20140869 Ver 1_Vile Creek_96582_MY7_2023_20240102

MONITORING YEAR 7
ANNUAL/CLOSEOUT
REPORT
FINAL
VILE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Alleghany County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 5999
DMS Project No. 96582
DWR No. 14-0869
USACE Action ID 2014-01585
Data Collection Period: April – October
2023 Submission Date: December 21, 2023
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

December 21, 2023

Mr. Harry Tsomides
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
2090 US 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778

RE: Response to Monitoring Year 7 (MY7) Report – Draft Submittal Comments
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project # 96582
Contract Number 5999
New River Basin - HUC# 05050001 - Alleghany County, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Tsomides:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the comments of the NCDEQ – Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) regarding the Vile Creek Mitigation Site Draft MY7 Monitoring Report. The
following responses to the comments are noted below.

Please include a paragraph about the property and stewardship status. Wildlands have addressed
multiple action items following the August 2023 DMS-DEQ stewardship site visit; please indicate that
pending final landowner contact information, the project has had all boundary and property issues
resolved, and has been accepted by DEQ stewardship.

The former landowner of parcel 308110118, Debbie Edwards, sold the property in 2020 without informing
Wildlands. The new landowners, Ralph Stone and Candace Coffin-Stone were notified of the easement on
the property in December 2023 with a hardcopy letter at the residence. They contacted Wildlands and the
landowner information was updated with the DMS project manager in December 2023. All boundary and
property issues have been addressed and the site has been accepted by DEQ stewardship. This information
has been added to Section 1.2.5 of the MY7 Report.

Photos were provided for 4 piping structures (UT1 R1 (2), UT1 R2, and VC R1); can Wildlands discuss
these in terms of their stability? One of them is scheduled for hand repairs in January 2024; what will
this entail? Does Wildlands feel like these are all stable? How long have they been observed?

The piping structure at UT1 Reach 1 STA 212+60 received minor hand repairs in December 2023. A large
coir log was installed below the sill to stabilize the bank and extend the existing footer log. The coir log
was anchored with jute matting and live stakes. A smaller coir log was installed as a plug above the sill at
the source of the piping and accumulated sediment was removed to redirect the thalweg back to the
middle of the channel. The stream is currently flowing over the structure as designed. The three remaining
piping structures on the Site are associated with stable banks and have not escalated since initial
identification. The piping structure with minor bank erosion on Vile Creek Reach 1 STA 104+10 was first
identified in MY4 and has remained in a similar condition with no active bank erosion through MY7. The
piping structures on UT1 Reach 1 STA 207+50 and UT1 Reach 2 STA 219+00 were first identified in MY6.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

There is no associated bank erosion, and the condition has not worsened since MY6. The structure at
station 207+50 on UT1 was repaired in December 2023 using existing materials to plug the piping and
redirect flow over the structure as intended. All noted areas of concern are isolated and have no negative
impact on overall stream function or stability. This information has been added to section 1.2.5 of the MY7
report.

Section 1.3 – Proposed credit adjustments are mentioned in this section but not referenced; please
indicate that the credit adjustment (downward) proposal can be found in Appendix 7. This will be
discussed at the close out site meeting.

A reference to Appendix 7 containing the credit adjustment proposal was added to Section 1.3.

Table 9c (vegetation) – Pnols for MY6 have no values

MY6 Pnols values were added to Table 9c.

Digital Support File Comments

The submission is missing all stream morphology data and tables, please submit missing data.

Stream morphology data and tables were added to the “Stream Survey Data” folder in the digital support
files.

The vegetation submission is incomplete, bog plots are missing, additional mobile veg plots added in
2023 are missing plot IDs, please submit missing elements.

Labeled bog plot and additional mobile vegetation plot features have been added to the geodatabase and
are included in the final digital support file submission.

Wildlands submitted height data for veg plots to DMS but there was not any data in the report except
for summary in text; the average height by plot should be included because this standard is specified as
binding in the report.

In addition to summary in the text, average height by plot for MY0-MY7 was included in Table 9g in
Appendix 3 of the Draft MY7 report and in the “Vegetation Data” folder in the digital support file
submission. This information has been included again in the final support files.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic submittal of the Final Monitoring Report
and the support files on USB. Please contact me at 828-774-6221 x 107 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Mimi Caddell
Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – DRAFT i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed a full-delivery stream and wetland mitigation project
at the Vile Creek Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to
restore and enhance a total of 8,056 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream and to restore
6.40 acres of riparian wetlands in Alleghany County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 5,053.000
stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 5.703 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for the New River
Basin (Table 1). The Site is located approximately one mile east of the Town of Sparta, NC in the New
River Basin eight-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 05050001 and the 14-digit HUC 05050001030020
(Figure 1). The Site streams consist of Vile Creek and five unnamed tributaries (UT) to Vile Creek
including UT1, UT1b, UT1c, UT2, UT3, and a portion of Little River (Figure 2). Vile Creek flows into Little
River near the downstream project boundary. The land adjacent to the streams and wetlands is
primarily maintained cattle pasture and forest.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) identified in the New River Basin Restoration
Priority (RBRP) plan (NCDENR, 2009). The Site is also located within the planning area for the Little River
& Brush Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The LWP identified the following stressors to watershed
function: Heavily grazed deforested buffer, livestock access to the streams, heavily eroded stream
banks, land-disturbing activities on steep slopes, non-point source pollution from the Town of Sparta
and surrounding areas, and drained and deforested wetland areas (NCDENR, 2007).
The project goals defined in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016) were established with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to meet DMS mitigation
needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift with the watershed. The project goals
established in the Mitigation Plan focused on permanent protection for the Site, re-establishing natural
hydrology and vegetation, reducing water quality stressors, and enhancing terrestrial and aquatic
habitat.
The Site construction and as-built survey were completed in February 2017. Monitoring Year (MY) 7
assessments and Site visits were completed between April and October 2023 to assess the conditions of
the project.
This is the seventh and final monitoring year as established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands 2016). The
Site will be presented to the NC IRT for regulatory closeout in 2024. Overall, the Site has met the
required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY7 with some exceptions in stem
height. All restored and enhancement I streams are geomorphically stable and functioning as designed
with cross-section dimensions exhibiting minimal adjustments compared to as-built. Bankfull and
geomorphically significant event criteria were met in MY2 with additional events recorded in MY7
including two bankfull events for UT1 Reach 2 and Vile Creek Reach 2 and one geomorphically significant
event for UT1 Reach 2. The average planted stem density for Site is 359 stems per acre and, when
factoring in new and supplementally planted stems from this year, is 383 stems per acre. Fourteen of
seventeen permanent vegetation plots met criteria and, when factoring in new and supplementally
planted stems from this year, sixteen of seventeen permanent vegetation plots met density
requirements. Both transect plots and three of four additional mobile plots exceeded MY7 density
standards. The average stem height for the Site is 6.6 feet and is on track to meet the final height
requirement of 8 feet in the closeout year. All eight bog plots met appropriate percent cover. Nine of
ten groundwater monitoring gauges in the wetland re-establishment, wetland rehabilitation, and bog
areas met or exceeded hydrology success criteria. The gauge that did not meet in MY7 exceeded criteria
in all previous monitoring years. Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) tasks completed in MY5 are
functioning as intended and MY7 supplemental planting appears largely successful. The MY7 visual
assessments revealed a previous easement violation was resolved and invasives were reduced.
Aggradation areas along streams UT1B and UT1C were assessed and current stream LF and associated

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – DRAFT ii
wetland acreages have been presented for proposed credit adjustments. These areas will continue to be
monitored and adaptive management will be performed as needed through closeout.

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – DRAFT iii

VILE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 7 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1-2
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment .......................................................................................................... 1-5
1.2.5 Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities ................................................... 1-6
1.3 Monitoring Year 7 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-7
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................2-1
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................3-1

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – DRAFT iv
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes

Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-f Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Bog Vegetation Photographs
Gray’s Lily Photographs
Repairs Photo Log
Stream Ares of Concern Photo Log

Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a-b Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 9c Planted Stem Annual Means
Table 9d Transect Plots and Planted Stem Annual Means
Table 9e Additional Mobile Plots
Table 9f Planted Herbaceous Cover (Bog Cells)
Table 9g Planted Stem Height Averages
Table 9h Stems Per Plot Across All Years

Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Section)
Table 12a-b Monitoring – Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13a-b Verification of Bankfull and Geomorphically Significant Events
Table 14 Wetland Gauge Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Crest Gauge Plots
Supplemental Groundwater Gauge Plots (UT1B and UT1C)
Monthly Rainfall Data
Appendix 6 2023 Supplemental Planting List

Appendix 7 UT1B & UT1C Credit Adjustment Request

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report DRAFT 1-1
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located approximately one mile east of the Town of Sparta in eastern Alleghany County, NC.
The project is within the New River Basin eight-digit HUC 05050001 and the 14-digit HUC
05050001030020 (Figure 1). Located in the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province (USGS, 1998), the
project watershed primarily includes managed herbaceous, mixed upland hardwoods, and other
forested land. The drainage area for the project streams ranges from 0.01 square miles to 2.69 square
miles.
The project streams consist of Vile Creek and five unnamed tributaries (UT) to Vile Creek including UT1,
UT1b, UT1c, UT2, UT3, and a portion of Little River. Stream restoration reaches include Vile Creek
(Reaches 1 and 2) and UT1 Reach 2, which together comprise 3,047 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream
channel. Stream enhancements reaches include UT1 Reach 1, UT1b, UT1c, UT2, UT3, and a portion of
Little River, totaling 5,009 LF. Wetland components include 3.02 acres of wetland rehabilitation and 3.38
acres of wetland re-establishment.
Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in February 2017. Planting and
seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in February 2017. The land required
for construction, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project included portions of five
parcels resulting in 25.04 acres of the conservation easement. The project is expected to generate
5,053.000 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 5.703 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs). Annual
monitoring has been conducted for seven years with close-out anticipated to commence in 2024 given
the success criteria are met.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the New River Basin. While many of
these gains are limited to the Vile Creek project area, other benefits are anticipated to create more
widespread impacts including pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic and
terrestrial habitat. Expected enhancements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined below
as project goals and objectives. These intentions were established with careful consideration of targets
described in the RBRP and to address stressors identified in the LWP.
The following project specific goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016) include:
Goals Objectives
Reduce pollutant inputs to streams including fecal
coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous.
Exclude cattle from streams and buffers by installing
fencing around conservation easements adjacent to
cattle pastures. Install wells and drinkers to provide
alternative water sources for cattle.
Reduce inputs of sediment into streams from eroding
stream banks.
Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions.
Add bank revetments and in-stream structures to
protect restored/enhanced streams
Return a network of streams to a stable form that is
capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water
quality functions
Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable
pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and
sediment inputs to the system, the landscape setting,
and the watershed conditions.

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report DRAFT 1-2
Goals Objectives
Improve aquatic communities in project streams and
provide improved habitat for trout migrating from
Little River into Vile Creek. Note: Presence of aquatic
organisms and trout will not be tied to project success
criteria.
Install habitat features such as constructed riffles,
cover logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody materials to channel beds.
Construct pools of varying depth
Raise local groundwater elevations and allow for more
frequent overbank flows to provide a source of
hydration for floodplain wetlands. Reduce shear
stress on channels during larger flow events.
Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate
bankfull dimensions and depth relative to the existing
floodplain
Restore wetland hydrology, soils, and plant
communities.
Restore riparian wetlands by raising stream beds,
plugging existing ditches, removing fill material over
relict hydric soils, and planting native wetland species
Improve and expand Southern Appalachian bog
habitat to support bog species such as bog turtles.
Note: Presence of bog turtles will not be tied to
project success criteria
Widen low lying ditched areas that represent bog
conditions.
Create and improve riparian and wetland habitats by
planting native vegetation. Provide a canopy to shade
streams and reduce thermal loadings. Create a source
of woody inputs for streams. Reduce flood flow
velocities on floodplain and improve long-term lateral
stability of streams. Improve bog habitat by planting
herbaceous wetland plants.
Plant native tree and shrub species in riparian zone
and wetland areas other than bog areas. Bog areas
will be planted with herbaceous species.
Ensure that development and agricultural uses that
would damage the site or reduce the benefits of
project are prevented.
Establish conservation easements on the site.

1.2 Monitoring Year 7 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly Site visits were conducted during MY7 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success
criteria presented in the Vile Creek Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016).
1.2.1 Stream Assessment
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration and enhancement I reaches should be stable and show little
change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width-to-depth ratio. Per NCDMS guidance, bank
height ratios (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios (ER) 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. Indicators most
often include trends in vertical incision or bank erosion. Changes in the channel that indicate a
movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width-to-depth ratio in

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report DRAFT 1-3
meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel
changes indicate a movement toward stability.
Morphological surveys for MY7 were conducted in April 2023. The cross-sections show little change in
the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width-to-depth ratio with minimal adjustment, indicating
that channel dimensions are stable and project streams are functioning as designed. All cross-sections
fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type (Rosgen, 1994 & 1996).
In MY5, scouring on the left side of the stream bed at cross-section 7 resulted in an increase in bankfull
area and a bank height ratio greater than 1.2. The bed has since stabilized, the scour remains isolated,
and the bank height ratio decreased slightly in MY7, though remains above 1.2. The natural process of
floodplain deposition may have also contributed to the increase in bank height ratio. The remaining
cross-sections show little change in bankfull dimensions in comparison to the MY0 survey. See section
1.2.5 for further discussion about stream areas of concern.
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events and geomorphically
significant (60% of bankfull flow) events must have occurred in separate years within the restoration and
enhancement reaches.
The success criteria for bankfull and geomorphically significant events has been met on all monitored
reaches with at least six bankfull events occurring in separate years documented on UT1 Reach 2 and at
least five bankfull events occurring in separate years documented on Vile Creek Reach 2. At least 5
geomorphically significant events occurred on UT1 Reach 2 and at least 4 occurred on Vile Creek Reach 2
in separate years during the 7-year monitoring period. In MY7, one geomorphically significant event was
recorded on UT1 Reach 2 on 7/15/2023, one bankfull event was recorded on 3/3/2023 on Vile Creek
Reach 2, and one bankfull event was recorded on UT1 Reach 2 on 3/3/2023. Crest gauge (CG) 1 probe
malfunctioned and failed to collect data after 7/20/2023. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary
data and plots.
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 25 vegetation monitoring plots were installed during baseline monitoring throughout the
project easement to measure the survival of the planted trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation.
Seventeen of the plots were established to evaluate woody species composition, density, and survival
rates, while 8 of the plots were established to evaluate percent coverage of herbaceous species of bog
areas. The size of individual quadrants is 100 square meters (10m x 10m or 5m x 20m) for woody tree
and shrub species and 20 square meters (5m x 4m) for herbaceous vegetation bog plots. In MY5 two
transect vegetation plots were added to evaluate a supplemental planting area from March 2021.
Transect vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and species
using a circular or 100 square meters/rectangular plot.
Tree and shrub assessments are conducted following the 2006 Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2
Protocol for Recording Vegetation. The final planted stem vegetative success criterion for the Site is the
survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted riparian and wetland corridor at the end of the
required monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site is the survival
of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year (MY3) and at least 260
stems per acre at the end of the fifth monitoring year (MY5). In addition, planted trees must average 8
feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year of monitoring according to the 2021 Vile Creek
Mitigation Site Adaptive Management Plan. Vegetation plots (VP) one and two contain only shrub
species; therefore, shrub stem density success criteria of 160 surviving plants per acre at the end of year
3, 130 at the end of year 5, and 105 at the end of year 7 is used for these plots. There are no height

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report DRAFT 1-4
criteria for shrubs. The bog plots are assessed by visually estimating the percent herbaceous coverage
within each plot and must have at least 80% coverage success criteria.
The MY7 vegetative survey was completed in September 2023. Supplemental planting occurred in low
stem density areas along UT2 and UT1 Reach 1 in February 2023. Per IRT requirements, new stems are
not to be counted toward formal stem densities until the second year present. In order to provide the
most accurate reflection of Site conditions in the MY7 closeout year, density summaries with and
without new and supplementally planted stems are presented where relevant.
When excluding new and supplemental stems, the MY7 planted stem density was 359 stems per acre for
woody tree species plots (VP3 – VP17) and 263 stems per acre for shrub species plots (VP1 & VP2), both
of which exceed the final requirement of 210 stems per acre for tree species and 105 stems per acre
required for shrub species. In addition, 14 of the 17 plots (82%) individually met the success criteria with
a stem density ranging from 283 to 567 stems per acre for tree species plots and 202 to 324 for shrub
species plots. Vegetation plots five, nine, and fourteen did not meet stem density requirements at 202,
162, and 121 stems per acre, respectively.
When including new and supplemental stems added this year, the MY7 planted stem density was 383
stems per acre for woody tree species plots (VP3 – VP17) and 324 stems per acre for shrub species plots
(VP1 & VP2), both of which exceed the final density requirements. In addition, 16 of the 17 plots (94%)
individually met the success criteria with a stem density ranging from 243 to 567 stems per acre for tree
species plots and 243 to 405 for shrub species plots. Vegetation plot fourteen did not meet stem density
requirements at 121 stems per acre.
Four additional mobile plots (MP) were added to the 2023 supplementally planted areas to assess
planting success. Both mobile plots along UT1 R1 exceeded stem density criteria. One MP in the
supplementally planted area along the right bank of UT2 exceeded stem density criteria whereas
densities in the MP along the left bank remained below the threshold. Stems in the successful areas
appear healthy and well-established.
Average height across all woody plots (excluding shrub plots) was below the MY7 requirement at 6.6
feet. Three of fifteen tree plots (VP9, VP15, & VP17) met or exceeded MY7 average height requirements
and three VPs (VP10, VP11, & VP16) nearly met the requirement with average heights ranging from 7.2
to 7.7 feet. At the current growth rate, the Site is expected to reach an average height of 8 feet in the
closeout year. Refer to the plot below for woody tree height growth projections.

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report DRAFT 1-5
The permanent vegetation plots with the lowest average stem heights (2.5 - 4.5 feet) include VP3, VP5,
and VP14. Refer to CCPV figures for areas of low stem height represented by these plots. Though stems
have experienced stunted growth in these plots, over 75% of the monitored stems have health scores
(vigor) of 3 or 4 indicating that those stems are healthy and likely to survive. Vegetation plots with
moderate stem heights (5.7 - 6.5 feet) include VP4, VP6, VP7, VP8, VP12, and VP13. Approximately 83%
of these stems have health scores of 3 or 4 and are likely to survive. Some areas of obvious low stem
height were below the mapping threshold and only larger areas were reported in CCPV figures.
All herbaceous bog plots are exceeding success criteria with each reaching a minimum of 95%
herbaceous cover. Both transect vegetation plots added to the supplemental planting area in March
2021 exceed the final density requirement with an average of 486 stems per acre.
The Gray’s Lily (Lilium grayi) GPS locations are included in the CCPV. Photographs from the last known
occurrence on the Site are included in Appendix 2. Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs
and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment
A total of ten groundwater hydrology gauges (GWG) and two soil temperature gauges were established
during baseline monitoring within the wetland rehabilitation, wetland re-establishment, and bog areas.
A barotroll logger, used to measure barometric pressure and aid in the calculation of groundwater
levels, was also installed on-site. Groundwater monitoring gauges are downloaded on a quarterly basis
and maintained as needed. Calibration is completed by manually measuring water levels on all gauges to
confirm the downloaded data. Under typical precipitation conditions, the final performance success
criteria for groundwater hydrology includes the documentation of free groundwater within 12 inches of
the ground surface for 14 consecutive days (8.5%) of the defined 169-day growing season (April 26 –
October 11) for wetland re-establishment and wetland rehabilitation areas and 20 consecutive days
(12%) of the defined 169-day growing season (April 26 – October 11) for bog areas.
Nine of ten GWGs met MY7 success criteria with overall hydroperiods ranging from 9.5% to 100% of the
growing season. With a measured hydroperiod of 4.1% of the growing season, GWG 2 was the only
gauge that did not meet criteria in MY7 but met hydrology criteria in MY1-MY6 and water levels did not
drop more than a few inches from the criteria level throughout the MY7 growing season. Manual
measurements of GWG water levels were recorded quarterly during MY7. An instance of
uncharacteristically low water level on the GWG 1 hydrograph in January 2023 signifies a reading
directly after a well was pumped to remove unwanted bentonite from the bottom of the well and does
not reflect true hydrologic conditions. Throughout the monitoring period (MY1 - MY7), all GWGs have
met hydrology success criteria for a majority of the monitoring years.
The groundwater gauges representative of the created wetlands associated with UT1B and UT1C
(formerly CG3 and CG4, respectively) both met success criteria in MY7. Because the GWGs are former
flow gauges, the sensor depth below ground level is relatively shallow but still able to appropriately
capture groundwater levels given the consistent proximity of groundwater to the ground surface. The
“Gauge Sensor” lines on UT1B and UT1C hydrographs represent the limits of recorded water level data
and data at or below this line was not used in determining wetland hydrology. UT1B and UT1C gauges
meeting success criteria shows that wetland hydrology exists in the created wetlands.
Rainfall data was collected from the NC-AG-1-Sparta 3.5 SSW(NCCRONOS) rain gauge, approximately 4
miles from the Site. Average rainfall was recorded in January, March, May, and September. Higher than
average rainfall occurred in April, June, July, and August while below average rainfall occurred in
February and October. Refer to the CCPV Maps in Appendix 2 for groundwater gauge locations and
Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrographs and rainfall summary plots.

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report DRAFT 1-6
1.2.5 Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities
Stream repairs addressed in the IRT-approved MY5 Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) and completed in
September 2021 are stable and functioning as designed as shown in the Repair Photo Log in Appendix 2.
The UT1 Reach 1 (Station 205+10-205+60) natural stream realignment that occurred in MY4
(approximately 21-feet) appears to be stable. Isolated stream areas of concern are noted on the CCPV.
The piping structure at UT1 Reach 1 STA 212+60 received minor hand repairs in December 2023. A large
coir log was installed below the sill to stabilize the bank and extend the existing footer log. The coir log
was anchored with jute matting and live stakes. A smaller coir log was installed as a plug above the sill at
the source of the piping and accumulated sediment was removed to redirect the thalweg back to the
middle of the channel. The stream is currently flowing over the structure as designed. The three
remaining piping structures on the Site are associated with stable banks and have not escalated since
initial identification. The piping structure with minor bank erosion on Vile Creek Reach 1 STA 104+10
was first identified in MY4 and has remained in a similar condition with no active bank erosion through
MY7. The piping structures on UT1 Reach 1 STA 207+50 and UT1 Reach 2 STA 219+00 were first
identified in MY6. There is no associated bank erosion, and the condition has not worsened since MY6.
The structure at station 207+50 on UT1 was repaired in December 2023 using existing materials to plug
the piping and redirect flow over the structure as intended. All noted areas of concern are isolated and
have no negative impact on overall stream function or stability. Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation and
stream condition assessment tables and the CCPV maps.
Supplemental planting occurred along small sections of UT2 and UT1 Reach 1 in February 2023. Two
hundred 3-gallon container plants were planted in three areas totaling approximately one acre. Some
planted species were not in the approved Final Mitigation Plan but were subsequently approved in the
MY5 AMP (Wildlands 2016, Wildlands 2021). These include boxelder (Acer negundo), white oak (Quercus
alba), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). The 2023 Supplemental planting was predominantly successful
with stem densities increasing in most areas. Stems failed to establish in a small, isolated area on the left
bank of UT2 which continues to exhibit low stem densities but encompasses less than 2% of the entire
planted acreage. Refer to Appendix 6 for the full 2023 supplemental planting list.
Average height across all woody plots (excluding shrub plots) is below the MY7 requirement though
numerous efforts have been made over the project monitoring period to address low stem height.
During supplemental planting along UT1 R2 in 2021 (MY5), protective tree tubes were added to all
newly planted stems to deter problematic deer browsing. Most of these stems have established well
and outgrown the tubes but deer browsing is still evident on smaller stems across the Site. In 2022
(MY6) and 2023 (MY7) soil amendments were applied to supplementally planted areas to boost macro
and micronutrients, and improve cation exchange capacity, PH, and microbial communities in order to
provide greater moisture-holding capacity, organic matter, and nutrient availability for plants.
Enhancement II streams UT1B and UT1C and associated wetlands were assessed in August 2023 to
determine the MY7 extents. Aggradation along the streams has resulted in loss of 229.99 LF of stream
and creation of 0.183 acres of wetlands. Wildlands proposes that these additional wetland areas be
used to offset stream credit losses as discussed in the 2021 IRT Site Walk Meeting (Wildlands 2021).
Please refer to Appendix 7 for a full summary of the August 2023 delineation and proposed credit
adjustments.
Sitewide invasive treatment in July 2023 targeting Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), primarily
along easement fence lines, reduced species populations. Small pockets of Chinese bittersweet
(Celastrus orbiculatus) were successfully treated on the downstream end of UT2. Multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) populations remain reduced to levels below the mapping threshold after 2022 treatments

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report DRAFT 1-7
and are not depicted on CCPV Figures 3.0-3.4. Overall, no major invasive species are present in
population sizes large enough to impact survival rates of planted stems or affect general Site integrity.
The former landowner of parcel 308110118, Debbie Edwards, sold the property in 2020 without
informing Wildlands. The new landowners, Ralph Stone and Candace Coffin-Stone, were notified of the
easement on the property in December 2023 with a hardcopy letter at the residence. They contacted
Wildlands and the landowner information was updated with the DMS project manager in December
2023. All boundary issues have been addressed and the Site has been accepted by DEQ stewardship.
All action items noted after the 2022 DMS Easement Walk have been addressed (Wildlands 2022). The
easement encroachment from mowing previously present on the left floodplain of UT1 Reach 1 was
resolved in MY7. Wildlands added additional markings and horse tape along the easement line to
eliminate future encroachment. No encroachment was observed along UT2 near STA 309+00, though
the landowner was notified of correct boundaries. Additional signs will be added to this area in January
2024. In April 2023, Kee Mapping and Surveying located and stamped monument caps with missing
numbering. Damaged fencing and easement signs were repaired in September 2023. There was no
vegetation trimming observed around the mobile deer stand in the easement along Vile Creek Reach 2
and no damage due to easement access.
1.3 Monitoring Year 7 Summary
This is the seventh and final monitoring year as established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands 2016). The
Site will be presented to the NC IRT for regulatory closeout in 2024. Overall, the Site has met the
required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY7 with some exceptions in stem
height. All restored and enhancement I streams are geomorphically stable and functioning as designed
with cross-section dimensions exhibiting minimal adjustments compared to as-built. Bankfull and
geomorphically significant event criteria were met in MY2 with additional events recorded in MY7
including two bankfull events for UT1 Reach 2 and Vile Creek Reach 2 and one geomorphically significant
event for UT1 Reach 2. The average planted stem density for Site is 359 stems per acre and, when
factoring in new and supplementally planted stems from this year, is 383 stems per acre. Fourteen of
seventeen permanent vegetation plots met criteria and, when factoring in new and supplementally
planted stems from this year, sixteen of seventeen permanent vegetation plots met density
requirements. Both transect plots and three of four additional mobile plots exceeded MY7 density
standards. The average stem height for the Site is 6.6 feet and is on track to meet the final height
requirement of 8 feet in the closeout year. All eight bog plots met appropriate percent cover. Nine of
ten groundwater monitoring gauges in the wetland re-establishment, wetland rehabilitation, and bog
areas met or exceeded hydrology success criteria. The gauge that did not meet in MY7 exceeded criteria
in all previous monitoring years. Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) tasks completed in MY5 are
functioning as intended and MY7 supplemental planting appears largely successful. The MY7 visual
assessments revealed a previous easement violation was resolved and invasives were reduced.
Aggradation areas along streams UT1B and UT1C were assessed and current stream LF and associated
wetland acreages have been presented for proposed credit adjustments. The credit adjustment proposal
can be found in Appendix 7. These areas will continue to be monitored and adaptive management will
be performed as needed through closeout.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
the DMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from
DMS upon request.

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report DRAFT 2-1
METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using either a Trimble or Topcon handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder
and ArcGIS. Crest gauges were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly.
Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2016) standards. Planted woody vegetation is being
monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation
Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006).

Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report DRAFT 3-1
REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from http://deq.nc.gov/document/cvs-eep-protocol-v42-lev1-2.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2009. New River Basin Restoration
Priorities. Retrieved from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-
planning/watershed-planning-documents/new-river-basin.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2007. Little River & Brush Creek
Local Watershed Plan (LWP) Project Atlas. Retrieved from
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/new-river-basin.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018.
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2021. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID NC-AG-1-Sparta 3.5 SSW.
Accessed October 2022
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. WETS Station: SPARA 3.5 SSW, NC. NRCS. 1971 –
2020. https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/navigate_wets.html
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-geological-
survey/.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2016. Vile Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2017. Vile Creek Stream Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and
As-Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2021. Vile Creek Mitigation Site Adaptive Management Plan. DMS, Raleigh,
NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2022. Vile Creek Monitoring Year 6. DMS, Raleigh, NC.

APPENDIX 1.  General Figures and Tables 

05050001030020
05050001030030
03040101060030
05050001030015
03040101060010 03040101070030
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 - 2023
Alleghany County, NC
0 1 2 Mile
Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
¹
Directions to Site:
To reach the site from Raleigh, NC, take I-40 West toward
US70/Greensboro/Winston-Salem. Keep right at the fork to
continue on I-40 Business West/US-421 North. Take exit 6B for
US-52 North/US-311 North/NC-8 North toward Mount Airy/Smith
Reynolds/Airport. Merge onto US-311 North/US-52 North and
continue to follow US-52 North. Continue on I-74 West. Take exit 6
for NC-89 toward Mount Airy. At the end of the exit ramp, turn left
onto NC-89 West. Travel 13.7 miles, turn left onto NC-18 South.
Travel 14.4 miles, cross over Vile Creek. Napco Road will be on
the right. Take the next left onto a gravel farm road to access the Site.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
!P
!P
!PVile Creek Reach 2
UT1 R
e
a
c
h

2
UT1 R
e
a
c
h

1
Vi
l
e

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

1
U
T
2
UT
3
U
T
1
b
U
T
1
c
Vile Creek R
e
a
c
h

3
Little River
Figure 2 Project Component Map
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 - 2023
Alleghany County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 300 600 Feet
Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Bog Cell
Stormwater BMP
Non-Project Stream
!P Reach Breaks
¹
DMS Project No. 96582
Existing 
Footage (LF) 
or Acreage
Mitigation 
Plan Footage 
(LF)/Acreage
Mitigation 
Category 
Mitigation Ratio 
(X:1)
As Built Footage/  
Acreage2
Project Credit    
(SMU/WMU)1,2 Notes
962 920 Warm 1:1 882 882.000 Alignment changed from mitigation plan/final design due to bedrock obstruction.
1,247 1,260 Warm 1:1 1,311 1,311.000 Alignment changed from mitigation plan/final design due to bedrock obstruction.
714 714 Warm 2.5:1 713 279.000 As‐Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is restricted and the full buffer width is not possible
1,143 1,107 Warm 1.5:1 1,114 630.000
Excludes one 25 foot easement crossing break from 207+13 ‐ 207+38. As‐Built credits were reduced for areas 
where easement is restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
989 825 Warm 1:1 777 750.000
Excludes 77 feet of stream outside of conservation easement from 215+68 ‐ 216+45. Alignment changed from 
design due to bedrock obstruction. As‐Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is restricted and the 
full buffer width is not possible.
128 128 Warm 2.5:1 128 48.000
As‐Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is restricted and the full buffer width is not possible. 
86.21 LF converted to wetland by the end of MY7 after 5 years (MY3‐MY7) of continuos aggradation. 
234 228 Warm 2.5:1 228 89.000
As‐Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is restricted and the full buffer width is not possible. 
143.78 LF converted to wetland by the end of MY7 after 5 years (MY3‐MY7) of continuous aggradation.
1,226 1,226 Warm 2.5:1 1,226 490.000
1,316 1,236 Warm 2.5:1 1,236 461.000
Creditable length reduced by 45 LF to account for 45 LF of alignment that does not have the full bankfull width 
within the CE.
284 284 Warm 2.5:1 284 114.000
3.02 3.02 Warm 1.3:1 3.02 2.323
0 3.50 Warm 1:1 3.38 3.380
The reduction in wetland re‐establishment acreage from design to as‐built stages was mainly due to Vile Creek 
Reaches 1 and 2 having wider top widths in the as‐built survey than in the design wetland area calculations. Thus, 
Vile Creek cut more into the wetland area in the as‐built plans than it did in the design calculations, resulting in 
lower as‐built wetland acreage.
2Stream mitigation credits and stationg noted above are based on the as‐built stream centerline.
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non‐Riv
2,943.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3.380 N/A N/A
2.323 N/A N/A
630.000 N/A N/A
1,481.000 N/A N/A
5,053.000 N/A N/A 5.703 N/A N/A
Stream                                Riparian Wetland            
Table 1.  Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Vile Creek Reach 2 Restoration P1
Vile Creek Reach 3 Enhancement II  N/A
UT1 Reach 1 Enhancement I N/A
UT1 Reach 2
Project Area/Reach Restoration Level Priority Level
Vile Creek Reach 1 Restoration P1
PROJECT COMPONENTS
Restoration P1
UT1B Enhancement II N/A
UT1C Enhancement II N/A
UT2 Enhancement II N/A
UT3 Enhancement II N/A
Little River Enhancement II N/A
Restoration N/A
Wetland Rehabilitation Rehabilitation
Wetland Re‐establishment Re‐establishment
Project Credits
Coastal MarshNon‐Riparian Wetland
1 As‐Built credits (SMUs) have been adjusted where the easement is restricted and the full buffer width and/or bankfull width is not fully contained within the conservation easement.  The reductions are greater in the as‐built compared to the mitigation plan.  The as‐built credit reductions follows the updated 2016 USACE  
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation update.  
Enhancement I
Restoration Level
Total N/A
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
Re‐establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
N/A
N/A
Table 2.  Project Activity and Reporting History
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7  ‐ 2023
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Shrub Planting
Invasive Treatment
Vegetation Survey
Supplemental Planting
Stream Repairs
Invasive Treatment
Supplemental Planting
Stream Survey
Invasive Treatment
Stream Repairs
Vegetation Survey
Vegetation Survey
Supplemental Planting
Invasive Treatment
Soil Ammedments
Supplemental Planting
Boundary Marking Updated
Corner Markers Stamped
Stream Survey
Soil Ammendments
Invasive Treatment
Vegetation Survey
Table 3.  Project Contact Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Plugs
1Seed and mulch was added as each section of construction was completed.  
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Construction Contractor 
Land Mechanics Design, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Designer
Jeff Keaton, PE
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Charlotte, NC 28205
704.332.7754
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC Kristi Suggs
704.332.7754, ext. 110
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanics Design, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes and Son Nursery
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.; Foggy Mountain Nursery, LLC
Wetland Plants Inc.
December 2017
Year 4 Monitoring November 2020March 2020
November 2018
September 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2017
 March 2020
December 2019
September 2020
April 2018
April 2019
June 2019
Year 3 Monitoring
June 2019
N/A February 2017
March 2017
N/A
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
April 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
April 2017
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area 1
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments 1
Construction
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
N/A February 2017
June 2016N/A
N/A June 2016
February 2017
N/A February 2017
Mitigation Plan
Final Design ‐ Construction Plans
November 2022
Year 7 Monitoring November 2023
Year 5 Monitoring November 2021
February 2023
September 2023
June 2021
September 2021
August 2022
March 2023
June 2023
July 2023
April 2023
April 2023
September 2018
September 2019
Year 2 Monitoring
June 2022
Year 6 Monitoring
April 2022
August 2022
March 2021
September 2021
August 2021
DMS Project No. 96582
Vile Creek 
Reach 1
Vile Creek 
Reach 2
Vile Creek 
Reach 3 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1B UT1C UT2 Little River UT3
882 1,311 713 1,114 854 128 228 1,226 284 1,316
1,375 1,639 1,720 190 218 8 8 80 22,912 38
45.5 45.5 45.5 43 43 28.25 26 27, 42.5 49.5 33.5
Morphological Desription (stream type) ‐ Pre‐Restoration C3 C4 C4 E4b F4b E4b E4b B4 C4 B4a
IV IV IV III IV III III II I III
Valley Slope ‐ Pre‐Restoration 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.032 0.033 0.071 0.067 0.048 N/A 0.070
Essential Fisheries Habitat No Vile Creek Final Mitigation Plan (June 2016) and Vile Creek Categorical Exclusion (CE) 
Approved 9/15/2014No 
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No impact application was 
prepared for local review.  
No post‐project activities 
required.
N/A
Vile Creek Final Mitigation Plan (June 2016) and Vile Creek Categorical Exclusion (CE) 
Approved 9/15/2014
No 
Yes
Endangered Species Act
Historic Preservation Act Yes No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 7/25/2014)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act 
(CAMA)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion (CE) Approved 9/15/2014YesYes
Yes
N/A
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulation
Waters of the United States ‐ Section 404
Waters of the United States ‐ Section 401
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
Supporting Documentation
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3885. 
Action ID# SAW‐2014‐01585 
N/A
Resolved?
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
Applicable?
<1%
Underlying Mapped Soils Alluvial land, wet (Nikwasi); Chandler silt loam; Chandler stony silt loam; Chester loam; Chester stony loam; Clifton loam; Fannin silt loam; Stony 
Steep Land; Tate loam; Tusquitee loam; Watauga loam
Drainage Class
Very poorly drained (Alluvial land, wet (Nikwasi);  Well Drained (Chester loam, Chester stony loam, Clifton loam, Fannin silt loam, Tate loam, 
Tusquitee loam, Watauga loam); Somewhat excessively drained (Chandler silt loam, Chandlery stony silt loam); Excessively drained (Stony steep 
land).
A/D (Nikwasi); A (Chandler silt loam, Chandler stony silt loam, Tusquitee loam, Stony steep land);  B (Chester silt loam, Chester stony loam, Clifton 
loam, Fannin silt loam, Tate loam, Watauga loam)  
FEMA Classification AE
Native Vegetation Community Montane Alluvial Forest, Southern Appalachian Bog
Soil Hydric Status
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation ‐Post‐Restoration
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) ‐ Pre‐Restoration
CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous (50%), Forested (45%), Mountain Conifers (3%), Impervious (2%)
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters
Length of Reach (linear feet) ‐ Post‐Restoration
Drainage Area (acres)
NCDWR Stream Identification Score ‐ Pre‐Restoration
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
DWR Sub‐basin 05‐07‐03
Project Drainiage Area (acres) 22,912
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 2%
River Basin New
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8‐digit 05050001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14‐digit 05050001030020
Physiographic Province Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province
Table 4.  Project Information and Attributes
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Vile Creek Mitigation Site
County Alleghany County
Project Area (acres) 25.04
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)36.510530° N, ‐80.104092° W
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023

APPENDIX 2.  Visual Assessment Data 

!P
!P
!P
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A!A
!A
!A
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
!A
!A
Vile Creek Reach 2
UT1
R
e
a
c
h

2
UT1
R
e
a
c
h

1
V
i
l
e

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

1
U
T
2
U
T
3
U
T
1
b
U
T
1
c
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Vile Cre
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3
Lit
t
l
e

R
i
v
e
r
XS5
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.1
XS
1
X
S
2
XS
6
X
S
9
X
S
8
XS3
XS4
XS
7
X
S
1
0
XS11
GWG6 GWG9
GWG8
GWG1
GWG2
GWG4
GWG10
GWG5
GWG7
GWG3
3 4 8
1
5
7
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 - 2023
Alleghany County, NC
¹
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Potential Wetland Areas
Stormwater BMP
Bog Cell
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Original As-Built Enhancement II Stream
Non-Project Stream
Cross-Section (XS)
Bankfull
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point
!A Crest Gauge (CG)
!A Barotroll Gauge
Groundwater Gauge (GWG) - MY7
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
Herbaceous Bog Plots - MY7
Criteria Met
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY7
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met with MY7 New Stems
Transect Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY7 (T#)
Criteria Met
Additional Mobile Vegetation Plots - MY7 (MP#)
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
2022 Aerial Photography
0 300 600 Feet
!P
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!(
!(
!(
!A
A
A
UT1
R
e
a
c
h

2
UT1
R
e
a
c
h

1
U
T
1
b
U
T
1
c
12
X
S
9
X
S
8
XS
7
X
S
1
0
XS11
MP1
MP4
T1
T2
8
10
11
13
9
CG2
CG4
CG3
37
38
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
220+
0
0
2
1
9
+
0
0
2
1
8
+
0
0
216+00
2
1
4
+
0
0
2
1
3
+
0
0
2
1
1
+
0
0
2
1
0
+
0
0
2
0
8
+
0
0
207
+
0
0
205
+
0
0
2
0
4
+
0
0
203+00
202+00
272+
0
0
251+0
0
250+00
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 - 2023
Alleghany County, NC
0 200100 Feet ¹
2022 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Potential Wetland Areas
Brush Toe
Riffles
Structures
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Original As-Built Enhancement II Stream
Non-Project Stream
Cross-Section (XS)
Bankfull
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point
!A Crest Gauge (CG)
Stream Areas of Concern - MY7
Stream Realignment
!(Structure Issue
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY7
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met with MY7 New Stems
Transect Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY7 (T#)
Criteria Met
Additional Mobile Vegetation Plots - MY7 (MP#)
Criteria Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY7
Low Stem Height
Adaptive Management Activites - MY7
Supplemental Planting - February 2023
!P
!P
@A
@A
!(
!(
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
!A
Vile Creek Reach 2
UT1
R
e
a
c
h

2
V
i
l
e

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

1
XS5
XS
1 X
S
2
XS
6
XS3
XS4GWG6
GWG9
GWG8
GWG1
GWG2
GWG4
GWG10
GWG5
GWG7
GWG3
1
2
3
13
4
5
CG1
1
2
3
4
5
T1
T213
2
2
1
+
0
0
220
+
0
0
2
1
9
+
0
0
2
1
8
+
0
0
12
4
+
0
0
123+
0
0
122
+
0
0
1
2
1
+
0
0
12
0
+
0
0
11
9
+
0
0
11
8
+
0
0
117
+
0
0
1
1
6
+
0
0
115+
0
0
1
1
4
+
0
0
1
1
3
+
0
0
112+0
0
1
1
1
+
0
0
110
+
0
0
109+00
108+
0
0
107+
0
0
1
0
6
+
0
0
105+00
10
4
+
0
0
10
3
+
0
0
102+00
3
4
2
8
1
5 6
7
5
3
1
2
4
6
7
8
9
30
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 - 2023
Alleghany County, NC
0 200100 Feet ¹
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Bog Cell
Brush Toe
Riffles
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Stream
Structures
Bankfull
Cross-Section (XS)
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point
!A Crest Gauge (CG)
!A Barotroll Gauge
@A Gray's Lily Locations (Lilium grayi)
Groundwater Gauge (GWG) - MY7
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
Stream Areas of Concern - MY7
Scour/Erosion
!(Structure Issue
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY7
Low Stem Height
Herbaceous Bog Plots - MY7
Criteria Met
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY7
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met with MY7 New Stems
Transect Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY7 (T#)
Criteria Met
2022 Aerial Photography
!P
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
UT2
V
i
l
e

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3
Little Ri
v
e
r
14
15
7
6
MP3
MP2
130+0
0
127
+
0
0
126+00
125+00
124
+
0
0
1
2
3
+
0
0
130+
6
7
31
2
+
6
2
3
1
2
+
0
0
3
1
1
+
0
0
31
0
+
0
0
30
9
+
0
0
3
0
8
+
0
0
3
0
7
+
0
0
3
0
6
+
0
0
3
0
5
+
0
0
3
0
4
+
0
0
3
0
3
+
0
0
3
0
1
+
0
0
36
19
20
21
23
22
33
32
31
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 - 2023
Alleghany County, NC
0 200100 Feet
¹
2022 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Stormwater BMP
Brush Toe
Riffles
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Stream
Structures
Bankfull
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point
Stream Areas of Concern - MY7
Bed Aggradation
Scour/Erosion
Headcut
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY7
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Additional Mobile Vegetation Plots - MY7 (MP#)
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Adaptive Management Activities - MY7
Supplemental Planting - February 2023
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY7
Low Stem Height and Density
GF
GF
UT3
16
17
41
4
+
0
0
4
1
3
+
0
0
4
1
2
+
0
0
4
1
1
+
0
0
4
1
0
+
0
0
40
9
+
0
0
40
8
+
0
0
40
7
+
0
0
40
6
+
0
0
4
0
5
+
0
0
4
0
4
+
0
0
4
0
3
+
0
0
4
0
2
+
0
0
40
1
+
0
0
35
34
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 - 2023
Alleghany County, NC
0 200100 Feet
¹
Conservation Easement
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Stream
GF Photo Points
Stream Areas of Concern - MY7
Scour/Erosion
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY7
Criteria Met
2022 Aerial Photography
Table 5a.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Date of visual assessments: October 2023
UT1 Reach 1 (1,114 LF)
Major Channel 
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number in 
As‐Built
Number of 
Unstable 
Segments
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Number with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Footage with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Adjust % for 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 22 22 100%
Depth Sufficient 14 14 100%
Length Appropriate 14 14 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 
meander bend (Run)14 14 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 
meander bend (Glide)14 14 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 
simply from poor growth and/or scour 
and erosion.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the 
extent that mass wasting appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are 
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 
dislodged boulders or logs.37 37 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 
maintenance of grade across the sill.28 30 93%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 
underneath sills or arms.28 30 93%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures 
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 37 37 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining 
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6  
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at 
baseflow.
37 37 100%
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability    (Riffle 
and Run units)
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered 
Structures1
Table 5b.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
UT1 Reach 2 (854 LF)
Major Channel 
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number in 
As‐Built
Number of 
Unstable 
Segments
Amount of 
Unstable Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Number with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Footage with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Adjust % for 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 11 11 100%
Depth Sufficient 11 11 100%
Length Appropriate 11 11 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 
meander bend (Run)11 11 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 
meander bend (Glide)11 11 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 
simply from poor growth and/or scour 
and erosion.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the 
extent that mass wasting appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are 
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 
dislodged boulders or logs.33 33 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 
maintenance of grade across the sill.21 22 95%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 
underneath sills or arms.21 22 95%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures 
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 33 33 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining 
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6  
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at 
baseflow.
33 33 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered 
Structures1
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability    
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool 
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Date of visual assessments: October 2023
Table 5c.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Reach 1 (882 LF)
Major Channel 
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number in 
As‐Built
Number of 
Unstable 
Segments
Amount of 
Unstable Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Number with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Footage with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Adjust % for 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 8 8 100%
Depth Sufficient 8 8 100%
Length Appropriate 8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 
meander bend (Run)8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 
meander bend (Glide)8 8 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 
simply from poor growth and/or scour 
and erosion.
1 35 96% 0 0 96%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the 
extent that mass wasting appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are 
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1 35 96% 0 0 96%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 
dislodged boulders or logs.15 16 94%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 
maintenance of grade across the sill.7 8 88%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 
underneath sills or arms.7 8 88%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures 
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 16 16 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining 
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6  
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at 
baseflow.
16 16 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered 
Structures1
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability    (Riffle 
and Run units)
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Date of visual assessments: October 2023
Table 5d.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Reach 2 (1,311 LF)
Major Channel 
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number in 
As‐Built
Number of 
Unstable 
Segments
Amount of 
Unstable Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Number with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Footage with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Adjust % for 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 10 10 100%
Depth Sufficient 9 9 100%
Length Appropriate 9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 
meander bend (Run)9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 
meander bend (Glide)9 9 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 
simply from poor growth and/or scour 
and erosion.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the 
extent that mass wasting appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are 
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 
dislodged boulders or logs.16 16 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 
maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 
underneath sills or arms.7 7 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures 
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 16 16 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining 
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6  
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at 
baseflow.
16 16 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered 
Structures1
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability    (Riffle 
and Run units)
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Date of visual assessments: October 2023
Table 5e.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Reach 3 (713 LF)
Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number in 
As‐Built
Number of 
Unstable 
Segments
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Number with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Footage with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Adjust % for 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 1 1 100%
Depth Sufficient 1 1 100%
Length Appropriate 1 1 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 
meander bend (Run)1 1 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 
meander bend (Glide)1 1 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 
simply from poor growth and/or scour 
and erosion.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the 
extent that mass wasting appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are 
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 
dislodged boulders or logs.2 2 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 
maintenance of grade across the sill.1 1 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 
underneath sills or arms.1 1 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures 
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 2 2 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining 
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6  
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at 
baseflow.
2 2 100%
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability    (Riffle 
and Run units)
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Date of visual assessments: October 2023
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered 
Structures1
Table 5f.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
UT2: (763 LF)
Major Channel 
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number in 
As‐Built
Number of 
Unstable 
Segments
Amount of 
Unstable Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Number with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Footage with 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Adjust % for 
Stabilizing Woody 
Vegetation
Aggradation 1 32 96%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate N/A N/A n/a
Depth Sufficient N/A N/A n/a
Length Appropriate N/A N/A n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of 
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of 
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A n/a
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 
simply from poor growth and/or scour 
and erosion.
1 45 94% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the 
extent that mass wasting appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are 
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1 45 94% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 
dislodged boulders or logs.2 2 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 
maintenance of grade across the sill.N/A N/A N/A
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 
underneath sills or arms.N/A N/A N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures 
extent of influence does not exceed 
15%. 
2 2 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining 
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6  
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at 
baseflow.
2 2 100%
N/A ‐ Not applicable: No Engineered Structures applies to UT2 
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered 
Structures1
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability    (Riffle 
and Run units)
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Date of visual assessments: October 2023
Table 6.  Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Date of visual assessments: October 2023
Planted Acreage 17
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold 
(Ac)
Number of 
Polygons
Combined 
Acreage
% of Planted 
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0.0 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY7 stem count criteria. 0.1 1 0.3 1.8%
1 0.3 1.8%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring 
year.0.25 2 0.7 4.1%
3 1.0 5.9%
Easement Acreage 25
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold 
(SF)
Number of 
Polygons
Combined 
Acreage
% of 
Easement 
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1,000 0 0.0 0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 0 0 0.0%
Total
Cumulative Total

Stream Photographs

MY0 - MY7

Photo Point 1 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 1 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 1 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 1 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 2 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 2 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 2 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 2 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 3 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 3 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 3 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 3 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 4 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 4 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 4 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 4 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 5 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 5 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 5 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 5 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 6 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 6 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 6 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 6 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 7 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 7 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 7 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 7 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 8 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 8 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 8 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 8 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 9 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 9 – view upstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 9 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 9 – view downstream Vile Creek R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 10 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 10 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 10 –view downstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 10 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 11 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 11 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 11 –view downstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 11 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 12 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 12 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 12 –view downstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 12 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 13 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 13 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 13 –view downstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 13 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 14 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 14 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 14 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 14 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 15 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 15 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 15 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 15 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 16 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 16 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 16 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 16 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 17 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 17 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 17 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 17 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 18 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 18 – view upstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 18 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 18 – view downstream Vile Creek R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 19 – view upstream Vile Creek R3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 19 – view upstream Vile Creek R3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 19 – view downstream Vile Creek R3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 19 – view downstream Vile Creek R3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 20 – view upstream Vile Creek R3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 20 – view upstream Vile Creek R3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 20 – view downstream Vile Creek R3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 20 – view downstream Vile Creek R3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 21 – view upstream Vile Creek R3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 21 – view upstream Vile Creek R3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 21 – view downstream Vile Creek R3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 21 – view downstream Vile Creek R3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 22 – view upstream Vile Creek R3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 22 – view upstream Vile Creek R3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 22 – view downstream Vile Creek R3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 22 – view downstream Vile Creek R3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 23 – view upstream Little River (03/06/2017) Photo Point 23 – view upstream Little River (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 23 – view downstream Little River (03/06/2017) Photo Point 23 – view downstream Little River (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 24 – view upstream UT1 R1 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 24 – view upstream UT1 R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 24 – view downstream UT1 R1 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 24 – view downstream UT1 R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 25 – view upstream UT1 R1 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 25 – view upstream UT1 R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 25 – view downstream UT1 R1 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 25 – view downstream UT1 R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 26 – view upstream UT1 R1 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 26 – view upstream UT1 R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 26 – view downstream UT1 R1 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 26 – view downstream UT1 R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 27 – view upstream UT1 R1 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 27 – view upstream UT1 R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 27 – view downstream UT1 R1 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 27 – view downstream UT1 R1 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 28 – view upstream UT1C (03/07/2017) Photo Point 28 – view upstream UT1C (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 28 – view downstream UT1C (03/07/2017) Photo Point 28 – view downstream UT1C (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 29 – view upstream UT1 R2 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 29 – view upstream UT1 R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 29 – view downstream UT1 R2 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 29 – view downstream UT1 R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 30 – view upstream UT1 R2 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 30 – view upstream UT1 R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 30 – view downstream UT1 R2 (03/07/2017) Photo Point 30 – view downstream UT1 R2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 31 – view upstream UT2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 31 – view upstream UT2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 31 – view downstream UT2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 31 – view downstream UT2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 31 – view of UT2 BMP (03/06/2017) Photo Point 31 – view of UT2 BMP (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 32 – view upstream UT2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 32 – view upstream UT2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 32 – view downstream UT2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 32 – view downstream UT2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 33 – view upstream UT2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 33 – view upstream UT2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 33 – view downstream UT2 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 33 – view downstream UT2 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 34 – view upstream UT3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 34 – view upstream UT3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 34 – view downstream UT3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 34 – view downstream UT3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 35 – view upstream UT3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 35 – view upstream UT3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 35 – view downstream UT3 (03/06/2017) Photo Point 35 – view downstream UT3 (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 36 –stormwater wetland (05/03/2017) Photo Point 36 –stormwater wetland (04/03/2023)

Photo Point 37 – UT1B wetland view upstream (04/03/2023) Photo Point 38 – UT1 Reach 1 stream realignment (04/03/2023)

Vegetation Photographs

MY0 - MY7

Vegetation Plot 1 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 1 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Vegetation Plot 2 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 2 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Vegetation Plot 3 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 3 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Vegetation Plot 4 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 4 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Vegetation Plot 5 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 5 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Vegetation Plot 6 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 6 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Vegetation Plot 7 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 7 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Vegetation Plot 8 – MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 8 – MY7 (9/06/2023)

Vegetation Plot 9 – MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 9 – MY7 (09/06/2023)

Vegetation Plot 10 – MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 10 – MY7 (09/06/2023)

Vegetation Plot 11 – MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 11 – MY7 (09/06/2023)

Vegetation Plot 12 – MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 12 – MY7 (09/06/2023)

Vegetation Plot 13 – MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 13 – MY7 (09/06/2023)

Vegetation Plot 14 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 14 – MY7 (09/06/2023)

Vegetation Plot 15 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 15 – MY7 (09/06/2023)

Vegetation Plot 16 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 16 – MY7 (09/07/2023)

Vegetation Plot 17 – MY0 (03/06/2017) Vegetation Plot 17 – MY7 (09/07/2023)

Transect Vegetation Plot 1 – MY7 (09/06/2023) Transect Vegetation Plot 2 – MY7 (09/06/2023)

Mobile Vegetation Plot 1 – MY7 (09/06/2023) Mobile Vegetation Plot 2 – MY7 (09/06/2023)

Mobile Vegetation Plot 3 – MY7 (09/07/2023) Mobile Vegetation Plot 4 – MY7 (09/07/2023)

Bog Vegetation Photographs

MY0 – MY7

Bog Vegetation Plot 1 – MY0 (05/04/2017) Bog Vegetation Plot 1 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Bog Vegetation Plot 2 – MY0 (05/04/2017) Bog Vegetation Plot 2 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Bog Vegetation Plot 3 – MY0 (05/04/2017) Bog Vegetation Plot 3 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Bog Vegetation Plot 4 – MY0 (05/04/2017) Bog Vegetation Plot 4 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Bog Vegetation Plot 5 – MY0 (05/04/2017) Bog Vegetation Plot 5 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Bog Vegetation Plot 6 – MY0 (05/04/2017) Bog Vegetation Plot 6 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Bog Vegetation Plot 7 – MY0 (05/04/2017) Bog Vegetation Plot 7 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Bog Vegetation Plot 8 – MY0 (05/04/2017) Bog Vegetation Plot 8 – MY7 (09/05/2023)

Gray’s Lily Photographs

Gray’s Lily location 1 - (5/11/2022) Gray’s Lily location 2 - (6/04/2019)

Vile Creek
Repairs Photo Log
MY7

Vile Creek R2: STA 118+50 - 118+80 - Right Bank Repair 04-03-2023 Vile Creek R2: STA 118+80 – J-Hook Repair 04-03-2023

Vile Creek R2: STA 119+50 - 119+70 - Bank Repair 04-03-2023 Vile Creek R2: STA 121+00 - 121+25 - Right Bank Repair 04-03-2023

Vile Creek R2: STA 122+20 - 123+00 – Stream Repair
04-03-2023

Vile Creek R2: STA 123+00 – Rock Sill Repair 04-03-2023

Vile Creek R3: STA 125+00 - 125+60 - Secondary Channel Repair
04-03-2023

UT2 BMP – Headcut Repair 04-20-2023

Vile Creek
Stream Areas of Concern Photo Log
MY7

Photo 1: UT1 R1 STA 207+50 – Piping Structure 10-23-2023 Photo 2: UT1 R1 STA 212+60 – Piping Structure 10-23-2023
Photo 3: UT1 R2 STA 219+00 – Piping Structure 10-23-2023 Photo 4: Vile Creek R1 STA 104+10 – Dislodged and piping structure with
bank erosion 10-23-2023
Photo 5: UT1 R1 resolved encroachment

APPENDIX 3.  Vegetation Plot Data 

Table 7.  Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
MY7 Success Criteria Met with 
New or Supplementally 
Planted Stems (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Tract Mean
1Y
4Y
2Y
3Y
Plot MY7 Success Criteria Met        
(Y/N)
82% 94%
5N
6Y
Y
7Y
8Y
9N
10 Y
11 Y
12
16
17
Y
Y
13 Y
14 N
15 Y
Table 8.  CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Report Prepared By
Date Prepared
Database Name
Database Location
Metadata
Project Planted
Project Total Stems
Plots
Vigor
Vigor by Spp
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
Project Code
project Name
Description
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
Jessica Waller
9/25/2023 16:01
Vile MY7 cvs‐eep‐entrytool‐v2.5.0.mdb
C:\Users\jwaller\OneDrive ‐ Wildlands Engineering Inc\Desktop
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.  This excludes live stakes.
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.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Vile Creek Restoration Project
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
17
17
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
96582
Table 9a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
DMS Project No. 96582
MY7‐NS2 PnoLS P‐all T MY7‐NS2 PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T P‐all T MY7‐NS2 PnoLS P‐all T
Acer negundo boxelder Tree
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 5 12 1 1 3 2
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 1 1
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 331111
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Shrub Tree 11
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 55555555
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 3333131313
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 332222
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar Tree
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 442222
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 22
Salix sericea silky willow Tree 1 1
65510108820141416 13136557
21124223222 554334
243 202 202 405 405 324 324 809 567 567 647 526 526 243 202 202 283
P‐all T MY7‐NS2 PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T MY7‐NS2 PnoLS P‐all T P‐all T
Acer negundo boxelder Tree 1
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 2
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 3 4 22
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Shrub Tree 221111
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 111
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 2266666661111 44
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar Tree
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 3332222223333 55
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 112222 22
Salix sericea silky willow Tree
1112121111119997444 1313
5544443334222 44
445 486 486 445 445 445 364 364 364 283 162 162 162 526 526
1MY3 ‐ MY7 vegetation plots one and two will use shrub density requirements to determine if success critera is met.
2MY7 vegetation plots including new and/or supplementary planted stems. Vegetation plots without MY7‐NS column contained no new and/or supplementary stems
Color For Density `
PnoLS:  Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P‐all:  Number of planted stems including live stakes
T:  Total Stems
13
1
0.0247
4
526
Current Plot Data (MY7 2023)
Current Plot Data (MY7 2023)
Vegetation Plot 5
1
0.0247
Vegetation Plot 7
4
5
2
Vegetation Plot 10
PnoLS
2
4
2
13
1
0.0247
5
526
Vegetation Plot 9
1
0.0247
Vegetation Plot 4
PnoLS
3
1
3
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
size (ACRES)0.0247
1
3
2
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Vegetation Plot 8
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Vegetation Plot 3
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Stem count
Volunteer species included in total
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
size (ares)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Exceeds requirements by 10% or greater
Vegetation Plot 11
1
0.0247
445
3
1
11
1
2
Vegetation Plot 21
0.0247
1
1
0.0247
0.0247
1
0.0247
5
Vegetation Plot 6
PnoLS
Table 9b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
DMS Project No. 96582
P‐all T MY7‐NS2 PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer negundo boxelder Tree 1
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 1
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 1 1
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 332222
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Shrub Tree 331111111
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1111
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 113333111
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 1
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar Tree
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 1111
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 222222555111
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 2222222222
Salix sericea silky willow Tree
10 10 12 11 11 12 10 10 12 3 3 3
557667557222
405 405 486 445 445 486 405 405 486 121 121 121
MY7‐NS2 PnoLS P‐all T P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer negundo boxelder Tree
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 55
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Shrub Tree 3333 11
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1 111
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 111
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar Tree 222
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 5555 333
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1111 11111
Salix sericea silky willow Tree
10999 77888
4333 33555
405 364 364 364 283 283 324 324 324
1MY3 ‐ MY7 vegetation plots one and two will use shrub density requirements to determine if success critera is met.
2MY7 vegetation plots including new and/or supplementary planted stems. Vegetation plots without MY7‐NS column contained no new and/or supplementary stems
Color For Density
PnoLS:  Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P‐all:  Number of planted stems including live stakes
T:  Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY7 2023)
Current Plot Data (MY7 2023)
1
0.0247
Vegetation Plot 14
2
10
0.0247
3
3
Vegetation Plot 13
Volunteer species included in total
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Vegetation Plot 11
PnoLS
1
3
283
Exceeds requirements by 10% or greater
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
7
111
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
1
5
1
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Vegetation Plot 15 Vegetation Plot 16 Vegetation Plot 17
PnoLSScientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1
0.0247
1
0.0247
405
5
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Vegetation Plot 12
1
Stem count
size (ares) 1
Table 9c. Planted Stem Annual Means
DMS Project No. 96582
MY7‐NS2 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 negundo boxelder Tree 2 11
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 1 1 1 23 1 1 127 1169 111112 111
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 5111115 6 3
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub 111
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 19 19 19 20 22 22 24 20 20 20 27 27 27 29 29 29 43 43 43 55 55 55
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Shrub Tree 13 13 13 13 13 13 19 12 12 12 13 13 13 16 16 16 21 21 21 21 21 21
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 14 14 14
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 18 17 17 17 17 17 19 16 16 16 19 19 19
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 4334445555777999111111121212
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 36 35 35 35
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 1
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree 222777111111141414
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar Tree 22225510667 15 15 16 18 18 18 24 24 24 38 38 38
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 1111112
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 40 39 39 39 39 39 39 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 39 40 40 40 40 40 40
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 16 16 16 16 20 20 20 22 22 22 26 26 26 29 29 29 35 35 35 39 39 39
Salix sericea silky willow Tree 2
161 151 151 176 163 163 319 162 162 239 187 187 188 211 211 218 250 250 250 288 288 288
14 12 12 13 12 12 13 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 11 11 11 11 11 11
383 359 359 419 388 388 759 386 386 569 445 445 448 502 502 519 595 595 595 686 686 686
2MY7 vegetation plots including new and/or supplementary planted stems. Vegetation plots without MY7‐NS column contained no new and/or supplementary stems
Color For Density `
PnoLS:  Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P‐all:  Number of planted stems including live stakes
T:  Total Stems
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Exceeds requirements by 10% or greater
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
17 17 17
0.420
Volunteer species included in total
size (ACRES)0.420 0.420 0.420 0.4200.420
17
0.420
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
MY5 (9/2021)
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY7 2023) Total Stem Counts and Annual Means
MY6 (8/2022)MY2 (9/2018) MY1 (9/2017) MY0 (3/2017)MY7 (9/2023)
Stem count
MY3 (9/2019)
size (ares)17 1717
Table 9d. Transect Plots and Planted Stem Annual Means
DMS Project No. 96582
T1 T2 MY7 (9/2023)
Pnols Pnols Pnols
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 26 8
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree 33
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 22
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 11 2
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 35 8
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 11
Nyssa sylvatica** Blackgum Tree
915 24
1 12
0.0247 0.0247 0.0490
45 6
364 607 490
** Blackgum included in the approved supplimental planting list. 
Color For Density
PnoLS:  Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
MY6 (8/2022)
PnoLS
MY5 (9/2021)
PnoLS
Supplemental Planting Transect Vegetation Plot (T) Data (MY7 2023)  and Total Stem Counts and Annual Means
6
445
0.049
2
6
425
0.049
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Exceeds requirements by 10% or greater
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
size (ACRES)
size (ares)
1
22
2
Stem count
6
4
1
1
9
7
2
1
8
1
2
21
Table 9e. Additional Mobile Plots 
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4
Pnols Pnols Pnols Pnols
Acer negundo box elder Tree 13
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 1
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 42
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree 22
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Shrub Tree
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 1
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree
Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 11
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3321
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1
Nyssa sylvatica** Blackgum Tree
10848
1 111
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
4436
6.3 4.8 7.4 4.3
405 324 162 324
** Blackgum included in the approved supplimental planting list. 
Color For Density
PnoLS:  Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
Stem count
size (ares)
Additional Mobile Plot (MP) Data (MY7 2023)  
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Species count
Stems per ACRE
size (ACRES)
Average Height (ft)
Exceeds requirements by 10% or greater
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Table 9f. Planted Herbaceous Cover (Bog Cells)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Plot ID Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
1 <5 30 65 100 N/A 100 100 100
2 10 75 100 100 N/A 95 98 95
3 <5 75 95 95 N/A 100 100 98
4 <5 90 100 100 N/A 100 100 100
5 <5 80 90 100 N/A 95 100 100
6 <5 85 95 100 N/A 98 100 98
7 <5 100 100 100 N/A 98 100 95
8 50 95 100 100 N/A 100 100 100
Percent Cover %
Table 9g. Planted Stem Average Heights
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Plot MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7
VP3 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.5
VP4 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.8 4.3 5.5 6.5
VP5 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.3 3.2 4.3
VP6 1.8 1.9 2.6 3.1 4.0 4.6 5.9
VP7 2.0 2.2 2.4 3.5 4.2 5.2 5.8
VP8 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.5 4.3 5.0 5.8
VP9 1.7 2.1 3.1 4.9 9.0 9.3 8.0
VP10 1.9 2.0 2.3 3.0 6.1 5.8 7.2
VP11 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.8 4.5 5.8 7.8
VP12 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.6 4.8 4.8 6.6
VP13 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 3.3 4.6 5.7
VP14 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.6 3.2 3.5 4.5
VP15 2.0 1.8 2.7 4.0 6.8 8.0 9.9
VP16 1.8 1.9 2.8 4.5 7.0 7.8 7.7
VP17 1.8 1.9 2.5 3.8 6.8 7.9 11.4
Permanent Plot Site Average 2.0 2.0 2.4 3.1 4.9 5.6 6.6
T1 5.2 5.1
T2 5.0 4.5
Transect Plot Site Average 5.1 4.8
Average Stem Height (ft) by Plot
*VP1 and VP2 excluded; no height requirements for shrub plots
Table 9h. Stems Per Plot Across All Years
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Planted 
Stems
Total 
Stems
Total 
Stems/Ac
Planted 
Stems
Total 
Stems
Total 
Stems/Ac
Planted 
Stems
Total 
Stems
Total 
Stems/Ac
Planted 
Stems
Total 
Stems
Total 
Stems/Ac
Planted 
Stems
Total 
Stems
Total 
Stems/Ac
Planted 
Stems
Total 
Stems
Total 
Stems/Ac
Planted 
Stems
Total 
Stems
Total 
Stems/Ac
5 10 405 6 53 2,145 5 10 405 4 4 162 12 13 526 13 13 526 15 15 607
8 20 809 8 39 1,578 9 56 2,266 10 10 405 11 12 486 14 14 567 17 17 688
14 16 647 14 14 567 14 14 567 14 14 567 14 14 567 13 13 526 15 15 607
13 13 526 13 63 2,550 13 14 567 13 13 526 13 13 526 14 14 567 16 16 647
5 7 283 5 6 243 5 5 202 5 5 202 8 9 364 12 12 486 15 15 607
11 12 486 14 22 890 13 33 1,335 16 16 647 17 18 728 18 18 728 18 18 728
11 11 445 12 12 486 13 13 526 12 12 486 14 14 567 14 14 567 18 18 728
9 9 364 10 10 405 11 11 445 13 13 526 14 14 567 15 15 607 15 15 607
4 4 162 4 4 162 4 4 162 6 6 243 6 6 243 10 10 405 15 15 607
13 13 526 14 14 567 15 16 647 18 18 728 19 21 850 21 21 850 25 25 1,012
10 10 405 11 11 445 11 11 445 13 13 526 13 14 567 14 14 567 15 15 607
11 12 486 12 13 526 9 9 364 13 14 567 14 14 567 14 14 567 15 15 607
10 12 486 10 27 1,093 10 13 526 12 12 486 12 12 486 15 15 607 15 15 607
3 3 121 3 3 121 3 3 121 3 3 121 4 4 162 10 10 405 14 14 567
9 9 364 10 11 445 10 10 405 14 14 567 19 19 769 21 21 850 24 24 971
7 7 283 8 8 324 8 8 324 9 9 364 10 10 405 15 15 607 18 18 728
8 8 324 9 9 364 9 9 364 12 12 486 11 11 445 17 17 688 18 18 728VP17
VP15
VP5
VP6
VP10
VP11
VP12
VP13
VP14
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP4
VP16
MY1 (2017) MY0 (2017)
VP1
VP2
VP3
Plot
MY5 (2021) MY3 (2019) MY2 (2018)MY6 (2022)MY7 (2023)
APPENDIX 4.  Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 18.3 20.3 17.1 18.8 18.7 19.2
Floodprone Width (ft)37 85 42 95 156 188
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.8 2.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth 2.2 2.8 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.3
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)30.4 31.7 20.1 48.0 35.8 40.0 19.8 21.2 22.5 28.6
Width/Depth Ratio 8.3 11.5 13.7 17.8 12.9 15.5
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.1
D50 (mm)60.4 69.3 58.6 61.5
Riffle Length (ft)19.7 74.1 18.3 94.1
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.021 0.050 0.0190 0.063 0.0110 0.0280 0.0140 0.0148 0.0333 0.016 0.0360 0.0164 0.0420 0.0187 0.0385
Pool Length (ft)38.8 149.3 47.1 123.7
Pool Max Depth (ft) 3.8 4.1 1.4 2.9 1.5 3.1 3.1 4.4 3.4 5.5
Pool Spacing (ft) 36 69 33 88 31 124 34 119 38 133 55 161 87 172
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 38 90 42 93 64 71 51 119 57 133 34 127 48 88
Radius of Curvature (ft) 22 80 55 125 26 40 34 68 38 76 34 50 38 76
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.1 4.1 2.4 5.6 1.3 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.8 2.9 2.0 4.1
Meander Wavelength (ft) 160 190 100 330 119 238 133 266 125 214 177 235
Meander Width Ratio 2.0 4.7 1.9 4.2 37372735
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.86 1.09 0.69 0.74
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 42 54 43 53
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2 3.8 5.9 4.1 5.8
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.3 3.2 6.0 2.5 4.6 5.3 4.4 5.2 5.5 5.2
Design Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 164 210 87 133 103 144
Q‐ Little River LWP Regional 1.25‐yr(cfs)
Q‐ Little River LWP Regional 1.5‐yr (cfs)
Q‐ Rural Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
Q‐Revised Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
Q‐ Basin Ration Method 1.1‐yr (cfs)
Q‐ Basin Ration Method 1.25‐yr (cfs)
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)0.0123 0.0133 0.0131 0.0142
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
0.016 0.017 0.015 0.0120.017 0.016 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
1.3 1.3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.21 1.26
0.014 0.011 ‐‐‐0.010 0.012 0.010 0.014 0.012
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐729 1042
962 1,247 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
920 1260 882 1,311
122 146
120
107 124
122 141
180 206
100 120 ‐‐‐168 424 100
‐‐‐4.4 5.5 4.7 5.0
102 117
101 121
C3 C4 C E4 C4 C4
2.6
3%‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐3% 3%
C CCC
Additional Reach Parameters
2.2 2.6 2.70 1.60 1.67 3.30 2.2 2.6 2.2
175 130 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
1.20 0.80 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.1 1.2
165 175
8.7/30.2/99.4/180/24
3/>2048
0.16/6.1/38/95/139/>
2048 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
0.15/0.39/25.7/90.0/
163.3/362.0
0.19/0.53/9.6/69.2/12
0.3/362.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Pattern
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐
2.9 3.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐0.0040
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
112.0 56.3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
14.7 15.2
>2.2 >2.2
1.4 1.8 ‐‐‐1.1 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
17.2 5.3 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
2.7 1.6 3.3 2.3 2.4
12.2 25.1 10.9 13.4 15.8
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle
19.3 22.4 26.0 22.8 34.7 17.0 19.0
62.2 37.9 76.5
>200
1.6 0.9 2.4 1.7 2.2 1.2 1.2
19.6 23.7
333 119 52.0
PRE‐RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN AS‐BUILT/BASELINE
Vile Creek Reach 1 Vile Creek Reach 2 Meadow Creek West Fork of Chestnut 
Creek Brush Creek Little Glade Creek Vile Creek Reach 1 Vile Creek Reach 2 Vile Creek Reach 1 Vile Creek Reach 2
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
UT1 Reach 1, UT1 Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 3.2 7.7 4.2 4.4 7.7 8.6
Floodprone Width (ft)6 13 9 11 14 18 15 20 63 91
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)7.3 10.3 8.4 11.8 1.9 3.6 3.4 3.6 4.1 5.9
Width/Depth Ratio 5.2 16.4 5.2 5.5 12.4 14.7
Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 2.0 1.9 2.5 1.8 2.3 1.7 2.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0
D50 (mm)22.6 34.3
Riffle Length (ft)11.0 53.1 13.5 60.7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.022 0.11 0.0280 0.071 0.0404 0.0517 0.0500 0.0700 0.0110 0.1400 0.0110 0.1220 0.0291 0.0640 0.0282 0.6200 0.0149 0.0410 0.0176 0.0897
Pool Length (ft)13.0 36.9 8.6 42.5
Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.2 2.5 1.8 2.8 1.1 1.9 1.2 2 0.8 2.6 1.1 2.5
Pool Spacing (ft) 15 39 14 58 14 25 18 27 5 58 16 48 162 486 7 59 38 88
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 40 55 60 80 16 17 13 32 6 66
Radius of Curvature (ft) 12 40 15 65 8 11.8 20 59 18 59
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.5 5.1 0.8 3.4 1.9 2.7 2.2 6.6 2.0 6.5
Meander Length (ft) 57 100 115 140 31 34 64 110 56 152
Meander Width Ratio 5.1 7.0 3.1 4.2 3.6 3.8 1.5 3.6 1 7
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.53 0.84
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 26 41
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2 1.54 3.4
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 1.7 2.3 1.7 2.4 3.8 5.4 3.4 3.6 2.8 3.9
Design Bankfull Discharge (cfs)816
Q‐ Little River LWP Regional 1.25‐yr(cfs)
Q‐ Little River LWP Regional 1.5‐yr (cfs)
Q‐ Rural Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
Q‐Revised Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
Q‐ Basin Ration Method 1.1‐yr (cfs)
Q‐ Basin Ration Method 1.25‐yr (cfs)
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 0.0291 0.0320 0.0282 0.0310
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
1 Design parameters for pattern features are not reported for UT1 Reach 1 because the channel was designed as Enhancement I.
1.1
0.022 0.028 0.0433 0.0420 0.0680 0.0167
0.0261 0.0284
0.0264 0.0288
0.032 0.033 ‐‐‐0.0460 ‐‐‐0.0229 0.0320 0.0310
1.26 1.3 ‐‐‐1.1 ‐‐‐1.6 1.0 ‐ 1.1 1.0 ‐ 1.1 1.2
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐903 755
1,143 989 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
1,132 863 1,114 854
17 19 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
16 16
40 44
24 26
17 20 9 12 19 12
21 24
0.5 5.0 3.8 3.9 5.3
17 20 42
21 23
E4b F4b A/B B4a B4a/A4 E5b
0.34
1%‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1% 1%
BBBB
Additional Reach Parameters
0.30 0.34 0.12 0.20 0.04 0.10 0.30 0.34 0.30
100 68
8.2
0.5 0.6 1.39
115 75 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐95
0.21/0.79/8.6/51.0/12
6.9/256.0
0.25/4.47/12.1/70.5/1
01.2/180.0
0.7 0.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
0.4/1.7/25.9/137/203/2
56
0.17/0.55/26.9/133/20
5/256 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐N/A1 N/A1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐N/A1 N/A1
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐N/A1 N/A1
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐N/A1 N/A1
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐N/A1 N/A1
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Pattern
78
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
2.3 1.6 ‐‐‐6.1
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Profile
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
1.0 1.0
32 28.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
1.3 3.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
28.1
15.6 11.4
25.6 1.5 2.4 3.4 >2.2 >2.2
18.1 3.8 4.3 5.2 7.8
8.6 43.9 8.7 10.1 14.9
0.6 0.8
1.7 0.9 2.0 1.0 1.3
0.9 0.4 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.5
9.0
203.0 28.0 31.0 21 96
7.9 19.2 12.6 6.2 8.0 9.0
Group Camp Tributary UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
PRE‐RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN AS‐BUILT/BASELINE
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 Little Pine III UT2A Henry Fork UT 
Upstream UT to Gap Branch 
DMS Project No. 96582
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 2700.8 2700.7 2700.8 2700.8 2701.3 2701.1 2700.0 2700.0 2700.2 2700.2 2699.8 2700.1 2695.7 2695.7 2695.8 2695.6 2695.9 2695.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2700.8 2700.7 2700.8 2700.8 2701.3 2701.1 2700.0 2700.0 2700.2 2700.2 2700.2 2700.1 2695.7 2695.7 2695.8 2695.6 2695.9 2695.8
Bankfull Width (ft) 25.1 24.6 25.6 15.8 25.3 15.3 17.1 17.6 20.4 18.9 17.7 16.8 18.8 17.9 19.4 19.9 14.2 20.2
Floodprone Width (ft)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐>200 >200 143.9 145.9 144.8 145.7 >200 >200 108.6 110.9 110.7 110.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.1 2.3 3.1 3.3 2.8 2.4 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.7
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)29.2 25.8 25.6 23.9 25.3 26.3 21.2 22.7 32.8 32.5 27.3 22.3 19.8 20.9 23.9 22.2 20.5 26.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐13.7 13.7 12.8 10.9 11.5 12.7 17.8 15.3 15.8 17.9 9.9 15.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐>10.6 11.4 7.0 7.7 8.2 8.7 >10.7 >11.2 5.6 5.6 7.8 5.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 2691.7 2691.7 2691.7 2691.5 2691.8 2691.6 2688.9 2688.9 2689.0 2689.0 2689.3 2689.2 2687.9 2687.9 2688.1 2687.9 2687.9 2687.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2691.7 2691.7 2691.7 2691.5 2691.7 2691.6 2688.9 2688.9 2689.0 2689.0 2688.9 2689.2 2687.9 2687.9 2688.1 2687.9 2687.9 2687.9
Bankfull Width (ft) 18.7 19.4 19.5 17.6 15.0 13.2 19.2 19.8 19.9 19.5 22.6 20.0 24.1 24.0 26.1 18.2 18.2 18.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 188.0 188.0 88.6 89.2 89.0 89.3 156.0 156.0 96.9 101.0 100.1 100.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.9 3.6 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.1
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)22.5 23.1 21.7 22.0 20.8 21.3 28.6 29.7 31.3 31.0 22.6 30.2 44.3 39.6 41.9 36.3 37.0 37.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.5 16.3 17.5 14.0 10.8 8.1 12.9 13.2 12.7 12.2 9.8 13.2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2 10.1 9.7 4.6 5.1 5.9 6.8 8.1 7.9 4.9 5.2 6.7 5.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 2743.9 2743.9 2744.1 2744.0 2743.5 2744.7 2725.7 2725.7 2726.0 2726.1 2726.6 2726.7 2725.3 2725.3 2725.4 2725.3 2725.3 2725.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2743.9 2743.9 2744.1 2744.0 2744.4 2744.4 2725.7 2725.7 2726.0 2726.1 2726.6 2726.7 2725.3 2725.3 2725.4 2725.3 2725.3 2725.6
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.6 8.1 8.9 8.5 9.5 9.3 11.3 8.2 6.8 8.2 8.2 7.8 7.7 6.5 7.2 5.3 5.2 5.0
Floodprone Width (ft) 63.0 63.0 83.7 85.5 83.9 84.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐97.0 97.0 81.8 83.2 85.7 86.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.1 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.4 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.3
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)5.9 9.4 10.3 9.3 12.5 11.4 7.1 4.4 4.5 6.6 7.6 8.3 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.6 4.1 4.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.4 7.0 7.6 7.8 7.2 7.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐14.7 9.9 12.5 7.9 6.6 5.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2 7.3 7.8 9.5 10.1 8.9 9.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐12.5 15.0 11.3 15.6 16.5 17.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 2713.5 2713.5 2713.3 2713.3 2713.9 2714.1 2712.9 2712.9 2712.9 2712.9 2713.0 2713.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2713.5 2713.5 2713.3 2713.3 2713.9 2714.1 2712.9 2712.9 2712.9 2712.9 2713.0 2713.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 13.3 12.6 11.8 5.6 7.2 8.4 9.0 12.6 8.4 8.2 8.6 8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐96.0 96.0 85.3 86.8 86.9 86.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.5 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.6
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)12.6 9.0 6.3 4.8 7.6 9.8 7.8 6.5 7.0 7.4 7.6 6.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐11.4 24.5 10.2 9.0 9.7 10.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐10.7 7.6 10.1 10.6 10.1 10.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cross‐Section 4, Vile Creek Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 5, Vile Creek Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 6, Vile Creek Reach 2 (Pool)
Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. 
Table 11.  Morphology and Hydraulic  Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Cross‐Section 1, Vile Creek Reach 1 (Pool) Cross‐Section 2, Vile Creek Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 3, Vile Creek Reach 1 (Riffle)
2  ER in MY3 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
1 MY2 – MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based 
on the current year’s low bank height.
Cross‐Section 7, UT1 Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 8, UT1 Reach 1 (Pool) Cross‐Section 9, UT1 Reach 1 (Riffle)
Cross‐Section 10, UT1 Reach 2 (Pool) Cross‐Section 11, UT1 Reach 2 (Riffle)
Vile Creek, Reach 1 and Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft) 17.1 18.8 18.7 19.2 17.6 17.9 19.4 19.8 19.4 20.4 19.5 19.9 18.9 19.9 17.6 19.5 14.2 17.7 15.0 22.6 16.8 20.2 13.2 20.0
Floodprone Width (ft)156 188 156.0 188.0 108.6 143.9 88.6 96.9 110.9 145.9 89.2 101.0 110.7 144.8 89.0 100.1 110.8 145.7 89.3 100.5
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6
Bankfull Max Depth 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.6 3.1 2.2 2.7 2.5 3.3 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)19.8 21.2 22.5 28.6 20.9 22.7 23.1 29.7 23.9 32.8 21.7 31.3 22.2 32.5 22.0 31.0 20.5 27.3 20.8 22.6 22.3 26.4 21.3 30.2
Width/Depth Ratio 13.7 17.8 12.9 15.5 13.7 15.3 13.2 16.3 12.8 15.8 12.7 17.5 10.9 17.9 12.2 14.0 9.9 11.5 9.8 10.8 12.7 15.4 8.1 13.2
Entrenchment Ratio 7.0 5.6 4.6 4.9 5.6 7.7 5.1 5.2 7.8 8.2 5.9 6.7 5.5 8.7 5.0 6.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2
D50 (mm)60.4 69.3 58.6 61.5 82.0 101.2 70.9 78.5 77.8 92.3 78.1 93.6 49.5 53.2 52.7 71.5 55.9 59.2 64.0 79.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 19.7 74.1 18.3 94.1
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0164 0.0420 0.0187 0.0385
Pool Length (ft) 38.8 149.3 47.1 123.7
Pool Max Depth (ft)3.1 4.4 3.4 5.5
Pool Spacing (ft)55 161 87 172
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)34 127 48 88
Radius of Curvature (ft)34 50 38 76
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.8 2.9 2.0 4.1
Meander Wave Length (ft)125 214 177 235
Meander Width Ratio 2735
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
2.4
0% 0% <1%
1.26
0%<1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 4%
1,311
1.21
0.0135 0.0122
0.0145 0.0122
1.0
>2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
1.0 1.0 1.0
MY7
Vile Reach 1 Vile Reach 2 Vile Reach 1 Vile Reach 2 Vile Reach 1 Vile Reach 2 Vile Reach 1 Vile Reach 2 Vile Reach 1 Vile Reach 2 Vile Reach 1 Vile Reach 2
Table 12a.  Monitoring ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5
Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. 
>200 >200
‐‐‐
1.3
1 MY2 – MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low 
bank height.
2  ER in MY3 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
‐‐‐
CC
882
UT1 Reach 1 and Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)7.7 8.6 6.5 8.1 7.2 8.9 5.3 8.5 5.2 9.5 5.0 9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)63 91 63.0 82.4 81.8 83.7 83.2 85.5 83.9 85.7 84.5 86.1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.3 0.9 1.2
Bankfull Max Depth 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.1 2.3 1.0 2.0 1 2.2 1.3 2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.1 5.9 4.2 9.4 4.2 10.3 3.6 9.3 4.1 12.5 4.5 11.4
Width/Depth Ratio 12.4 14.7 7.0 9.9 7.6 12.5 7.8 7.9 6.6 9.9 5.5 7.7
Entrenchment Ratio 9.5 11.3 10.1 15.6 11.5 16.5 9.1 17.4
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.6 1.1 1.5
D50 (mm)22.6 34.3 29.8 48.3 45 78.1 25.9 30.2 35.7 47.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Shallow Length (ft)11.0 53.1 13.5 60.7
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)0.0149 0.0410 0.0176 0.0897
Pool Length (ft)13.0 36.9 8.6 42.5
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.8 2.6 1.1 2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)7 593888
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 6 66
Radius of Curvature (ft)18 59
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)2.0 6.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)56 152
Meander Width Ratio 17
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
54.7
8.2
86.8
0.9
1.4
7.4
9.0
10.6
1.0
N/A:  Not Applicable
<1% 0% <1% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% <1% <1%
1.2 1.1
0.0264 0.0288
0.0261 0.0284
BB
1,114 854
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
Additional Reach Parameters
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Pattern
Profile
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9
28.1 58.6 72.7
11.4 24.5 10.2
85.3
0.8 0.5 0.8
>2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 10.1
1.3 1.4 1.5
7.8 6.5 7.0
MY7
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2
1 MY2 – MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low 
bank height.
2  ER in MY3 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. 
Table 12b.  Monitoring ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5
9.0 12.6 8.4
96 96.0
8.6
86.9
0.9
1.6
7.6
9.7
10.1
1.0
52.3
8.5
86.9
0.8
1.6
6.9
10.5
10.2
1.0
‐‐‐
Cross‐section  1 ‐ Vile Creek Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
26.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.3 width (ft)
1.7 mean depth (ft)
3.0 max depth (ft) 
18.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
8.9 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Cross‐section Plots
2696
2698
2700
2702
2704
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
105+60 Pool
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull
Cross‐section  2 ‐ Vile Creek Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
22.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
16.8 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.4 max depth (ft) 
19.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.7 width‐depth ratio
145.7 W flood prone area (ft)
8.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Cross‐section Plots
2696
2698
2700
2702
2704
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
106+31 Riffle
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)
MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Cross‐section  3 ‐ Vile Creek Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
26.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
20.2 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft) 
22.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4 width‐depth ratio
110.8 W flood prone area (ft)
5.5 entrenchment ratio
1.2 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
2692
2694
2696
2698
2700
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
109+21 Riffle
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)
MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross‐section  4 ‐ Vile Creek Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
21.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
13.2 width (ft)
1.6 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft) 
15.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
8.1 width‐depth ratio
89.3 W flood prone area (ft)
6.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
2688
2690
2692
2694
2696
10 20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
112+46 Riffle
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)
MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross‐section  5 ‐ Vile Creek Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
30.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
20.0 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.9 max depth (ft) 
21.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2 width‐depth ratio
100.5 W flood prone area (ft)
5.0 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
2686
2688
2690
2692
2694
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
114+84 Riffle
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)
MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross‐section  6 ‐ Vile Creek Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
37.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
18.4 width (ft)
2.0 mean depth (ft)
4.1 max depth (ft) 
21.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.1 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
2682
2684
2686
2688
2690
2692
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
115+52 Pool
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull
Cross‐section  7 ‐ UT1 Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
11.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
9.3 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.0 max depth (ft) 
10.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.7 width‐depth ratio
84.5 W flood prone area (ft)
9.1 entrenchment ratio
1.5 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Cross‐section Plots
2740
2742
2744
2746
2748
20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
203+51 Riffle
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)
MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross‐section  8 ‐ UT1 Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
8.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
7.8 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
2.0 max depth (ft) 
9.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.4 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
2724
2726
2728
2730
40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
210+28 Pool
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull
Cross‐section  9 ‐ UT1 Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
4.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
5.0 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.3 max depth (ft) 
6.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
5.5 width‐depth ratio
86.1 W flood prone area (ft)
17.4 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
2723
2725
2727
50 60 70 80 90
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
210+52 Riffle
MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)
MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross‐section  10 ‐ UT1 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
9.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
8.4 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.5 max depth (ft) 
11.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.3 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
2710
2712
2714
2716
2718
20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
215+05 Pool
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull
Cross‐section  11 ‐ UT1 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
6.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
8.5 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft) 
10.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.5 width‐depth ratio
86.9 W flood prone area (ft)
10.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
215+30 Riffle
MY0 (03/2017)MY1 (09/2017)MY2 (04/2018)
MY3 (04/2019)MY5 (06/2021)MY7 (04/2023)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation

APPENDIX 5.  Hydrology Summary Data and Plots 

Method
Table 13a.  Verification of Bankfull Events
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Reach Monitoring Year Date of Occurrence
MY3
6/17/2019
8/1/2019
9/30/2019
1/11/2020
1/22/2020
2/7/2020
4/13/2020
5/20/2020
5/27/2020
3/31/2017
MY1
10/8/2017
Crest Gage
4/24/2017
MY1
MY2 9/16/2018
10/11/2018
2/3/2021
4/10/2021MY5
10/8/2017
8/15/2020
9/29/2020
10/29/2020
MY4
5/5/2017
MY5 4/10/2021
10/29/2020
Vile Reach 2
MY7 3/3/2023
MY7
UT1 Reach 2
3/3/2023
MY2 10/11/2018
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
MY4 5/27/2020
7/23/2020
8/15/2020
9/12/2020
1/11/2020
4/13/2020
4/29/2020
5/20/2020
9/29/2020
Method
9/12/2020
1/21/2020
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
4/13/2020
4/29/2020
5/20/2020
5/27/2020
8/3/2020
8/15/2020
MY5 2/3/2021
4/10/2021
8/20/2020
9/29/2020
10/11/2020
10/29/2020
7/19/2020
7/23/2020
8/15/2020
9/12/2020
4/29/2020
1/11/2020
1/21/2020
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
4/13/2020
MY4
6/17/2019
7/30/2019
9/30/2019
MY3
5/20/2020
5/27/2020
2/23/2019
4/14/2019
4/19/2019
MY6 9/5/2022
8/17/2021
3/23/2022
MY4
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Reach
6/17/2019
9/29/2020
10/11/2020
4/10/2021
10/29/2020
Table 13b.  Verification of Geomorphically Significant Events 
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
1/11/2020
DMS Project No. 96582
4/19/2019
Monitoring Year Date of Occurrence
MY3
Vile Reach 2
MY5
7/5/2019
9/30/2019
8/1/2019
4/14/2019
MY7
UT1 Reach 2
7/15/2023
Crest Gage
MY6
7/6/2022
8/9/2022
7/17/2022
8/1/2019
2/23/2019
Year 1 (2017) Year 2 (2018) Year 3 (2019) Year 4 (2020) Year 5 (2021)** Year 6 (2022) Year 7 (2023)
1*Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/150 Days 
(89%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
2 Yes/ 129 Days 
(77%)
Yes/33 Days 
(20%)
Yes/15 Days 
(9%)
Yes/70 Days 
(41%)
Yes/150 Days 
(89%)
Yes/24 Days 
(14%)
No/7 Days 
(4.1%)
3 Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/73 Days 
(43%)
Yes/14 Days 
(8.5%)
Yes/85 Days 
(50%)
Yes/127 Days 
(75%)
Yes/23 Days 
(14%)
Yes/16 Days 
(9.5%)
4 Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/150 Days 
(89%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
5 Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/150 Days 
(89%)
Yes/153 Days 
(91%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
6 Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/150 Days 
(89%)
Yes/153 Days 
(91%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
7 Yes/ 129 Days 
(77%)
Yes/33 Days 
(20%)
Yes/24 Days 
(14%)
Yes/85 Days 
(50%)
Yes/150 Days 
(89%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
8 Yes/125 Days 
(74%)
Yes/14 Days 
(8%)
No/4 Days 
(2%)
Yes/44 Days 
(26%)
Yes/27 Days 
(16%)
Yes/29 Days 
(17%)
Yes/34 Days 
(20.1%)
9 Yes/40 Days 
(24%)
Yes/33 Days 
(20%)
Yes/106 Days 
(63%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/150 Days 
(89%)
Yes/153 Days 
(91%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
10*Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/150 Days 
(89%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
Yes/169 Days 
(100%)
*Gauges are located in bog habitat. 
**Vile Creek Barotroll malfunctioned on 9/22/21 and all subsequent data was omitted from the report
Growing season: April 26th ‐October 11th
Success criteria for wetlands is 14 consecutive days (8.5%) and 20 consecutive days (12%) for bogs.
Gage Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Table 14.  Wetland Gauge Attainment Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Wetland Bog Rehabilitation
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #1 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #1
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐Establishment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
7 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #2 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #2
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐Establishment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
16 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #3 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #3
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐Establishment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #4 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #4
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐Establishment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #5 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #5
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐Establishment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #6 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #6
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐Establishment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #7 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #7
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐Establishment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
34 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #8 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #8
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐Establishment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #9 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #9
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Wetland Wetland Bog Rehabilitation
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gauge #10 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge #10
Crest Gauge Plot
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
3
6
9
12
15
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull Geo Sig Event (60% Bankfull)30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Reach 2 (CG #1)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
*Probe malfunctioned after 7/20/2023
Crest Gauge Plot
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
5
10
15
2710
2711
2712
2713
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull Geo Sig Event (60% Bankfull)30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
UT1 Reach 2 (CG #2)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Supplemental Groundwater Gauge Plot
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Daily Precipitation Gauge #3 Criteria Level Soil Surface Gauge Sensor 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge UT1B (CG3)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Supplemental Groundwater Gauge Plot
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Daily Precipitation Gauge #4 Criteria Level Soil Surface Gauge Sensor 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge UT1C (CG4)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
158 max consecutive days
Monthly Rainfall Data
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
2023 rainfall collected by Cronos Station NC‐AG‐1 ‐ Sparta 3.5 SSW (~4 miles from Site)
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from Wets Station Sparta 3.5 SSW, NC (Years 1971 ‐ 2021)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jan‐23 Feb‐23 Mar‐23 Apr‐23 May‐23 Jun‐23 Jul‐23 Aug‐23 Sep‐23 Oct‐23 Nov‐23 Dec‐23
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Date
Vile Creek 30‐70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2023
Cronos Station NC‐AG‐1 ‐ Sparta 3.5 SSW 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
APPENDIX 6. 2023 Supplemental Planting List
2023 Vile Creek Supplemental Planting List

Container Plants*
Species Common Name Wetland Indicator Status Percentage Quantity
Acer negundo** box elder FAC 15% 30
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore FACW 17.5% 35
Betula nigra river birch FACW 17.5% 35
Diospyros virginiana persimmon FAC 15% 30
Alnus serrulata** tag alder OBL 10% 20
Quercus alba** white oak FACU 15% 30
Nyssa sylvatica** black gum FAC 10% 20
*Supplemental planting occurred April 2023 in select areas along UT1 Reach 1 and UT2 with three-gallon containerized trees
**Species not approved in 2016 Final Mitigation Plan; approved in 2021 Adaptive Management Plan

APPENDIX 7. Credit Adjustment Request
October 31, 2023
Mr. Harry Tsomides
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
Subject: UT1B & UT1C Credit Adjustment Request Memo
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
DEQ Contract No. 5999
New River Basin – HUC 05050001 Service Area
Alleghany County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Tsomides,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) reassessed the stream boundaries of UT1B and UT1C and re-
delineated associated created wetlands on the Vile Creek Mitigation Site (Site) in July 2023 during
Monitoring Year (MY) 7. Supporting data including a potential wetland area table, map figure,
groundwater gage plots, photo log, wetland data sheets, and Interagency Review Team (IRT) meeting
notes have been included as attachments to this request memo (Wildlands 2021a).
Background
Aggradation and sheet flow were first observed along Enhancement II streams UT1B and UT1C in 2019
during MY3 (Wildlands, 2019). As these conditions persisted and expanded through MY6 (2022), former
channelized streams and associated streamside areas within the narrow valleys converted to emergent
wetlands (Wildlands, 2020a, 2021b, 2022). During the June 2021 IRT site walk, it was noted that if the
trend continued to close out, UT1B and UT1C would be credited as wetlands (Wildlands 2021a). The
items outlined in the IRT meeting notes are shown below and the actions taken are included in italics.
•The portions of UT1C and UT1B that are functioning as wetlands will be tracked in linear footage
in the MY5, MY6, and MY7 monitoring reports to determine if the wetlands areas are increasing
or decreasing.
Wildlands noted in MY5, MY6, and MY7 text and figures the progression of aggradation
in UT1B and UT1C.
•An additional photo point in each of these reaches will be added in the MY5-MY7 reports.
Photo point 37 was added to UT1B in MY6 to visually track changes in stream and
wetland conditions. MY5 stream aggradation on UT1B can be viewed in Photo 13 of the
Stream Areas of Concern photo package in Appendix 2 of the MY5 Annual Report
(Wildlands 2021b). Wildlands deemed existing photo point 28 sufficient to capture
conditions along UT1C.

• Wildlands installed stream gages at baseline for internal data collection that can be used to
verify the hydrology performance standards.
Wildlands installed two crest gages (CG), CG3 and CG4, at baseline (2017) for internal
data collection on UT1B and UT1C, respectively. These same gages were appropriately
positioned for use as groundwater gages (GWG) in MY6 and MY7 to monitor wetland
hydrology and provide groundwater data to support the potential expansion of wetland
areas on the site.
• The vegetation will be visually monitored.
Vegetation in the area of concern was visually monitored in MY5-MY7 during quarterly
site visits. Species observed were consistently hydrophytic.
• At MY7 Wildlands will verify the jurisdictional limits of UT1C and UT1B and include it in the
monitoring report.
o Wildlands delineated the limits of UT1B and UT1C and associated created wetlands in
August 2023 and will include this request memo detailing the results in the MY7 report.
• Wildlands will coordinate with the IRT and Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) prior to
closeout to determine the mitigation approach, credit ratios, and acreage of these wetlands so
that the appropriate amount of wetland credit can be added to the site and the necessary
amount of stream credit can be removed.
o This request memo was written to provide a final update on the information collected to
support the change from stream to wetland credit. It will be included in the MY7 report.
Data Collection and Analysis
Wildlands personnel performed a Site investigation in July 2023 to identify current stream limits of UT1B
and UT1C and additional potential wetland areas resulting from stream aggradation and hillslope
seepage. Two new wetland areas (Wetlands A23 and B23) were delineated and mapped along UT1B and
UT1C using global positioning system (GPS), and four new data points (DP1 – DP4) were collected.
The downstream extents of UT1B and UT1C were determined based on an evident loss of stream
geomorphology. Down slope of these points, the single streams converted to multiple, weakly-
developed, and likely transient flow paths. Sediment within these flow paths was similar to surrounding
sediment and no sorting was observed. UT1B reduced from 128 linear feet (LF) to 41.79 LF and UT1C
from 228 LF to 84.22 LF. Please refer to the attached figure and photo log for further detail.
Wetlands A23 (0.132 acres) and B23 (0.051 acres) were mapped in the aggraded areas where UT1B and
UT1C formerly flowed, respectively, and in surrounding areas within the corresponding valleys. The
associated GWGs greatly exceeded wetland hydrology criteria in MY6 and MY7. Because the GWGs are
former flow gauges, the sensor depth below ground level is relatively shallow but still able to
appropriately capture groundwater levels given the consistent proximity of groundwater to the ground
surface. The “Gauge Sensor” lines on CG3 and GC4 hydrographs represent the limits of recorded water
level data and all data at or below this line was not used in determining wetland hydrology. Irregular
data flatlines in early 2022 are associated with a malfunctioning on-site barotroll from 1/1/2022 to
2/11/2022. GWG pressure data was unable to be corrected and water levels reported during this period
are not reflective of true hydrologic conditions. Wildlands followed an 8.5% (14 consecutive day) success
criteria in the IRT approved Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016). The final performance standard for
hydrology of potential additional wetland areas will be a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of
the ground surface for 14 consecutive days (8.5%) of the 169-day growing season (April 26 through
October 11) under typical precipitation conditions. Soils in these wetlands met the F3 hydric soil
indicator and vegetation was dominantly hydrophytic.
Wetland Credits
The combined area from Wetland A23 and B23 totals 0.183 acres. Prior to construction, these areas
were not wetlands and were not identified as such in the approved Jurisdictional Determination for the
Site. Based on credit ratios from similar wetland mitigation sites, a creation credit ratio of 3:1 is
proposed for the newly-delineated wetland areas where a rise in groundwater elevations has created
conditions necessary to support wetland conditions and promote wetland functions (Wildlands 2020b,
Wildlands 2021c). This will result in an additional 0.061 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs)
potentially available to offset stream credits for this Site. Please refer to the attached summary table of
the additional wetland areas on the Site.
Stream Credits
A loss in stream credits will be necessary due to the decreased length of stream channels UT1B and
UT1C as compared to lengths documented in the As-Built report. The loss in length for UT1B is 86.21 LF
and for UT1C it is 143.78 LF. The total loss for the two streams is 229.99 LF which, at an enhancement II
credit ratio of 2.5:1, results in a stream credit loss of 86.596 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs).
Conclusion
This request memo summarizes the data collection and analysis of two created wetlands (Wetlands A23
and B23) that have been identified on the Site after construction was complete. Wildlands will
document the additional wetland areas in the MY7 annual monitoring report as well as the loss of
stream footage and the loss of stream credits. It will be stated in the report that these additional
wetland areas will be used to offset the loss of stream credits.
Feel free to contact me at 919-302-6919 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jeff Keaton, PE
Project Manager
[e-mail]
References
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) 2022. Vile Creek Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh,
NC.

Wildlands. 2021a. Vile Creek Mitigation Site IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes.

Wildlands. 2021b. Vile Creek Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.

Wildlands. 2021c. Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.

Wildlands. 2020a. Vile Creek Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.

Wildlands. 2020b. Wyant Lands Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.

Wildlands. 2019. Vile Creek Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.

Wildlands. 2017. Vile Creek Stream Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and
As-Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.

Wildlands. 2016. Vile Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.

Wetland ID As‐Built Acreage Project Credits MY7 Acreage Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio MY7 Credits 
(WMU)
Potential 
Credit Gain 
(WMU)
Wetland A23 0 0 0.132 Creation 3:1 0.044
Wetland B23 0 0 0.051 Creation 3:1 0.017
TOTAL 0.183 0.061
Stream ID As‐Built Linear Feet Project Credits MY7 Linear Feet Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio MY7 Credits (SMU)
Potential 
Credit Loss 
(SMU)
UT1B 128 48 41.79 Enhancement II 2.5:1 16.716 31.284
UT1C 228 89 84.22 Enhancement II 2.5:1 33.688 55.312
TOTAL 356 137 126.01 50.40 86.596
0.061
Wetland and Stream Credits Adjustment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 
Re-Delineation Figure
MY7 Stream and Wetland Assessment Map
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 - 2023
Alleghany County, NC
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
A
A
DP1
DP2
DP3 DP4
CG4
CG3
>Current Stream Length: 41.79 LF
>
Wetland B23
0.051 acres
>
Wetland A23
0.132 acres
>
Current Stream Length: 84.22 LF
UT1 R
1
UT1 R
2
U
T
1
C
U
T
1
B
37
38
25
26
27
28
¹0 50 100 Feet
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Potential Wetland Areas
Brush Toe
Riffles
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Original As-Built Enhancement II Stream
Non-Project Stream
Structures
Bankfull
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Points
A Crest Gage (CG#)
Wetland DP (DP#)
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Year 6 (2022) Year 7 (2023)
UT1B (CG3) Yes/169 Days (100%) Yes/169 Days (100%)
UT1C (CG4) Yes/169 Days (100%) Yes/158 Days (93%)
Gage Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days 
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 6 &7
Dec
2022
Jan
2023
Feb
2023
Mar
2023
Apr
2023
May
2023
Jun
2023
Jul
2023
Aug
2023
Sep
2023
Oct
2023
Nov
2023
0
2
4
6
8
10
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
2023-07-18
2023-06-18
2023-05-19
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product
2023-07-18 3.440945 4.67126 11.464567 Wet 3 3 9
2023-06-18 3.427165 6.679134 4.562992 Normal 2 2 4
2023-05-19 4.177953 7.019685 4.96063 Normal 2 1 2
Result Wetter than Normal - 15
Coordinates 36.505859, -81.105898
Observation Date 2023-07-18
Elevation (ft)2742.596
Drought Index (PDSI)Mild wetness (2023-06)
WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent
SPARTA 3.5 SSW 36.4592, -81.1528 3011.155 4.145 268.559 2.979 11173 90
SPARTA 0.8 W 36.5018, -81.1353 3003.937 3.1 7.218 1.417 4 0
SPARTA 2.8 NE 36.5326, -81.0866 2745.079 6.264 266.076 4.486 78 0
SPARTA 3.6 NW 36.5439, -81.1633 2688.976 5.881 322.179 4.541 24 0
TRANSOU 36.4003, -81.3053 2833.99 9.404 177.165 5.898 72 0
JEFFERSON 2 E 36.4175, -81.4297 2758.858 15.659 252.297 10.997 2 0
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
2
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Daily Precipitation Gauge #UT1B Criteria Level Soil Surface Gauge Sensor 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge UT1B (CG3)
Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
2
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Daily Precipitation Gauge #UT1C Criteria Level Soil Surface Gauge Sensor 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge UT1C (CG4)
Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
169 max consecutive days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Daily Precipitation Gauge #3 Criteria Level Soil Surface Gauge Sensor 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge UT1B (CG3)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Groundwater Gauge Plot
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Daily Precipitation Gauge #4 Criteria Level Soil Surface Gauge Sensor 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Vile Creek Groundwater Gauge UT1C (CG4)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023
158 max consecutive days

Wetland Data Sheets

Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Vile Creek Mitigation Site City/County: Alleghany
DP1
7/20/2023
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Jess Waller
2-8%concanveseep
Datum:NAD83-81.10589836.505859LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:CaF- Chandler silt loam 25-45% slopes & TaD- Tate Loam 10-25% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point collected in formerly aggraded stream now wetland area. Defined channel is lost further upslope and numerous rills and sheetflow are present across the wetland. The USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool indicates that the site experienced normal conditions in the 2 months leading up to the sampling date and wetter than normal conditions at the time of sampling. Data point is representative of Wetland A23.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont RegionSee ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP1
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
135
0
102
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
No
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute % Cover
100.0%Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2
Platanus occidentalis
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )Indicator StatusDominant Species?
No
Vernonia noveboracensis
No
No
No
No
15
FAC3
2
Leersia oryzoides
5Impatiens capensis FACW
Scirpus expansus 65
2
2
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FAC
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
100
FACNo
20
11
50
Solidago rugosa
Persicaria sp.
Carex sp.
Persicaria sagittata
5
3
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
13
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
39
82
0
Multiply by:
14
1.32Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
82
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
No FAC
OBL
)5
=Total Cover
OBL
OBL
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M2
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
DP1SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%Matrix
C2.5Y 4/1
2.5Y 3/2
10YR 4/66-12
1-6
Loc2
98
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
No X X
No X
X
Yes
Yes
Yes X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Vile Creek Mitigation Site Alleghany
DP2
7/20/2023
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Jess Waller
10-20%nonehillside
Datum:NAD83-81.10594036.505821LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:CaF- Chandler silt loam, 25-45% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point collected on upland hillside adjacent to Wetland A23. The USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool indicates that the site experienced normal conditions in the 2 months leading up to the sampling date and wetter than normal conditions at the time of sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont RegionSee ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP2
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
298
0
100
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute % Cover
100.0%Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )Indicator StatusDominant Species?
No2Vernonia noveboracensis
Solidago rugosa 98
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
100
2050
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
98
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
294
0
0
Multiply by:
4
2.98Prevalence Index = B/A =
2
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FAC
FACW
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%Texture
DP2SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%Matrix
10YR 4/60-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Vile Creek Mitigation Site Alleghany
DP3
7/20/2023
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Jess Waller
2-5%concaveseep
Datum:NAD83-81.10388636.506721LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:TaD- Tate Loam, 10-25%
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point collected in formerly aggraded stream now wetland area. Defined channel is lost further upslope and numerous rills and sheetflow are present across the wetland. The USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool indicates that the site experienced normal conditions in the 2 months leading up to the sampling date and wetter than normal conditions at the time of sampling. Data point is representative of Wetland B23.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont RegionSee ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP3
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
200
0
100
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute % Cover
100.0%Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )Indicator StatusDominant Species?
Impatiens capensis
No
No
No
No
15
FACW5
Scirpus expansus
10Carex sp. FAC
Juncus effusus 60
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FAC
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
100
FACWNo
2050
Solidago rugosa
Vernonia noveboracensis
5
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
15
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
45
15
0
Multiply by:
140
2.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
70
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
15
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FACW
OBL
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
2 M
DP3SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%Matrix
10YR 4/1 10YR 5/80-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey98C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
No X X
No X
X
Yes
Yes
Yes X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Vile Creek Mitigation Site Alleghany
DP4
7/20/2023
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Jess Waller
2-5%nonehillside
Datum:NAD83-81.10385436.506729LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:TaD- Tate Loam, 10-25% slopes
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point collected on upland hillside adjacent to Wetland B23. The USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool indicates that the site experienced normal conditions in the 2 months leading up to the sampling date and wetter than normal conditions at the time of sampling.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont RegionSee ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP4
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
330
0
110
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute % Cover
100.0%Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
10
Betula nigra
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )Indicator StatusDominant Species?
Yes
5
Solanum carolinense
No
No
No
10
5
Platanus occidentalis
Festuca sp.
10Dichanthelium clandestinum FAC
Solidago rugosa 70
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACU
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
100
FACUNo
20
25
50
Sorghum halepense
5
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
90
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
270
0
40
Multiply by:
20
3.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
Yes FACW
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FAC
FAC
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%Texture
DP4SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%Matrix
10YR 4/30-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

Photo Log
Stream and Wetland Reassessment

Photo 1 – UT1B Wetland A23 (07/20/2023) Photo 2 - UT1B Wetland A23 upland (07/20/2023)

Photo 3 – UT1B Wetland A23 soil sample (07/20/2023) Photo 4 - UT1B Wetland A23 upland soil sample (07/20/2023)

Photo 5 – UT1B current stream (07/20/2023)

Photo 6 – UT1B GWG (04/20/2023)

Photo 7 – UT1C Wetland B23 (07/20/2023) Photo 8 - UT1B Wetland B23 upland (07/20/2023)

Photo 9 - UT1C Wetland B23 soil sample (07/20/2023) Photo 10 - UT1B Wetland B23 upland soil sample (07/20/2023)

Photo 11 – UT1C current stream (07/20/2023) Photo 12 – UT1C GWG (04/20/2023)

MEETING NOTES
MEETING: IRT Site Walk
VILE CREEK Mitigation Site
New River Basin 05050001; Alleghany County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 5999
DMS Project No. 96582
USACE ID No.: 2014-01585
DWR No.: 14-0869
Wildlands Project No. 005-02147

DATE: Thursday, June 24, 2021, 8:30 am to 12 pm

LOCATION: Sparta
Alleghany County, NC

Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Kim Browning, USACE
Casey Haywood, USACE
Erin Davis, NC DWR
Andrea Leslie, NC WRC
Paul Wiesner, NC DMS
Melonie Allen, NC DMS
Jeff Keaton, Wildlands Engineering
Kristi Suggs, Wildlands Engineering
Jordan Hessler, Wildlands Engineering

Meeting Notes
1. Jeff Keaton began the meeting with an overview of the project.
2. The group decided to shuttle up to the top of Vile Creek Reach 1 to start the site walk. The group briefly
stopped to examine and discuss the existing BMP. IRT members expressed a minor concern the BMP has
an existing cattail population and wildlands should consider removing or reducing it. The headcut at the
inlet to the BMP was discussed. Although it didn’t seem to be a priority to the IRT, Jeff said Wildlands
would add some rock to stabilize it.
3. The group continued the tour at the top of Vile Creek Reach 1.
4. IRT members asked about the Bog vegetation criteria. Wildlands explained it was a visual assessment
based on percent coverage of herbaceous vegetation in bog vegetation plots.
5. Erin Davis and others discussed the tree density in the riparian tree zone on Vile Creek Reach 1. Due to
Vile Creek being cold stream credits, denser woody vegetation is expected to shade the stream,
especially along the top of bank. This area should be shown as a problem area in the MY5 monitoring
Vile Creek Mitigation Site – Meeting Notes

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
VILE CREEK Mitigation Site
IRT Site Walk
report. Supplemental planting of containerized trees should be completed during the next dormant
season. Note: Vile Creek Reach 1 only has trees planted withing the first ten feet from the top of the
streambanks. Beyond that zone, shrubs were planted except in the bog areas, which were planted with
herbaceous vegetation. A description of the planting zones and a detailed map are included in the
mitigation plan.
6. The group continued to walk down the right floodplain of Vile Creek Reach 1 and moved on to the right
bank of Vile Creek Reach 2 and UT1 Reach 2.
7. The group reviewed the newly planted trees. Jeff explained that the tree cones were used to prevent
deer browse. When these new trees were planted, a pepper pellet was also placed beneath the root
ball which gives the leaves and branches a bad taste, also to discourages deer browse. It was
determined the tree cones protecting the newly planted trees from deer browse were not readily
biodegradable and should be removed by closeout.
8. Jordan and Kristi asked for input of method of monitoring newly planted trees. Erin discussed the
possibility of running transects through the planted areas to determine planting success. Wildlands will
consider if adding the transect is the best approach. Wildlands will continue to monitor the vegetation
plots in MY5, MY6, and MY7. If the vegetation plots are not trending towards success Wildlands will add
a year of vegetation monitoring.
9. The group walked up the left floodplain of UT1 Reach 2 and stopped to discuss the aggradation on UT1C.
Todd Tugwell and others determined the lower section was functioning as a linear wetland feature
rather than a stream. If this trend continues to close out this stream and UT1B (which is in a similar
situation) will be credited as wetlands. The portions of UT1C and UT1B that are functioning as wetlands
will be tracked in linear footage in the MY5, MY6, and MY7 monitoring reports to determine if the
wetlands areas are increasing or decreasing. An additional photo point in each of these reaches will be
added in the MY5-MY7 reports as well. Wildlands believes these areas will meet the wetland
performance standards for hydrology and vegetation. Wildlands installed stream gages at the baseline
for internal data collection that can be used to verify the hydrology performance standard. The
vegetation will be visually monitored. At MY7 Wildlands will verify the jurisdictional limits of UT1C and
UT1B and include it in the monitoring report. Wildlands will coordinate with the IRT and DMS prior to
closeout to determine the mitigation approach, credit ratios, and acreage of these wetlands so that the
appropriate amount of wetland credit can be added to the site and the necessary amount of stream
credit can be removed.
10. The group decided not to continue up and see UT1 Reach 1. The section of channel that naturally
realigned itself and left an oxbow on UT1 Reach 1 was discussed. IRT decided they did not need to see
the stream realignment. However, they want Wildlands to add a photo point to the monitoring report to
document its stability over time.
11. Next the group walked Vile Creek Reach 2 and discussed the stream banks that have eroded and sill
structures that have failed. After a review of all three banks and the structures, the IRT determined
Wildlands will need to repair these areas. The repairs will be completed in MY5 and documented in the
MY5 monitoring report. A map showing the locations of the repairs is attached.
12. IRT members noted treatment is needed for many small patches of multiflora rose throughout the site.
13. The site review continued to Vile Creek reach 3. IRT members expressed concern about the bare bank
along the overflow channel. Wildlands will stabilize the erosion on the bank and replant this area with
bare roots to establish woody vegetation. The repairs will be completed in MY5 and documented in the
MY5 monitoring report. A map showing the locations of the repair is attached.
14. Concern was expressed over the lack of woody vegetation on the left bank of Vile Creek Reach 3. IRT
suggested Wildlands supplementally plant the area if additional planting is done on the project.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site – Meeting Notes

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
VILE CREEK Mitigation Site
IRT Site Walk
15. The final stream the group reviewed was UT3. There was discussion that understory planting was not
done along this reach. However, understory planting was done along this reach and the right floodplain
of Vile Creek Reaches 2 and 3. Species planted included spicebush, winter berry, red chokeberry, and
American hornbeam.
16. Part of the group tried to find one of the known Gray’s Lily locations but couldn’t find it. Wildlands will
go back and resurvey during peak blooming time in June and July of MY6 to try both instances of the
Gray’s Lily on site.
17. There was a summary discussion at the end of the site review. The key points included:
• Wildlands will repair the lower end of Vile Creek Reach 2 including bank repairs and
repair/replace log sills and a boulder sill (see attached map).
• Wildlands will plant bare spots along Vile Creek Reach 1 to provide shade for cold water stream
habitat. The planting density will be 200 trees per acre, the plants will be 1-gallon containerized
plants, and the likely species to be planted include persimmon, sycamore, tag alder, American
basswood, and black cherry. The last two are deviations from the planting plan in the approved
mitigation plan and need approval of the IRT before planting begins. Live stakes may also be
planted on the stream banks. These will be species from the approved mitigation plan planting
list but may also include black willow, if approved.
• Wildlands will not repair UT1b and UT1c where they have filled in. These areas will likely be
converted to wetland credits at closeout. Additional monitoring to be performed for MY5-MY7
is discussed in item #9 above.
• Wildlands will treat invasives on the project site including multiflora rose, Chinese privet, and
Japanese barberry.
• As a follow-up to the discussion of cattails in the BMP at the top of UT2, Wildlands’ position on
this issue is that the cattails are not negatively affecting the performance of the BMP. So, at this
time, we are not planning to treat cattails on the site unless IRT members inform us of a strong
preference to treat them.
• Wildlands will perform supplemental planting along the left bank of Vile Creek Reach 3 during
the next dormant season.
• The IRT noted that if the repairs and supplemental planting were completed in in MY5 (2021),
MY6 and MY7 should be sufficient to close the site and additional monitoring would not be
required. This is contingent upon the repairs and supplemental planting showing success during
the remaining 2-year monitoring term. The MY5-MY7 monitoring reports will discuss the
success of the repairs and supplemental plantings.
• The IRT members agreed to release the MY4 (2020) credits as proposed.

Attachments:
1. Repair Plan Map
2. MY4 Project Components Map