20171295 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report 2021_20210929

ID#* 20171295 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 09/30/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/29/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matt Butler
Project Information
.....................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20171295
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Scout Stream Mitigation Site
County: Yadkin
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Scout MY1 Monitoring Report 2021.pdf 6.51 MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matt Butler
Signature:*

fires
September 23, 2021
Mr. Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
151 Patton Ave. Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
3600 Glenwood Avenue. Suite ioo
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: Scout Year 1 Monitoring Report (SAW-2017-01469 I RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank)
Dear Mr. Kichefski,
Please find attached the Scout Year 1 Monitoring Report. In Year 1, nine of the 10 vegetation plots met the
320 stems per acre success criteria. Stem densities ranged from 162 to 1,255. Multiple events were recorded
in 2020 and 2021 on the stage recorder on CH1 and one bankfull event was documented on the stage
recorder on HC3 in 2020. The flow gauge on CH1 measured 217 consecutive flow days in 2020 and 257
consecutive flow days in 2021. The flow gauge on CH2 measured 53 consecutive flow days in 2020 and 75
consecutive flow days in 2021. One problem area onsite includes a 0.36-acre low stem density area in and
around Vegetation Plot 4 which will be replanted this dormant season. Additional maintenance work in MY1
included supplemental planting in January and one minor bank erosion repair also in January.
RES is requesting a 10% stream credit release (291.8 SMUs) for the completion of the MY1 report. Please
see enclosed the credit release timeline and an updated credit ledger.
Thank you,
FIZ4�AVIIL
Ryan Medric I Ecologist
res. us

SCOUT
STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RES YADKIN 01 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
SAW-2017-01469
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1056
September 2021

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... I
1.1 Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. I
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... I
1.3 Project Success Criteria............................................................................................................. 2
StreamSuccess Criteria................................................................................................................... 2
VegetationSuccess Criteria............................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Project Components.................................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Stream Design/Approach.......................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions...................................................................................... 4
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY 1)............................................................................................... 4
Vegetation........................................................................................................................................ 4
StreamGeomorphology................................................................................................................... 5
StreamHydrology............................................................................................................................ 5
2.0 Methods.................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 References............................................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Background Information Table
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Vegetation Plot Photos
Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5: Planted Species Summary
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphologv Data
MY1 Cross -Section Plots
Table 8. MY Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 10. 2021 Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
MY2 Stream Flow Hydrographs
Scout Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2021

1.0 Proiect Summary
L I Project Location and Description
The Scout Mitigation Site (the "Project") is located in Davie County, North Carolina, approximately eight
miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. Water quality stressors that affected
the Project included livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project
presents 3,144 linear feet (LF) of stream restoration and enhancement generating 2,918 Warm Stream
Mitigation Units (SMU) along Hauser Creek and two unnamed tributaries.
The Project is located in the Yadkin River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03040101, Target Local Watershed
(TLW) 03040101160010, and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) subbasin 03-07-02. The current
State classification for Hauser Creek is Water Supply IV (WS-IV). WS-IV waters are sources of water
supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS-I, II or III classification is not
feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses (NCDWQ, 2011).
The Project's total easement area is approximately 13.22 acres within the overall drainage area of 810 acres
and consisted of agricultural fields and wooded areas. The Project is between two separate portions of the
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Mockingbird Site. While each site could be developed
independently of the other, the combined easements result in a much larger contiguous protected corridor
and high -quality aquatic habitat. The Mockingbird Site has a total easement area that is approximately 27
acres and presents 8,998 linear feet of stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Additionally, the
Mockingbird Site connects to the upstream end of the DMS Hauser Creek Mitigation Site. All sites
combined total 49.3 acres and 14,605 LF of stream that are protected in perpetuity.
The stream design approach for the Project combined the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain. The
analog method involved the use of a reference reach, or "template" stream, adjacent to, nearby, or
previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach were
replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and
boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). Hydraulic
geometry was developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring
period, or until performance standards are met. Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review
Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S). This party shall serve as
conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection
of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Endowment funds
required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be finalized prior to site transfer to the responsible
party-
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project. These goals
clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River RBRP.
Scout 1 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2021

The Project goals are:
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non -erosive manner in a stable channel;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain;
• Improve instream habitat;
Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation; and
Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP to improve water quality
and to reduce sediment and nutrient loads.
The Project objectives to address the goals are:
• Designed and reconstructed stable stream channels with appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile
based on reference reach conditions;
• Added in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
• Installed habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of
varying depths to restored and enhanced streams;
• Reduced bank height ratios and increased entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
• Increased forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel along the project
reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
• Treated exotic invasive species;
• Established a permanent conservation easement on the Project that excludes livestock from stream
channels and their associated buffers.
Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to the project boundaries.
While we are restoring the habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions that achieve our goals
within the Project parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor riparian buffers and livestock impact
in other areas within the watershed. However, through this Project's connectivity with other projects in the
watershed, especially its close proximity to the DMS Mockingbird and Hauser Creek Sites, and responsible
stewardship of current restoration projects, overall watershed functionality and health will improve to meet
the RBRP goals.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The Project follows the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the "Wilmington District Stream
and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" dated October 24, 2016. Cross section and vegetation plot
data will be collected in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology data and visual monitoring will be
reported annually.
Stream Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
There should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or
erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
Scout 2 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2021

using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 for all measured riffle cross -sections on a given
reach. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented
in the seven-year monitoring period.
Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success
of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should not
indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral
images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of
images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project will
follow IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 0.02 acres in size and cover a
minimum of two percent of the planted area. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project is
the survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 trees per acre at
an average of seven feet in height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria is 210 trees
per acre with an average height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees are counted, identified to
species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but did not count towards the success criteria of total
planted stems. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number
of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent are shown in the monitoring table
but were not used to demonstrate success.
1.4 Project Components
The Project area is comprised of a single easement located along Hauser Creek and two unnamed tributaries,
totaling 2,801 existing LF, which eventually drain into the Yadkin River. There are three stream reaches,
including Hauser Creek (HC3) and two unnamed tributaries (CHI and CH2), divided by treatment type.
The Project is located between two sections of the overall 27-acre Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
Mockingbird Site (Figure 1). The Project is accessible from Spillman Road, through the Project parcel.
The stream mitigation components are summarized below. Mitigation credits presented below are based
upon the Approved Mitigation Plan. To account for areas of more or less than minimum 30-foot buffer
widths, credits were adjusted using the USACE Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.
Project stream lengths and credits are detailed further in Appendix A.
Scout Mitigation Plan Credits
Warm Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Total
2,918
NA
NA
1.5 Stream Design/Approach
Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries of the Project were accomplished through analyses of
geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applied a combination of
analytical and reference reach -based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both
ecological and geomorphic improvements. Treatment activities ranged from minor bank grading and
planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For full restoration reaches, natural
Scout 3 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2021

design concepts were applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The
objective of this approach was to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat
improvements and ties into the existing landscape. Specifically, treatments included Priority I Restoration
and Enhancement Level II.
The Project has been broken into the following reaches:
Reach HC3 — This reach, part of Hauser Creek, begins on the south end of the project and flows north
towards the Mockingbird Mitigation Site, transitioning off site through a 24 LF of 48-inch double barrel
RCP at a 40-foot-wide conservation easement break. Priority I restoration was completed along this reach
for a total of 2,686 LF. Sparse woodland and managed pasture were located adjacent to the reach.
Restoration activities included constructing a new channel within the natural valley to restore the stream's
connection with the existing floodplain and backfilling the abandoned channel. In -stream structures such
as log sills, brush toes, rock cross vanes, and log vanes were installed for stability and to improve habitat.
Habitat will further be improved through buffer plantings. Buffer activities improve riparian areas that filter
runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. A hunting blind
near the northern portion of the reach was removed, as well as an existing crossing.
Reach CHI — This reach is a tributary on the western side of HC3 and flows east. This reach totals 348
linear feet of Enhancement IL Sparse woodland and managed pasture were located adjacent to the reach.
Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings. The widening
and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank will filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce
sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach CH2 — This reach is a tributary on the western side of HC3 and flows east. This reach totals 110
linear feet of Enhancement IL Sparse woodland and managed pasture were located adjacent to the reach.
Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings. The widening
and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank will filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce
sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
1.6 Construction and As Built Conditions
Stream construction and planting was completed in May 2020 and fencing was completed in July 2020.
Overall, the Project was built to design plans and guidelines. A redline version of the as -built survey is
included in Appendix F. Project credits are based on design centerline, but as -built stream lengths are
shown on Appendix A, Table 1.
Also, there were a few changes to the planting plan due to bareroot availability. Changes are detailed on
Appendix C, Table 5.
1. 7 Monitoring Performan ce (MY])
Vegetation
Monitoring of the seven fixed vegetation plots and three random plots was completed during September
2021. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in
Appendix B. MY1 monitoring data indicates that nine out of 10 plots are exceeding the interim success
criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 162 to 1,255 with average of 745
across all plots. A total of 15 species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were noted in
five of the plots. The average stem height across all vegetation plots was 2.5 feet.
Scout 4 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2021

Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. RES performed supplemental planting in January 2021.
The supplemental planting included about 715 bareroot trees around Vegetation Plot 2 and 4. However,
Vegetation Plot 4 (0.36 acres) will be supplemental planted again this winter to increase diversity due to
the high density of willow volunteers.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY was collected during July 2021. Summary tables and cross section plots are
in Appendix D. Overall, the baseline cross sections and profile on the restoration reach relatively match
the design. The current conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all
restoration/enhancement reaches. All reaches were designed as very coarse sand bed channels and remain
classified as very coarse sand bed channels post -construction.
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed
and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation. A few areas of bank erosion were
observed in early 2021 however only one needed repair. The right bank of HC3 just downstream of
Vegetation Plot 2 was repaired by hand in January 2021. The repair included grading back the bank, adding
a coir log, then matting and planting the bank.
Stream Hydrology
In May 2020, one stage recorder was installed on restoration reach HC3 to document bankfull events and
flow gauges were installed on reaches CHI and CH2 to track the frequency and duration of stream flow
events. Additionally, the flow gauge on CHI is being used to document bankfull events. Stream hydrology
data from 2020 and 2021 are included in this report. In 2020, the stage recorder on HC3 recorded one
bankfull event and the stage recorder on CHI recorded 10 bankfull events. In 2021, the stage recorder on
HC3 recorded zero bankfull events and the stage recorder on CHI recorded five bankfull events. In 2020,
the flow gauge on CHI recorded 217 consecutive flow days and the flow gauge on CH2 recorded 53
consecutive flow days. In 2021, the flow gauge on CHI recorded 257 consecutive flow days and the flow
gauge on CH2 recorded 75 consecutive flow days. The stage recorder and flow gauge locations can be
found on Figure 2, photos are in Appendix B, and associated data is in Appendix E.
2.0 Methods
Stream geomorphology monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-
dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane
feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data were collected at six cross -sections. Survey data were imported into
CAD, ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis.
Stream hydrology is monitored using stage recorders and flow gauges, which utilize automatic pressure
transducers, and were installed within the channels. The stage recorders record frequency, duration, and
stage of bankfull events and are programmed to record readings at an hourly interval. A surveyed elevation
was recorded at the bed and top of bank at the stage recorder elevation, allowing for accurate bankfull
events to be recorded. Flow gauges record frequency, duration, and stage of flow events and are
programmed to read at an hourly interval_ The height of the adjacent downstream riffle (from the gauge) is
used to detect flow.
Scout 5 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2021

Vegetation success is being monitored at seven permanent monitoring plots and three random plots for a
total of ten plots. Locations of random plots will vary from year to year and will be shown in Figure 2, and
species and height will be recorded for all woody stems. Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP
Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species
composition and density of planted species. Data are processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field,
the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the
other corners. Photos of each plot are taken from the origin each monitoring year.
3.0 References
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Resource Environmental Solutions. 2019. Scout Mitigation Site - Final Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE.
2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Scout 6 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2021

Appendix A
Background Tables

ul
C
N
O
Q
E
O
U
c
m
ul
41
0)
O
m
C�
C
O
U
N
r-I
a
E E
m m
w w
0
o o
m m
w w
o
o o
U U
0 0
X
w
� �
€ €
N w
m
a a
o 0
0
a
o "
o
axi axi
oo
Tn Tn
m
U
U
Q O Q
N
LL
O
O Y
(O
O
O O
N
6 O
Om d
O
m
U
R
cCONo�v
o
o
0 0
m O
00
O O
Y
z z
w
d J
O
(6 w
O
W W
w
Ir
g
O
>E
>E >E
� U
0
co
cCOo
co 0
r�i�
o
� �
N
_m d � O
O U
LL Q
m
v
V
m co
N O
m m
(6 L (6
N
W O U
w Q
N
U
S
U
w
U U
O
d
O
i
a

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Scout Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 1 year 4 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 1 year 4 months
Number of reporting Years: 1
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
NA
Jun-19
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Sep-19
Stream Construction
NA
May-20
Site Planting
NA
May-20
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
May-20
Sep-20
Supplemental Planting
NA
Jan-21
Bank Erosion Hand Repair
NA
Jan-21
Year 1 Monitoring
XS: Jul-21
VP: Se -21
Sep-21
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
= The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Scout Mitigation Site
Designer
RES / 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612.
Primary project design POC
Frasier Mullen
Construction Contractor
KBS Earthwork Inc./ 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Construction contractor POC
Kory Strader
Survey Contractor
Matrix East, PLLC / 906 N. Queen St., Suite A, Kinston, NC
28501
Survey contractor POC
Chris Paderick, PLS
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Planting contractor POC
Matt Hitch
Monitoring Performers
RES / 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612.
Stream Monitoring POC
lRyan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
JRyan Medric [phone]

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name
Scout
County
Davie
Project Area (acres)
13.22
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude: 36.030798 N Longitude:-80.516312 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
10.9
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
3040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
3040101160010
DWR Sub -basin
03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
810 ac (1.266 mil)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Agriculture (49%), Residential (8%), Forest (39%), Impervious (2%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
HC3
CH 1
CH2
Length of reach (linear feet) (designed)
2,686
348
110
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (Acres)
810
43
156
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
I
I
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Stream Classification (existing)
E4
E4/5b
E4
Stream Classification (proposed)
E4/E5
E4/5b
E4
Evolutionary trend (Simon) (existing)
FEMA classification
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW-2017-
01469
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR #17-
1295
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Mit Plan
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Mit Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
N/A
Mit Plan
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

set G,e
BM
I
a
A
a
Redfield
Y
O.
X.
�a
a
C
3
0
0
x
A.
9a
Sparks Rd
K
o
x
m
y
9
x
Triple H TO
Legend
Scout Easement "`
DMS Mockingbird Easement
- DMS Catbird Easement
- DMS Hauser Creek Easement
a
Service Area - HUC 03040101
A
TLW- HUC 03040101160010
Figure 1 - Site Location Map Date: 8/24/2020
Drawn by: HKH
Scout Mitigation Site res
Checked by: XXX
0 500 1,000
Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet
Feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Scout MYl Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1 (9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 3 (9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 2 (9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 4 (9/14/2021)
Vegetation Plot 5 (9/14/2021) Vegetation Plot 6 (9/14/2021)

Vegetation Plot 7 (9/14/2021)
Random Vegetation Plot 1 (9/14/2021)
Random Vegetation Plot 2 (9/14/2021) Random Vegetation Plot 3 (9/14/2021)

Stream Problem Areas
Scout
Feature Issue / Location Photo
N/A N/A
Vegetation Problem Areas
Scout
Feature Category / Location / Size
Photo
Low Stem Density Area / VP4 / 0.36 acres
hsr

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Crab Apple
Scientific Name
Mitigation Plan %
As -Built %
Total Stems Planted
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
15
14
2,000
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
15
14
2,000
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
10
14
2,000
River Birch
Betula ni ra
15
10
1,600
Sycamore
Platanus occidnetalis
15
10
1,600
Yellow Poplar
briodendron tuli i era
10
8
1,100
Persimmon
Diospyros vir iniana
5
7
1,000
Crab Apple
Malus an usti olia
0
5
800
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
5
700
Black Walnut
Ju lans ni ra
0
3
400
Sugarberry
Celtis laevi ata
0
2
350
S Dogwood
Cornus amomum
0
2
300
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
0
2
300
Eastern Redbud
Cercis canadensis
0
2
300
American Plum
Prunus americana
0
2
300
Blackgum
N ssa S lvatica
5
0
0
Total
14,750
Planted Area
10.9
As -built Planted Stems/Acre
1,353
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted
Stem
Height (ft)
1
486
2023
2509
Yes
2.7
2
324
0
324
Yes
1.9
3
850
162
1012
Yes
1.5
4
162
607
769
No
3
5
688
0
688
Yes
3.3
6
1416
243
1659
Yes
1.8
7
607
81
688
Yes
3.4
R1
607
0
607
Yes
3.4
R2
1052
0
1052
Yes
2.5
R3
1255
0
1255
Yes
2.4
Project Avg
745
312
1056
Yes
2.5

:)
%\
:
Fi
`7
§-
))`
77
k)2
2
u\\
\,§°\
77
:)
2-
`$
!!
It
8-mu8
_
E__¥§,
)
|LE
\ee
\,\ee\}eeee{
\tjo
)!
j!\
!
o
�>
E2—
)}())
20E00?:
"
°7;fl
��mmw�m�t=:�==,E
>Gmm»�m2=6!!e-:§
|
=/;m)
{__lw
:
1.
--:::~amGueJ,:,
::r{!f))E{:
\
_-_\#§:§:`«°:::#:
"
-\\\�\\\\\
|§!�_
/
)}u
_
¥
ƒ
/
e
)
|I[
\\,/ee\\\eeee{
aee
3
\§::,
,7==[:=2
]})
�\!\
[3-200o0:;§E):)[(i:
"
°7;8ou
��mm��m=�t=:��==,m
�Gmm»�m:2=6!»!e-:§
86:;;«l:;:=:
|
/&m)>
{�_
-
®
-
--::r':.eGuleJ,!)
::r{[[f),o2
\#§=§:::f:
-c
"
\\\-\\\
\
j\
-

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

.6
0
o
oo
mo .
o
wm
m
. .
. .
rloo
1,
1'�
I
1,�
1
0
o
o
o,
mw
N
m
o
0
mW
.E
No
0
woo
N
. 1
im,
1 im
Wo�-!,.
iii
HIM
00
ol
N
— I
m
i -o
oo
w
wm
10
-MNO
...
.....
wil.ow0000mom
4—.o.00000l
w
o o
. .
. .
mmlo
. .
. .
. .
. .
\);@;
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
l::::::::
l:g:!
/
!,
0
�2
'o 'o
�2
o
c2
w N
NA
o
N—oo
oo
!
0 .
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
.
om c�
m -N
NIN,
loo
m
N
No
So
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
I N 1'�
I N
FININ
I I
I
u
7;
o o
o
o
-8
9
Z E
w o
w
}�
w
w,
o w
w, o
oa
2a
o
o
0w
o
o
ffioo5
o
m'.
C)
Im
.
m
o.
Uo
A'
\EIXm
womz
23
-E
mwE
.2
E
o
2
E-

\
\
(
\
�
)
�
}
\
IHI
III
\
\
{
\
7
/
}
/
§
J
j
{
/jg.;j{..
\
\
)
\
\
)
\
\
\
�
/
)
)
)
k
e
2
\
/
)
\
�
�
|
)
_
\
�
§
\
/
!
�
\
)
AOKI
�
\
\
«
\
\
)
\
\
7
\
{
\
\
�
)
/j§.;/;..
op
\
)
\
)

.
..y� \\\�� ?.
< �
\�
E
E
�
k
_
2
t
2
o
(D
t
\
-
�
\
/
2
§
L
\
00
�
U)
?
(
j
,
m
t
\
% 2
\
k
|
J
/ °
§
`
/ )
\
i
)
t
OWN
�
|
�
/
0
r
$
(
2
\
a
|
t
CD
t
.
m
CD
w
o
LO»
n
a
o=
k u
mg
\
/
\
/
\
\
�
�
\
.
3
/
/
\
9
/
\
\
@
c
\
t
&
Q
\
/
)
/
\
m
7
/
§
/
k
�

O
N
X
W
co
(D
t
O
lL
(D
Y
�
t
•
I
LIB
(6
m
O
t
IT
LD
J
t
C_
•
Ln
O
+'
00
N
d
o
j
Q
N
N
LO
o
�
�
a
'
N
V
OO
w
co
N
(p
Cf)
O
U
M
M
w
t
C
m
y
O N
co o
[n
o
t
o
L
U
�
N
Q
°-
t
M
U
N
I
I
=
I
I
N
00
O
f
�
N
O
LD
L
U
N
I�
()
O
(O
N
O
N
O
Cl)
O
IOD
I-
(D
LO
V
M N
O
cq c
cq
(11) uOi;enal3
N
o
�
U
U
sue.
N
�
V
W
MM�
MM�
�.
MMG
W
X
y
MM
W
�+
cz
cz
cz
ww
i
�Q

E
E
�
k
_
uj
\
2
\
/
/
§
7
\
00
�
)
2
I:
r
}
\
/
/
,IL
n
I�
2
m
g
E
/
m_
$
� §
\
o
I`
/
o
\
\
§
\
I
I
u
_
J
/
0
%
\
,
$
I(
\
:
I'
r
§
I�
`
o
|
coq
dugegg
\
/
§
/
\
d
2
\
\
t
�
(
Q
/
/
»
w
7
"
A
\
§
�
_
\
ƒ
\
\
m
S
S±\
z
g
�
/
m
Q
/
k
§
m
§

r
O
N
x
W
co
r
O
rxi
I
LD
O
ITLD
1 >
d
LLl
Y
c
L
m
O
L
�
J
0
N
LD
�
N
�
O
O
d
—
co
'
�
(O
m
x
C
cf)co
o
�-
a
`
i-
U
m
�
Q
I
IN
�
�
U)
O N
C o
O
j
U
r-
U
�
o
=
N
�
N
I00
t�
O
LD
�
�
U
o
N
I
Cl)
O
N
011
M
(11) uOi;enal3
O
0
O
M
�
U
U
O
U
N
P
C
to
O
O
Fr"
Mom,
MW,Y
to
C."
�Q

N
N
IZ
D
O
x
W
A
M
i
>
x
O
Ln 0
LO d'
C '
L
co 0
O
++
Ln
N
O
3'
a
Cl)
:'m,
(0 xO
M $ a
M N Q
Cl) 0 I
(
y
v!
o L
M
O
L
U
�
N _
i
U
N
�
(
2
N
f3
AV
Oslo
co
r04
Cl)
O
O
()J) U01jenal3
O
^^O
I�
O
M
�
U
U
U
�
0�
M
N
oq
�
�
M
M
Sti
/V1
w
�Q

E
E
�
k
_
ul
t
_
�
(
2
$
\
/
§
7
00
IT
)
0
�
}
�
\
\
LL
co
c
r
/ ^
u
`
`
�
/
§
o
\
\
§
\
/
&
t
/
R
�
,
�
%
\
(
|
.
R
e
/
^
0
|
coll
«
qg
/
2
\
2
/
k
�
�
\
\
\
\
©
@
2
\
A
$
6
6
=
3
0
@
\
g
d
e
\
5
§
¥
~
z
3
»
\
\
\
z
§
2
=
2
Q
/
k
\
§

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 10. 2021 Rainfall Summary
Mont
Average
Normal Limits
Yadkinville Station
Precipitation
30 Percent
70 Percent
January
3.89
2.80
4.59
3.22
February
3.49
2.41
4.16
5.82
March
4.66
3.21
5.55
4.25
April
3.56
2.22
4.31
1.97
May
4.31
2.90
5.16
2.40
June
3.93
2.26
4.78
3.00
July
4.10
2.93
4.85
5.83
August
3.33
2.36
3.95
6.56
September
4.00
2.33
4.86
2.87
October
3.69
2.11
4.45
---
November
3.13
2.35
3.65
---
December
3.54
2.29
4.26
---
Total
45.63
30.17
54.57
35.92
Above Normal Limits
Below Normal Limits
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Year
Number of Bankfull
Events
Maximum Bankfull
Height (ft)
Date of Maximum Bankfull Event
Stage Recorder HO
MYO/12020
1
1.28
11/11/2020
MYl 2021
0
N/A
N/A
Flow Gauge CHI
MYO/12020
10
1.77
11/11/2020
MYl 2021
5
0.98
8/18/2021
1WNumber
of Flow Events
Maximum Consecutive
Flow Da s
Maximum Cummlative
Flow Da s
Maximum Consecutive
Flow Date Range
Flow Gauge CHI
MYO/1 2020
1
217
217
5/28/2020-12/31/2020
MY1 2021
1
257
257
1/1/2021-9/14/2021
Flow Gauge C112
MYO/1 2020
9
53
114
9/12/2020-11/3/2020
MY1 2021
11
75
140
7/1/2021-9/14/2021

lull Ile;uleb
,
N
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
�
N
s
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ca
L
�
N
0
1
1
O
1
1
3
v
o
1
u_
1
I
E
' 1
N_
1
�
O
�y}Li
'
'
U
r
1
1
1
1
d
'
c
0
IA
V
3
1
,
1
c
N
U
o
1
co
0
1
1
N
1
I
O
N
'
'
O
N
�
'
�
N
1
1
r
C
G
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LL
�
N
n
M N O
(u) y;daa aa;eM

lull Ile;uleb
N
N
W
N
s
a
LN
0
L
O
L,L
I
m
c E
N
L
�
o
s
N
2
i
i
U
�
i
a
�
R
�
0
IA
3
W
N
U
0
W
LL
++
7
0
co
I
O
N
O
N
�
N
G
W
N
W
N
(u) y;daa aa;eM

lull Ile;uleb
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
rn
s
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
CL
1
L'
0
L
'
�
�
1
1
3
1
I
o
1
o
�
L�
1
2
u
N
1
N
1
1
1
U
1
,(Q
V
1
3
1
o
u_
I1
'
coi
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(u) y;daa aa;eM

lull Ile;uleb
rn
s
a
L
0
I
0
0
R
L
u
(n
H
I
N
2
t
c
I
d
aT
IT
7
R
3
o
u_
I
0
co
N
(u) y;daa aa;eM