20171295 Ver 1_Yadkin01_RES_Scout MY2 2022 Monitoring Report_20220921

ID#* 20171295
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 09/23/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/21/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Daniel Dixon
Project Information
ID#:* 20171295
Existing ID#
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
DMS • Mitigation Bank
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address-*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Yadkin01 RES Scout MY2 2022 Monitoring
9.15MB
Report.pdf
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Daniel Dixon
Signature: *
/ aRKW'0

3600 Glenwood Avenue. Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612

Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300

Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400

September 21, 2022
Mr. Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
151 Patton Ave. Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

RE: Scout Year 2 Monitoring Report (SAW-2017-01469 | RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank)

Dear Mr. Kichefski,

Please find attached the Scout Year 2 Monitoring Report. In Year 2, all 10 vegetation plots met the 320
stems per acre success criteria. Stem densities ranged from 324 to 1,376 per acres. Two events were
recorded in 2022 on the stage recorder on CH1 and one bankfull event was documented on the stage
recorder on HC3 in 2022. The flow gauge on CH1 measured 59 consecutive flow days in 2022, this gage
was damaged at the start of March 2022 and has since been replaced. The flow gauge on CH2 measured
233 consecutive flow days. A 0.36-acre low stem density area in and around Vegetation Plot 4 was replanted
during March 2022, further details on species composition and number of stems can be found in section
1.7 of the report narrative. During March 2022, a few areas along the easement were mowed, these areas
were promptly delineated with additional easement signs. RES plans to re-plant these areas of
encroachment during the next dormant season. Comments from the Monitoring Year One Credit Release
Letter are located and italicized below with answers detailed in bold.
RES is requesting a 10% stream credit release (291.8 SMUs) for the completion of the MY2 report. Please
see enclosed the credit release timeline and an updated credit ledger.

Thank you,

Daniel Dixon | Ecologist

res.us

USACE comments:
1.Retaining comment from As-Built review so that black walnut will continue to be managed
throughout monitoring -In order to address concerns regarding changes made to the
planting plan (including species planted), RES staff will begin removing all black walnut
stems throughout the site, including within vegetation plots.
RES is still committed to removing black walnut that was planted within the site. No
black walnut stems were found in the vegetation plots during this monitoring year.
2.In future reports, please include a list of the species that were in the supplemental planting
and identify areas that were supplementally plant on the CCPV.
Noted. We have included the supplemental planted area in the CCPV along with the
number and species of planted stems during MY2.
3.Please identify all repair areas on the CCPV in future reports. It would also be helpfulto
discuss the condition of the repair areas in the narrative.
RES willinclude future repair areas in the CCPV and their respective descriptions in the
report body.
4.Several plots had only 2 or 3 species and were dominated by a single species. Recommend
selecting species that will increase diversity in future supplemental plantings. Appreciate
that this is being done for the area around veg plot 4. Was the 51 sycamores in veg plot 1 a
typo?
RES will continue to monitor the lower diversity on site and is planning on another
supplemental planting later in 2022. The high density of sycamores in vegetation plot
one are naturally recruited stems from the surround area, these trees are being
documented during monitoring but not being counted towards our success criteria.
DWR comments:
1.Please list species installed as part of supplemental planting efforts. This was done for
Twiman, but not Scout or Compass Point.
The number of planted stems and the species planted in the monitoring year are now
included in section 1.7 of the monitoring report narrative.
2.All three projects had some veg plots with only 2 or 3 species present. Since this is only MY1,
please consider species diversity when potentially supplemental planting in these areas.
RES will continue to monitor the lower diversity on site and is planning on another
supplemental planting later in 2022.
2

Release
Date
Actual
4
Date
Date
Varies
Projected
Release
Coastal
Wetland
2
1Credits
Forested
Releases
Scheduled
Non
plan.
Davie030401020199/15/202
Credits
mitigation
Riparian
Forested
the
in
Non
Non
Wetland
Schedule
Instituted:
stated
Credits
HUC:
Riverine
RiparianCoastal
totals
Prepared:
Project
Release
Riparian
Digit
NonNon
County:8YearDate
credit
Wetland
Credits
Releases
Credit
the
criteria:
Credit
Riverine from
Bank
Forested
Wetland
plan.
Riverine
RiparianRiparian
following
Non
met.
Future
e
slightly
the
Forested
been
and
USACE;
mitigation
differ
Releas
has
Mitigation
the
Riverine
Riparian includes
Releases
to
may
Scheduled
Current
Credit
and
approved
standard
which
District
Credits
the
ColdCold
Water
Water
in
acceptable
bank,
survey,
Approving
t
built
statedPlan;
Potential
Credits
opinion
performance
as
Cool
Cool
Official
WaterWater
Projec
mitigation
Wilmington
Total
title
the
Credits
credits
event
Stream
the
USACE;
required.
and
Mitigation
of
District from
if
2,9182,918
the
9
WarmWaterWarm the
StreamWater
Mitigation
bankfull
site,
potential
in
and
totals
0146
the
the
the
mechanism
of
Stream
on
Wilmington credit
2017
5%145.905%10%12/31/20245%145.905%NANA12/31/2026
until
10%291.80NANANANANANA
15%437.7015%15%12/27/201915%437.7015%15%12/31/202011/30/202010%291.8010%10%12/31/20212/1/202210%291.8010%15%12/31/202210%291.8015%20%12/31/202310%291.8015%15%12/31/202510%291.8010%NANA12/31/2027

Sponsor
establishment
of
described
the
Releases
Plan
Scheduled
the
ScoutEBXSAW
based
back
Survey
Plan;
on
upon
is
by
protection
secured;
2
held
Built
construction
1,
be
Signature
4
based
occur
be
term
UMBIassurances
As
Mitigation
for
is
Date1167.20
3
to
or
Mitigation
to must
milestoneshall
long
from
from
None
MBI
Built)
ClassificationStandard
site
final
Milestone
release
the
financial
credits
the
of
releaserelease
the
Release of
Monitoring)Monitoring)Monitoring)Monitoring)Monitoring)Monitoring)Monitoring)
any):
verification
the
0/As
Establishment)
bank
Credits
Credits of
ID:
1234567
Credit
of
credit
(if
of
ID:
Bankfull
Release
creditcredit
(Year
Credits permit
(Year(Year(Year(Year(Year(Year(Year
reserve
2
Action
Name:
3456789
Name:
firstfirstsecond
Action
Potential
PotentialCredit
ExecutionApprovalMitigationDeliveryRecordation404
(Bank/SiteStream
10%
Total
1
1)2)3)4)5)6)
TheTheTheA
ProjectSponsorUSACENCDWQContingencies 1234

SCOUT
STREAMMITIGATION SITE
DRAFT
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RES YADKIN 01 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
SAW-2017-01469
YEAR 2MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1056
September2022

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Success Criteria ............................................................................................................. 2
Stream Success Criteria ................................................................................................................... 2
Vegetation Success 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 (MY2) ............................................................................................... 4
Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Stream Geomorphology ................................................................................................................... 5
Stream Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 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
Monitoring Device Photos
Crossing Photos

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 Geomorphology Data
MY2 Cross-Section Plots
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table

Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 10. 2022 Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
MY2 Stream Flow Hydrographs

Scout Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2022

1.0 Project Summary
1.1 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 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2022

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
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
Scout 2 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2022

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 (CH1 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
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
Scout 3 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2022

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 CH1 – This reach is a tributary on the western side of HC3 and flows east. This reach totals 348
linear feet of Enhancement II. 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 II. 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 Performance (MY2)
Vegetation
Monitoring of the seven fixed vegetation plots and three random plots was completed during August 2022.
Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in
Appendix B. MY2 monitoring data indicates that 10 out of 10 plots are exceeding the interim success
criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 324 to 1,376 with average of 668
across all plots. A total of 13 species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were noted in
three of the plots. The average stem height across all vegetation plots was 3.57 feet.

Scout 4 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2022

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 March 2022.
The supplemental planting included about 75 three-gallon trees around Vegetation Plot 4, species included
were button bush and willow oak. During March 2022, a few areas along the easement were mowed, these
areas were promptly delineated with additional easement signs. Another supplemental planting is being
planned for this fall to recover any areas mowed during the easement encroachment and to increase diversity
due to the high density of willow and sycamore volunteers.

Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY2 was collected during June 2022. 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.

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 CH1 and CH2 to track the frequency and duration of stream flow
events. Additionally, the flow gauge on CH1 is being used to document bankfull events. During the month
of March in 2022 the gage located on CH1 was damaged and no longer functioning, this gage was replaced
in August. Stream hydrology data from January 2022 to August 2022 is included in this report. In 2022,
the stage recorder on HC3 recorded one bankfull event and the stage recorder on CH1 recorded one bankfull
event as well. In 2022, the flow gauge on CH1 recorded 59 consecutive flow days, the entirety of its
functionality during this monitoring period. The flow gauge on CH2 recorded 233 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.

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
Scout 5 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2022

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 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2022

Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation EasementRiparian planting, livestock exclusion, Permanent Conservation EasementRiparian planting,
livestock exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement
Non-RipCoastal
WetlandMarsh
Components
and
Assets
RiverineNon-Riv
Mitigation
Scout
1.
StreamRiparian Wetland
Table
223
-174
28692918
183.200
orFootage orMitigationRestorationPriorityMitigationPlanFootage or
2686.000
WarmCoolCold
ExistingMitigation
FootagePlanMitigationAs-Built
HC32,4842,686WarmR11.000002686.0002686CH1249348WarmEIINA2.50000139.200348CH268110WarmEIINA2.5000044.000110
Project SegmentAcreageAcreageCategoryLevelLevelRatio (X:1)CreditsAcreageComments
Restoration Level
Credits
Project
TotalCredit Loss in BufferCredit Gain in BufferTotal Adjusted SMUs
RestorationRe-establishmentRehabilitationEnhancementEnhancement IEnhancement IICreationPreservation

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Scout Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:2 year 4 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:2 year 4 months
1
Number of reporting Years:
2
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or DeliverableCompleteDelivery
Restoration PlanNAJun-19
Final Design Î Construction PlansNASep-19
Stream ConstructionNAMay-20
Site PlantingNAMay-20
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring Î baseline)May-20Sep-20
Supplemental PlantingNAJan-21
Bank Erosion Hand RepairNAJan-21
XS: Jul-21
Year 1 MonitoringSep-21
VP: Sep-21
Invasive Vegetation TreatmentNAAug-22
Supplemental PlantingNAMar-22
Easement Encroachment RepairNAMar-22
Year 2 Monitoring
XS: Jun-22
Sep-22
VP: Aug-22
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

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

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project NameScout
CountyDavie
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 ProvinceSouthern Outer Piedmont
River BasinYadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit3040101160010
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit3040101
DWR Sub-basin03-07-02
2
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
810 ac (1.266 mi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 2%
CGIA Land Use ClassificationAgriculture (49%), Residential (8%), Forest (39%), Impervious (2%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
CH1
HC3CH2
Length of reach (linear feet) (designed)
348
2,686110
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (Acres)
43
810156
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
PII
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Stream Classification (existing)
E4E4/5bE4
Stream Classification (proposed)
E4/E5E4/5bE4
Evolutionary trend (Simon) (existing)
FEMA classification
Regulatory Considerations
Supporting
ParametersApplicable?Resolved?
Docs?
SAW-2017-
Water of the United States - Section 404YesYes
01469
DWR #17-
Water of the United States - Section 401YesYes
1295
Endangered Species ActYesYes
Mit Plan
Historic Preservation ActYesYes
Mit Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)NoN/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain ComplianceYesN/A
Mit Plan
Essential Fisheries HabitatNoN/A
N/A

Legend
Scout Easement
DMS Mockingbird Easement
DMS Catbird Easement
DMS Hauser Creek Easement
Service Area - HUC 03040101
TLW - HUC 03040101160010
Date: 8/24/2020
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Drawn by: HKH
©
Scout Mitigation Site
Checked by: XXX

05001,000
Davie County, North Carolina
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Feet

©
seicepS evisavnI
!
R
!C
!R
!R
dxm.2202 2YM VPCC tuocS\\2202 2YM\\gnirotinoM\\DXM\\tuocS_741001\\stcejorP\\sigtne\\sigseR\\:R :htaP tnemucoD

Scout MY2 Monitoring Device Photos
Stage Recorder (HC3)

Stage Recorder/Flow Gage (CH1)

Flow Gauge (CH2)

Scout MY2Crossing Photos (08/23/2022)
HC3 - Upstream

HC3 - Downstream

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data

Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Crab AppleScientific NameMitigation Plan %As-Built %Total Stems Planted
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 15142,000
Water Oak Quercus nigra 15142,000
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 10142,000
River Birch Betula nigra 15101,600
Sycamore Platanus occidnetalis 15101,600
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1081,100
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 571,000
Crab Apple Malus angustifolia 05800
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 105700
Black Walnut Juglans nigra 03400
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 02350
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 02300
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 02300
Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis 02300
American Plum Prunus americana 02300
Blackgum Nyssa Sylvatica 500
Total 14,750
Planted Area10.9
As-built Planted Stems/Acre1,353
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Average
Success Planted
Planted Volunteer Total Criteria Stem Height
Plot #Stems/AcreStems/AcreStems/AcreMet?(ft)
1 64719022550Yes5.05
2 3248091133Yes3.12
3 9311621093Yes2.26
4 4050405Yes4.62
5 7280728Yes4.18
6 137601376Yes1.97
7 6070607Yes4.17
R1 6070607Yes3.31
R2 6070607Yes5.38
R3 4450445Yes4.53
Project Avg668359955Yes3.57

3X Vertical Exaggeration
Low Bank Elevation
-Restoration
Approx. Bankfull
Pool
Distance (ft)
MY2 2022
-Cross Section 1 -
Reach HC3
MY1 2021
Scout -
MY0 2020
0369121518212427303336394245485154576063
726725724723722721720719718
Elevation (ft)

3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY2 2022Low Bank Elevation
-Restoration
Riffle
Distance (ft)
-Cross Section 2 -
MY1 2021Floodprone Area
Reach HC3
Scout -
MY0 2020Approx. Bankfull
0369121518212427303336394245485154576063
727726725724723722721720719
Elevation (ft)

3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY2 2022Low Bank Elevation
-Restoration
Riffle
Distance (ft)
MY1 2021Floodprone Area
-Cross Section 3 -
Reach HC3
Scout-
MY0 2020Approx. Bankfull
0369121518212427303336394245485154576063
724723722721720719718717716
Elevation (ft)

3X Vertical Exaggeration
Low Bank Elevation
-Restoration
Pool
Approx. Bankfull
Distance (ft)
MY2 2022
-Cross Section 4 -
Reach HC3
MY1 2021
Scout-
MY0 2020
0369121518212427303336394245485154576063
723722721720719718717716715
Elevation (ft)

3X Vertical Exaggeration
Low Bank Elevation
-Restoration
Pool Approx. Bankfull
Distance (ft)
MY2 2022
-Cross Section 5 -
Reach HC3
MY1 2021
Scout -
MY0 2020
0369121518212427303336394245485154576063
721720719718717716715714713
Elevation (ft)

3X Vertical Exaggeration
Low Bank Elevation
Floodprone Area
-Restoration
Riffle
Approx. Bankfull
Distance (ft)
-Cross Section 6 -
MY2 2022
Reach HC3
Scout -
MY1 2021
MY0 2020
0369121518212427303336394245485154576063
722721720719718717716715714
Elevation (ft)

----------------------------
Project Name: Scout
>3.2>3.3>3.3>3.3>3.0>3.3
>64.9>65.1>65.1>65.1>65.1>64.8
Appendix D. Table 9 - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters Î Cross Sections)
Cross Section 1 (Pool)Cross Section 2 (Riffle)Cross Section 3 (Riffle)Cross Section 4 (Pool)Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
---------------------1.01.01.01.00.90.9--------------
4.03.53.32.52.62.22.72.42.44.22.03.93.73.73.62.72.72.71.01.01.0
22.222.319.820.419.518.020.021.919.423.225.822.122.323.925.745.444.835.233.733.926.238.934.833.450.950.947.844.644.042.520.619.319.238.437.136.4
>3.1>3.4>3.4
BaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+
723.2723.4723.3723.1723.1723.1720.1720.3720.3720.1720.1720.1717.8717.8717.8717.8717.9717.8>64.9>65.0>64.8
1 112211 1 112211
))
22
Bankfull Width (ft)Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)
Low Bank Elevation (ft)723.17723.4722.8723.1723.1722.7720.1720.1720.0720.1720.1720.1717.8717.8717.8Low Bank Elevation (ft)717.8717.8717.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height RatioBankfull Bank Height Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment RatioBankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftBankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSABankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each
subsequent years bankfull elevation

Table 10. 2022 Rainfall Summary
Normal Limits
Yadkinville Station
MonthAverage
Precipitation
30 Percent70 Percent
January3.642.624.304.23
February3.322.353.935.43
March3.832.644.563.41
April3.962.524.773.87
May 3.892.554.685.52
June4.273.135.011.90
July 4.903.515.7911.36
August4.443.095.283.81
September4.322.735.211.58
October3.271.963.941.96
November3.181.713.890.44
December3.722.554.441.15
Total46.7431.3655.8044.66
Above Normal LimitsBelow Normal Limits

Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Number of Bankfull Maximum Bankfull Height
YearDate of Maximum Bankfull Event
Events(ft)
Stage Recorder HC3
MY0/1 202011.2811/11/2020
N/A
MY1 20210N/A
7/17/2022
MY2 202210.12
Flow Gauge CH1
11/11/2020
MY0/1 2020101.77
MY1 202150.988/18/2021
MY2 202220.882/3/2022
Maximum Consecutive Maximum Cummlative Maximum Consecutive
YearNumber of Flow Events
Flow DaysFlow DaysFlow Date Range
Flow Gauge CH1
12172175/28/2020-12/31/2020
MY0/1 2020
MY1 202112572571/1/2021-9/14/2021
MY2 2022159591/1/2022-3/1/2022
Flow Gauge CH2
MY0/1 20209531149/12/2020-11/3/2020
MY1 202111751407/1/2021-9/14/2021
MY2 202212332331/1/2022-8/23/2022

Rainfall (in)
1514131211109876543210
Bed
CH1 DS Riffle
Months
CH1 Depth
Rain
MY2 Scout Flow Gauge CH1 Stream Flow Hydrograph
Days
59
1/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/1
3210
Water Depth (ft)

Rainfall (in)
1514131211109876543210
Bed
CH2 DS Riffle
Days
233
Months
CH2 Depth
Rain
MY2 Scout Flow Gauge CH2 Stream Flow Hydrograph
1/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/1
3210
Water Depth (ft)