20140869 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2018_20181213

MONITORING YEAR 2
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
VILE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Alleghany County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 5999
DMS Project No. 96582
DWR No. 14-0869
USACE Action ID 2014-01585
Data Collection Period: April — November 2018
Submission Date: December 13, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Mitigation Project Name Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS ID 96582
River Basin New
Cataloging Unit 05050001
County Alleghany USACE Action ID 2014-01585
Date Project Instituted 6/24/2014 NCDWR Permit No 2014-0869
Date Prepared 5/22/2018
Credit Release Milestone
Potential Credits (Mitigation Plan)
Potential Credits (As -Built Survey)
Scheduled Warm
Releases
(Stream)
Stream Credi
Cool Cold
5,146.000
5,053.014
Anticipated
Release Year
(Stream)
Actual
Release Date
(Stream)
Scheduled
Releases
(Forested)
Riparian Riparian Non
Riverine riverine Non -riparian
5.820
5.703
Wetland Credits
Scheduled
Releases
(Coastal)
Coastal Anticipated
Release Year
(Wetland)
Actual
Release Date
(Wetland)
1 (Site Establishment)
N/A
f .e
m o
w y
oC
U
N/A
N/A
NIA
As -Built Amounts (feet and acres)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2(Year 0/As-Built)
30%
1,515.904
2017
7/25/2017
30%
1.711
30%
2017
7/25/2017
3(Year l Monitoring)
10%
505.301
2018
4/25/2018 1
10%
0.570
10%
2018
4/25/2018
4(Year 2 Monitoring)
10%
2019
10%
15%
2019
40%
5(Year 3 Monitoring)
10%
2020
10%
20%
2020
6(Year 4 Monitoring)
5%
2021
Released Amounts (feet / acres)
10%
435.200
10%
2021
2.560
7(Year 5 Monitoring)
10%
2022
10%
15%
2022
8 (Year 6 Monitoring)
5%
251.600
2023
10%
NIA
2023
9 (Year 7 Monitoring)
10 %
2024
10%
NCDWR Permit USACE Action ID Project Name
NIA
2024
Stream Bankfull Standard
101
NIA
N/A
Total Credits Released to Date
2,021.205
190.230
2.281
DEBITS (released credits only)
Ratios 1.00917 1.72973 2.57596 5 1.12222 3 2 5 1 3 2 5 1 3 2 5
Contingencies (if any): None
Signature of Wilmington D)trict Official Approving Credit Release
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone
Cl /10 Is
Date
7r�
E E
m o
W
iso
an d
`
N
c
W
E
m i'_
m
N`
o.
c .e °
y m
n o. d
R y R U
d
n
i2 N
W
.C.
c
i_
n d
K
o.
m
n y
O d
zW
°
n a
O U
z
..
aEi
n
O t
z
W
`m
a i!
mN
O
za
f .e
m o
w y
oC
U
f°
tj
o
U
s ..
i E
o
H A
o=
U W
r
H
oa
U
As -Built Amounts (feet and acres)
2,970.000
1,088.000
3,815.000
6.400
As -Built Amounts (mitigation credits)
2,943.013
629.000
1,481.001
5.703
Percentage Released
40%
40%
40%
40%
Released Amounts (feet / acres)
1,188.000
435.200
1,526.000
2.560
Released Amounts (credits)
1,177.205
251.600
592.401
2.281
NCDWR Permit USACE Action ID Project Name
NCDOT TIP R-3101 -US 21
2013-0777 2012-01963 Improvements
190.230
NCDOT R -2915A - US 221
2014-0762 2012-00882 Widening
206.540
0.660
NCDOT R -2915B - US 221
2014-0762 2012-00882 Widening
494.230
326.400
998.340
0.965
NCDOT R -2915D - US 221
2014-0762 2012-00882 Widening
0.294
NCDOT R -2915A - US 221
2014-0762 2012-00882 Widening
154.764
NCDOT TIP R-0529BA / BB /
1997-0616 1997-07161 BD
306.540
NCDOT R -2915D - US 221
2014-0762 2012-00882 Widening
297.000
108.800
66.356
0.641
Remaining Amounts( et / acres)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Remaining Amounts (credits)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Contingencies (if any): None
Signature of Wilmington D)trict Official Approving Credit Release
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone
Cl /10 Is
Date

2 - For NCDMS projects, the second credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting it to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria
have been met:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for porjects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 - A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met

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

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 13, 2018
Mr. Harry Tsomides
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Response to MY2 Draft Report Comments
Vile Creek Mitigation Project
DMS Project # 96582
Contract Number 5999
New River Basin - #CU# 05050001 - Alleghany County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 3 report for the Henry Fork Mitigation Project. The following Wildlands
responses to DMS's report comments are noted in italics lettering.
DMS comment; Executive Summary - While the detail is provided in Section 1.2.5, given the significance of
the two MY02 fall storm events (Hurricane Florence and Tropical Storm Michael) in this region, it would be
helpful to note in the ES that the site was evaluated following these events and that the results are in the
narrative.
Wildlands response; The requested verbiage was included in the Executive Summary.
DMS comment; Section 1.2.2 — It is noted that a geomorphically significant event is still pending. Does
Wildlands feel that Hurricane Florence and Tropical Storm Michael were not geomorphically significant
events?
Wildlands response, Wildlands agrees that Hurricane Florence and Tropical Storm Michael exceeded the
geomorphic significant discharge (Qgs) for the site. However, Qgs documentation following these storm
events was not completed due to the timing of the storm events. Wildlands is optimistic that it will be
feasible to document at least two Qgs events within the remainder of the five-year monitoring period.
DMS comment; Section 1.3 — It is noted that the Site has partially met the stream hydrologic success
criteria; please describe what the criteria are.
Wildlands response, Section 1.3 has been updated to describe the stream success criteria that has been
met. "Multiple bankfull events were documented on both Vile Creek and UT1; therefore, the Site has
partially met the stream hydrological success criteria of two or more bankfull events occurring in
separate years within the restoration and enhancement reaches."
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
DMS comment; It would be helpful to show the station numbers on the CCPVs so the reader can match
the narrative with the maps.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has updated the CCPV maps to include the longitudinal stationing.
DMS comment; Visual Assessment tables — Localized areas of scour /erosion are noted in Section 1.2.5;
however, the visual assessment tables on some of these reaches indicate 100% performance. In addition,
the "Totals" section for 'Bank' does not seem to be summed accurately in some instances. Please
reexamine the visual assessment tables and provide an up-to-date and accurate depiction of areas of
scour/erosion, undercut banks, etc. and totals following the fall 2018 major storm events.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has updated the CCPVs to remove the stream areas of concern that do
not meet the mapping threshold. The visual assessment tables (5a -5e) were also updated to reflect an
accurate depiction of scour/erosion performance. Section 1.2.5 was updated to clarify the areas are
under the mapping threshold and correct station numbers.
DMS comment; As Wildlands has done in the past, please include a response to the comment letter
and how/where the comments were addressed. Please insert this letter directly behind the cover
page in the final deliverables. The IRT has requested that we include this letter with the final
deliverables. The response letter will need to be included with all future monitoring deliverables.
Wildlands response, Wildlands has included this response letter as part of the final report deliverable to
DMS and the IRT.
Enclosed please find four (4) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring
Report. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x110 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Environmental Scientist
kgimbert@w ildlandseng.com
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

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) 2
assessments and site visits were completed between April and November 2018 to assess the conditions
of the project.
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY2. All
restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed. Following the fall storm events
(Hurricane Florence and Tropical Storm Michael), site conditions were evaluated, and the results are
discussed later. During MY2, two bankfull events occurred on Vile Creek Reach 2 and one bankfull event
occurred on UT1 Reach 2. UT1 pebble count reflected coarser material in both reaches. The overall
average stem density for the Site is 502 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. All ten gages in the
wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation areas are meeting or exceeding hydrology success criteria
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL

VILE CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 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 2 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Table 3
1.2.1
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
Project Information and Attributes
1.2.2
Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.3
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
1.2.4
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5
Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan.................................................................1-3
1.3
Monitoring Year 2 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 & Stream Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 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 CU 05050001 and the 14 -digit HUC 05050001030020
(Figure 1). Located in the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province (USGS, 1998), the project watershed
primarily includes managed herbaceous, mixed upland hardwoods, and other forested land. The
drainage area for the project streams range from 0.01 square miles to 2.69 square miles.
The project streams consist of Vile Creek and five unnamed tributaries (UT) to Vile Creek including UT1,
UT1b, UT1c, UT2, UT3, and a portion of 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 2 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 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY2 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 MY2 were conducted in April 2018. 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). Cross-section two shows slight scouring downstream of a vane/log
sill which has created a micro -habitat within the chunky riffle structure. During MY1, cross-section
seven reflected an increase in the cross-sectional area; however, there was no change during MY2.
Wildlands will continue to watch these cross-sections in upcoming monitoring years.
Pebble counts in Vile Creek indicated little to no change in substrate material, while UT1 indicates
coarser materials in the riffle features from MY2. 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 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events and geomorphically
significant (60%+ of bankfull flow) events must have occurred in separate years within the restoration
and enhancement reaches.
During MY2, the Vile Creek Reach 2 stream gage documented two bankfull events and the UT1 stream
gage documented one bankfull event; however, no geomorphically significant events were documented.
With multiple bankfull events recorded during MY1 and MY2 on both Vile Creek Reach 2 and UT1; the
success criteria have partially been met for the restoration streams. Although the two fall storms were
geomorphical significant events, the documentation for the success criteria was not completed due to
the monitoring schedule and the timing of the events. The geomorphical significant event will be
documented within the remainder of the five year monitoring period. The Refer to Appendix 5 for
hydrology summary data and plots.
1.2.3 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
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
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

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 MY2 vegetative survey was completed in September 2018. The 2018 vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 502 stems per acre, which is greater than the interim requirement of 320
stems/acre required at MY3. During MY2, 15 of the 17 plots individually met the success criteria and the
average stem height for the Site is 2.3 feet. With approximately 93% herbaceous coverage, the bog cells
have become well established since project construction. Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot
photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.4 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 MY2; however, GWGs 2, 3 and 7-9 decreased from MY1. The
decrease in water level for GWGs 7-9 may have been affected by lowering the most downstream berm
that was initially backing up 6-10 inches of water. The measured hydroperiod ranged from 8% to 100%
of the growing season. Wildlands will continue monitoring the change. Refer to Appendix 2 for the
groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology summary data and plots.
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan
Following Hurricane Florene and Tropical Storm Michael in Fall 2018, areas of minor scour and erosion
were observed along several meander bends including, but not limited to Vile Creek Reach 3 station
124+00, Vile Creek Reach 1 and UT1 confluence, UT1 Reach 1 station 211+50, and UT2 station 306+50.
The bank erosion areas were mostly associated with Enhancement I and Enhancement II streams. The
UT2 stream, which is an Enhancement 11, was observed with bed aggradation at stations 308+75,
310+00, and station 311+25. Aggradation has resulted in sheet flow onto the flood plain rather than a
single channel at station 311+25. While these areas are under the mapping threshold, Wildlands will
continue to monitor the areas of concern during future site visits.
The were some areas that required some remedial action after the IRT and DMS MY1 site walk, which
appear to be stable and functioning properly. Specifically, 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 was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent erosion until the vegetation was
established, which was noted to have improved throughout this area in MY2. Wildlands will continue to
monitor in subsequent years.
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, 17.2% of the easement
contained invasive plants that warranted treatment to prevent any future impact. The treatment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

included cutting to the plants and applying glyphosate the stumps or stems. Refer to Appendix 2 for the
vegetation condition assessment table and the CCPV map.
Less than 1% of the easement contains a few areas of poor herbaceous cover that are located between
GWGs 7 and 8, along the right bank of UT2 around station 306+00 and the left bank of Vile Creek Reach
3 located at the boulder toe between stations 125+00 —126+00. These areas will require additional
seeding, fertilizing and live stakes around the Vile Creek Reach 3 section.
As stated earlier, multiple areas of erosion and scour have occurred throughout the Site. Wildlands will
continue to monitor these areas and take necessary action to stabilize the bank, if the bank erosion
advances.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 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 of two or more bankfull events occurring in separate years within the
restoration and enhancement reaches. The average planted stem density for the Site is 502 stems per
acres and is on track to meeting the MY7 success criteria and 15 of the 17 individual vegetation plots
meet the MY3 success criteria as noted in the CCPV. Vegetation plots 9 and 14 may warrant a
supplemental planting next winter. All groundwater gage met the success criteria for MY2; however, a
change was observed in the hydrology for multiple gages. 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 2 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 2 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 Army Corps of Engineers. Email 2018. Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring
Parameter.
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 2 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

qq • �+ . JIIuepc(
ipp
�
7 -
" Jar •' � I ', : ,• '' _ �� f � � .
l .r .-
F
a,
■ r
4
1
r d
:Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
W
05050001030015
IP F'
jS14 F. Prwce
1
6
nrPnL r
i
b5050001030020 7
■
A.
Q t
s
1
050500
arc t
11� 1
i
Glade �lwr1 '
np two.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of` -
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directions to Site:
To reach the site from Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West toward
US70/Greensboro/Winston-Salem. Keep right at the fork to
continue on 1-40 Business West/US-421 North. Take exit 6B for
US -52 North/US-311 North/NC-8 North toward Mount Airy/Smith
Reynolds/Airport. Merge onto US -311 North/US-52 North and
continue to follow US -52 North. Continue on 1-74 West. Take exit 6
for NC -89 toward Mount Airy. At the end of the exit ramp, turn left
onto NC -89 West. Travel 13.7 miles, turn left onto NC -18 South.
Travel 14.4 miles, cross over Vile Creek. Napco Road will be on
the right. Take the next left onto a gravel farm road to access the Site.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D 5 ° 0 0.5 1 Mile DMS Project No. 96582
l Monitoring Year 2-2018
Alleghany County, NC

%limp
Conservation Easement
— Stream Restoration
Aq
4v-_
Stream Enhancement I
r
Stream Enhancement 11
r►
Wetland Rehabilitation
0 Wetland Re-establishment
Q Bog Cell
7
0 Stormwater BMP
■
;;' ti
Non -Project Stream
■ .*
Reach Breaks
T'
■
r r
r r
w f
w i
r
�
�J•� _ _
�+� a
w
s
i
♦ .,fir, r.r i
• + j
r
ry
�;y
aQ • �. • • / • • .
Figure 2 Project Component Map
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
W 1 L D LAN D S , � 0 I I I 700 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
! nf:iVCk.N[:
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Alleghany County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
ITIGATION CREDIT
Creditable As -Built footage excludes conservation easement breaks and a section along UT3 that exists outside of conservation easement.
2As-Built credits (SMUs) have been adjusted where the easement is restricted and the full buffer width and/or bankfull width is not fully contained within the conservation easement. The reductions are greater
in the as -built compared to the mitigation plan. The as -built credit reductions follows the updated 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation update.
3Stream mitigation credits and stationg noted above are based on the as -built stream centerline.
Stream
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient PhosphorousOffset
Nutrient
R RE R RE
4
Type R RE
Totals 5,053.000 N/A
5.703 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PROJECTOF J0 • ••
Riparian
Creditable
Riparian
Buffer
Upland
Existing
Design
Wetlan d
Restoration (R) or
As -Built Stationing/
As Built
As Built
Mitigation
Buffer Width
As -Built Credits
ReachlD
Footage/
Footage/
Approach
Restoration Equivalent 3
Location
Footage/
Footage/
Ratio
Credit ( )23 Notes
SMU/WMU
Acreage
g
Acreage
g
(RE)
)
Acreage 1,3
g
3,047.000
Reduction
Enhancement 1
1,114.000
Acreage
STREAMS
Enhancement II
3,895.000
Wetland Rehabilitation
3.020
Alignment changed from mitigation plan/final design due to
Vile Creek Reach 1
962
920
P1
Restoration (R)
101+81 - 110+63
882
882
1:1
N/A
882.000
establishment
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
1,311.000
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
279.000
restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
Reconstructing
Excludes one 25 foot easement crossing break from 207+13 -
channel to correct
201+60 - 207+16 &
UT1 Reach 1
1,143
1,107
Enhancement I (R)
1,114
1,088
1.5:1
95
630.000
207+38. As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is
profile & cross
207+42 - 212+74
restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
section
Excludes 77 feet of stream outside of conservation easement from
UT1 Reach 2
989
825
P1
Restoration (R)
212+74 - 215+68 &
854
777
1:1
27
750.000
215+68 - 216+45. Alignment changed from design due to bedrock
216+45 - 221+28
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 11 (R)
250+36 - 251+64
128
128
2.5:1
3
48.000
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 11 (R)
270+53 - 272+81
228
228
2.5:1
2
89.000
As -Built credits were reduced for areas where easement is
restricted and the full buffer width is not possible.
UT2
1,226
1,226
Fencing/Planting
Enhancement 11 (R)
300+36-312+62
1,226
1,226
2.5:1
N/A
490.000
UT3
1,316
1,236
Fencing/Planting
Enhancement II (R)
401+10 - 412+94 &
1,316
1,236
2.5:1
33
461.000
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
I Enhancement II (R)
502+33 - 505+17
284
284
2.5:1
N/A
114.000
WETLANDS
Planting / Minor
Wetland Rehabilitation
3.02
3.02
Restoration (R)
N/A
3.02
3.02
1.3:1
N/A
2.323
grading
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
3.380
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.
2As-Built credits (SMUs) have been adjusted where the easement is restricted and the full buffer width and/or bankfull width is not fully contained within the conservation easement. The reductions are greater
in the as -built compared to the mitigation plan. The as -built credit reductions follows the updated 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation update.
3Stream mitigation credits and stationg noted above are based on the as -built stream centerline.
COMPONENT
SUMMATION
Non -
Riparian
Stream
Riparian
Buffer
Upland
Restoration Level
Wetlan d
(LF)
Wetland
(square feet)
(acres)
(acres)
acres
Restoration
3,047.000
Enhancement 1
1,114.000
Enhancement II
3,895.000
Wetland Rehabilitation
3.020
Wetland Re-
3.380
establishment

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
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 area'
N/A
February 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
N/A
February 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for
reach/segments
N/A
February 2017
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey March 2017
April 2017
Vegetation Survey April 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey September 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey September 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey April 2018
November 2018
Vegetation Survey September 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey 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
1Seed 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 2 - 2018
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. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
PROJECT•' •
Project Name Vile Creek Mitigation Site
County Alleghany County
Project Area (acres) 125.04
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 Area
2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Managed Herbaceous (50%), Forested (45%), Mountain Conifers (3%), Impervious (2%)
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters
Vile Creek Vile Creek Vile Creek
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 UTl Reach 1 UTl Reach 2 UT38 UTlt UT2 Little River UT3
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
L31
C4
C4
E41b
F4b
E41b
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 DWQ401 Water Quality Certification No. 3885. Action ID#
SAW -2014-01585
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Vile Creek Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion (CE) Approved 9/15/2014
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 7/25/2014)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No impact application was
prepared for local review.
No post -project activities
required.
Vile Creek 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

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (KEY)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
0 300 600 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Alleghany County, NC

k�&r/
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERIN-n
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Alleghany County, NC

k�r/
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERIN-n
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Alleghany County, NC

k�r/
WILDLANDS
ENG INEERIN-n
r��
100 200 Feet
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Alleghany County, NC

k�r/
WILDLANDS
ENG INEERIN-n
r��
100 200 Feet
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Alleghany County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
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 2 - 2018
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 2 - 2018
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 2 - 2018
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 2 - 2018
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 2 - 2018
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
2
0.1
0.6%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
2
0.1
0.3%
criteria.
Total
4
0.2
0.9%
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
4
0.2
0.9%
Easement Acreage 25
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
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

Photo Point 1— view upstream Vile Creek R1(912612018) 1 Photo Point 1— view downstream Vile Creek R1(912612018) 1
Photo Point 2 — view upstream Vile Creek R1 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 2 — view downstream Vile Creek R1 (9/26/2018)
Photo Point 3—view upstream Vile Creek R1 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 3—view downstream Vile Creek R1 (9/26/2018)

- - - - - � �_ •
--. , . ter.-
-
Ij
4 "d
f
9
4 "d
f
9

Ar
1 :
A
0; low hT
a- 7 �'•'�
...
YY�x��3i9• RY y� �s�°' '
-
r�
r
-CSA` k y
�!''•
F
y
- r
.�°.. t�y
+
,.
_
\
Mme_ •' �^_l`.A�� \
�� g.w
.
1 :
l
a- 7 �'•'�
...
t L
'hey
-
r�
\ ,1 • ''^x
-CSA` k y
�!''•
i'.
...
-
� "f'""^`"� meg.
\ ,1 • ''^x
.�°.. t�y
+
,.
_
\
Mme_ •' �^_l`.A�� \
�� g.w
i'.
F
aY-
\

Photo Point 10 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 10 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018) 1
Photo Point 11— view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 11— view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018)
Photo Point 12 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018) Photo Point 12 —view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018)

Photo Point 16 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 16 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018) 1
Photo Point 17 — view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 17 — view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018)
Photo Point 18—view upstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 18—view downstream Vile Creek R2 (9/26/2018)

Photo Point 19 — view upstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 19 — view downstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2018) 1
Photo Point 20 — view upstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 20 — view downstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2018)
Photo Point 21— view upstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 21—view downstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2018)

Photo Point 22 — view upstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 22 — view downstream Vile Creek R3 (9/26/2018) 1
I Photo Point 23 — view upstream Little River (9/26/2018) I Photo Point 23 — view downstream Little River (9/26/2018)
Photo Point 24 — view upstream UT1 R1 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 24 —view downstream UTI R1 (9/26/2018)

Photo Point 25 - view upstream UTI R1 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 25 - view downstream UT1 R1 (9/26/2018) 1
Photo Point 26 - view upstream UTI R1 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 26 - view downstream UT1 R1 (9/26/2018)
Photo Point 27 - view upstream UT1 R1 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 27 - view downstream UT1 R1 (9/26/2018)

Photo Point 28 — view upstream UT1 R2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 28 — view downstream UTI R2 (9/26/2018) 1
Photo Point 29 — view upstream UT1 R2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 29 — view downstream UT1 R2 (9/26/2018)
Photo Point 30 — view upstream UT1 R2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 30 — view downstream UT1 R2 (9/26/2018)

Photo Point 31— view upstream UT2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 31— view downstream UT2 (9/26/2018) 1
Photo Point 31— view of UT2 BMP (9/26/2018)
Photo Point 32 — view upstream UT2 (9/26/2018) Photo Point 32 — view downstream UT2 (9/26/2018)

Photo Point 33 — view upstream UT2 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 33 — view downstream UT2 (9/26/2018) 1
Photo Point 34 —view upstream UT3 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 34 — view downstream UT3 (9/26/2018)
Photo Point 35 — view upstream UT3 (9/26/2018) 1 Photo Point 35 — view downstream UT3 (9/26/2018)

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

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1- (9/12/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 - (9/12/2018) 1
I Vegetation Plot 3 - (9/12/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 - (9/12/2018)
Vegetation Plot 5 - (9/12/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 - (9/12/2018)

m

Bog Vegetation Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Plot MY1 Success Criteria Met
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
88%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 N
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 Y
14 N
15 Y
16 Y
17 Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
11/7/2018 15:28
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Vile MY2.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02147 Vile Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2 (2018)\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 2 - 2018
Scientific Name
Common Name
Vegetation
Species Type Pnol-S P -all
Plot 1
T
Vegetation
Plot 2
1 Vegetation
Current
Plot 3
Plot D.2018)
1 Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation
Plot 5
Vegetation
Plot 6
Vegetation
Plot 7
Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pn2LS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
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
13
13
13
11
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
7
7
7
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
4
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Stem count
12
12
13
11
11
12
14
14
14
13
13
13
8
8
9
17
17
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
4
3
3
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
Stems per ACRE 486
486
526
445
445
486
567
567
567
526
526
526
324
324
364
688
688
728
567
567
567
Scientific Name
Common Name
Vegetation
Species Type PnoLS P -all
Plot 8
T
Vegetation
Plot 9
Vegetation
Plot 10
4:0 A-F-IFIMAIMPAPAt
Vegetation Plot 11
E.
Vegetation
Plot 12
Vegetation
Plot 13
Vegetation
Plot 14
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
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
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
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
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
Stem count
14
14
14
6
6
6
19
19
21
13
13
14
14
14
14
12
12
12
4
4
4
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5 1
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
3
3
3
Stems per ACRE
567
567
567
243
243
243
769
769
850
526
526
567
567
567
567
486
486
486
162
162
IF
I'll
t
Scientific Name
Common Name
Vegetation Plot 15
Species Type PnoLS I P -all T
Vegetation
PnoLS P -all
Plot 16
T
Vegetation
Pnol-S P -all
Plot 17
T
MY2 (9/2018)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY1 (9/2017)
Pnol-S P -all T
MYO (3/2017)
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
3
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
3
8
8
8
1
1
1
29
29
29
43
43
43
55
55
55
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
16
16
16
21
21
21
21
21
21
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
12
12
12
12
12
12
14
14
14
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
17
17
19
16
16
16
19
19
19
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
ITree
1 1
1
1
1
1 9 1
9
9
11
1 11
11
12 1
12
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
JTree
35
35
35
36
36
36
35
35
35
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
7
7
7
11
11
11
14
14
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
18
18
18
24
24
24
38
38
38
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
7
7
7
38
38
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
M33
29
29
29
35
35
35
39
39
39Stem
count
19
19
19
10
10
10
211
211
218
250
250
250
288
288
288
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size(ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.42
0.42
0.42Species
count
6
6
6
2
2
2
11
11
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
Stems Der ACREI 769 1 769 1 769 405 1 405 1 445 1 445 1 445
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
502 1 519 1 595 1 595 1 595 1 68M 686 1 686

Table 9b. Planted Herbaceous Cover (Bog Cells)
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Percent Cover
0®
• r
r r -----

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reach 2
( --- ): Data was not provided
•
•CONDITION-1DATA
Vile Creek Reach
1
Vile Creek Reach 2
Meadow Creek
West Fork of Chestnut Creek
Brush Creek
Little Glade Creek ]-Vile
Creek Reach 1
Vile Creek Reach
2
Vile Creek Reach 1
Vile Creek Reach
2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min-----T-Max
in
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.3
22.4
26.0
18.3
20.3
22.8
34.7
17.0
19.0
17.1
18.8
18.7
19.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
333
119
52.0
---
---
---
37
F 85
42
95
>200
156
188
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
0.9
2.4
1.8
2.2
1.7
2.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
2.7
1.6
3.3
2.2
2.8
2.3
2.4
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
30.4
31.7
20.1
48.0
62.2
35.8
40.0
37.9
76.5
19.6
23.7
19.8
21.2
22.5
28.6
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
25.1
10.9
8.3
11.5
13.4
15.8
14.7
15.2
13.7
17.8
12.9
15.5
Entrenchment Ratio
17.2
5.3
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
2.2
1 5.0
2.2
1
5.0
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
1.8
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
D50 (mm)l
112.0
56.3
60.4
69.3
58.6
61.5
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
19.7
74.1
18.3
94.1
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.021
0.050
0.0190
0.063
---
0.0110
0.0280
0.0040
0.0140
0.0148
0.0333
0.016
0.0360
0.0164
0.0420
0.0187
0.0385
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
38.8
149.3
47.1
123.7
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.9
3.1
---
3.8
4.1
---
---
1.4
2.9
1.5
3.1
3.1
4.4
3.4
5.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
36
F
69
33
1
88
---
31
124
---
---
34
119
38
133
55
161
87
172
Pool Volume ft3
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
38
90
42
93
---
64
71
---
---
51
119
57
133
34
127
48
88
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
80
55
125
---
26
40
---
---
34
68
38
76
34
50
38
76
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1
4.1
2.4
5.6
---
1.3
2.0
---
---
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
1.8
2.9
2.0
4.1
Meander Wavelength (ft)
160
190
100
330
---
---
---
---
119
238
133
266
125
214
177
235
Meander Width Ratio
2.0
4.7
1.9
4.2
---
---
---
---
3
7
3
7
2
7
3
5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
8.7/30.2/99.4/180/243/>2048
0.16/6.1/38/95/139/>2048
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.15/0.39/25.7/90.0/163.3/362.
0.19/0.53/9.6/69.2/120.3/362.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ftZ
1.20
0.80
---
---
---
---
1.1
1.2
0.86
1.09
0.69
0.74
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
175
130
---
---
---
---
165
175
42
54
43
53
Stream Power (Capacity) W mZ
3.8
5.9
4.1
5.8
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
2.2
2.6
2.70
1.60
1.67
3.30
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.6
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
3%
---
---
---
---
3%
3%
Rosgen Classification
C3
C4
C
E4
C4
C4
C
C
C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3
3.2
6.0
F
2.5
---
4.6
5.3
4.4
5.5
4.7
5.0
4.4
5.2
5.5
5.2
Design Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
100
120
---
164
210
168
424
100
120
87
133
103
144
Q- Little River LWP Regional 1.25-yr(cfs)
107
124
Q- Little River LWP Regional 1.5 -yr (cfs)
122
141
Q- Rural Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
180
206
Q -Revised Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
102
117
Q- Basin Ration Method 1.1 -yr (cfs)
101
121
Q- Basin Ration Method 1.25 -yr (cfs)
122
146
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
729
1042
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
962
1,247
---
---
---
---
920
1260
882
1,311
Sinuosity
1.3
1.3
---
---
---
---
1.20
1.30
1.20
1.30
1.21
1.26
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.014
0.011
---
0.010
0.012
0.010
0.0123
0.0133
0.0131
0.0142
0.014
0.012
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.017
0.016
---
---
---
---
0.016
0.017
0.015
0.012
( --- ): Data was not provided

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1 Reach 1, UTI Reach 2
(--- ): Data was not provided
' Design parameters for pattern features are not reported for UT1 Reach 1 because the channel was designed as Enhancement I.
PRE -RESTORATION
CONDITIONDATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
UTI Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2
Little Pine III UT2A
Henry Fork UT Upstream
UT to Gap Branch
Group Camp Tributary
UT1 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.9
19.2
12.6
3.2
7.7
6.2
4.2
4.4
8.0
9.0
7.7
8.6
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
203.0
28.0
31.0
6
13
21
9
11
14
18
15
1
20
63
91
96
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
0.4
1.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
0.9
2.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
7.3
10.3
8.4
11.8
18.1
1.9
3.6
3.8
3.4
3.6
4.3
5.2
4.1
5.9
7.8
Width/Depth Ratiol
8.6
43.9
8.7
5.2
16.4
10.1
5.2
5.5
14.9
15.6
12.4
1
14.7
11.4
Entrenchment Ratiol
25.6
1.5
2.4
1.7
2.0
3.4
1.9
2.5
1.8
1
2.3
1.7
1
2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
3.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
32
28.5
---
---
---
---
---
22.6
34.3
28.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
11.0
53.1
13.5
60.7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.022
0.11
0.0280
0.071
0.0404 0.0517
0.0500
0.0700
0.0110 0.1400
0.0110
0.1220
0.0291
0.0640
0.0282
0.6200
0.0149
0.0410
0.0176
0.0897
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
13.0
36.9
8.6
42.5
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.3
1.6
2.2 2.5
6.1
1.8
2.8
1.1
1.9
1.2
2
0.8
2.6
1.1
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
15
39
14
58
78
14
25
18 27
5
58
16
48
162
486
7
59
38
88
Pool Volume (ft)
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
40
55
60
80
---
---
---
16
17
N/Al
13
32
N/Al
6
66
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
40
15
65
---
---
---
8
11.8
N/Al
20
59
N/Al
18
59
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.5
5.1
0.8
3.4
---
---
---
1.9
2.7
N/Al
2.2
6.6
N/Al
2.0
6.5
Meander Length (ft)
57
100
115
140
---
---
---
31
34
N/A'
64
110
N/Al
56
152
Meander Width Ratio
5.1
7.0
3.1
4.2
---
---
---
3.6
3.8
N/Al
1.5
3.6
N/Al
1
7
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.4/1.7/25.9/137/203/256
0.17/0.55/26.9/133/205/256
---
---
---
0.21/0.79/8.6/51.0/126.9/256.0 0.25/4.47/12.1/70.5/101.2/180.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftZ
0.7
0.4
---
---
---
0.5
0.6
0.53
0.84
1.39
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
115
75
---
---
---
95
100
26
41
68
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
1.54
3.4
8.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.30
0.34
0.12
0.20
0.04
0.10
0.30
0.34
0.30
0.34
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
---
---
---
---
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
E4b
F4b
A/B
B4a
B4a/A4
E5b
B
B
B
B
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
1.7
2.3
1.7
2.4
0.5
3.8
5.4
5.0
3.4
3.6
3.8
3.9
2.8
3.9
5.3
Design Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
17
20
9
12
19
12
17
20
8
16
42
Q- Little River LWP Regional 1.25-yr(cfs)
21
23
Q- Little River LWP Regional 1.5 -yr (cfs)
24
26
Q- Rural Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
40
44
Q -Revised Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
21
24
Q- Basin Ration Method 1.1 -yr (cfs)
16
16
Q- Basin Ration Method 1.25 -yr (cfs)
17
19
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
903
755
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,143
989
---
---
---
1,132
863
1,114
854
Sinuosity
1.26
1.3
---
1.1
---
1.6
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
0.022
0.028
0.0433
0.0420
0.0680
0.0167
0.0291
1
0.0320
0.0282
1
0.0310
0.0264
0.0288
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.032
0.033
---
0.0460
---
0.0229
0.0320
0.0310
0.0261
0.0284
(--- ): Data was not provided
' 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 2 - 2018
Icross-Section
Dimension and Substrate' Base
MY1
1, Vile
MY2
Creek Reach I
MY3 MYS
(Pool) Cross -Section
MY7 Base
MY1
2, Vile
MY2
Creek Reach 1
MY3 MY5
(Riffle) Cross -Section
MY7 Base
MY1
3, Vile Creek Reach 1 (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 2700.8 2700.7 2701.0
2700.0 2700.0 2699.4
2695.7 2695.7 2695.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2700.8 2700.7 2700.8
2700.0 2700.0 2700.1
2695.7 2695.7 2695.6
Bankfull Width (ft) 25.1
24.6
26.1
17.1
17.6
13.2
18.8
17.9
16.3
Floodprone Width (ft) ---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.0
2.8
2.7
2.1
2.3
2.3
1.9
2.2
2.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftZ) 29.2
25.8
29.2
21.2
22.7
21.2
19.8
20.9
19.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio---
---
---
13.7
13.7
8.2
17.8
15.3
13.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ---
---
>10.6
11.4
10.9
>10.7
>11.2
>6.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ---
Cross -Section
Dimension and Substrate' Base
---
MY1
---
4, Vile
MY2
CreerR-e-a-cRTTR-i-ffie)'Woss-Section
MY3 MYS
1.1
MY7 Base
1.1
MY1
1.3
5, Vile
MY2
Creek Reach 2
MY3 MYS
1.0
(Riffle) Cross
MY7 Base
1.0
-Section
MY1
1.1
6, Vile Creek Re-acrf "Poo
MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 2691.7 2691.7 2691.7
2688.9 2688.9 2688.8
2687.9 2687.9 2688.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2691.7 2691.7 2691.7
2688.9 2688.9 2689.0
2687.9 2687.9 2688.1
Bankfull Width (ft) 18.7
19.4
20.1
19.2
19.8
17.5
24.1
24.0
26.5
Floodprone Width (ft) 188.0
188.0
88.6
156.0
156.0
96.9
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.2
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.0 1
2.3 1
2.2 1
1 1
1 2.3 1
2.5 1
2.5 1
1 1
1 3.6
1 4.0 1
3.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftZ) 22.5
23.1
22.5
28.6
29.7
28.6
44.3
39.6
44.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.5
16.3
18.0
12.9
13.2
10.7
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 10.1
9.7
4.4
8.1
7.9
5.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
Cross
Dimension and Substrate' Base
1.0
-Section
MY1
1.0
7, LIT1
MY2
Reach 1 (Riffle)
MY3 MYS
1.0
Cross
MY7 Base
1.0
-Section
MYl
1.1
8, LIT1
MY2
Reach 1 [���ion
MY3 MYS
MY7 Base
MY1
9, UT1 Reach I (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 2743.9 2743.9 2743.5
2725.7 2725.7 2726.2
2725.3 2725.3 2725.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2743.9 2743.9 2743.9
2725.7 2725.7 2726.0
2725.3 2725.3 2725.3
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.6
8.1
5.1
11.3
8.2
10.2
7.7
6.5
7.1
Floodprone Width (ft) 63.0
63.0
83.7
---
---
---
97.0
97.0
80.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.1 1
2.2 1
1.7
1 1
1.4 1
0.8 1
1.2
1 1
1.1
1 1.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 5.9
9.4
5.9
7.1
4.4
7.1
4.1
4.2
4.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.4
7.0
4.4
---
---
---
14.7
9.9
12.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 7.3
7.8
16.4
---
---
---
12.5
15.0
11.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0
1.3
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
<1
Dimension and Substrate' Base MY1 MY2
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 2713.5 2713.5 2713.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2713.5 2713.5 2713.5
Bankfull Width (ft) 13.3 12.6 12.8
Floodprone Width (ft) --- --- ---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.7 1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.9 1.8 2.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 12.6 1 9.0 1 12.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio --- --- ---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio --- --- I --- I
MY3 MYS
1 1
I I
MY7 Base MY3 MY2
2712.9 2712.9 2713.0
2712.9 2712.9 2712.9
9.0 12.6 10.1
96.0 96.0 85.3
0.8 0.5 1.5
1.3 1.4 1.5
1 7.8 6.5 7.8
11.4 1 24.5 13.0
10.7 7.6 8.5
1 1.0 1.0 <1
MY3 MYS
MY7
'Prior to MY2, Bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7, bankfull elevation and channel cross-section dimensions are calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR
Monitoring Parameter document Provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).

Table 12a. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Vile Creek, Reach 1 and Reach 2
Vile Reach 1
Vile Reach 2
Vile Reach 1
Vile Reach 2
Vile Reach 1
Vile Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
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
13.2
16.3
17.5
20.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
156
188
>200
156.0
188.0
>200
88.6
96.9
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.6
1.1
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
19.8
21.2
22.5
28.6
20.9
22.7
23.1
29.7
19.8
21.2
22.5
28.6
Width/Depth Ratio
13.7
17.8
12.9
15.5
13.7
15.3
13.2
1 16.3
8.2
13.5
10.7
18.0
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>6.0
10.9
4.5
5.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm)
60.4
69.3
58.6
61.5
82.0
101.2
70.9
78.5
77.8
92.3
78.1
93.6
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%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
<1%
<1%

Table 12b. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1 Reach 1 and Reach 2
N/A: Not Applicable
ELM
UT1 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.7
8.6
9.0
6.5
8.1
12.6
5.1
7.1
10.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
63
91
96
63.0
82.4
96.0
80.2
83.7
85.3
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.5
0.6
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
2.2
1.4
1.1
1.7
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.1
5.9
7.8
4.2
9.4
6.5
4.1
5.9
7.8
Width/Depth Ratio
12.4
14.7 1
11.4
7.0
9.9
24.5
4.4
12.2
13.0
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
1
>2.2
>2.2
11.3
16.4
8.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
0.9
D50 (mm)
22.6
34.3
28.1
29.8
48.3
58.6
45
78.1
72.7
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/Al
6
66
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A'
18
59
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Al
2.0
6.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A'
56
152
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
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 (ft/ft)
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 Banks
0%
0%
<1%
<1%
N/A: Not Applicable

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 1- Vile Creek Reach 1
105+60 Pool
2704
2702
2700
c
O
d
2698
2696
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) tMY1 (09/2017) +MY2 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
29.2 x -section area (ft.sq.)
26.1 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
28.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
23.3 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 2 - Vile Creek Reach 1
106+31 Riffle
21.2
2704
13.2
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
15.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.2
width -depth ratio
143.9
W flood prone area (ft)
10.9
entrenchment ratio
1.3
low bank height ratio
2702
2700
c
O
�
r
d
2698
2696
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) 4 MY1 (09/2017) +MY2 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
21.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.2
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
15.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.2
width -depth ratio
143.9
W flood prone area (ft)
10.9
entrenchment ratio
1.3
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 3 - Vile Creek Reach 1
109+21 Riffle
19.8
2700
16.3
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
17.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
2698
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
108.6
W flood prone area (ft)
6.6
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
2696
c
O
d
2694
2692
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) tMY1 (09/2017) tMY2 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
19.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.3
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
17.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
108.6
W flood prone area (ft)
6.6
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 4 - Vile Creek Reach 2
112+46 Riffle
22.5
2696
20.1
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
21.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
2694
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0
width -depth ratio
88.6
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
2692
c
O
d
2690
2688
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) tMY1 (09/2017) tMY2 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
22.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
20.1
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
21.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0
width -depth ratio
88.6
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 5 - Vile Creek Reach 2
114+84 Riffle
2692
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.5
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
18.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
2690
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.7
width -depth ratio
96.9
W flood prone area (ft)
5.5
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
2688
c
O
d
2686
2684
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) 4 MY1 (09/2017) tMY2 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
28.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.5
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
18.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.7
width -depth ratio
96.9
W flood prone area (ft)
5.5
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 6 - Vile Creek Reach 2
115+52 Pool
2692
2690
2688
c
O
d
2686
2684
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) +MY1 (09/2017) tMY2 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
44.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
26.5 width (ft)
1.7 mean depth (ft)
3.9 max depth (ft)
28.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.9 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 7 - UT1 Reach 1
203+51 Riffle
2750
5.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.1
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.7
2748
6.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
4.4
width -depth ratio
2746
W flood prone area (ft)
16.4
entrenchment ratio
1.3
low bank height ratio
2744
v
w
2742
2740
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) MY1 (09/2017) MY2 (04/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.1
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
6.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
4.4
width -depth ratio
83.7
W flood prone area (ft)
16.4
entrenchment ratio
1.3
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 8 - UT1 Reach 1
210+28 Pool
2734
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
10.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
2732
width -depth ratio
2730
2728
c
0
v 2726
w
2724
2722
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2017) +MY1 (09/2017) +MY2 (04/2018) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
10.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 9 - UT1 Reach 1
210+52 Riffle
2729
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
7.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
80.2
W flood prone area (ft)
11.3
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
2727
2725
c
0
_v
2723
2721
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2017) tMY1(09/2017) +MY2(04/2018) -Bankfull- FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
4.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
7.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
80.2
W flood prone area (ft)
11.3
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 10 - UT1 Reach 2
215+05 Pool
2718
12.8
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
14.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
,
13.0
width -depth ratio
2716
2714
c
0
_v
2712
2710
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) MY1 (09/2017) +MY2 (04/2018) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.8
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
14.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-section Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross-section 11 - UT1 Reach 2
215+30 Riffle
2717
2715
2713
c
0
Of
_v
2711
2709
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2017) +MYI (09/2017) * MY2 (04/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.1
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
10.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.0
width -depth ratio
85.3
W flood prone area (ft)
8.5
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
1.64
D50 =
40.2
D84 =
Class
Percent
175.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
4
5
5
5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
2
7
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
4
5
5
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
7
8
8
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
4
5
5
25
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
12
14
14
39
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3 50
39
Ver Fine
s..a..a.w.•o•.•o y
2.8
4.0
39
;a`w.o•.o•.o•..o;
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
20
39
®®®®®® ®® Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
40
eec�aa, eec
%'�'•o�•;•�;3' te`'`'a Medium
�$�p�;o�;o�'o�• R�a�'A�9'o
Medium
8.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
41
43
®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
2
3
3
46
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
2
2
48
Very Coarse
32
45
2
1
3
3
51
Very Coarse
45
64
7
5
12
12
63
Small
64
90
7
3
10
10
73
Small
90
128
10
1
11
11
84
Large
128
180
10
2
12
12
96
Large
180
256
1
1
1
97
Small
256
362
2
2
2
99
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024 1
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
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
DI6 =
0.35
D35 =
1.64
D50 =
40.2
D84 =
128.0
D95 =
175.0
D100 =
512.0
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
avel
90
le
er
gp
80
d
a ro
70
y
60
a
50
60
m
40
U
3 50
30
>
E
v
20
13 40
10
0
otiby yeoy ti titib' ae6 titi tib o3ti00`Co.ywtiyo566tititi yo eeb
00 oti o• titi' ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
30
u
■MVO -03/2017 MYl-09/2017 ■Serve 8
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO -03/2017 MVI -09/2017 --S--MV2-09/2018
Vile Creek Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
d
70
y
60
a
50
m
40
U
30
>
v
20
10
0
otiby yeoy ti titib' ae6 titi tib o3ti00`Co.ywtiyo566tititi yo eeb
00 oti o• titi' ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MVO -03/2017 MYl-09/2017 ■Serve 8

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
100
90
80
70
60
Z so
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)
--0--MYO-03/2017 MV1-09/2017 tMV2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D16 =
Summary
Particle Class
53.67
Dso =
77.8
Class
Percent
P234.4
1
Count
90
min
max
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
70
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
6
8
®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
e;;c:co®®03+e0
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;seo Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
3
8
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
4.0
5.6
30
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
10
Z
20
10
1
"spa+e; Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
12
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
14
e®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
8
22
%:<>z Coarse
22.6
32
1
2
24
Particle Class Size (mm)
32
45
2
4
28
Very Coarse
45
64
7
14
42
Small
64
90
7
14
56
Small
90
128
11
22
78
Large
128
180
7
14
92
Large
180
256
2
4
96
Small
256
362
1
2
98
111111 Small
362
512
1
2
100
ii Medium
512
1024
100
HHHUM....
::::::......:::Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z so
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)
--0--MYO-03/2017 MV1-09/2017 tMV2-09/2018
Cross-section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
17.44
Das =
53.67
Dso =
77.8
D80. =
148.1
P234.4
1
512.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z so
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)
--0--MYO-03/2017 MV1-09/2017 tMV2-09/2018
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 2
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 O•
1 'L ,tib b 46 0 ,y1 ti° �o .�'L ph 6P 00 ,ti97 9O y6 6'L ,y'L .yd p.01p
'y'1'• 1 1 'L 3 h y0 10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -03/2017 0 MYI-09/2017 0 MV2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Das =
72.11
Dso =
Class
Percent
160.7
P230.3
Count
362.0
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
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
er
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
6
8
®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
e;;c:co®®03+e0
g.e.°.o•o•o;s..4;seo Very Fine
2.8
4.0
a ro
8
a s °.000;.• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1 2
10
ec;S�'ee`e;
Medium
8.0
11.0
10
ossa°•s''•o'�,o; g���sa
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
e®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
2
12
%•<>z Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
16
32
45
2
4
20
45
64
4
8
28
Small
64
90
10
20
48
Small
90
128
14
28
76
Large
1 128
180
6
12
88
Large
180
256
5
10
98
Small
256
362
1
2
100
111111 Small
HHHUMUNii
��
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
a 20
Totall
50
1 100
100
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Cross-section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
32.00
Das =
72.11
Dso =
92.3
D80. =
160.7
P230.3
362.0
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sar id
avel
b e
er
80
a ro
70
60
Y
50
E
i? 40
y 30
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--4-- MVO -03/2017 MYl-09/2017 t MV2-09/2018
100
90
80
E 70
w
60
a
� 50
M
40
3 30
Z 20
10
0
Vile Creek Reach 1, Cross-section 3
Individual Class Percent
y'L 10 It, Oy 1 'L ,tib b 56 0 1y1 ti° �o .5'L ph oP 00 ,ti97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L .yd 0 0�O
00 Oti O• ��'' 1 1 'L 3 h 10 10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -03/2017 . MVI -09/2017 0 MV2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
50.24
D50 =
68.1
Class
Percent
D95 =
min
max
Riffle Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
11
70
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
2
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
i 60
60
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
10
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
m
40
14
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
Ver Fine
s..a..a.w.•o•.•o y
2.8
4.0
14
;a`w.o•.o•.o•..o;
Fine
4.0
5.6
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
>
�? 40
14
®®®®®® ®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
2
16
Medium
11.0
16.0
16
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
2
18
®�'Jroro'J.a�a�'J'J Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
8
26
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
4
30
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
16
46
Small
64
90
11
11
22
68
Small
90
128
9
9
18
86
Large
128
180
4
4
8 1
94
Large
180
256
1
1
2
96
Small
256
362
1
1
2
98
. Small
362
512
1
1
2
100
Medium
512
1024
100
,':"""""-"""""""""""':ILarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50 1 0 1
50 1
100 1
100
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
DI6 =
11.00
D35 =
50.24
D50 =
68.1
D84 =
123.1
D95 =
214.7
D100 =
512.0
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand I F
avel
100
ble
90
er
80
80
a ro
11
70
d
70
1
i 60
60
Ad
50
3 50
m
40
U
E
76
30
>
�? 40
v
20
30
u
me-
10
0
ow 20
otitis yeoy ti titin
00 oti o•
o06 �tititi� o3ti001` p.ywtiyo��6tititi yo eeb
titi' ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -03/2017
MVI -09/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO -03/2017 MVI -09/2017 —0--MV2-09/2018
Vile Creek Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
d
70
y
60
a
50
m
40
U
76
30
>
v
20
10
0
otitis yeoy ti titin
00 oti o•
o06 �tititi� o3ti001` p.ywtiyo��6tititi yo eeb
titi' ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -03/2017
MVI -09/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Das =
60.35
Dso =
Class
Percent
143.4
Dos =
176.6
Count
362.0
90
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
Sand
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
er
0
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
10
10
2.0
2.8
40
10
eec�as,»e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
a ro
10
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
Z
10
a�e�;oos0000: Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
12
,gag8g;;y
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
14
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
4
18
•:<>z Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
22
.y0 Oh 1 'L ,ti0 d y6 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L by oP �p ,1.97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L �•d A� 0�O
p• �ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,10 b0
32
45
4
8
30
0 MYO-03/2017 0 MYl-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018
E
45
64
3
6
36
Small
64
90
12
24
60
Small
90
128
9
18
78
Large
128
180
9
18
96
Lar a
180
256
1
2
98
Small
256
362
1
2
100
111111 Small
��
HHHHHUMMedium
362
512
100
512
1024
100
: Lar a/Ve Lar a
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Cross-section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
19.02
Das =
60.35
Dso =
78.1
D80. =
143.4
Dos =
176.6
Dlao =
362.0
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 4
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
L ave,
E
w
70
60
a
le
er
50
gp
40
3
a ro
70
Z
20
10
> 60
Y
50
0
y'L .yy
QO Oti
.y0 Oh 1 'L ,ti0 d y6 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L by oP �p ,1.97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L �•d A� 0�O
p• �ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017 0 MYl-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018
E
i?40
d00
30
a 20
10
R±1A
0 _1_U_
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-03/2017 MYl-09/2017 MY2-09/2018
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
0
y'L .yy
QO Oti
.y0 Oh 1 'L ,ti0 d y6 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L by oP �p ,1.97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L �•d A� 0�O
p• �ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017 0 MYl-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
65.58
Dso =
Class
Percent
199.1
Dos =
304.4
Count
1024.0
90
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
I Lavel
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
2
4
Ver Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
4
8
s®®®®®®®®®®®® ® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
8
eec�as,»e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Very Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
8
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
4.0
5.6
60
Y
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
Z
8
1
50
a�e�;oos0000: Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
10
,gag8g;;y
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
12
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
2
14
•:<>z Coarse
22.6
32
4
8
22
Particle Class Size (mm)
32
45
2
4
26
45
64
4
8
34
Small
64
90
7
14
48
Small
90
128
9
18
66
Large
1 128
180
7
14
80
Lar a
180
256
7
14
94
Small
256
362
1
2
96
111111 Small
362
512
1
2
98
Medium
512
1024 1
1
2
100
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
1 2048
>2048
100
0 _EE
Totall
50
1 100
1 100
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Cross-section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
24.65
D35 =
65.58
Dso =
93.6
D84 =
199.1
Dos =
304.4
D10o =
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
Silt/Clay
80
Sand
I
I Lavel
E
w
70
bble
er
80
50
m
a ro
70
�
40
3
30
60
Y
Z
20
10
50
16,
E
0
y'L �h
p0 Oti
.1h Oh 1 'L ,tib b 56 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L ph oP p0 ,ti97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L N .yd
p• �ti• ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
i? 40
d 30
a 20
10
Al
0 _EE
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-03/2017 MYl-09/2017 MY2-09/2018
Vile Creek Reach 2, Cross-section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E
w
70
60
50
m
�
40
3
30
Z
20
10
16,
0
y'L �h
p0 Oti
.1h Oh 1 'L ,tib b 56 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L ph oP p0 ,ti97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L N .yd
p• �ti• ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017 • MYl-09/2017 • MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Das =
17.95
D50 =
30.3
D84 =
Class
Percent
128.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
7
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
gp
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
70
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
2
2
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
50
3
3
3
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
11
14
14
27
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
27
Ver Fine
s..a..a.w.•o•.•o y
2.8
4.0
27
;a`w.o•.o•.o•..o;
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
20
27
Fine
5.6
8.0
27
®®®®®® ®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
1
3
3
30
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
33
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
5
6
6
39
®�'ororo'osaa�'o'0 Coarse
22.6
32
5
8
13
13
52
Very Coarse
32
45
4
5
9
9
61
Very Coarse
45
64
11
6
17
17
78
Small
64
90
8
8
8
86
Small
90
128
9
9
9
95
Large
128
180
3
3
3 1
98
Large
180
256
1
MVO -03/2017 MVI -09/2017 —4--MV2-09/2018
1
1
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
1: HHUH
HHHHHH".'. Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024 1
100
UNUMMMUMSH
Lar a/Ve Lar a
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
s0
I s0 1
100 1
100 1
100
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
DI6 =
1.16
Das =
17.95
D50 =
30.3
D84 =
82.6
D95 =
128.0
D100 =
362.0
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Individual Class Percent
Sand
avel
90
bble
er
80
gp
70
a r
� 70
y
60
a
50
�
60
m
40
�
30
3 50
>
v
20
E
10
0
16
�? 40
o 06 titi ti� 3ti ay �o ti yw yo �e 3"* titi yo e eb
titi' ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -03/2017
MVI -09/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO -03/2017 MVI -09/2017 —4--MV2-09/2018
UT1 Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
y
60
a
50
�
m
40
�
30
>
v
20
10
0
16
oti by ye oy ti ti tiv
00 oti o•
o 06 titi ti� 3ti ay �o ti yw yo �e 3"* titi yo e eb
titi' ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -03/2017
MVI -09/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
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)
t MYO-03/2017 t MYl-09/2017 --4-- MY2-09/2018 MY2-09/2018
MY2-09/2018 t MYl-09/2017 --*— MY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Das =
62.41
Dso =
Class
Percent
124.6
P159.4
Count
180.0
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
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
14
14
2.0
2.8
14
eec�aa,»e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Ver Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
14
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
16
Fine
5.6
8.0
30
16
ecee,'eee;
gc.ao••o •o. .&`c.o Medium
8.0
11.0
16
ossa°•s''•o'°,o; g��a����
Medium
11.0
16.0
16
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
2
18
••<>z Coarse
22.6
32
1
2
20
32
45
1
2
22
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2017 0 MYl-09/2017
• MY2-09/2018 0 MY2-09/2018 • MY2-09/2018 0 MYl-09/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018
45
64
7
1 14
36
Small
64
90
12
24
60
Small
90
128
13
26
86
Large
128
180
7
14
100
Lar e
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
��
HHHHHUMMedium
362
512
100
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large/VeryLarge
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 100
1 100
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)
t MYO-03/2017 t MYl-09/2017 --4-- MY2-09/2018 MY2-09/2018
MY2-09/2018 t MYl-09/2017 --*— MY2-09/2018
Cross-section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.60
Das =
62.41
Dso =
78.1
D80. =
124.6
P159.4
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)
t MYO-03/2017 t MYl-09/2017 --4-- MY2-09/2018 MY2-09/2018
MY2-09/2018 t MYl-09/2017 --*— MY2-09/2018
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
p0 Oti p•
.,'L t" 6P p0 ,1.92 �O y6 6'L ,y'L �•d A� 0�O
�ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2017 0 MYl-09/2017
• MY2-09/2018 0 MY2-09/2018 • MY2-09/2018 0 MYl-09/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
29.34
D5o =
Class
Percent
101.2
Dos =
151.8
Count
256.0
90
min
max
Silt/Clay
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
10
10
Very fine
0.062
0.125
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
10
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
2
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
12
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
10
22
2.0
2.8
22
e•;eco®®oaex
eec�as,»e e;
g.e.o.o•o•o;s..4;seo Ver Fine
a.:?•;oyo;:o;:o;.00s..a..a
2.8
4.0
22
.w.
a s aaao;;,• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
22
Fine
5.6
8.0
30
22
1
a�e�;oos0000: Medium
8.0
11.0
2
4
26
,gag8g;;y
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
28
e®®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
4
32
•:<>z Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
36
b 56 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L ph 6P �O ,ti97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L .yd A� 0�O
�ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,y0 b0
32
45
7
14
50
0 MYl-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018
i? 40
Very Coarse
1 45
64 1
8
16
66
Small
64
90
7
14
80
Small
90
128
6
12
92
Lar a
128
180
3
6
98
Lar a
180
256
1
2
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
362
512
100
HUH��.
ON iii Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Cross-section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.32
D35 =
29.34
D5o =
45.0
D80. =
101.2
Dos =
151.8
Dlao =
256.0
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UT1 Reach 1, Cross-section 9
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I Lave,
80
E
w
We
60
gp
a
H
a ro
� 70
40
3
60
Y
30
Z
20
10
50
E
y'L �h .1h Oh 1 'L ,tib
QO Oti p•
b 56 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L ph 6P �O ,ti97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L .yd A� 0�O
�ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MYl-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018
i? 40
y 30
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-03/2017 MYl-09/2017 MY2-09/2018
UT1 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 1 'L ,tib
QO Oti p•
b 56 0 ,y1 ti° �o .5'L ph 6P �O ,ti97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L .yd A� 0�O
�ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,y0 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MYl-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
U 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)
MVO -03/2017 MVI -09/2017 —0--MV2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
1.73
D50 =
20.1
D84 =
Class
Percent
80.3
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
70
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
8
8
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
50
20
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
13
19
19
39
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
76
39
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
Ver Fine
s..a..a.w.•o•.•o y
2.8
4.0
39
;a`w.o•.o•.o•..o;
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
20
39
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
40
®®®®®® ®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
41
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
44
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
8
9
9
53
®�'ororo'osaa�'o'0 Coarse
22.6
32
7
5
12
12
65
Very Coarse
32
45
7
3
10
10
75
Very Coarse
45
64
12
1 2
14
14
89
Small
64
90
9
9
9
98
Small
90
128
1
1
1
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
.'. Small
362 1
512 1
1 1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Lar a/Ve Lar a
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
s0
so
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
U 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)
MVO -03/2017 MVI -09/2017 —0--MV2-09/2018
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
DI6 =
0.35
D35 =
1.73
D50 =
20.1
D84 =
56.4
D95 =
80.3
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
U 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)
MVO -03/2017 MVI -09/2017 —0--MV2-09/2018
UT1 Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
y
60
a
50
�
m
40
�
76
30
>
v
20
10
0
otitis yeoy ti titin
00 oti o•
o06 �tititi� �3tiay��o o
titi' ti ti ywy566tititi yo eeb
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO -03/2017
MVI -09/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Vile Creek Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
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
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-03/2017 MYl-09/2017 MY2-09/2018
1000 10000
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
49.14
Dso =
Class
Percent
143.4
D95 =
176.6
Count
256.0
90
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
80
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
2
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
2
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
60
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
10
14
s®®®®®®®®®®®® ® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
14
e e;6eea,» e e;
g.e.°.o•o•o;s..4;eeo Very Fine
2.8
4.0
14
a s °.000;.• a aa.y
�..�..& •oro •ao; a.$..�.�.
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
30
14
1
ec;Se,'ee`e;
Medium
8.0
11.0
14
ossa°•s''•o'�,o; g���sa
Medium
11.0
16.0
14
e®®®®®®®®®® ® Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
6
20
%•<>z Coarse
22.6
32
3
6
26
32
45
3
6
32
y'L �h .1h Oh 1 'L ,tib
p0 Oti p•
b 56 0 ,y1 ti° �o .�'L ph 6P p0 ,ti97 �O y6 6'L ,y'L .yd A� 0�O
�ti• 1 1 'L 3 h ,y0 ,y0 b0
Very Coarse
45
64
6
1 12
44
Small
64
90
8
16
60
Small
90
128
9
18
78
Large
128
180
9
18
96
Large
180
256
2
4
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
362
512
100
iiMedium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
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
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-03/2017 MYl-09/2017 MY2-09/2018
1000 10000
Cross-section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
17.95
D35 =
49.14
Dso =
72.7
D80. =
143.4
D95 =
176.6
D100 =
256.0
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
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-03/2017 MYl-09/2017 MY2-09/2018
1000 10000
UT1 Reach 2, Cross-section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E
w
70
60
50
M
40
3
30
Z
20
10
0
y'L �h .1h Oh 1 'L ,tib
p0 Oti p•
b 56 0 ,y1 ti° �o .�'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)
0 MYO-03/2017
0 MYl-09/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Reach
Monitoring Year
Date of Occurrence
Year 1(2017)
Vile Reach 2
MY1
3/31/2017
Stream Gage
4/24/2017
10/8/2017
MY2
9/16/2018
10/11/2018
UTI Reach 2
MY1
5/5/2017
10/8/2017
MY2
10/11/2018
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
*Gages are located in bog habitat.
Growing season is April 26th -October 11th.
Success criteria is 14 days.
11111111111111111111111,111 1111111111lill 1111111111111111111111111111111 11�111111111111 1111 11111111111 ip�111 11111111 1, - 51.77.7r -
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year 1(2017)
Year 2 (2018)
Year 3 (2019)
Year 4 (2020)
Year 5 (2021)
Year 6 (2022)
Year 7 (2023)
1*
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/ 129 Days
Yes/33 Days
2
(77%)
(20%)
Yes/169 Days
Yes/73 Days
3
(100%)
(43%)
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
4
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
5
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
6
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/ 129 Days
Yes/33 Days
7
(77%)
(20%)
Yes/125 Days
Yes/14 Days
8
(74%)
(8%)
Yes/40 Days
Yes/33 Days
9
(24%)
(20%)
10*
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
(100%)
(100%)
*Gages are located in bog habitat.
Growing season is April 26th -October 11th.
Success criteria is 14 days.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Bog Rehabilitation
20
10
0
-10
cuv
-20
v
ra
-30
-40
-50
-60
C i ? C 75 ho Q a'' > U
m LL Q >Q N Q z 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
s
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
S-10
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
¢ a LO o z° o
Rainfall Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
M
cc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
S-10
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
¢ a LO o z° o
Rainfall Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
M
cc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
S-10
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
a a LO o z° o
Rainfall Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
M
cc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Rehabilitation
20
10
0
S-10
-40
-50
-60
mo Q +-' > U
¢ a LO o z° o
Rainfall Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
m
cc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
S-10
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
a a LO o z° o
Rainfall Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
M
cc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
S-10
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
a a LO o z° o
Rainfall Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
M
cc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
S-10
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
a a LO o z° o
Rainfall Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
M
cc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Re-establishment
20
10
0
S-10
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
a a LO o z° o
Rainfall Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
M
cc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wetland Bog Rehabilitation
20
10
0
-10
cuv
-20
v
ra
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i T C 75 to Q +-' > U
m �i Q> Q cn O z
QJ
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
s
2.0
1.0
0.0

Recorded Stream Gage Events
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
2692
2691
2690
-' 2689
v
2688
3
2687
2686
2685
Vile Creek: Stream Gage for Vile Creek (#1)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
o v
Q 5 Q n O Z D
Rainfall —Vile Creek (#1) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • • Bankfull t measure scale bar —30 days
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
e
2.0 m
c
cc
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Recorded Stream Gage Events
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Vile Creek: Stream Gage for UTI (#2)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
e
2.0 m
a
z
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Vile Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96582
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
1 2017 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
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
1 2017 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.