20140869 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report 2017_20181220

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
VILE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Alleghany County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 5999
DMS Project No. 96582
DWR No. 14-0869
USACE Action ID 2014-01585
Data Collection Period: May - October 2017
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2017
Final Submission Date: December 20, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed a full -delivery stream and wetland mitigation project
at the Vile Creek Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to
restore and enhance a total of 8,056 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream and to restore
6.40 acres of riparian wetlands in Alleghany County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 5,053 stream
mitigation units (SMUs), and 5.70 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 Cataloging Unit (CU) 05050001 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (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 the Little River (Figure 2). Vile Creek
flows into the Little River near the downstream site 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: deforested buffers that are heavily grazed, 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) 1
assessments and site visits were completed between April and October 2017 to assess the conditions of
the project.
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY1. All
restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed. Three bankfull events have
occurred on Vile Creek Reach 2 and two bankfull events have occurred on UT1 Reach 2 since
construction completion. The overall average stem density for the Site is 595 stems per acre and is
therefore on track to meet the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre for trees and 160 plants per
acres for shrubs. The average bog coverage is 79% which is a 68% improvement from as -built. All ten
gages in the wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation areas are meeting or exceeding hydrology
success criteria.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL

VILE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 2
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2
Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Table 3
1.2.1
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
Project Information and Attributes
1.2.2
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-2
1.2.3
Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.4
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
1.2.5
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
1.3
Monitoring Year 1 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Bog Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a -b Planted and Total Stems and Planted Herbaceous Cover (Bog Cells)
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a -b Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located approximately one mile east of the Town Sparta in eastern Alleghany County, NC. The
project is within the New River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 05050001 and the 14 -digit
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 05050001030020 (Figure 1). Located in the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge
Province (USGS, 1998), the project watershed primarily includes managed herbaceous, mixed upland
hardwoods, and other forested land. The drainage area for the project streams range from 0.01 square
miles to 2.69 square miles.
The project streams consist of Vile Creek and five unnamed tributaries (UT) to Vile Creek including UT1,
UT1b, UT1c, UT2, UT3, and a portion of the Little River. Stream restoration reaches include Vile Creek
(Reaches 1 and 2) and UT1 Reach 2, which together comprising 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
stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 5.70 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs). Annual monitoring
will be conducted for seven years with close-out anticipated to commence in 2024 given the success
criteria are met.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the New River Basin. While many of
these benefits are limited to the Vile Creek project area; others, such as pollutant removal, reduced
sediment loading, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther -reaching effects. Expected
improvements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as project goals and
objectives. These project goals were established with careful consideration of goals and objectives that
were described in the RBRP and to address stressors identified in the LWP.
The following project specific goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2016) include:
• Reduce pollutant inputs to streams including fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous;
• Reduce inputs of sediment into streams from eroding stream banks;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic,
and water quality functions;
• 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;
• 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;
• Restore wetland hydrology, soils, and plant communities;
• 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;
• 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
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 1-1

streams. Reduce flood flow velocities on floodplain and improve long-term lateral stability of
streams. Improve bog habitat by planting herbaceous wetland plants; and
Ensure that development and agricultural uses that would damage the site or reduce the
benefits of project are prevented.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY1 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
Morphological surveys for the MY1 were conducted in September 2017. All streams within the site
appear stable with some areas exhibiting minor scour.
In general, the cross-sections show little change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -
to -depth ratio. All cross-sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate
stream type (Rosgen, 1994 & 1996). However, cross-section seven had an increase in the cross-section
area and bankfull depth. This is not considered a concern since minor fluctuations are expected after
newly completed construction. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any headcuts creating this change
but rather a micro -habitat that has developed within the chunky riffle structure. Wildlands will continue
watch this matter in upcoming monitoring years.
Pebble counts in Vile Creek and UT1 indicate maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and
finer particles in the pool features. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, Current
Condition Plan View (CCPV) map, and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological
data and plots.
1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern
On July 18, 2017, Wildlands, along with the Inter -Agency Review Team (IRT) and DMS observed some
erosion beginning on the outside of a meander bend located at the downstream end of Vile Creek Reach
2. The agencies agreed that the area does not need remedial action at this point, as some fluctuations
are expected following construction. Wildlands will continue to monitor this area and take necessary
action to stabilize the bank, if the bank erosion advances.
1.2.3 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. Automated stream gages documented three bankfull events on Vile Creek
Reach 2 and two bankfull events on UT1 Reach 2; however, no geomorphically significant events were
recorded during the monitoring year 1 period. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and
plots.
1.2.4 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 17 woody vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project
easement area. The woody vegetation plots were installed using a 100 square meter quadrant (10m x
10m or 5m x 20m). The final woody vegetative success criteria will be 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 will be 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
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

of the fifth monitoring year (MY5). Planted trees must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end
of the seventh year of monitoring. The success criteria for shrubs will be 160 surviving plants per acre at
year 3, 130 at year 5, and 105 at year 7. There are no height criteria for shrubs. In addition, eight
herbaceous vegetation bog plots were installed using a 20 square meter (5m x 4m) quadrant. The bog
plots are assessed by visually estimating the percent coverage within each plot and must have 80%
coverage for success criteria.
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in September 2017. The 2017 vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 595 stems per acre, which is greater than the interim requirement of 320
stems/acre required at MY3; however, the stem vigor for the woody vegetation was low throughout the
Site. The average stem height is 1.9 feet and 69% of the stems have a vigor of 2 or greater. Poor soil
nutrients, suffocation due to dense herbaceous coverage or dry soil conditions could all be factors
impacting stem vigor. Low vigor can occur following construction; however, rejuvenation is common and
typically occurs by MY2 or MY3 once the Site has been able to acclimate to the recent ground
disturbance. Despite the low vigor, all 17 of the plots are on track to meet the success criteria required
for MY7 (Table 9a, Appendix 3). The bog herbaceous coverage has become well established since project
construction (Table 9b, Appendix 3). Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the
vegetation condition assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.5 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Invasive species including Japanese barberry (eerberis thunbergii), Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus
orbiculatus), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are present within and around the Site. These species
are not impacting survival rates of planted stems at this time; however, the volume of invasive plants
warranted treatment to prevent any future impact. The treatment included cutting the plants and
applying glyphosate the stumps or stems. Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment
table and the CCPV map.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
A total of ten groundwater hydrology gages (GWGs) were established during the baseline monitoring
within the wetland rehabilitation, wetland re-establishment, and bog areas. A barotroll logger (to
measure barometric pressure used in the calculations of groundwater levels with gage transducer data)
and a rain gage were also installed on Site. All monitoring gages are downloaded on a quarterly basis
and maintained as needed. The final performance standard for wetland hydrology will be a free
groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 14 consecutive days (8.5%) of the
defined 169 -day growing season which is measured under typical precipitation conditions. The final
performance standard for bog areas will be a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground
surface for 20 consecutive days (12%) of the growing season.
All ten GWGs met the success criteria for MY1. The measured hydroperiod ranged from 23% to 100% of
the growing season. Refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for
groundwater hydrology summary data and plots.
1.2.7 Wetland Areas of Concern
During a site visit with Wildlands, along with the IRT and DMS, the agencies observed a few areas that
required minor adjustments. The middle bog area on the left floodplain along Vile Creek Reach 1
contained concentrated flow paths that conveyed water through the bog. To prevent a potential
headcut, the flow was dispersed by placing three coir logs across the concentrated flow paths. This
placement is intended to be a temporary measure to prevent erosion until the vegetation is established.
At the time of the last site visit, the vegetation growth had improved in this area.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

In addition, the most downstream bog berm was constructed too high and backed up 6-10 inches of
water behind the berm. To alleviate this excess water, Wildlands manually lowered the spillway
elevation by approximately six inches to reduce the water level.
The third area of concern was at the upstream end of Vile Creek Reach 2, where there was a floodplain
outlet not functioning properly; therefore, required Wildlands to relocate the outlet to allow the
drainage to enter the channel through the natural flow. None of these adjustments affected the GWGs.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
The streams within the Site appear to be stable and functioning as designed. Multiple bankfull events
were documented on both Vile Creek and UT1; therefore, the Site has partially met the stream
hydrological success criteria. The average stem density for the Site is 595 stems per acres and is on track
to meeting the MY7 success criteria and all individual vegetation plots meet the MY3 success criteria as
noted in the CCPV. Each groundwater gage met the success criteria for MY1. Planned management and
maintenance will continue to address any areas of concerns that should advance or arise.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using either a Trimble or Topcon handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder
and ArcGIS. Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly.
Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) 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 1 Annual Report — FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from http://deq.nc.gov/document/cvs-eep-protocol-v42-lev1-2
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved
from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
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
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). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology.
https:Hdeq.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.
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. Figures and Tables

L ; Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
0114�
NORTI-I ,-AR( "LINA
05050001030015 t`
-..-00� Moc c,
C<eeV F, mice
a ,
1� " W-40+40 V
�ot-
0 W
AL
e*. j b5050001030020
1 �
0505001
it 1.
�1
®� LittleR��et
1
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.
4►
1
-Made f1041ey
f
�4
stir
rr
40
Directions to Site:
To reach the site from Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West toward
US70/Greensboro/Winston-Salem. Keep right at the fork to
continue on 1-40 Business West/US-421 North. Take exit 6B for
US -52 North/US-311 North/NC-8 North toward Mount Airy/Smith
Reynolds/Airport. Merge onto US -311 North/US-52 North and
continue to follow US -52 North. Continue on 1-74 West. Take exit 6
for NC -89 toward Mount Airy. At the end of the exit ramp, turn left
onto NC -89 West. Travel 13.7 miles, turn left onto NC -18 South.
Travel 14.4 miles, cross over Vile Creek. Napco Road will be on
the right. Take the next left onto a gravel farm road to access the Site.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
WVile Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S , 0 0.5 1 Mile DMS Project No. 96582
ENGINEERING l i l i l Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Alleghany County, NC

Figure 2 Project Component Map
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S , 0 700 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
E NGi NEE RING i i i I Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Alleghany County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring year 1- 2017
StreamI Riparian Wetland INon-Riparian Wetlandl Buffer I Nitrogen Nutrient I Phosphorous
Offset Nutrient
Type R RE R I RE I R RE
Totals I5,053 N/A 5.70 N/A N/A N/A N/AI N/Aqqwm PROJECT N/A
••
Creditable
Existing
Design
Restoration (R) or
As -Built Stationing/
As Built
As Built
Buffer Width
Mitigation
As -Built Credits
Reach ID
Footage/
Footage/
Approach Restoration Equivalent
3
Location
Footage/
Footage/
Credit
Ratio
(SMU/WMU)", Notes
Acreage
Acreage
(RE)
Acreage' i,3
Reductions
Acreage
STREAMS
Vile Creek Reach 1
962
920
P1
Restoration (R)
101+81 - 110+63
882
882
1:1
N/A
882
Alignment changed from mitigation plan/final design due to
bedrock obstruction.
Alignment changed from mitigation plan/final design due to
Vile Creek Reach 2
1,247
1,260
P1
Restoration (R)
110+63-123+74
1,311
1,311
1:1
N/A
1,311
bedrock obstruction.
Bank Grading/
As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is
Vile Creek Reach 3
714
714
Fencing/Planting
Enhancement II (R)
123+74 - 130+87
713
713
2.5:1
6
279
restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
Reconstructing
Excludes one 25 foot easement crossing break from 207+13 -
UTS Reach 1
1,143
1,107
channel to correct
Enhancement I (R)
201+60 - 207+16 &
1,114
1,088
1.5:1
95
630
207+38. As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is
profile & cross
207+42 - 212+74
section
restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
Excludes 77 feet of stream outside of conservation easement from
UTI Reach 2
989
825
Pi
Restoration (R)
212+74 - 215+68 &
g54
777
1:1
27
750
215+68 - 216+45. Alignment changed from design due to bedrock
216+45 - 221+25
obstruction. As -Built credits were reduced for areas where
easement is restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
UT1B
128
128
Fencing/Planting
Enhancement II (R)
250+36 - 251+64
128
128
2.5:1
3
48
As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is
restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
UT1C
234
228
Fencing/Planting
Enhancement II (R)
270+53 - 272+81
228
228
2.5:1
2
89
As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is
restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
UT2
1,226
1,226
Fencing/Planting
Enhancement 11 (R)
300+36-312+62
1,226
1,226
2.5:1
N/A
490
UT3
1,316
1,236
Fencing/Planting
Enhancement II (R)
401+10 -412+94 &
1,316
1,236
2.5:1
33
461
Creditable length reduced by 45 LF to account for 45 LF of
413+29 - 414+26
alignment that does not have the full bankfull width within the CE.
Little River
284
284
Fencing/Planting
Enhancement II (R)
S02+33 -50S+17
284
284
2.5:1
N/A
114
WETLANDS
Planting/Minor
Wetland Rehabilitation
3.02
3.02
grading
Restoration (R)
N/A
3.02
3.02
1.3:1
N/A
2.32
The reduction in wetland re-establishment acreage from design to
as -built stages was mainly due to Vile Creek Reaches 1 and 2 having
Wetland Re-
0
3.50
Grading/ Planting
Restoration (R)
N/A
3.38
3.38
1:1
N/A
3.38
wider top widths in the as -built survey than in the design wetland
establishment
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.
Creditable As -Built footage excludes conservation easement breaks and a section along UT3 that exists outside of conservation easement.
AAs -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 it
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.
'Stream mitigation credits and stationg noted above are based on the as -built stream centerline.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled D -
Mitigation Plan
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
N/A
June 2016
Final Design - Construction Plans
N/A
June 2016
Construction
N/A
February 2017
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
126 Circle G Lane
N/A
February 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
N/A
February 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for
reach/segments
N/A
February 2017
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
March 2017
April 2017
Vegetation Survey April 2017
April 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
September 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey September 2017
December 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2018
December 2018
Vegetation Survey 2018
December 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2019
December 2019
Vegetation Survey 2019
December 2019
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey 2020
December 2020
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey 2021
December 2021
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
December 2022
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2023
December 2023
Vegetation Survey 2023
December 2023
'Seed and mulch was added as each section of construction was completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Jeff Keaton, PE
Charlotte, NC 28205
704.332.7754
Land Mechanics Design, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanics Design, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.; Foggy Mountain Nursery, LLC
Plugs
Wetland Plants Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 11C

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
PROJECT• •
Project Name Vile Greek Mitigation Site
County Alleghany County
ProjectArea (acres) 25.04
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36.510530° N, -80.104092° W
PROJECT•' •
Physiographic Province Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province
River Basin New
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 05050001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 05050001030020
DWR Sub -basin 05-07-03
Project Drainiage Area (acres) 22,912
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Ares 2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous (50%), Forested (45%), Mountain Conifers (3%), Impervious (2%)
ql�REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters
Vile Creek Vile Creek Vile Creek UTI Reach 1 UTI Reach 2 UT16 UTIC UT2 Little River UT3
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
882 1,311 713 1,114 854 128 228 1,226 284 1,316
Drainage Area (acres)
1,375 1,639 1,720 190 218 8 8 80 22,912 38
NCDWR Stream Identification Score - Pre -Restoration
45.5 45.5 45.5 43 43 28.25 26 27, 42.5 49.5 33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
C3
C4
C4
E4b
F4b
E4b
E41b
B4
C4
B4a
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
III
III
II
1
III
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).
Soil Hydric Status
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)
Valley Slope - Pre -Restoration
0.017 1 0.016 1 0.015 1 0.032 1 0.033 1 0.071 1 0.067 1 0.048 N/A 0.070
FEMA Classification
AE
Native Vegetation Community
Montane Alluvial Forest, Southern Appalachian Bog
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-
<1%
REGULATORY• •
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3885. Action ID#
SAW -2014-01585
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Vile Greek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion (CE) Approved 9/15/2014
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 7/25/2014)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No impact application was
prepared for local review.
No post -project activities
required.
Vile Greek Final Mitigation Plan (June 2016) and Vile Creek Categorical Exclusion (CE) Approved
9/15/2014
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
No
Vile Creek Final Mitigation Plan (June 2016) and Vile Creek Categorical Exclusion (CE) Approved
9/15/2014

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

ktvw
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (KEY)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
0 300 600 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
I Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Alleghany County, NC

Conservation Easement
- Wetland Rehabilitation
0 Wetland Re-establishment
Bog Cell
0 Stormwater BMP
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Non -Project Stream
Cross -Section (XS)
Reach Break
- - - - Bankfull
♦ Photo Point
® Crest & Stream Gage
Rain & Barotroll Gage
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY1
Criteria Met
Herbaceous Bog Plots - MY1
Groundwater Gage
I$, Criteria Met
Ell Invasive Plant P
06
Is
��■Rt.
'''''''�♦ AW,. 11 '♦♦♦'♦
t� • J
♦.♦`: J`��� .♦`♦♦ .• ' •epi ♦ tf.
v ♦ ♦
ktww
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
r�
10
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
I i I Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Alleghany County, NC
"It's
9
.�
I$ It
♦'
•
ktww
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
r�
10
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
I i I Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Alleghany County, NC

0
♦10♦
10 13
♦♦
It
♦j
1
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING Mk
0 100 200 Feet
I i I
?Avg
lrrrr�
�r•rr� Conservation Easement
- Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Bog Cell
® Stormwater BMP
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Non -Project Stream
Cross -Section (XS)
Reach Break
- - - - Bankfull
+ Photo Point
® Crest & Stream Gage
Rain & Barotroll Gage
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY1
Criteria Met
Herbaceous Bog Plots - MY1
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY1
-0 Criteria Met
C-1-1 Invasive Plant Population
'W
i
...........
"'r•r■rrrrr'rrrnn■ a
rrrr■rrrr■■rr■rrrr■r
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Alleghany County, NC

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
100 200 Feet
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
a Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Alleghany County, NC

W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
100 200 Feet
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
---I Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Alleghany County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UTl Reach 1 (1,114 LF)
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.
Number
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
% Stable,
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
in As -Built
Woody
Woody
Woody
Intended
Segments Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
22
22
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
14
14
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
14
14
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
14
14
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
14
14
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
l.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
N/A
N/A
N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
N/A
N/A
N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3. Engineered
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
N/A
N/A
N/A
Structures'
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
N/A
N/A
N/A
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth_ 1.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
UT1 Reach 2 (854 LF)
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.
Number
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust%for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
%Stable,
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
in As -Built
Segments Footage
Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
11
11
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
11
11
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
11
11
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
11
11
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
N/A
N/A
N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
N/A
N/A
N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3. Engineered
Structures lacking any substantial flow
Structures'
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
N/A
N/A
N/A
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth_ 1.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Vile Creek Reach 1 (882 LF)
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.
Number
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust%for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
%Stable,
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
in As -Built
Segments Footage
Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
4
4
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
4
4
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
4
4
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
2
2
100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
Structures lacking any substantial flow
Structures'
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth_ 1.6
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Vile Creek Reach 2 (1,311 LF)
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.
Number
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust%for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
%Stable,
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
in As -Built
Segments Footage
Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
8
8
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
8
8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
8
8
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
6
6
100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
6
6
100%
3. Engineered
Structures lacking any substantial flow
Structures'
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
6
6
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth_ 1.6
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
6
6
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Vile Creek Reach 3 (713 LF)
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.
Number
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust%for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
%Stable,
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
in As -Built
Segments Footage
Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
Degradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
1
1
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
1
1
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
1
1
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
4. Thalweg Position
meander bend Run
1
1
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
1
1
100%
meander bend Glide
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
N/A
N/A
N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
N/A
N/A
N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3. Engineered
Structures lacking any substantial flow
Structures'
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
N/A
N/A
N/A
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth_ 1.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Planted Acreage 17
Easement Acreage 25
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
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
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
none
0
0
0.0%
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0.0
0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0.0%
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
19
4.3
17.2%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0.0%

Stream Photographs

k
44 5�
AP V Lt �
s, �mT � g. ..�.,w _ ISL r' • w '' i _ �
fir*'

Photo Point 4 — view upstream Vile Creek R1(912712017) 1 Photo Point 4 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (9/27/2017) 1
Photo Point 5 — view upstream Vile Creek R1(912712017) 1 Photo Point 5 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (9/27/2017)
Photo Point 6 —view upstream Vile Creek R1 (9/27/2017) Photo Point 6 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (9/27/2017)

4us "i �._• . =1
2�
Photo Point 7 — view upstream Vile Creek R1(912712017) 1 Photo Point 7 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (9/27/2017) 1
Photo Point 8 — view upstream Vile Creek R1(912712017) 1 Photo Point 8 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (9/27/2017)
Photo Point 9 — view upstream Vile Creek R1 (9/27/2017) Photo Point 9 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (9/27/2017)

Photo Point 10 —view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/27/2017) 1 Photo Point 10 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/27/2017) 1
Photo Point 11— view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/27/2017) 1 Photo Point 11— view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/27/2017)
Photo Point 12 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/27/2017) Photo Point 12 —view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/27/2017)

Photo Point 13 —view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/27/2017) 1 Photo Point 13 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/27/2017) 1
Photo Point 14—view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/27/2017) 1 Photo Point 14—view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2017)
Photo Point 15 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2017) Photo Point 15 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2017)

Photo Point 16 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2017) 1 Photo Point 16 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2017) 1
Photo Point 17 —view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2017) 1 Photo Point 17 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2017)
Photo Point 18 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2017) Photo Point 18 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2017)

Photo Point 19 —view upstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2017) 1 Photo Point 19 — view downstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2017) 1
Photo Point 20 — view upstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2017) I Photo Point 20 — view downstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2017)
_. �'l�rh•.;r';i'.ii.a..:."'1.iYi:'."'. �iY_ ._ha�la. .
Photo Point 21— view upstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2017) Photo Point 21— view downstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2017)

Photo Point 25 — view upstream UT1 R1 (9/27/2017) 1 Photo Point 25 — view downstream UT1 R1 (9/27/2017) 1
Photo Point 26 — view upstream UT1 R1 (9/27/2017) 1 Photo Point 26 — view downstream UTI R1 (9/27/2017)
Photo Point 27 — view upstream UT1 R1 (9/27/2017) 1 Photo Point 27 — view downstream UT1 R1 (9/27/2017)

X& ��k e✓ n � pi
� T
Photo Point 28 — view upstream UT1 R2 (9/27/2017) Photo Point 28 — view downstream UT1 R2 (9/27/2017)
Photo Point 29 — view upstream UTI R2 (9/27/2017) I Photo Point 29 — view downstream UT1 R2 (9/27/2017)
4
Photo Point 30 — view upstream UT1 R2 (9/27/2017) 1 Photo Point 30 —view downstream UT1 R2 (9/27/2017)

Photo Point 31— view upstream UT2 (9/26/2017) 1 Photo Point 31— view downstream UT2 (9/26/2017) 1
Photo Point 31— view of UT2 BMP (9/26/2017)
Photo Point 32 — view upstream UT2 (9/26/2017) 1 Photo Point 32 — view downstream UT2 (9/26/2017)

Photo Point 36 —stormwater wetland (9/26/2017)

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1- (9/25/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 - (9/25/2017) 1
I Vegetation Plot 3 - (9/26/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 - (9/26/2017)
Vegetation Plot 5 - (9/26/2017) Vegetation Plot 6 - (9/26/2017)

Vegetation Plot 7 - (9/26/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 - (9/25/2017) 1
I Vegetation Plot 9 - (9/25/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 - (9/25/2017)
Vegetation Plot 11 - (9/25/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 - (9/25/2017)

s:
fit .
w i
Li
nJ
3
kxxsx
,,1
XI
_ ! a '�.A`� ��-": tri F., ,-' ��r�'i S y `=`•+'
'- .. � �'rc. ``
IN
Vegetation• • I
• •(9/26/2017)
yy w a¢4
� � �-.K=.,�`.4
��.,�• .�, fid.
t 1
Vegetation Plot 17 -
(912612017)

Bog Vegetation Photographs

Bog Vegetation Plot 1- (9/25/2017) 1 Bog Vegetation Plot 2 - (9/25/2017) 1
Bog Vegetation Plot 3 - (9/25/2017) 1 Bog Vegetation Plot 4 - (9/25/2017)
Bog Vegetation Plot 5 - (9/25/2017) 1 Bog Vegetation Plot 6 - (9/25/2017)

t

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Plot MY1 Success Criteria Met
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
100%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 Y
14 Y
15 Y
16 Y
17 Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
10/4/2017 14:18
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Vile MY1.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02147 Vile Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJ ECT SU M MARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
96582
project Name
Vile Creek Restoration Project
Description
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Required Plots (calculated)
17
Sampled Plots
17

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Scientific Name
Common Name
Vegetation Plot 1
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 2
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 3
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 4
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 5
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 6
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 7
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
7
7
7
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
12
12
12
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
7
7
7
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
7
7
7
4
4
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Stem count
13
13
13
14
14
14
13
13
13
14
14
14
12
12
12
18
18
18
14
14
14
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
66
6
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
526
526
526
567
1 567
1 567
1 526
526
526
567
567
567
486
486
486
728
71.7
567
567
567
Scientific Name
Common Name
Vegetation Plot 8
Species Type PnoLS7P-all T
Vegetation Plot 9
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 10
PnoLS P -all T
..
Vegetation Plot 11
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 12
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 13
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 14
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
7
7
7
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
Stem count
15
15
15
10
10
10
21
21
21
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
10
10
10
size (ares)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
size (ACRES)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
Species count
607
607
607
405
405
405
850
850
850
567
567
567
567
567
567
607
607
607
405
405
405
Scientific Name
Common Name
Vegetation Plot 15
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 16
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 17
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2017)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
5
5
5
11
11
11
2
2
2
43
43
43
55
55
55
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
3
3
3
21
21
21
21
21
21
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
12
12
12
14
14
14
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
16
16
16
19
19
19
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
11
12
12
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
36
36
36
35
35
35
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
11
11
11
14
14
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
24
24
24
38
38
38
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
7
7
7
3
3
3
40
40
40
40
40
40
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
35
35
35
39
39
39
Stem count
21
21
21
15
15
15
17
17
17
250
250
250
288
288
288
size (ares)
1
1
1
17
17
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.42
0.42
Species count
6
6
6
2
2
2
7
7
7
11
11
11
11
11
11
Stems per ACRE
850
850
S50
607
E.
688
688
688
595
595
595
686
686
686
Color For Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% or greater
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% T: Total Stems
Volunteer species included in total

Table 9b. Planted Herbaceous Cover (Bog Cells)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
0
Iftercent cover

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reach 2
meter
Vile cr-k
PRE -RESTORATION
He.-
CONDITION
Vile creel,
�
He.- 2
M-I.w creel
REFERENCE
Wl,tF,,k,fCh,,tn,tCr,,k
REACH DAT
.—h Creek
little O.ce C-1,
Vile creek
He.ch
Vile Creek
Reach
�
Ill. Creek
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
He.ch 1
Vile c-1, He.ch 2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bank Height Ratio
Riff, Lzngth I'd
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
P—1 Length (ft)
Pool Ms. Depth (ft)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Rad
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Reach Shear Stress (Co petencyl lb/ft'
mr
Max pan size (mm) mobilized at bankful I
0�0®
Stream Power (Capacity) Wlm'
----
����
Mass—
Drainage Area (SM)
Watendhed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
----------------
----------------
----------------
----------------
Ci Basin Ration Method 1.1 -Ir
----------------
Q- Basin ation Meth 1.21-1 2
----------------
Channel Ihelweg Length ft�

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT1 Reach 1. UT1 Reach 2
I ---I: Data was not i,mv-d
' Design parameters for pattern features are not reported for UT1 Reach 1 because the channel was designed as Enhancement I.
PRE
-RESTORATION
CONDITION
REFERENCE
REACH DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
--
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodirrom, Width (ft)
a®
ammm®mmm
Bankfull Mean Depth
B Ba
T911 111
Bank Height Ratio
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing ift)
mmmm
m®m®©mmm�ommm
Channel Beftwidth (ft)
m®mm
mm
m®
am
Radius of Curvature (ft)
mmmm
o�
mm
mm
RC:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
SC%
. ,r.:.. -.r,
0.
0.17/0.55/26.9/133/205/256
0.21/0.79/8.6/51.0/126.9/256.0 0 .. :rr
Reach Shear Stress (Compet",y) lb/ft2
Maxpartsize (mm) mobilized at bankfull
mm
Stream Power (Capacity) W/M2
Additional Reach Paramelears,
Drainage Area ISM)
or
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
am
Q- Little River LWP Regional 1.5 -yr (cfs)
Q- Rural Mountain Regional Cum (cfs)
Q -Revised Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
Q- Basin Ration Method 1.1 -yr (cfs)
Q- Basin Ration Method 1.25 -yr (cfs)
•
..-
rr
,r:
rr.
rr. r
...:r
rr.
����
rr..
rr
I ---I: Data was not i,mv-d
' Design parameters for pattern features are not reported for UT1 Reach 1 because the channel was designed as Enhancement I.

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY5
MY7 Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY5
MY7 Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevatior
2700.8 2700.7
2700.0 2700.0
2695.7 2695.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.1
24.6
17.1
17.6
18.8
17.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.0
2.8
2.1
2.3
1.9
2.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fe)
29.2
1 25.8
21.2
22.7
19.8
20.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
13.7
13.7
17.8
15.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
>10.6
11.4
>10.7
>11.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Y. Cross
-Section
4, Vile Creek Reach
1.1
2 (Riffle)m16 -ross-Section
1.1
5, Vile Creek Reac
1.0
2 (Riffle)
1.0 Rz
11. IN lonla
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY3
MY2 MY3 MYS
MY7 Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MYS
MY7 Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevatior
2691.7 2691.7
2688.9 2688.9
2687.9 2687.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.7
19.4
19.2
19.8
24.1
24.0
Floodprone Width (ft) 188.0
188.0
156.0
156.0
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.5
3.6
4.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fe)
22.5
23.1
28.6
29.7
44.3
39.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
16.3
12.9
13.2
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
10.1
9.7
8.1
7.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
I
1.0
1.0
1
Cross
9,
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross -Section
MY3
7, UTI Reach (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MYS
MY7 Base
Cross -Section
MY1
8, UTI Reach (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MYS
MY7 Base
-Section
UT1 Reach 1 (Riffle)
MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevatior
2743.9 2743.9
2725.7 2725.7
2725.3 2725.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.6
8.1
11.3
8.2
7.7
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
63.0
63.0
---
---
97.0
97.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
2.2
1.4
0.8
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fe)
5.9
9.4
7.1
4.4
4.1
4.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.4
7.0
---
---
14.7
9.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
7.3
7.8
---
---
12.5
15.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate
based on fixed bankfull elevatior
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fe)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0 1.0
Base MY1
2713.5 2713.5
13.3 12.6
--- ---
0.9 0.7
1.9 1.8
12.6 9.0
--- ---
MY2 MY3 MY5
--- ---
MY7 Base MY1
2712.9 2712.9
9.0 12.6
96.0 96.0
0.8 0.5
1.3 1.4
7.8 6.5
11.4 24.5
10.7 7.6
1.0 1 1.0
MY2 MY3 MYS
1.0
MY7
1.0

Table 12a. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Vile Creek, Reach 1 and Reach 2
Vile Reach 1
Vile Reach 2
Vile Reach 1
Vile Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
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
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
156
188
>200
156.0
188.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
19.8
21.2
22.5
28.6
20.9
22.7
23.1
29.7
Width/Depth Ratio
13.7
17.8
12.9
15.5
13.7
15.3
13.2
16.3
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
60.4
69.3
58.6
61.5
82.0
101.2
70.9
78.5
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 (ft)
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
2
7
3
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
882
1,311
Sinuosity (ft)
1.21
1.26
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0135
0.0122
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0145
0.0122
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/5%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be %
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
UT1 Reach 1 and Reach 2
N/A: Not Applicable
UTI Reach 1
UTI Reach 2
UTI Reach 1
UTI Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.7
8.6
9.0
6.5
8.1
12.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
63
91
96
63.0
82.4
96.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
2.2
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.1
5.9
7.8
4.2
9.4
6.5
Width/Depth Ratio
12.4
14.7
11.4
7.0
9.9
24.5
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
22.6
34.3
28.1
29.8
48.3
58.6
Profile
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
59
38
88
Pool Volume (ft)
---
---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A'
6
66
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A'
18
59
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A'
2.0
6.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A'
56
152
Meander Width Ratio
N/A'
1
7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B
B
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,114
854
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0264
0.0288
Bankfull Slope ftft
0.0261
0.0284
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be %
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding BanksM
0%
0%
N/A: Not Applicable

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross-section 1- Vile Creek Reach 1
105+60 Pool
2704
x -section area (ft.sq.)
24.6
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
26.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.4
width -depth ratio
2702
0 2700
m
v
w
2698
2696
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) 4 MY1 (09/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
25.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
24.6
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
26.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross-section 2 - Vile Creek Reach 1
106+31 Riffle
2704
17.6
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
18.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2702
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
2700
0
m
v
w
2698
2696
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
+MYO(03/2017) MY1(09/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
22.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.6
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
18.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.4
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross-section 3 - Vile Creek Reach 1
109+21 Riffle
2700
2698
17.9
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
18.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.3
width -depth ratio
� 2696
0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
—�
v
w
2694
2692
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) 4 MY1 (09/2017) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
20.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.9
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
18.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.3
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross-section 4 - Vile Creek Reach 2
112+46 Riffle
2696
2694
19.4
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
20.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
2692
width -depth ratio
188.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
0
v
w
2690
2688
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) 4 MY1 (09/2017) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
23.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
19.4
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
20.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.3
width -depth ratio
188.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross-section 5 - Vile Creek Reach 2
114+84 Riffle
2692
19.8
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
21.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
2690
width -depth ratio
156.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
2688
0
v
w
2686
2684
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
+MYO(03/2017) 4 MY1(09/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
29.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
19.8
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
21.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
156.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross-section 6 - Vile Creek Reach 2
115+52 Pool
2692
2690
24.0
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
26.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
2688
0
v
w
2686
WC
2684
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) +MY1 (09/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
39.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
24.0
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
26.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.46
D50 =
17.4
D84 =
Class
Percent
202.4
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
2
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
3
4
4
7
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
13
14
14
21
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
15
16
16
37
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
1
3
3
40
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
6
6
46
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
46
Ver Fine
s..a..a.w.•o•.•o y
2.8
4.0
E
46
;a`w.o•.o•.o•..o;
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
47
®®®®®® ®® Fine
5.6
8.0
47
ew.w.o.s.s.s c.c:o
wec��e BBe Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
48
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
49
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
4 1
4
53
10
Coarse
22.6
32
2
1
3
3
56
Very Coarse
32
45
2
1
3
3
59
Very Coarse
45
64
5
1
6
6
65
Small
64
90
9
4
13
13
78
Small
90
128
6
2
8
8
86
Large
128
180
7
1
8
8
94
Large
180
256
3
3
3
97
ililll Small
256
362
1
1
1
1
98
Small
362
512
2
2
2
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.20
D35 =
0.46
D50 =
17.4
D84 =
117.2
D95 =
202.4
D100 =
512.0
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt//Clay
Sandavel
100
kpble
er
80
80
Ia
ro
70
y
60
60
a
50
m
3 50
�
40
30
E
>
v
20
�? 40
10
30
u
y'L ,yti .ye Oh 1 'L ,y0 t- y6 0 y1 ti° 6 3ti Py rod` CO 41y20 4)6,lP 0 16
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -03/2017 0 MYI-09/2017
a 20
10
t-
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MVO -03/2017 4-- MVI -09/2017
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
y
60
a
50
m
�
40
30
>
v
20
10
0
y'L ,yti .ye Oh 1 'L ,y0 t- y6 0 y1 ti° 6 3ti Py rod` CO 41y20 4)6,lP 0 16
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -03/2017 0 MYI-09/2017

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*— MYO-03/2017 -0-- MYl-09/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
42.51
Dso =
Class
Percent
256.0
P394.8
Count
1024.0
90
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
10
s®®®®®®®®®®®® ® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
10
e e;6eea,» e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
10
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
1 4.0
5.6
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
14
a�e�;oos0000: Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
16
,gag8g;;y
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
24
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
26
•`•<>z Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
30
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
36
Very Coarse
45
64
6
1 6
42
Small
64
90
4
4
46
Small
90
128
12
12
58
Large
128
180
18
18
76
Large
1 180
256
8
8
84
Small
256
362
10
10
94
111111 Small
��
362
512
4
4
98
Medium
512
1024
2
2
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*— MYO-03/2017 -0-- MYl-09/2017
Cross-section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.00
D35 =
42.51
Dso =
101.2
D84 =
256.0
P394.8
1024.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*— MYO-03/2017 -0-- MYl-09/2017
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E
w
70
60
50
M
40
3
v
30
Z
20
10
0
y'L �h .1h Oh
p0 Oti p•
1 'L ,tib b h6 0 ,y1 ti° oP p0
-yti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2017 0 MYl-09/2017

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
100
90
80
70
> 60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*-MYO-03/2017 #MY1-09/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Das =
65.00
Dso =
Class
Percent
151.8
P214.7
Count
362.0
90
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
6
s®®®®®®®®®®®® ® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
6
e e;6eea,» e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
6
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
4..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
1 4.0
5.6
6
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
6
ecee,'eee;
gc.ao••o •o. .&`c.o Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
8
lase°•s''•o'°,o; g����a
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
10
••<>z Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
14
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
20
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
34
Small
64
90
22
22
56
Small
90
128
20
20
76
Large
128
180
16
16
92
Large
1 180
256
6
6
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
111111 Small
HHHUMUNMedium
362
512
100
512
1024
100
.��
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
> 60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*-MYO-03/2017 #MY1-09/2017
Cross-section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
35.85
Das =
65.00
Dso =
82.0
D80. =
151.8
P214.7
362.0
100
90
80
70
> 60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*-MYO-03/2017 #MY1-09/2017
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E
w
70
60
50
M
40
3
30
Z
20
10
0
y'L 'h .1h Oh
p0 Oti p•
oP pp ,ti97 1 9p y6 6'L
�ti• 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2017 0 MYl-09/2017

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
1.38
D50 =
22.6
D84 =
Class
Percent
180.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
6
7
7
7
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
d
5
5
5
13
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
6
19
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
10
10
29
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
10
13
13
42
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3 50
42
Ver Fine
s..a..a.w.•o•.•o y
2.8
4.0
42
;a`w.o•.o•.o•..o;
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
20
42
®®®®®® ®® Fine
5.6
8.0
42
eec�aa, eec
%w�'•o�•;•�;3' te`'`'a Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
2
2
44
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
2
46
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
4
4
50
a 20
Coarse
22.6
32
4
3
7
7
57
Very Coarse
32
45
3
1
4
4
61
Very Coarse
45
64
6
3
9
9
70
Small
64
90
8
1
9
9
79
Small
90
128
9
9
9
88
Large
128
180
7
7
7
95
Large
180
256
3
3
3
98
iiilal Small
1 256
362
2
2
2 1
100
.. Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
::III Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100
100
100
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.35
D35 =
1.38
D50 =
22.6
D84 =
109.5
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
362.0
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sandavel
100
90
ble
er
80
80
d
a ro
70
y
60
a
60
50
m
U
40
3 50
30
>
E
v
20
�? 40
10
0
otitis yeoy
00 oti o•
ti titin o06 �tititi� o3ti001CP ti ti 11%1o1 �6tititi yo eeb
titi'
Particle Class Size (mm)
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0— MVO -03/2027 MYl-09/2017
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
d
70
y
60
a
50
m
U
40
30
>
v
20
10
0
otitis yeoy
00 oti o•
ti titin o06 �tititi� o3ti001CP ti ti 11%1o1 �6tititi yo eeb
titi'
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -03/2017 • MYl-09/2017

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-03/2017 I- MYI-09/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D16 =
Summary
Particle Class
49.14
Dso =
70.9
Class
Percent
P162.5
1
Count
90
min
max
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
H
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
4
s®®®®®®®®®®®® ® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
4
e e;6eea,» e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
4
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
4..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
1 4.0
5.6
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
1 2
6
eec�a+e;
gc.ao••o •o. .&`c.o Medium
s�e�;c;;s;;,o;;,o•
8.0
11.0
2
2
8
s�a�a:i
ease°•s'•o•°'" o�a�s�a�' Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
10
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
16
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
26
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
32
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
44
Small
64
90
20
20
64
Small
90
128
24
24
88
Large
128
180
10
10
98
Large
1 180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
��
HHHUMUNMedium
362
512
100
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-03/2017 I- MYI-09/2017
Cross-section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
22.60
D35 =
49.14
Dso =
70.9
D80. =
120.7
P162.5
1
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-03/2017 I- MYI-09/2017
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E
w
70
60
a
H
50
40
3
30
Z
20
10
J
IL A
0
y'L .y�l .y0 Oh
p0 Oti p•
1 'L ,ti0 d y6 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L by oP p0 ,1.97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L �•d A� 0�O
�ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017 E MYI-09/2017

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
42.51
Dso =
Class
Percent
238.6
Dos =
574.7
Count
1024.0
90
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
avel
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
10
s®®®®®®®®®®®® ® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
10
e e;6eea,» e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s.see.s Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
2
2
12
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
4.0
5.6
60
Y
12
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
1 2
14
a�e�;oos0000: Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
16
,gag8g;;y
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
24
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
26
•`•<>z Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
30
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
36
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
44
Small
64
90
10
10
54
Small
90
128
16
16
70
Large
128
180
6
6
76
Large
180
256
10
10
86
Small
256
362
6
6
92
111111 Small
��
HHHUMUNMedium
362
512
2
2
94
512
1024
6
6
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Cross-section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.00
D35 =
42.51
Dso =
78.5
D84 =
238.6
Dos =
574.7
Dlao =
1024.0
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
90
SiltlClay
80
Sand
avel
E
w
70
We
er
80
H
50
a ro
70
40
3
v
30
60
Y
Z
�
20
10
50
E
0
.1h Oh
p0 Oti p•
oPpp ,ti9, 1 9O .yd
�ti• 1 N ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2017 E MYI-09/2017
i? 40
d 30.10
a 20
10
AV
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-03/2D17 I- MYI-09/2017
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E
w
70
60
a
H
50
40
3
v
30
Z
�
20
10
0
.1h Oh
p0 Oti p•
oPpp ,ti9, 1 9O .yd
�ti• 1 N ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2017 E MYI-09/2017

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross-section 7 - UT1 Reach 1
203+51 Riffle
9.4
2750
8.1
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
9.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.0
width -depth ratio
63.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
2748
2746
c
0
2744
v
w
2742
2740
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(03/2017) +MYl(09/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
9.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.1
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
9.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.0
width -depth ratio
63.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross-section 8 - UT1 Reach 1
210+28 Pool
2734
2732
2730
c
8.2
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
exe-
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.3
width -depth ratio
0 2728
w 2726
2724
2722
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2017) +MYI (09/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.2
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross-section 9 - UT1 Reach 1
210+52 Riffle
2729
2727
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.5
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.9
width -depth ratio
82.4
W flood prone area (ft)
12.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
c
0 2725
v
w
2723
2721
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO(3/2017) +MY1(09/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
4.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.5
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.9
width -depth ratio
82.4
W flood prone area (ft)
12.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross-section 10 - UT1 Reach 2
215+05 Pool
2718
2716
c 2714
0
v
w
2712
2710
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2017) +MYI (09/2017) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.6
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
14.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross-section 11- UT1 Reach 2
215+30 Riffle
2717
2715
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
13.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
24.5
width -depth ratio
96.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
x
c 2713
_-
0
v
w
2711
2709
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO(03/2017) tMY1(09/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
13.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
24.5
width -depth ratio
96.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 09/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
11.00
D50 =
26.1
D84 =
Class
Percent
151.8
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
6
9
9
9
Very fine
0.062
0.125
gp
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
3
3
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
13
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
17
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
11
13
13
30
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30
30
Ver Fine
s..a..a.w.•o•.•o y
2.8
4.0
20
30
;a`w.o•.o•.o•..o;
Fine
4.0
5.6
30
®®®®®® ®® Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
2
32
eec�aa, eec
%w�'•o�•;•�;3' te`'`'a Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
3
3
35
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
2
37
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
6
8 1
8
45
Coarse
22.6
32
7
5
12
12
57
Very Coarse
32
45
5
4
9
9
66
10
Very Coarse
45
64
6
4
10
10
76
Small
64
90
8
1
9
9
85
Small
90
128
7
7
7
92
Large
128
180
4
2
6
6
98
Large
180
256
1
1
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
II Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.84
D35 =
11.00
D50 =
26.1
D84 =
86.7
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
256.0
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Individual Class Percent
Sandavel
100
90
Cbble
er
80
gp
70
a ro
70
y
60
a
�
m
50
60
�
40
30
3 50
>
r
20
C
10
E
0
oti by ye oy ti
00 Oti o•
ti ti� a �� cb titi ti� 0 3ti ay Co 1 1 'L b yo �e 3 ". titi yo e eb
titi' y ,11
Particle Class Size (mm)
�? 40
■ MVO -03/2017 • MYl-09/2017
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0— MVO -03/2017 MYl-09/2017
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
y
60
a
�
m
50
�
40
30
>
r
20
C
10
0
oti by ye oy ti
00 Oti o•
ti ti� a �� cb titi ti� 0 3ti ay Co 1 1 'L b yo �e 3 ". titi yo e eb
titi' y ,11
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -03/2017 • MYl-09/2017

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 7
100
90
80
70
> 60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-03/2017 I- MYI-09/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D16 =
Summary
Particle Class
34.43
Dso =
48.3
Class
Percent
P123.6
1
Count
90
min
max
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
80
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
10
10
10
s®®®®®®®®®®®® ® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
e e;6eea,» e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
10
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
1 4.0
5.6
3
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
10
a�e�;oos0000: Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
14
,gag8g;;y
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
18
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
24
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
32
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
46
Very Coarse
45
64
20
1 20
66
Small
64
90
20
20
86
Small
90
128
10
10
96
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
��
HHHUMUNMedium
362
512
100
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
> 60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-03/2017 I- MYI-09/2017
Cross-section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
13.27
D35 =
34.43
Dso =
48.3
D80. =
87.0
P123.6
1
180.0
100
90
80
70
> 60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-03/2017 I- MYI-09/2017
UTI Reach 1, Cross-section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E
w
70
60
a
H
50
40
3
30
Z
20
10
0
y'L .y�l .y0 Oh
p0 Oti p•
1 'L ,ti0 d y6 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L by 6P p0 ,1.97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L �•d 00 0�O
�ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017 E MYI-09/2017

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-03/2017 I— MYI-09/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
14.57
D50 =
Class
Percent
80.3
P195 =
214.7
Count
362.0
90
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
14
14
14
Very fine
0.062
0.125
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
20
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
22
s®®®®®®®®®®®® ® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
24
e e;6eea,» e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
24
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
1 4.0
5.6
3
24
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
26
1
a�e�;oos0000: Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
32
,gag8g;;y
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
36
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
42
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
52
Very Coarse
1 32
45
12
12
64
Very Coarse
45
64
12
1 12
76
Small
64
90
12
12
88
Small
90
128
6
6
94
Large
128
180
94
Large
180
256
2
2
96
Small
256
362
4
4
100
111111 Small
��
HHHUMUNMedium
362
512
100
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-03/2017 I— MYI-09/2017
Cross-section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.25
D35 =
14.57
D50 =
29.8
DS4 =
80.3
P195 =
214.7
DlOo _I
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-03/2017 I— MYI-09/2017
UTI Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E
w
70
60
a
H
50
40
3
30
Z
20
10
0
y'L .�h .1h Oh
p0 Oti p•
1 'L ,tib b h6 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L ph 6P p0 ,ti97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L .yd A� 0�O
�ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2017 E MYI-09/2017

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0— MVO -03/2027 . MYl-09/2017
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
1.81
D50 =
18.7
D84 =
Class
Percent
78.5
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
8
13
13
13
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
17
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
6
23
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
11
14
14
37
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
37
Ver Fine
s..a..a.w.•o•.•o y
2.8
4.0
37
;a`w.o•.o•.o•..o;
Fine
4.0
5.6
r
20
37
®®®®®® ®® Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
38
ew.w.o.s.s.s c.c:o
wec��e BBe Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
4
4
42
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
46
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
6
9
9
55
Coarse
22.6
32
10
1 4 1
14
14
69
:w`'$�'o:':00000s$s,�yw,�wgw000
Very Coarse
32
45
5
2
7
7
76
Very Coarse
45
64
11
2
13
13
89
Small
64
90
8
2
10
10 1
99
Small
90
128
1
1
1
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
II Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0— MVO -03/2027 . MYl-09/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.25
D35 =
1.81
D50 =
18.7
D84 =
55.9
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0— MVO -03/2027 . MYl-09/2017
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
y
60
a
�
50
m
�
40
30
>
r
20
10
0
otitis yeoy
00 Oti o•
ti titi' ae6 lbtititi� �3tiay�Co ywyo566tititi yo eeb
titi 1 1 'L 3 y ,y0 ,yo°` �O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -03/2017 • MYl-09/2017

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-section 11
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-03/2017 I- MYI-09/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D16 =
Summary
Particle Class
23.60
Dso =
58.6
Class
Percent
P241.4
Count
90
min
max
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
12
s®®®®®®®®®®®® ® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
12
e e;6eea,» e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
12
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
1 4.0
5.6
4
4
16
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
18
a�e�;oos0000: Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
20
,gag8g;;y
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
22
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
34
•`•<>z Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
42
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
44
Very Coarse
45
64
8
1 8
52
Small
64
90
10
10
62
Small
90
128
12
12
74
Large
128
180
16
16
90
Large
180
256
6
6
96
Small
256
362
4
4
100
111111 Small
HHHUMUNii
��
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-03/2017 I- MYI-09/2017
Cross-section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.60
D35 =
23.60
Dso =
58.6
D80. =
158.4
P241.4
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
U= 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-03/2017 I- MYI-09/2017
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E
w
70
60
a
H
50
40
3
30
Z
20
10
0
y'L .�h .1h Oh
p0 Oti p•
1 'L ,tib b h6 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L ph 6P p0 ,ti97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L .yd A� 0�O
�ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2017 E MYI-09/2017

APPENDIX S. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
*Gages are located in bog habitat.
*Growing season is April 26th -October 11th.
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year 1(2017)
Year 2 (2018)
Year 3 (2019)
Year 4 (2020)
Year S (2021)
Year 6 (2022)
Year 7 (2023)
1*
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
Yes/ 129 Days
2
(77%)
Yes/169 Days
3
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
4
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
5
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
6
(100%)
Yes/ 129 Days
7
(77%)
Yes/125 Days
8
(74%)
Yes/40 Days
9
(24%)
10*
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
*Gages are located in bog habitat.
*Growing season is April 26th -October 11th.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site - DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Bog Rehabilitation
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C - ? C 75 W Q +-' > U
�i 2:Q Q Ln O Z
Rainfall Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
m
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 LT C 75 W Q - > U
i Q Q Ln O Z
Rainfall Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
M
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 LT C 75 W Q - > U
i Q Q Ln O Z
Rainfall Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
M
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Re-establishment
Vile Creek Groundwater Gage #4
o
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
v
0o
20
c p
6.0
o
3 \
10
o �
c7O
O
o
5.0
�
c
0
n
1S
4.0
-10
v
–
3.0
-20
v
�
M
3
of6C
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
60
0.0
C
> C75 GA Q+-' > U
O
LL Q
Q V) Z
Rainfall Gage #4 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Rehabilitation

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Re-establishment
Vile Creek Groundwater Gage #6
o
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
m
CU
20
c p
oN
6.0
10
wv
o
C7o
O
o
5.0
�
c
0
n"'
4.0
10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c
v
-
3.0
-20
v
�
M
3
of6C
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
60
0.0
C
> C75 GA Q +-' > U
O
LL Q
5; Q Ln Z
Rainfall Gage #6 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 LT C 75 W Q - > U
i 2:Q Q Ln O Z
Rainfall Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
M
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 LT C 75 W Q - > U
i 2:Q Q Ln O Z
Rainfall Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
M
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 LT C 75 W Q - > U
i 2:Q Q Ln O Z
Rainfall Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
M
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site - DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Wetland Bog Rehabilitation
Vile Creek Groundwater Gage #10
o
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
m
v
20
c p
oN
6.0
10
w vC70
1101
O.1,,11
o ~
5.0
�
c
0
v,
w
4.0
-10
v
-
3.0
-20
�
v
m
of6C
3
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
-60
0.0
C
i
? C75GA Q +-' > U
ai O
� Q
n O D
� Q z
Rainfall Gage #10 — — Criteria Level

Monthly Rainfall Data
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
12017 rainfall collected by on-site rainfall gage and NC Cronos Station NC -AG -5
Z 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Transou, Ashe County, NC
3 On-site rainfall gage malfunctioned Jan -April 2017.
Vile Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017
10
9
8
7
c
c
6
0
m
.a
5
'u
a
4
3
2
1
0
Jan -17 Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17 Aug -17 Sep -17 Oct -17
Date
On-site Rain Gage NC Cronos Station NC -AG -5 -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
12017 rainfall collected by on-site rainfall gage and NC Cronos Station NC -AG -5
Z 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Transou, Ashe County, NC
3 On-site rainfall gage malfunctioned Jan -April 2017.