
Perennial
Area (acres)
Length (Lf)
F.ormpScores
Little
,50% managed; herbaceous cover /pasture, 45%
River
615
495
Perennial
22,922
forested;,3% mountain conifers; 2% impervious
49%, managed, herbaceous,coVer /pasture, 40%
Vile
2'726
45.5
Perennial
1,725
forested, 5% cultivated crops; 3% impervious,
Creek
3% mountain conifers
55% pasture; 41% forested, 4% deciduous
UT1
1,887
43'
Perennial
207
shrubland, A impervious
59% managed herbaceous cover /pasture, 41%
UT1B
109
-
28'25
Intermittent
g
forest
65 % forested, 35% managed herbaceous
UT1C
190
26
Intermittent
g
cover /,pasture
Perennial,
.979o,managed'herbaCeo0s,cover /pasture, 3%
UT2
1,158
42 5, 27
Intermittent
78
forested
99 %,Managedherbaceous,cover /pasture, 1%
UT2A
133
20
Intermittent
16
forested
47% managed herbaceous cover /pasture, 28%
UT3
1,098
335
;Perennial
38,
mountain conifers, 25 9/616rested
5.2.5 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the Alleghany County Soil Survey. Project area soils are described
below in Table 5.3. Figure 5 isa,soil map of the Site.
Soils on the Site were investigated by a licensed soil scientist and a report was developed by The Catena
Group (provided in the Appendix). Soils were broken into three udits 'based on data collected Irom
observations of soil borings, stream cuts; and other landscape features. The focus of the soils report was
directed at indicating wetland restoration potential based on hydric indicators and determining
overburden depths to hydric. More information on the soils report is included in Section 5.3.3.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Vile Creek.MitigationSite — Part.5
Page 5 7

Table 5.3 Project Soil Types and,Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
Alluvial Land is poorly drained and•subject to frequent flooding Alluvial land soils are on flood
Alluvial
plains and, in upland draws and depressions Bedrock for these soils is often found at a depth of
Land
more than 5 feet,and the water table is often near the,surface. The surface layer, 6 to 10,inches, is
dominantly very dark grayish brown to black The underlying layer ranges from'dark- gray to black
loamy sand to silty clay loam Alluvial land meets,hydric =criteria 2,based on the USDA web.soil
survey r
Chandler silt loam is found.on side slopes bordering drainageways. It consists of excessively
Chandler
drained micaceous -soils found on narrow ridges ranging from'2800 to 3500-feet above.sea level
silt loam
The surface layer of,the series is dark grayish -brown to yellowish -brown with a thickness of 4,to 8
inches The subsoil is yellowish -brown to�strong brown, friable silt,loam to loam 8 to 16 inches
thick
Chandler
This is a stony, micaceous, excessively drained soil found on side slopes bordering drainageways
stony silt
The surface layer is dark grayish- brownAo yellowish -brown silt loam 4 to 8 inches thick The
loam
subsoil is yellowish -brown to strong- brown, friable silt loam to loam 8 to,16 inches thick Thin
series,is low',rn natural fertility, organic,matter content and available water capacity
This is a well - drained soil on broader ridges of less mountainous areas _This series formed under
Chester
forest vegetation in residuum from;gneiss and schist The surface{layer is dark grayish,-brown to
loam_
dark -brown loam 6 to 101mches'thick The subsoil is strong -brown to yellowish -red, friable clay
loam to,sandy clay loam 20 -35 inches thick Infiltration of this soil �is.moderate
The Chester stony loam is stony and well drained and is found onside slopes bordering
Chester
drainageways The surface layer is dark grayish -brown to dark -brown loam 5 to 8 inches thick
stony loam
Stones larger than 10 inches in diameter make up 5 to 15 percent of the surface layer The subsoil
is strong -brown to yellowish -red, friable clay loam to sandy clay loam 20 to 25 inches thick
This,is a well - drained soil found,on the side slopes between milder ndgetops and steeper slopes
to drainageways 'It,occurs in Tong, narrow bands The surface layer is dark reddish -brown to dark -
Clifton
loam
brown loam 4 to 10 inches thick In some places it is a mixture of,origrnal surface layer and the
subsoil. The subsoil is reddish-brown-or yellowish -red to red„ fnable'clay loam to clay 15 -35 inches'
thick This series has a high water capacity and a moderately deep root zone Permeability and
the,shirk -swell potential are moderate.
This soils is well drained and found in narrow bands between the milder ridges and steeper side
slopes breaking to drainageways These soils formed under forest vegetation in residuum from
Fannin silt
mica schist The surface layer for this series is dark -brown to reddish- brown silt loam 3 to 8`
loam
inches thick The subsoil is yellowish -red to red, friable clay loam, silty clay loam, or loam 17 to 30
inches thick Fannin soils are low,in fertility and organic matter content They have medium
available water capacity, moderate permeability, moderate shrink -swell potential,,and a
moderately deep effective root zone
Stony
Stony steep land consists of upland areas where bedrock or loose stones cover 15 to 90,percent
Steep Land
of the surface The soil between the stones is variable, but thick, in most places
The Tate series consists of well 'drained, gently sloping to strongly sloping soils.of the upland'
Tate -Loam
draws and foovslopes These,soils formed under forest vegetation in local alluvium from
materials of the.surroundmg uplands Tatesoils are low in natural fertility, medium in�organic-
matter content, and high in available water capacity.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc- Page 5.8
Vile,Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

Soil Name
Description
The Tusquitee series consists of well- drained, sloping to moderately steep soils in upland draws
Tusquitee
loam
and on foot slopes. Tusquitee soils are medium in natural fertility, high in organic- matter content,
and very high in available water capacity. Permeability is moderately rapid, and the shrink -swell
potential is low.
The Watauga series consists of well- drained, micaceous, soils on narrow ridges and side slopes of
Watauga
less mountainous areas. In a typical profile, the surface layer is brown loam about 7 inches thick.
loam
The subsoil is strong- brown, friable clay loam to loam about 21 inches thick. This series is low in
natural fertility and organic- matter content. The Watauga loam is considered medium in available
water capacity. Permeability is moderate, and the shrink -swell potential is low.
Source: Alleghany County Soil Survey, USDA -NRCS, http: / /efotg.nres.usda.gov
5.2.6 Geology
The Site is located in the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The Blue Ridge Province
is characterized as a mountainous area with steep ridges and valley, with elevations ranging from 1,500
to over 6,000 feet above sea level. The Blue Ridge Belt contains a combination of igneous, sedimentary,
and metamorphic rock that have repeated been heated and deformed through such processes as folding,
faulting, and fracturing. The underlying geology of the proposed restoration site is mapped as late
Proterozoic age (1 billion to 500 million years in age) muscovite - biotite gnesiss (Zatm) and amphibolite
(Zata). Both rock units are part of the Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah Falls Formation. The
muscovite - biotite gneiss unit is described as locally sulfidic; interlayered and gradational with mica schist
with minor amounts of amphibolite and hornblende gneiss. The amphibolite unit is described as an
equigranular, massive to well - foliated, interlayered, rarely discordant and may include metasedimentary
rock.
Sources:
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
http: //www.geology.enr. state. nc. us / Mineral% 20resources /mineralresources. html
5.2.7 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
The site is not located near any sites listed on the National Register with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). The archaeological site files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) have
not been reviewed at this time. All appropriate cultural resource agencies will be contacted for their
review and comment prior to any land disturbing activity.
The Little River Aquatic Habitat is a Significant Natural Heritage Area with a very high representational
value of R2 and a high collective value of C3. This importance is a result of the rivers support of
endangered /threatened mussel species, threatened fish species, and many other freshwater species of
high conservation value. In addition there, are four habitats that are considered Significant Natural
Heritage Areas within three miles of the project location. These habitats include the Woods Meadow Bog,
the Sparta Bog, the Little River slope and the Twin Oaks Mountains (Figure 1).
5.2.8 Threatened and Endangered Species
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database was searched for state and federally listed threatened
and endangered plant and animal species in Alleghany County, NC. Thirty -four state listed species are
currently listed as threatened or endangered in Alleghany County. In addition, four Federally listed
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.9
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

species, the Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis), the Tall Larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum), the Gray's Lily
(Lilium groyi), and the Large - leaved Grass -of- parnassus (Parnassia grandifolia) are listed as Federal species
of concern and the Bog Turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) is listed as threatened (Table 5.4). A pedestrian
survey conducted on December 2, 2013 indicated that the site has no potential habitat for three of the
four federally protected species including the Tall Larkspur, Gray's Lily, or the Large- leaved Grass of
Parnassus. The site does provide necessary habitat for the Green Floater and the threatened Bog Turtle.
Wildlands conducted a review of recorded Natural Heritage Elemental Occurrences; no known species
occur within three miles of the Site. Wildlands will conduct a thorough review of the Site for all state -
listed species upon award of contract.
Table 5.4 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Alleghany County, NC
Species
State
Federal
Habitat
Status
Status
Freshwater Bivalve
Green Floater
Small to medium streams in the Tar, Neuse, Roanoke, and Yadkin /Pee
(Lasmigona subviridis)
E
FSC
Dee systems downstate; and the New and Watauga systems in
mountains
Reptile
Bog Turtle
T
T(S /A)
Mud, grass and sphagnum moss of, bogs, wet pastures, wet thickets.
(Glyptemys muhlenbergii)
Vascular Plant
Tall Larkspur (Delphinium
E
FSC
Grassy balds, glades, woodlands, mostly over mafic rock
exaltatum)
Gray's Lily (Lilium groyi)
T
FSC
Bogs, wet meadows, seeps, grassy balds, high elevation forests
Large - leaved Grass- of- parnassus
T
FSC
Fens and seeps over calcareous or mafic rocks
(Parnassia grandifolia)
'T= Threatened; E= Endangered; FSC = Federal Species of Concern
5.2.9 F/oodplain Compliance
The Site is represented on the Alleghany County
Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels 3080 and 3081.
Vile Creek, UT1, and the Little River are mapped in
_ k a Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and
base flood elevations have been defined. A
floodway has been delineated for the Little River.
•m�K `' UT1A, UT2, UT2A, and UT3 do not have designated
SFHAs. Effective hydraulic modeling for Vile Creek,
4 . UT1, and the Little River will be obtained from the
.rem NC Floodplain Mapping Program. A no -rise
condition will be pursued if compatible with
Priority 1 restoration and enhancement grading. If
a no -rise condition is not attainable, then a CLOMR
will be prepared. Wildlands' engineers have successfully navigated the CLOMR process for several similar
full - delivery project sites. A LOMR will be completed if required after construction using as -built survey
data.
ktWo Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
Page 5.10

5.2.10 SiteXonstraints and.Access
The Site.includes one easement break for a ford crossing, (this portion will not have cattle access), a bridge
crossing dust upstream of the project area, one short length where one side of the buffer is only 27 feet
'wide (this may change with bank grading), and a small section where we have a construction access
agreement to restore the creek but no conservation easement. In spite of these constraints, Wildlands
has, proposed crossing alignments and negotiated options which allow for the design of the entire site to
proceed unhindered. Crossings and land negotiations are detailed below.
A 25 foot easement break is proposed on UT1 approximately'200 linear feet downstream from the
UT1 /UT1b confluence (Figures 7a and 7b). This break is designed for construction of a permanent ford
crossing whichrwdl allow the landowner accessto4he 15 acre'field on the southern bank of "UT1. Cattle
will be removed from this portion of the site, and the land use on the adjacent fields will be transitioned
to row crops The crossing will not dictate the stream design. and the easement break was not included
in the mitigation credit calculation for the site.
Just downstream of the UT1 and UT1c confluence,.a small,, 0.2 acre triangle of the Gambill /Crouse parcel
'is landlocked by the proposed conservation easement. Wildlands' option_ with the Gambill /Crouse
landowners includes purchase of this 0.2 acre triangle, which we will in turn deed to the adjacent
landowner, Mr. D Wayne Miles, Jr. Just downstream of this area, UT1 flows onto a pie shaped wedge of
Mr. Miles' property for 63 LF There are currently no livestock on the Miles property and it is forested.
Mr. Miles has not agreed to -a conservation easement onshis land; however, as part.ofithe land transaction
between Wildlands and Mr. Miles, Wildlands has secured an option for a temporary construction permit
which will allow us to raise and reconstruct the stream channel through this property. The temporary
construction permit allows us to begin a Priority'1 restoration of UT1 within the conservation easement
upstream of the Miles property, coritinue the stream at this elevation through the Miles property (which
will be outside of the conservation easement)'and back into the conservation easement without having
to use Priority 2 restoration to transition the stream down and back out of the old channel.
At the upstream end of Vile Creek, north of the conservation easement and`just downstream of the Duke
Energy parcel, Wildlands proposes to install a bottomless bridge culvert. This permanent crossing will
allow for cattle,and farm traffic to cross over Vile Creek with no impact,to the stream,system This,bridge
culvert crossing will not be gated, but conservation easement fencing will prevent cattle access to Vile
Creek. In- addition to the conservation easement fencing, fencing will, be installed from Farmer Rd. to the
culvert crossing and will connect with an existing fence line. This proposed fencing will occur outside the
conservation, easement and will prevent cattle from accessing Vile Creek from above the culvert
The proposed conservation easement boundary around UT3 creates a landlocked parcel on the
Gambill /Mason property. The Gambill /Mason family is currently'in discussions with the landowner to the
east of the landlocked parcel about purchasing their land Wildlands has, discussed the landlocked parcel
with the Gambill /Masons and they are aware that this area will only'be accessible by foot unless they
complete,acquisition of'the,adjacentyland.
All streams proposed for mitigation credit provide the required 30 foot minimum riparian buffer for
Piedmont stream's „except for a short, 70 LF long portion of Vile,Creek near its confluence with Little River
In this area, the conservation easement off the right bank of Vile Creek is only 27 feet wide; however, the
buffer off the left bank extends over 30 feet wide. It should be noted that, in ,many areas, the riparian
buffer proposed for the Site extends up to 300 feet-wide, which is far in excess of'the required 30 foot
minimum buffer off both banks. The easement area will be marked per NCEEP Guidelines for Full Delivery
Requirement,for Completion,of Survey for Conservation Easements (version 13,- August 2013).
A,
WWildlands Engineering, Inc
VIIe,Creek Mitigation Site, —Part 5
Page 5 11

The entire easement area can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long term stewardship from
existing site access points located along NC -18 and Farmer Rd (NC 1423) (Figure 7a and 7b). Wildlands
has executed option agreements to purchase conservation easements on the properties. The
conservation easement agreements will ensure the right of entry abilities of Wildlands, its contractors,
and the future easement holder in any future land transactions.
Maxwell Airport is located two miles from the Vile Creek Site. This is a private airport with two turf
runways. It is noted on the AirNay.com website that this airport is closed indefinitely. No other airports
are known to exist within five miles of the Site.
5.3 Project Development
The Wildlands Team proposes to restore a high quality of ecological function to the streams, riparian
corridors, and wetlands on the Site. The project design will ensure that no adverse impacts to existing
wetlands or riparian buffers occur. Different management objectives are proposed for different portions
of the project area. These activities are discussed below and summarized in Table 5.5. Two options are
proposed for this Site, both delivering the same SMUs and one delivering WMUs than the other. Figures
7a and 7b illustrate the conceptual designs for Site Option 1 and Site Option 2, respectively.
The major goals of the project will be to improve water quality in the Little River watershed by removing
cattle from the riparian corridor and stabilizing eroding stream banks, to achieve improved floodplain
functions, and to improve habitat for macroinvertebrate and aquatic communities through
reestablishment of natural stream function, bed form structure, and reduction in sedimentation.
5.3.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
Cattle have caused significant degradation to the onsite streams. Vile Creek and UT1 in particular have
reaches which have sustained severe impacts and are in various stages of stability.
Vile Creek exhibits lateral instability from the upstream project boundary down to the below the sharp,
in -line meander bend. The stream has either steep, eroded banks or severely trampled banks from heavy
cattle access, or a combination of both. Bed habitats are impaired by fine sediments generated from bank
erosion. The stream is not currently located in the
center of the valley, and may have been relocated
in the past to maximize available pasture land. Full
restoration, using a Priority 1 approach, is
proposed on this portion of Vile Creek to correct
the dimension, pattern, and profile deficiencies of
the existing stream. Restoration efforts will begin
at the shared property boundary with Duke Energy,
where a fenced off, bottomless bridge culvert will
be placed to connect the existing pastures on
either side of the stream. Downstream of the
crossing, the stream will be transitioned onto the
historic floodplain using Priority 2 restoration. The
width of the Priority 2 floodplain bench will allow
for an entrenchment ratio of at least 2.2. As soon
as possible, the design will transition to Priority 1, and the stream will be designed to meander and avoid
existing wetlands. Substrate from the existing channel will be harvested and repurposed to seed the riffles
in the new stream channel. The Priority 1 restoration approach is expected to result in a raised water
table, which will benefit the nearby wetlands. Near Vile's confluence with UT1, the stream will be re-
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.12
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

routed through the old meander scrolls and large, mature vegetation present in the left floodplain. This
will provide instant shading and will truly restore the stream to a historic location within the floodplain.
Just downstream of the large meander bend on the existing stream, Vile Creek has stable channel pattern
and profile with occasional areas of bank erosion. Further downstream, Vile Creek becomes fully stable
however cattle still have access to the stream. Throughout this reach, the design approach will be
enhancement level 2, but with a focus on repair of bank erosion as needed. This reach, as with the entire
length of Vile Creek from the upstream property boundary down to the confluence with Little River, will
be fenced to exclude cattle and will be planted with native, riparian vegetation.
UT1 suffers from bank erosion and bank trampling from its upstream project boundary to its confluence
with UT1c, but is generally connected to a
floodplain and has good pattern. An
enhancement level 1 design approach with
a focus on restoring correct channel
dimension in the eroded and trampled areas
is proposed for this reach. Below the UT1c
confluence, UT1 becomes very incised.
From the UT1c confluence down to the Vile
Creek confluence, full Priority 1 restoration
of UT1 is proposed to correct the stream's
dimension, pattern, and profile deficiencies.
Because UT1 is connected to the historic
floodplain upstream of this area, UT1 can
transition directly to Priority 1 restoration
without use of Priority 2 restoration. As
detailed in the Site Constraints and Access
Section of this proposal, there is a 63 LF length of UT1 that exits the easement and enters the Miles
property. Wildlands has secured a temporary construction easement on the Miles parcel which permits
a continuation of Priority 1 restoration through this parcel so as to not affect the design of the rest of the
system. Priority 1 restoration will continue along UT1 until the stream's confluence with Vile Creek.
UT1b and UT1c, tributaries to UT1, are both relatively stable but are accessible to cattle and lack a forested
riparian buffer. The design approach on these reaches will be enhancement level 2, with an emphasis on
cattle removal and reforestation with a native, riparian buffer. On the lower portion of UT1c, where
unstable banks are present, the stream dimension will be corrected through bank grading. As part of the
overall restoration and enhancement of UT1, UT1b, and UT1c, cattle will be completely removed from all
active pasture land west of the UT1 /UTic confluence, and the fields will be converted to crops. East of
the UT1 /UT1c confluence, the entire pasture and hillside off the right bank will be placed in conservation
easement, resulting in a right buffer that extends over 200 LF in places. From the UTic confluence down
to the Vile Creek confluence, cattle will be excluded from the preserved areas though fencing and the area
will be planted with native vegetation.
UT2, UT2a, and UT3 are all currently accessed by cattle, but are relatively stable due to bedrock control
with only spot areas of bank erosion present. The design approach for these three reaches is
enhancement level 2, where the primary focus will be on cattle exclusion through fencing and
reforestation of a native, riparian buffer. Similarly, Little River is stable but accessible to cattle with a
patchy riparian buffer. Little River will be completely fenced off from cattle and supplemental species will
be planted as appropriate. As an added benefit, the landowners have agreed to exclude additional
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.13
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

acreage along Little River from cattle access, although this area will not be placed in conservation
easement. This fence will run along the woodline from the Little River easement corner over to UT3.
All reaches on the project will be designed to create new stable, functional stream channels based on
reference reach and sediment transport analyses. Dimension, pattern, and profile will be designed to
allow for frequent overbank flooding, provide stable bank slopes, and enable biological lift. This approach
will provide hydrologic connectivity between creeks and floodplains and will also create vertical and
lateral stability. Removing invasive vegetation and establishing stable bank slopes will allow for a native
and diverse riparian zone to grow which will improve nutrient removal. A diverse bedform will provide
habitat for an increased number of species of insects, fish, and amphibians. This diverse bedform will be
established using instream structures appropriate for the geomorphic setting such as log weirs, log vanes,
and constructed riffles. Hardwood trees may be able to be harvested from upland areas around the
property for log and wood structures.
Wildlands will begin the project by identifying the best design approach to meet the stated project
objectives and implement the appropriate degree of intervention. A combination of analog, empirical,
and analytical design approaches will potentially be used. Reference streams will be identified and will
serve as one of the primary sources of information on which designs are based. Modeling and other
detailed analyses will be used as appropriate to develop or verify designs. Wildlands has developed a
general approach to be used as the basis for stream restoration design and has begun on -going
coordination with EEP on the procedures. The design approach, which is tailored to each site, continues
to develop as additional projects are implemented. Some of the key elements of the methods are
described below.
Generally, stream designs will be based on a design discharge range which, in most cases, will be an
approximation of the bankfull discharge but will be selected to meet the objectives of the design. The
discharge will be determined through detailed hydrologic analyses using the best available information
such as local or regional stream gage records, empirical regional stream flow estimates, hydrologic
modeling results, and reference stream flows. Other discharges (such as baseflow or flows to support
instream habitat features) will also be considered during the design process based on the specific project
objectives. The design will be refined or validated with sediment transport analysis.
Sediment transport is an extremely complicated
process and the appropriate level of analysis must
be determined for each specific design. This
determination is based on watershed assessment,
local stream observations, reference conditions,
and other sources of information. Generally, these
assessments will lead to one of two levels of
sediment transport analysis and a corresponding
design approach. For streams that are gravel or
cobble bed sites and have a low bed load, threshold
•' structures channels can be designed based on discharge and
sediment transport competence analysis. These
channels are not expected to be prone to excessive morphologic change and the project objectives will
include that channel slope, geometry, and bedforms do not change significantly overtime. Other streams,
including those with sand or silt bed material and those that have a moderate to high bedload will require
more detailed sediment transport studies and must be designed as alluvial channels. These conditions
must be considered when establishing design objectives as alluvial channels are expected to adjust their
slope, geometry, and bedforms over time. In these cases a capacity analysis with data collection and /or
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.14
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

detailed modeling is an important component of the design. However, alluvial channels will most often
be designed with controls at key locations to prevent rapid, significant change.
All areas within the conservation easement subject to livestock intrusion will be fenced with either woven
wire of three - strand barbed wire fencing, designed to EEP guidelines, to eliminate livestock grazing and
re- establish a native riparian buffer. Conservation easement areas not subject to livestock intrusion will
be marked per EEP guidelines. Native riparian buffers a minimum of 30 feet from the proposed top of
bank will be planted along all restored and enhanced streams on the Site. In many instances, the buffer
planting will extend far beyond the required 30 -foot minimum buffer (Figure 7a and Figure 7b).
5.3.3 Wetland Mitigation Approach
The techniques described below will be used to restore a Montane Alluvial Forest stream and wetland
complex with a native natural community. Currently, the Site contains eleven areas identified as existing
wetlands with the largest areas on the Vile
Creek floodplains (Figure 2). These areas
have not been jurisdictionally delineated, ` ' ` Wetlands
however, site visits done by Wildlands
personnel and a soils report provided by
The Catena Group (provide in the Appendix)
have determined that these areas contain
the necessary hydrology, vegetation, and
soils to be classified as existing wetlands.
The existing wetland areas have been
hampered by historical agricultural
practices such as cattle grazing, ditching,
and clearing.
Soils on site were evaluated to determine
Cattle Impacts
the hydric status. Soils were classified into
three units: Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3. Unit
1 was mapped within the floodplain of Vile
Creek and consisted of areas where overburden material from human manipulation was deposited over
buried hydric soil horizons. In addition, there were areas within Unit 1 where overburden had developed
hydric soil indicators. The majority of these areas coincided with the existing wetland areas outline above.
Unit 2 was mapped along the UT1 floodplain from Vile Creek to the proposed easement break. Unit 2
consisted of a hydric sandy loam soil buried over an average of 20 inches of overburden from human
manipulation. Unit 3 consisted of non - hydric soil and occurred in steeper, narrow floodplains of the Site.
Based on site visits and the information from the soils report, areas designated as Unit 1 will be the focus
of wetland restoration. A total 2.9 acres within the Vile Creek floodplain is classified as existing wetlands
and will be rehabilitated (Figure 7a and 7b).
Wetland rehabilitation will consist of eliminating cattle access and invasive vegetation in the existing
wetland area. Existing wetlands will be planted with native Montane Alluvial Forest vegetation and the
surface of the wetlands will be disked to increase surface storage. Increased roughness and surface
storage will increase retention times and reduce nutrient inputs into Vile Creek by natural infiltrative
treatment. Vile Creek and UT1 will be restored with a raised bed elevation; reconnecting the stream to
the floodplain and restoring the natural flooding regime of the existing wetlands. All proposed wetland
re- establishment areas within soil Unit 1 areas.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
Page 5.15

Two options have been developed for wetland re- establishment. Option 1.(Figure 7a) proposes to re-
establish 1.1 acres of historic wetlands directly adjacent to existing wetland areas Option 2 (Figure 7b)
proposes to re- establish the 11 acres of historic wetlands in Option 1 as well as an additional 2.0 acres in
the- floodplain of the proposed channel. The total wetland re- establishment for Option 2 would be 3.1
acres. Areas for wetland re- establishment were evaluated based on adjacency to existing wetlands,
proximity to the Vile Creek floodplain, soils information, localised hydrology, and evidence of historical
manipulation.
Wetland re- establishment will involve the expansion of, existing wetlands to return wetland areas to
previous historical extents Ditches adjacent to existing wetlands will be filled tareduce the drainage from
potential wetland areas and restore the natural hill seep hydrology. In addition,,overburden from human
manipulation and historical agricultural practices will be removed from relic hydric,areas. Restormg'Vile
Creek will raise the stream beds reconnecting`the floodplain and restoring the natural floodmg,regime of
the system The surface of the,wetlands will be disked to roughen the surface and loosen soil compaction
caused by overburden.
A wetland' forest ,and riparian buffer will be established within the wetland areas with the goal of re-
establishing a natural Montane Alluvial Forest community Vegetation planted in restored'wetland areas
will be based on species identified within appropriate reference locations and professional experience
based on site conditions. The overall result of this work will be to reestablish a wetland ecosystem on the
property which has previously,been significantly altered by agriculture.
5.3.5 Vegetation Plan
Native,ripanan buffers a mimmum'of 30 feet-and in some areas ranging up to 200 feet from the proposed
top of,bank-will be planted along,all restored and enhanced streams on the Site,following construction of
the project (Figure 7a and 7b) The planting plan will be based on an appropriate, nearby reference
community and will be developed to restore appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub,, and
herbaceous layers) The canopy will be restored through-planting of bare root trees. The understory and
shrub layers will be restored, through a combination .of planting bare root, low growth species and
installing live stake shrub species. The herbaceous layer will be restored by seeding the disturbed area
with a native seed mix with an emphasis placed on creating good soil contact to encourage germination
The floodplain of Vile Creek, Little River, as well as the area surrounding the restored and enhanced UT's,
will be protected with a conservation easement. Overtime a large native floodplain, stream,,and wetland
complex will be created.
5.4 Proposed Mitigation
The Site will be a combination of stream restoration, stream enhancement level 2, wetland, rehabilitation,
and wetland re- establishment. Two options are proposed, both options include the same management
objectives for streams, which total a proposed 5,000 SMUs Option 1 proposes wetland rehabilitation and
wetland, re- establishment for a total of 3.0 WMUs Option 2 includes the wetland rehabilitation and
wetland re- establishment areas,proposed for Option,-1; and offers �additionaI wetland rehabilitation areas
for a total of 5.0 WMUs. ,Figure 7a represents management objectives proposed for Option land Figure
7b represents management objectives proposed for Option 2. The mitigation credit calculation was
derived "using the US Army Corps,of Engineers' Stream'Mitigation Guidance and was based on Wildlands'
conceptual design for maximum ecological uplift. Given the existing conditions of the stream channels,
the disturbance factors, and the constraints, management objectives for each reach have been
established The management - objective, the mitigation type, and proposed amount of stream mitigation
is presented below.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Vile Creek'Mitigation,Site — Part 5
Page 5 16

Table 5.5 Mitigation Units proposed for the Vile Creek Mitigation Site — OPT/ONS1 AND 2
Wildlands Engineering,'Inc Page5 17
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
Stream MR on,Units
Option
Reach
M' anagement Objectives
e of
Mitigation
(feet)
Ratio
Mi'tiga"tio
Units
(SMUs)
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile
Vile Creek —
with Priority 1 restoration Install habitat,structures,
Restoration
1,854
11
1,854
upstream
allow bankfull floodplain access Fence,out
livestock Establish native, riparian buffer_
_
Vile Creek—
Fence out livestock Repair erosion with in- stream
Enhancement
structurevand bank grading as needed Establish
713
2 5 1
285
downstream
native riparian buffer
II
UTl —
Remove livestock from adjacent fields ,Repair
Enhancement
erosion,with;in- stream structures and bank,grading
885
1'S 1,
590'
upstream
Establish native riparian buffer
I
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile
N
03
UTl —
with Priority 1 restoration Install habitat-structures,
Restoration
935
11
935
downstream
allow bankfull floodplain access Fence out
H
livestock Establish native riparian buffer
Z
O
UTlb
Removellivestockfromladjacentfields Establish,
Enhancement
108
251
43
native riparian buffer
II
a
O
Remove livestock fromiadjacent fields- Repair
Enhancement
UTlc
erosion .with instream structures,and bank ,grading
205
2 5 1
82
as needed Establish native riparian buffer
UT2
Fence, out livestock Repair spot erosion as needed
Enhancement
1;170
25 1
468
Establish nativetnparian,buffer
II
.
UT2a
Fence ;out livestock Repair spot erosion as needed
Enhancement
133
2 5 1
53
Establish native riparian buffer
11
UT3
Fence out livestock Repair spot erosion as needed
Enhancement
1,135
2 5 1
454
;Establish native riparian buffer
11
Little River
Fence outilivestock Establish native riparian buffer
Enhancement
591
2 5 l
236
Total
- - -
,000 SMU
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units
anagement Objectives '°
T,ype of
Mitigation
Area
acreRatio
"nigaUvson
Rehabilitate existing wetlands by eliminating
Wetland
drainage ditches, restoring hill seep hydrology, and
Wetland
29
is
19
...i
Rehabilitation
eliminating cattle access Plant native,wetland
Rehabilitation
Z
hardwoods
O
Re- establish wetland areasiby,eliminating,dramage
H
t3
Wetland
ditches, removing historic overburden, raising the
Wetland Re
1 1
1 0
1 1
O
Re _
stream bed elevation of Vile Creek, and eliminating
establishment
establishment
cattle access Plant native,wetland har_d_w_oods
Total
4.0
3.0 WM_U_ s
Rehabilitate existing wetlands by eliminating
Wetland
drainage ditches, restoring hill seep hydrology, and
Wetland
29
15
19
Rehabilitation
eliminating cattle access Plant native,wetland
Rehabilitation
N
Z
hardwoods
O
Re- establish wetland areas by eliminating drainage
H
a
Wetland
ditches, removing historic overburden,,raising the
Wetland'Re-
O
_
Re '
stream bed elevation of Vile�Creek, and eliminating
establishment
3 1
"
10
3 1
establishment
cattle access Plant native wetland hardwoods
Total
6.0
5.0 WMUs
Wildlands Engineering,'Inc Page5 17
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

5.5' Current Ownership
The Site is located on several parcels owned by various landowners summarized in Table 5 6. Option
Agreements for the general project area shown on Figures 7a and 7b have been signed by the property
owners and 'a Memorandum of Option is recorded for each parcel at the Alleghany County Register of
Deeds The landowners, have signed the Landowner Authorization Form allowing the United State Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to enter the Site for assessment purposes prior to execution of the Option.
Copies of the recorded Memoranda of Option and the Landowner Authorization Forms are included in
the Appendix: The landowners, parcel identification'numbers, and deed,book and page number for the
Memoranda of Option are summarized in Table 5.6. Wildlands is proposing that the final conservation
easement will,be held by Unique Places 2Save, a local non - profit organization. If this Long Term Protection
alternative is not approved by EEP, the landowner, and /or the Interagency Review Team (IRT), then
Wildlands proposes that the Stat&of North Carolina. will hold -the final conservation ease ment,and'wiII
provide long term protection of the site.
Table 5.6 Property Owners for the' Vile Creek�Mitigation Site
Property Owner
Parcel ID Number
liUMIOU emorandOpti on Oeed Book (DB)
and Page Number (PG)
Iris Gambill Estate & Judy Gambill &
Gary Crouse
3081 -20 -6925
DB 00355 PG 1436 -1440
DB 00363 PG:1382 (111 Amendment)
Iris Gambill Estate & Tamara Gambill
& Steve Mason
3081 -41 -3728
DB 00355 PG -1431 -1435
DB 00363 PG-1386 (is` Amendment)
Jessie D Perry & Regina Perry
3081:10 -0180
DB '00364 PG '0222 -0225
Debbie Edwards & Donna Rollins
3081 -10 -1188
DB .00363;PG 1377 -1380
Wayne D_ Miles Jr. &'Janet Miles
3081 -10 -4203
DB 00363 PG 1390 -1396*
*Agreement for temporary construction easement -
5.6 , Project Phasing
The Wildlands Team has experience handling tightly - scheduled projects with a number of stakeholders
We understand the importance of clear communication and adherence to deadlines We will establish
additional internal deadlines to keep the project milestones on track. Each task will be staffed with the
appropriate technical and management staff to ensure quality and timely completion. Table 5.7
provides a summary of the mayor project milestones.
Table 5.7 Project Schedulefor the Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
Page 5 18
Proposed -omple on
Proposed Time to
Date
Project Milestone
Completion
(assuming NTP on
(from date of NTP)
July 1, 2014)
Task11 CE Document
3 months
October 1, 2014
Task 2 Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
1 year, 6 months
February 1,,2016
Task 3. Mitigation Plan Approved by EEP
1 year, 3 months
October 1, 2015
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
2 years, 4 months
November 1, 2016
Task 5 . Mitigation Site Planting,& Installation of'Monitonng
2 years, 6 months
January 1, 2017
Devices
Task 6 Baseline Monitoring Report (Including As -Built
2 years, 8 months
March 1, 2017
Drawings) Approved by EEP
Task 7 Submit Monitoring Report #1 to EEP*
3 years, 8 months
March 1, 2018
Task 8 Submit Mon itoring I Report,#2 to EEP*
4 years; 8 months
March 1, 2019
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
Page 5 18

5.7 Success Criteria and Monitoring Plan
The stream restoration performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance criteria
presented in the Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (02/2014), the EEP Monitoring Requirements
and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/07/2011), and the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual monitoring and semi - annual
site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream and wetland
restoration sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components for
hydrology, vegetation, and morphology (streams only). Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout
the seven year post- construction monitoring. If all performance criteria have been successfully met and
the four required flow events have occurred (Refer to Section 5.7.2 for details), Wildlands may propose
to terminate stream and /or vegetation monitoring after year five, in accordance with the Early Closure
Provision in the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland
Mitigation (11/7/2011). An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
5.7.1 Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross - sections on the restoration reaches should be
stable and should show little change in bankfull area,
maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per EEP
guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 for
restored channels to be considered stable. For restored,
meandering streams, such as Rosgen C and E -type streams,
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2. All riffle cross -
sections should fall within the parameters defined for
channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type. If any
changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to
assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of
instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically
incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. 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.
In order to assess channel dimension success, one permanent cross - section will be installed per 20
bankfull widths along stream restoration and enhancement level 1 reaches, with riffle and pool sections
in proportion to EEP guidance. Each cross - section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its
location. Cross - section surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.19
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
Proposed Time to
Proposed Completion
Project Milestone
Completion
Date
(assuming NTP on
(from date of NTP)
July 1, 2014)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to EEP*
5 years, 8 months
March 1, 2020
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to EEP*
6 years, 8 months
March 1, 2021
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to EEP*
7 years, 8 months
March 1, 2022
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to EEP*
8 years, 8 months
March 1, 2023
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to EEP* and complete
9 years, 8 months
March 1, 2024
Close -Out Process
*Meets success criteria
5.7 Success Criteria and Monitoring Plan
The stream restoration performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance criteria
presented in the Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (02/2014), the EEP Monitoring Requirements
and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/07/2011), and the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual monitoring and semi - annual
site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream and wetland
restoration sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components for
hydrology, vegetation, and morphology (streams only). Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout
the seven year post- construction monitoring. If all performance criteria have been successfully met and
the four required flow events have occurred (Refer to Section 5.7.2 for details), Wildlands may propose
to terminate stream and /or vegetation monitoring after year five, in accordance with the Early Closure
Provision in the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland
Mitigation (11/7/2011). An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
5.7.1 Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross - sections on the restoration reaches should be
stable and should show little change in bankfull area,
maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per EEP
guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 for
restored channels to be considered stable. For restored,
meandering streams, such as Rosgen C and E -type streams,
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2. All riffle cross -
sections should fall within the parameters defined for
channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type. If any
changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to
assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of
instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically
incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. 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.
In order to assess channel dimension success, one permanent cross - section will be installed per 20
bankfull widths along stream restoration and enhancement level 1 reaches, with riffle and pool sections
in proportion to EEP guidance. Each cross - section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its
location. Cross - section surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.19
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5

bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. if moderate bank erosion is observed within permanent pool cross -
sections during the monitoring period, an array of bank pins will be installed in the permanent cross -
section where erosion is occurring for reaches with a bankfull width of greater than three feet. Bank pins
will be installed on the outside bend of the cross - section in at least three locations (one in upper third of
the pool, one at the permanent cross - section, and one in the lower third of the pool). Bank pins will be
monitored by measuring exposed rebar and maintaining pins flush to bank to capture bank erosion
progression. Annual cross - section and bank pin survey (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring
years one, three, five, and seven.
In addition to the above geomorphic surveys, at least three sets of hydraulic geometry measurements will
be conducted within each distinct design reach that corresponds with a geomorphic significant discharge
(Qgs) event as described in the EEP Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (02/2014). Within each
reach, a representative wavelength will be assessed using hydraulic measurements within riffle and pool
cross - sections and along water surface slopes. Measurements can occur at anytime during the five /seven
year monitoring period.
Profile and Pattern
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the EEP
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation
(11/07/2011) and the 2003 USACE and NCDWQ Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
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.
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration and enhancement I reach each year for
classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the
pavement.
5.7.2 Hydrology
Stream
Four high flow events must be documented on the restoration
reaches and enhancement I reaches within the five /seven year
monitoring period; two bankfull flow events and two
geomorphically significant events. The two bankfull events must
occur in separate years. The two geomorphically significant
events can occur at any point within the monitoring period.
Stream monitoring will continue until success criteria in the form
of two bankfull events in separate years have been documented
and two geomorphically significant events have been
documented.
Bankfull events will be documented using photographs and
either a crest gage or a pressure transducer, as appropriate for site conditions. The selected measurement
device will be installed in the stream within a surveyed riffle cross - section. The device will be checked at
each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will also be used to document
the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
Page 5.20

Wetland
Groundwater monitoring gages will' be established throughout the wetland areas Generally, the gages
will be installed at appropriate locations so that the data collected will provide an 'indication of
groundwater levels throughout the wetland project area. The final performance criteria for the wetland
hydrology will be a groundwater level within 12 inches of the soil profile, for 5% to 12.5% of the growing
season Final success criteria will be determined through comparison with reference wetland hydrology.
5.7.3 Vegetation
The, final vegetative success criteria 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 site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third (3)
monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. Planted
vegetation must average 10 feet in height'in each plot at the end of the seventh year of monitoring. If
this performance standard is met by year five and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less
than 260 five year old stems /acre), 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).
Vegetation m'onitor'ing quadrants, will ,be installed across the restoration site to measure the survival of
the planted trees. The number of monitoring quadrants required will based on the EEP monitoring
guidance documents (version 1.5, 6/08/12). Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall and will follow
the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2006).
5.7.4 Other Parameters
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and view directions on the site are photographed each year. Photos will be used to monitor
restoration and enhancement stream reaches as well as vegetation plots and wetland areas.
Longitudinal reference photos will be established at the, tail of riffles approximately every 200 L'F -along
the channel by taking a photo looking upstream and downstream. Cross - sectional photos will be taken of
each permanent cross - section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also be taken for
each of the vegetation plots and within wetland areas Representative digital photos of each permanent
photo point, cross - section and vegetation plot will be taken on the same day that the stream and
vegetation assessments are - conducted The photographer will,make every effort to consistently maintain
the same area in each photo over time
Photographs should illustrate the site's,vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis Cross -
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion ordegradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos
should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade control
structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable.
Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Visual Assessments
Visual assessments'will be performed along {stream reaches on a semi- annual basis during the -seven year
monitoring period Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and /or vertical
instability, instream structure failure /instability and /or piping, headcuts), vegetation health (e.g. low.stem
Wildlands Engineering, Inc Page 5,21
Vile Creek'Mitigation,Site — Part 5

density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, livestock access or lack
of groundwater gage attainment Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a
written, description in the annual ,report. Problem areas with be re- evaluated during each subsequent
visual assessment. Should remedial actions be "required, recommendations will be provided in the annual
monitoring.report.
eenthic Macroinvertebrates
If required by NCDWQ as part of the projects permitting process, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling will
be performed ,on the restored site Any required sampling will be performed using NCDWQ Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates, October 2012
5.7.5 Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the EEP Baseline Monitoring Report Template (02/2014), a baseline monitoring document and as-
built record drawings of the project, will be developed within 60 days of °the planting completion and
monitoring installation on the restored site. Complete monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of
monitoring,year one, three, five,,and seven and submitted to EEP In monitoring years two, four, and six,
a brief summary of the site along with photos, current condition plan view map, and applicable hydrology
data will be prepared and submitted to EEP. These reports will be based on the EEP Monitoring Report
Template (02/2014). The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction
or until performance criteria have been met per the criteria stated in the EEP Monitoring Requirements
and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/7/2011) and the EEP Stream and
Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (02/2014)
5.7.6 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement, appropriate remedial
actions in the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the success criteria-
outlined above. The project — specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an
appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items Any actions
implemented will be designed to,achieve the,success criteria specified previously, and will include a work
schedule and updated monitor "ing criteria.
Wildlands °Engineering, Inc
Vile Creek Mitigation Site — Part 5
Page 5 22

050500010402=
Independence t11
!0 10 21�11 \
0� 403
tinia
z_
th Carolina ;•..
k Cr New ffs
,1
��(A 111 han uab ab'
Woods an lope \
50 00 3 15
in ks ai
t axw
\ eo County F` rou ds
05050
� obth Fork New River
050500010200
Sparta Boq
terta Creels\
Sh Rock
�
\ W8 a!!s Creek p
n's Z9
aqua ' dat
0 r f
Doughton Park Natural Area, Stone Mc
03040101060010
sMeb ow \ \
Lit River Slopes
0
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
.�
8ullhe cwoetairi
Ile
��� •� i
State Park 0304010106003
1
\ �11
B Pine eek
hell ?fiver Headwater
03040101080010
� 0
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
0 2 Miles Vile Creek Mitigation Site
New River Basin 05050001
Alleghony County, NC
Nz-
® State Line
_ Project Area
1
r� 1 Hydrologic Unit Code (14- Digit)
1.._.
/
05(0�0�10
r � 1 Hydrologic Unit Code (12- Digit)
Targeted Local Watershed
Local Watershed Plan
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
Water Features
© Airports
l� 050 1040
sMeb ow \ \
Lit River Slopes
0
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
.�
8ullhe cwoetairi
Ile
��� •� i
State Park 0304010106003
1
\ �11
B Pine eek
hell ?fiver Headwater
03040101080010
� 0
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
0 2 Miles Vile Creek Mitigation Site
New River Basin 05050001
Alleghony County, NC

F-Ln
L
�C
J
U
\ / N..
' 1
0
JlC.
Q

:Cem— �cp}�� '/ J f •.w +' _ Tax Parcels v
Proposed Conservation Easement
wV
Oc
s
• pa
INV
was•.- � ��'• bo. - ��_ / �. \
Sparta East, USG 7. i in 0 a -hic angle
Figure 3 Topographic Map
ktwv W 1 L D L A N D S 0 750 1,500 Feet Vile Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING i 1 i New River Basin 05050001
Alleghony County, NC

,gam � -. �
1.75 IS Miles
cm
Little F?i,,,

Q
Q
4
0
N
£ln
>
i
?in
ci
i,
o �
NaaJJ alin `\ j
•QoodI6 *Bug,lTn _
NAPP
-

G"I f,
ti
J
s
d
07
v
rJ �
�1
i
± ♦ 4 y 8 Q
•'! � � �. cone a�7�•.,rl1�.:_- � / ; i,i, �
l
r Al O
if O

r
r
- - - - -
-
ELn
�i
0
G
y
J
L "
a
q X �-
-. �lw CL
z
m
zin
r�
r
� l
pt,
rnw
O O
v v,
U
Q
V
ti
\
• i�i
V V
\�.
�`
L "
a
q X �-
-. �lw CL
z
m

Fit n
� r
r r
V
z /
U
V)
ro �'
1 �
x
/ ?in
Ln
xc
301:1 tA
/ .. 1
cu
0
o
IV
'� o/ b. ro
ii E E
s
Q a
uj
a
,� O

77 3

" idw
.NC ONN i
to
417
2-
417
2-

i
- - '
0•
12P0 CfBtlbdbft" _
-t
10
ee rod
2
TOW ftt=.
b=
EOM-lu bar" P_
p a
-P *,-"w "A.,: VMN
0 A
1;1
'J2
OC MkO Wi-Ildmit'S.1h. F.Aii VMW.4 [I'-
0•
12P0 CfBtlbdbft" _
-t
10
ee rod
2
2
OC MkO Wi-Ildmit'S.1h. F.Aii VMW.4 [I'-
0•
12P0 CfBtlbdbft" _
-t
10
it
2
2
-3.
Jotalpol"Ur. -3
0 A
1;1
'J2
r--3
1. min
--0_
--tas,
os�
wl_
IOr ktlaah 9160
Or
1-
-2
,
6
'a
0 5�
7 R­AMWGps&s
2
3-
a 1P..d= T
CAROM ISLftm.1 lu,
-1
-18 FR��b­­A­ -
'0,
7— =515—,
� I
-I,-
a-
2
01
kV,
.2-
2Z Fkh
OC MkO Wi-Ildmit'S.1h. F.Aii VMW.4 [I'-
0•
12P0 CfBtlbdbft" _
-t
10
it
2
-,f a, )
12
Jotalpol"Ur. -3
1;1
'J2
r--3
1. min
--0_
--tas,
os�
15 -
IOr ktlaah 9160
Or
1-
-2
15
ddm 9- oft.
0 5�
7 R­AMWGps&s
2
3-
a 1P..d= T
CAROM ISLftm.1 lu,
-1
-18 FR��b­­A­ -
'0,
7— =515—,
� I
-I,-
a-
2
CLI
kV,
.2-
2Z Fkh
as
I I
'A Fbh
a)-
0-5
to,
21
a
AM
21
—bd
j­
13-='
.1 ..
OC MkO Wi-Ildmit'S.1h. F.Aii VMW.4 [I'-
12 Pl— 10 Bi7t-
0•
__ '2L ,
-t
2.-MrWftal d OwmW Wwq oubmg
T
'2.
12 Pl— 10 Bi7t-
0•
__ '2L ,
-t
2.-MrWftal d OwmW Wwq oubmg
'2.
3
Jotalpol"Ur. -3
1q.
as
•O'L -1
I& Sdom on cum 0,
--0_
--tas,
-1
15 -
IOr ktlaah 9160
Or
1-
-2
15
7 R­AMWGps&s
2
3-
a 1P..d= T
0
-1
E_ -d
'0,
7— =515—,
� I
-As
1 jj=:,�.
2
CLI
- 1i
7 Lizj
2Z Fkh
12 Pl— 10 Bi7t-
-a_
__ '2L ,
-t
2.-MrWftal d OwmW Wwq oubmg
a
'2.
3
Jotalpol"Ur. -3
1q.
as
•O'L -1
I& Sdom on cum 0,
--0_
--tas,
-1
15 -
IOr ktlaah 9160
Or
ol,
L2
15
C S sdvt.1 I
2-
3-
1.
-1
7— =515—,
� I
2
1. -.as
- 1i
7 Lizj
2Z Fkh
as
I I
a)-
-2
to,
21
a
AM
12 Pl— 10 Bi7t-
9-.-d ufd benk
-a_
__ '2L ,
-t
2.-MrWftal d OwmW Wwq oubmg
a
-2
1
Jotalpol"Ur. -3
11 S.Ae . pwb . dhft
--0_
—1
'^-^3__
-AbeM
9-.-d ufd benk
-a_
__ '2L ,
-t
2.-MrWftal d OwmW Wwq oubmg
a
-2
1
d• 33x5 _—,
11 S.Ae . pwb . dhft
--0_
—1
'^-^3__
-AbeM
-Mcdle. awn
L2
3-
Rwd 0M.A.0 0-43 -
2-
S.
7— =515—,
� I
=•OL
1. -.as
- 1i
7 Lizj
P
M NOMMORMA lcdlw�m
a
Z_ (2
d• 33x5 _—,
11 S.Ae . pwb . dhft
--0_
—1
'^-^3__
-AbeM
-Mcdle. awn
a
d• 33x5 _—,
k18
--0_
—1
'^-^3__
-AbeM
-Mcdle. awn
a
A pwbc*.&..( mwbwA.
--0_
—1
'^-^3__
• r").-
2-
S.
� I
=•OL
1. -.as
- 1i
7 Lizj
P

Nc DwQ strr k16e111klmim ► Y6tNr 4.11
u916: is /a /is nwl..wr. v.l. C..,�. IYh�c 3b.SDacco'N
1Ewin19r: S.iiSdt.d� cart" Aa9 4,.,. LWMno 91•016,581
UT1C -X52
Vile Creek Mitigation She
99s
996 -
Y 993
-
990 -
969
9Y —
0 >0 20 l0 a so 6o
"o-M
s
UTI - X53
saoi
Vile Creek Mitigation
soon
996 --
g
4M
992
990
916 _
316 —
0 2 6 6 9 W 123116 U 20R26 26L 30323136 N 1062 N 66 N 505291
p9W9 chi
i
tal��ltS�'O
�tt>_g
=ice®
000�t�
UT1C -X52
Vile Creek Mitigation She
99s
996 -
Y 993
-
990 -
969
9Y —
0 >0 20 l0 a so 6o
"o-M
s
UTI - X53
saoi
Vile Creek Mitigation
soon
996 --
g
4M
992
990
916 _
316 —
0 2 6 6 9 W 123116 U 20R26 26L 30323136 N 1062 N 66 N 505291
p9W9 chi
i
tal��ltS�'O
�tt>_g
=ice®
UT1C -X52
Vile Creek Mitigation She
99s
996 -
Y 993
-
990 -
969
9Y —
0 >0 20 l0 a so 6o
"o-M
s
UTI - X53
saoi
Vile Creek Mitigation
soon
996 --
g
4M
992
990
916 _
316 —
0 2 6 6 9 W 123116 U 20R26 26L 30323136 N 1062 N 66 N 505291
p9W9 chi
i

din - xw
996 V%careAMMptlon
990
W 9"
9w
o w 2c n n w n
r.e.•pq
vile Creek - xss
9% Vile Crm* Mki don
-
993
9H0
9..9
9Bl
0
10 w n b % W
�.IIII..Ow� �Ie.imm•4M�i�
e
A
Y • E t
4 `
'! o
a
-
F c
o •
e '
Y
E •
Y g
r
s
Ixl wr.l..np w�Ne
f • .
9
z
$1 ••
m
t j f
1 C xFj
v
Um�yy � • a
v -
E
Y
Z
a
i
_ i

I�
A
0
F
z
Z
O
F'
V
F
N
Z_
a_
O
`V
0
x
N
d
C
�
O
N
O
N
C
p
_
N
.L O LL
N
u
6
h
�, N
d y O w a
p
d' d O. Ho
E
W `� �{ L
N Y
N H d
L o,
3
`o
v
y
A
o m
N j
O N <
m
<
v m L' u
5 O a
U O' U
o v °+
V C m
10 3-
�O d«
5 0
,^
3 m
`o
w° a a u 5
c m O u
y N
io
❑ -
m v v
'm .... w m v
n v m c-
5
o E 2, 0 T E
E IEi N
E m
o" E°
u m a a
s m a
°
>,
° E m'
u
`u
`w =
> >
n
2
CO N
u E
N Ci O H d
tq' = u a_
o
a v �'c L
°o
Z« t 'N
C p 3 >, d
w
> C W
mo
w > E
> d 0 O
O O L
m N O J
d
O m
OR m
N
L -
d E
d
d O
m .° p .'w
y
d d d
« I� i '° v
N E H �� y
'�
w- o '_' y o
• n o' E m
m Lm «am. 4
v a
�
v n N c«
E �>
Z
�E
" A _'�^ —
'`o a
a-
3 y c v v 10
r '�
v v. N
x
c m c
h m d
FC m
J O N 3«
,o
d A
In o ;°, r
1.,­2 H O 4 C d
« E d L
d E C'
C' C o Q
« a
a
'> > 'C
i0 w
N> N
iN
v
m' m IE o
W W
C7
0
a a m H
« A ID
u N
d
�� N
3
'u
+°o v `�
`y z E c
v
`m
« > `m j
v o v E
o
o c 'L" a
a-
N-
C a a W N O A
w p v Zia
O m«
t ; m o o
F � 2
m
--
m
w
Z 3 .�
N m
c �O
�1 -
y c
_ N°
o
e
°'
rc 'c° o v
O
[�.I
'o
N
"O
H v o
d
n v x
N « L u
M
a o o p
o q
3 �' « ° 3 3
a` 3
Q�i `m
v°i « m °u °c 5
¢ o `o
a
n
s
C Q
d d 7
0 (I?7
m
z
O 2
m
m
'a
N
N
z
m
`m
C
o
m
i
01
C N
Y 0
0
wv
C
�
N
O
N
C
U
O
�
c h o
p
^O
Z
W d C N
A
,^
N
Q
a
n
s
C Q
d d 7
0 (I?7
m
z
O 2
m
m
'a
N
N
z
m
`m
C
o
m
i
01
C N
Y 0
0
wv

r
ain6y
4sajw z zl � c eun ros
mnv 6 Zl Z Pin Pos
luny691 Wn ros
i4 -unp°C Z MP'd N e
SP -rl#V� 6ultM3
my Mn1$
weeVg
Y
C i�o'd I�oS
r
69'+
as a�
�aaimr caz o
�s
Qu�as� VuoN Aluno� Aur4�lltl
�aa��s�!/�
o•.�. � �..,o.� a
ti( I iii d 7 4 'I 1 M
�
DUa1D�
*'a'� ^ °k
urn�efillsanu� pog �up/H
a41
•ea
0
O
d O
N L
O
u
n' m'
d =
'o
u �O
L �
Y L
E
O
Y
Y
H
pu
n O
n H
� Y
a
u E
u O
`o c
dv
y t
c o
o �
2
n
E c
N
H Y
m
f >
� N
E
n
0 O
LL a
A
o
� c
O
C
3 �=
v N
c -
O ry
Y °1
ry O
A �
V
.L.. Y
o m
0
_ CO
C
o ;
V O
L N
~ Y
C A
d
3 c
C �
O �
v �
3
H �
m �
a Y
- O
n
V
a o
o �
> m
y o
_ Y
o
a c
a �
v
w 3
O w
`m Y
C
m �
c o'
0 0
v o
p c
_ N
N�
> u
L y
C > A
4 a
O
L L ~
_ j
c O E
O L _
> m O
o n
" $ .na
a
Z m m
c
mo
N C_ N
n n
o
c `Y
n `O
m
z
0
h
U
z
v
S
v
Y
n
C
n
d
n
E
c
O
N
v
n
0
_ n
L
O
Y
0
O
c
E
`Y
v
0
c
0
ri
Z
3
co
v` v
= s
a
m o
Y C
> 3