20171295 Ver 1_Yadkin01_SAW2017_01469_RES_Scout MY3 2023 Monitoring Report_20230825

3600 Glenwood Avenue. Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612

Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

August 25, 2023
Mr. Steve Kichefski U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division 151 Patton Ave. Room 208 Asheville, NC 28801-5006 RE: Scout Year 3 Monitoring Report (SAW-2017-01469 | RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank)
Dear Mr. Kichefski,
Please find attached the Scout Year 3 Monitoring Report. In Year 3, all 10 vegetation plots met the 320
stems per acre success criteria. Stem densities ranged from 364 to 1,416 per acre. Four bankfull events were
recorded in 2023 on the stage recorder on CH1. No bankfull event was documented on the stage recorder
in HC3 in 2023, however an event was documented in late December 2022. RES will continue to monitor
stage recorders and update MY3 if any bankfull events should occur between now and MY4 reporting. The
flow gauge on CH1 measured 63 consecutive flow days in 2023, this gage was replaced in September 2022
but went missing from the site until June 2023 when it was replaced. The flow gauge on CH2 measured 342
consecutive flow days. Previously in March 2022, a few areas along the easement were mowed, these areas
were promptly delineated with additional easement signs. RES re-planted these areas of encroachment
during February of 2023. Further details on species composition and number of stems can be found in
section 1.7 of the report narrative. Comments from the Monitoring Year Two 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 MY3 report. Please see enclosed the credit release timeline and an updated credit ledger.
Thank you, Daniel Dixon | Ecologist

2
USACE comments:
1. USACE appreciates the quick response to address easement encroachments, besides additional
signage, was the encroachment addressed with the entity responsible?
a. Thank you. RES had a conversation with the landowner concerning the easements
boundary and condition. No further encroachments have been noted this year.
2. When supplemental planting occurs after the MY2 dormant season, consider agency concerns
for low diversity with new plant selection and distribution.
a. RES considered the projects species composition when replanting in February 2023
and chose species that do not have a strong presence on site but were included in
the original planting plan.
3. I’m glad black walnut was not present in MY2 veg plots. Are they being removed from the
remainder of the site or just veg plots?
a. Black walnut has been removed from veg plots and where found on site
however this is an ongoing process.
4. Please continue to track the progress of previous IRT comments through future
monitoring reports.
a. Noted.

DWR comments:
1. DWR appreciates the swift response to address new mowing encroachments, as well as planned
supplemental planting to enhance species diversity. DWR was concerned with the low diversity
reported in multiple veg plots.
a. Thank you. RES is monitoring vegetation across the site and will conduct supplemental
planting if volunteer species do not begin to diversify the vegetative composition.
2. DWR reiterates our recommendation to check monitoring gauges quarterly. It would’ve been
helpful to have late summer flow data from CH1.
a. RES will work to improve on this.
Transaction Credits Released Credits Debited Current Credits
Number To Bank From Bank Credit Balance Reserved Purchaser Project Permit Number Date HUC
1 437.70 12/27/19
2 437.70 11/30/20
3 291.80 2/1/22
4 291.80 12/22/22
5 674.00 NC Department of Transportation U-5824_NC66 widen SAW-2016-02028 8/8/23 03010401
Total 1,459.00 674.00 785.00 0.0
RES YADKIN 01 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT
SCOUT STREAM CREDIT LEDGER (HUC 03040101)
Tuesday, August 8, 2023
Credits Released: Task 1
Credits Released: Task 3
Credits Released: Task 2
Credits Released: Task 4
Project Name:
Sponsor Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWQ Action ID:
Non‐Forested 
Wetland Credits
Warm 
Water
Cool 
Water
Cold 
Water
Riparian 
Riverine
Riparian
Non‐Riverine Non‐Riparian Coastal
       2,918 
       2,918 
Scheduled 
Releases
Warm 
Water
Cool 
Water
Cold 
Water
Scheduled 
Releases
Riparian 
Riverine
Riparian
Non‐Riverine Non‐Riparian Scheduled 
Releases Coastal
1 (Bank/Site Establishment)1, 2 15% 437.70 15% 15% 12/27/2019
2 (Year 0/As‐Built)3 15% 437.70 15% 15% 12/31/2020 11/30/2020
3 (Year 1 Monitoring)10% 291.80 10% 10% 12/31/2021 2/1/2022
4 (Year 2 Monitoring)10% 291.80 10% 15% 12/31/2022 12/22/2023
5 (Year 3 Monitoring)10% 291.80 15% 20% 11/15/2023
6 (Year 4 Monitoring)5% 145.90 5% 10% 12/31/2024
7 (Year 5 Monitoring)10% 291.80 15% 15% 12/31/2025
8 (Year 6 Monitoring)5% 145.90 5% NA NA 12/31/2026
9 (Year 7 Monitoring)10% 291.80 10% NA NA 12/31/2027
Stream Bankfull Standard4 10% 291.80 NA NA NA NA NA NA Varies4
Total Credits Release to Date 1459.00
Date
Wilmington District Mitigation Bank Credit Release Schedule
4 ‐ A 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
1 ‐ The first credit release milestone is based on the potential credits stated in the approved mitigation plan.
2 ‐ The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria:
      1) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
      2) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
      3) Mitigation bank site must be secured;
      4) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan;
      5) Recordation of the long‐term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
      6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
3 ‐ The second credit release is based on the credit totals from the as‐built survey, and may differ slightly from the credit totals stated in the mitigation plan.
Contingencies (if any): None
Signature of Wilmington District Official Approving Credit Release
Scout Stream Mitigation Project
EBX
SAW‐2017‐01469
Potential Credits from Mitigation Plan
Forested Wetland Credits
Total Potential Credits 
Projected 
Release Date
Actual Release 
Date
Potential Credits from As‐Built Survey
Stream Credits
Credit Classification
Non‐Forested Wetland 
CreditsForested Wetland CreditsStream Credits
Current and Future Credit Releases
Credit Release Milestone
Davie
03040101
2019
8/23/2023
County:
8‐Digit HUC:
Year Project Instituted:
Date Prepared:

SCOUT
STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

RES YADKIN 01 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK SAW-2017-01469 YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT

Provided by:
Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1056
August 2023

Scout Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023
Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Project Success Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 3 Stream Success Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 3 Vegetation Success Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Project Components ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.5 Stream Design/Approach ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions .............................................................................................. 5 1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) .......................................................................................................... 5
Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Stream Geomorphology ................................................................................................................................ 6
Stream Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 6
2.0 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 7 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 MY3 Cross-Section Plots Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table Appendix E: Hydrology Data Table 10. 2023 Rainfall Summary Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events MY3 Stream Flow Hydrographs

Scout 1 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023

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

Scout 2 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023
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.

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.

Scout 3 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023
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 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 do not currently 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.

Scout 4 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023
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 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

Scout 5 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023
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 (MY3)
Vegetation

Monitoring of the seven fixed vegetation plots and three random plots was completed during
August 2023. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot
locations are in Appendix B. MY3 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 364
to 1,416 with an average of 705 across all plots. A total of nine species were documented within
the plots. Volunteer species were noted in three of the plots. The average stem height across all
vegetation plots was 4.12 feet.

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 February 2023. The supplemental planting included about 85 three-gallon trees along the previously encroached easement line. Species included were persimmon, water oak, willow

Scout 6 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023
oak, and northern red oak. Species were chosen to help diversify the vegetative community from
volunteer black willow and sycamore stems.
Stream Geomorphology

Geomorphology data for MY3 was collected during June 2023. 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 indicate 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 on September 1st, 2022. When downloading in June
2023, this gage and its cap were not found on site with the well casing. The CH1 gage was again
replaced in June 2023 and downloaded in August 2023, the replaced gage now uses a different sealing
cap to reduce any tampering. CH1 has 63 days of continuous flow data, the entirety of its
functionality during this monitoring period, and four out of bank events. In MY3, the stage
recorder on HC3 did not have any our of bank events however a bankfull event was recorded in
late December 2022. The flow gauge on CH2 recorded 342 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

Scout 7 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023
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 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.

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1.  Scout ‐ Mitigation Assets and Components
Existing Mitigation
Footage Plan Mitigation As-Built
or Footage or Mitigation Restoration Priority Mitigation Plan Footage or
Project Segment Acreage Acreage Category Level Level Ratio (X:1) Credits Acreage Comments
HC3 2,484 2,686 Warm R 1 1.00000 2686.000 2686
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Conservation Easement
CH1 249 348 Warm EII NA 2.50000 139.200 348 Riparian planting, livestock exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement
CH2 68 110 Warm EII NA 2.50000 44.000 110 Riparian planting, livestock exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement
Project Credits
Non-Rip Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riv
Wetland Marsh
Restoration 2686.000
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II 183.200
Creation
Preservation
Total 2869
Credit Loss in Buffer -174
Credit Gain in Buffer 223
Total Adjusted SMUs 2918
Restoration Level
Stream Riparian Wetland
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 3 year 3 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 3 years 3 months
Number of reporting Years1:3
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete 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: Sep-21 Sep-21
Invasive Vegetation Treatment NA Aug-22
Supplemental Planting NA Mar-22
Easement Encroachment Repair NA Mar-22
Year 2 Monitoring XS: Jun-22
VP: Aug-22 Sep-22
Supplemental Planting NA Feb-23
Year 3 Monitoring XS: Jun-23
VP: Aug-23 Aug-23
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 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
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 Daniel Dixon [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Daniel Dixon [phone]
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Scout Mitigation Site
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3040101
Supporting
Docs?
SAW-2017-
01469
DWR #17-
1295
Mit Plan
Mit Plan
N/A
Mit Plan
N/A
Physiographic Province Southern Outer Piedmont
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
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 3040101160010
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)810 ac (1.266 mi2)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Agriculture (49%), Residential (8%), Forest (39%), Impervious (2%)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (Acres)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet) (designed)
HC3
2,686
810
CH2
110
156
Evolutionary trend (Simon) (existing)
FEMA classification
Stream Classification (existing)
Stream Classification (proposed)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) No N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A
CH1
348
43
I
E4/5b
E4/5b
P
E4
E4/E5
I
E4
E4
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Conser vation Easement
Mockingbird Easement
Catbird Easemen t
Hauser Creek Ea sement
©Date: 10/27/2022
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: RTM
Document Path
: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\100147_Scout\MXD\6_MonitoringMaintenan
ce\MY2\Figure 1 - Vicinity Map - Scout.mxd
1 inch = 2,000 feet Restoring a resilient earth for a mod ern wo rld
Figure 1 - Project Location
ScoutMitigation Project
Davie County, North Car olina

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

!.
!.
!>
HC3
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 5
6
3
2
1
4
1
2
3 ©
Figure 2 - CCPV MY3
ScoutMitigation Project
Davie County,North Carolina
Date: 8/24/2023 Drawn by: DGD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\entgis\Projects\100147_Scou
t\M
XD\6_MonitoringMaintenance\MY3\Figure 2 - CCPV MY3 - Scout.mxd
Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world
1 in = 191 feet
0 200100
Feet
Legend
ConservationEasement
Mockingbird Easement
Existing Wetland
Supplemental Planting- 0.34 ac
Vegetation Plot
>320 stems/acre
<320 stems/acre
Random Veg Plot(MY3)
Design Centerline
Restoration
Enhancement II
No Credit
Cross Section
Structure
Top of Bank
!>Stage Recorder
!.Flow Gauge
Checked by: RTM
CH2
CH1
Scout MY3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

Vegetation Plot 1 (08/09/2023)

Vegetation Plot 2 (08/09/2023)

Vegetation Plot 3 (08/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 4 (08/09/2023)

Vegetation Plot 5 (08/09/2023) Vegetation Plot 6 (08/09/2023)

Vegetation Plot 7 (08/09/2023)

Random Vegetation Plot 1 (08/09/2023)

Random Vegetation Plot 2 (08/09/2023) Random Vegetation Plot 3 (08/09/2023)

Scout MY3 Monitoring Device Photos

Stage Recorder HC3 (08/09/2023)

Flow Gauge CH1 (08/09/2023)
Flow Gauge CH2 (08/09/2023) Ambient (08/09/2023)

Scout MY3 Crossing Photos

Culvert looking downstream (06/01/2023)

Culvert looking upstream (06/01/2023)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data

Table 5. Planted Species Summary

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary

Crab Apple Scientific Name M itigation 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 nigra 15 10 1,600
Sycamore Platanus occidnetalis 15 10 1,600
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 10 8 1,100
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 5 7 1,000
Crab Apple Malus angustifolia 0 5 800
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 5 700
Black Walnut Juglans nigra 0 3 400
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 0 2 350
Silky 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 Nyssa Sylvatica 5 0 0
14,750
10.9
1,353
Total
Planted Area
As-built Planted Stems/Acre
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted
Stem Height
(ft)
1 607 1255 1862 Yes 7.21
2 364 850 1214 Yes 3.26
3 890 121 1012 Yes 3.38
4 445 81 526 Yes 6.04
5 688 0 688 Yes 5.58
6 1416 0 1416 Yes 2.21
7 526 0 526 Yes 4.81
R1 486 0 486 Yes 2.94
R2 647 0 647 Yes 3.46
R3 647 0 647 Yes 4.75
Project Avg 705 330 1035 Yes 4.12
Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data

Table 7. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species

PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Betula nigra river birch Tree 4 4 6 3 3 3 6 6 6 12 12 12
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 9 9 9 3 3 3
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 5 5 5 1 1 2 3 3 3 16 16 16 1 1 1
Juglans nigra black walnut Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 4 4 34 3 3 4 3 3 5
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 9 9 9 17 17 17 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 3
Salix nigra black willow Tree 1 20
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub
15 15 46 9 9 30 22 22 25 11 11 13 17 17 17 35 35 35 13 13 13
3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 7 7 7 2 2 2
607 607 1862 364 364 1214 890 890 1012 445 445 526 688 688 688 1416 1416 1416 526 526 526
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Betula nigra river birch Tree 6 6 6 4 4 4 25 25 27 26 26 26 25 25 31 35 35 35
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 6 6 6 6 6 6
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 9
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 13 13 13
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1 12 12 12 11 11 11 12 12 12 10 10 10
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 6 6 6 5 5 5 26 26 27 24 24 27 20 20 20 9 9 9
Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 1 1 1 7 7 7
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 22 22 22
Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 2 12 12 12
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 4 4 4 1 1 1 10 10 43 10 10 60 5 5 61 11 11 11
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 18 18 18
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 36 36 36
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 36 36 36 39 39 39 34 34 34 35 35 35
Salix nigra black willow Tree 21 15 16
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 4 4 4
12 12 12 16 16 16 16 16 16 122 122 179 123 123 194 112 112 195 218 218 218
4 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 7 9 9 10 10 10 12 12 12 13 13 13 13
486 486 486 647 647 647 647 647 647 705 705 1035 711 711 1122 647 647 1127 1260 1260 1260
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
0381-01-0001 0381-01-0002
1
0.02
0381-01-0007
Current Plot Data (MY3 2023)
0381-01-0003 0381-01-0004 0381-01-0005 0381-01-0006
1
0.02
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
MY0 (2020)
1
0.02
1
0.02
7
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
7size (ares)1 1 1
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Random Plot Data (MY3 2023)
7 7
Stem count
Annual Means
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
0381-01-RVP 1 0381-01-RVP 2 0381-01-RVP 3 MY3 (2023)MY2 (2022)MY1 (2021)

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Scout -Reach HC3 - Cross Section 1 -Pool - Restoration
MY0 2020 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
723.17 723.4 723.3 723.4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 22.2 22.3 19.8 20.5
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ----
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 4.0 3.5 3.3 3.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 723.17 723.4 722.8 723.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 45.4 44.8 35.2 41.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ----
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ----
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
0369121518212427303336394245485154576063
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Scout -Reach HC3 - Cross Section 2 -Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2020 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 723.13 723.1 723.1 723.2
Bankfull Width (ft)1 20.4 19.5 18.0 22.9
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >64.9 >65.1 >65.1 >64.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 723.13 723.1 722.7 723.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 33.7 33.9 26.2 30.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >3.2 >3.3 >3.3 >2.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Scout -Reach HC3 - Cross Section 3 -Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2020 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 Approx. Bankfull
Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation MY3 2023 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 720.11 720.3 720.3 720.2
Bankfull Width (ft)1 20.0 21.9 19.4 22.3
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >65.1 >65.1 >64.8 >64.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 720.11 720.1 720.0 720.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 38.9 34.8 33.4 37.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >3.3 >3.0 >3.3 >2.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Scout -Reach HC3 - Cross Section 4 -Pool - Restoration
MY0 2020 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 720.08 720.1 720.1 720.1
Bankfull Width (ft)1 23.2 25.8 22.1 21.8
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ----
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 4.2 2.0 3.9 4.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 720.08 720.1 720.1 720.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 50.9 50.9 47.8 51.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ----
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ----
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Scout -Reach HC3 - Cross Section 5 -Pool - Restoration
MY0 2020 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 717.81 717.8 717.8 717.9
Bankfull Width (ft)1 22.3 23.9 25.7 21.2
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ----
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 717.81 717.8 717.8 717.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 44.6 44.0 42.5 43.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ----
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ----
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
0 3 6 9 121518212427303336394245485154576063
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Scout -Reach HC3 - Cross Section 6 -Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2020 MY1 2021 MY2 2022
MY3 2023 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 717.82 717.9 717.8 717.8
Bankfull Width (ft)1 20.6 19.3 19.2 19.7
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >64.9 >65.0 >64.8 >64.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 717.82 717.8 717.7 717.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 38.4 37.1 36.4 38.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >3.1 >3.4 >3.4 >3.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Parameter Gauge
2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)--- --- ---10.7 --- --- 11.9 --- 2 --- --- 13.7 --- --- 1 --- 19.0 --- 20.0 20.3 20.4 20.6 0.33
Floodprone Width (ft)25.2 --- --- 30.2 --- 2 --- --- >50 --- --- 1 --- >50 --- 64.9 65.0 64.9 65.1 0.1 3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)--- --- ---2.3 --- --- 2.4 --- 2 --- --- 1.4 --- --- 1 --- 1.8 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)3.4 --- --- 3.7 --- 2 --- --- 1.7 --- --- 1 --- 2.4 --- 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 0.1 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)--- --- ---25.6 --- --- 27.4 --- 2 --- --- 18.1 --- --- 1 --- 35.1 --- 33.7 37.0 38.4 38.9 2.93
Width/Depth Ratio 4.5 --- --- 5.2 --- 2 --- --- 9.8 --- --- 1 --- 10.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio 2.3 --- --- 2.5 --- 2 --- --- >2.2 --- --- 1 --- >2.2 --- 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 0.1 3
1Bank Height Ratio 2.1 --- --- 2.1 --- 2 --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1 --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3
Riffle Length (ft)------ ---
------ ---
6 --- ---
18 --- ---
8 --- 24 10 22 21 39 8 39
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)------ --------- --------- --------- ------ --- --- 0.00 1.03 0.77 3.17 0.84 39
Pool Length (ft)------ --------- ---5 --- ---42 --- ---7 ---57 8 4443751339
Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --------- --------- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing (ft)------ --------- ---18 --- ---64 --- ---24 --- 87 38 66 62 103 16 38
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 26.2 --- --- 55.5 --- --- 39 --- 71 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 13.5 --- --- 103.3 --- --- 32 --- 87 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- 6.9 --- --- 1.7 --- 4.1 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 49.4 --- --- 66 --- --- 80 --- 104 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.6 --- --- 4.4 --- --- 2.1 --- 5 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- ---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- ---
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Channel slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
0.0035 ---
--- ---------
1.05 1.14 1.05
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
0.0041 0.004
1.05
0.0068 0.004 0.0035 ---
2378 279 2560 ---
2504 318 2686 ---
--- --- --- ---
------
E4 E4 E4/E5 E4/E5
Profile
Pattern
Transport parameters
Additional Reach Parameters
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Scout Mitigation Site - Reach HC3
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 723.2 723.4 723.3 723.4 723.1 723.1 723.1 723.2 720.1 720.3 720.3 720.2 720.1 720.1 720.1 720.1 717.8 717.8 717.8 717.9
Bankfull Width (ft)1 22.2 22.3 19.8 20.5 20.4 19.5 18.0 22.9 20.0 21.9 19.4 22.3 23.2 25.8 22.1 21.8 22.3 23.9 25.7 21.2
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ------->64.9 >65.1 >65.1 >64.9 >65.1 >65.1 >64.8 >64.9 --------------
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 4.0 3.5 3.3 3.4 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.9 4.2 2.0 3.9 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)723.17 723.4 722.8 723.2 723.1 723.1 722.7 723.1 720.1 720.1 720.0 720.2 720.1 720.1 720.1 720.2 717.8 717.8 717.8 717.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 45.4 44.8 35.2 41.8 33.7 33.9 26.2 30.2 38.9 34.8 33.4 37.0 50.9 50.9 47.8 51.4 44.6 44.0 42.5 43.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ------->3.2 >3.3 >3.3 >2.8 >3.3 >3.0 >3.3 >2.9 --------------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 -------1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 --------------
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 717.8 717.9 717.8 717.8
Bankfull Width (ft)1 20.6 19.3 19.2 19.7
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >64.9 >65.0 >64.8 >64.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft)717.8 717.8 717.7 717.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 38.4 37.1 36.4 38.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >3.1 >3.4 >3.4 >3.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Appendix D. Table 9 - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name: Scout
Cross Section 1 (Pool)Cross Section 2 (Riffle)Cross Section 3 (Riffle)Cross Section 4 (Pool)Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 10. 2023 Rainfall Summary
Month Average
Normal Limits Project Location
Precipitation* 30 Percent 70 Percent
September
(2022) 4.32 2.73 5.21 3.95
October (2022) 3.27 1.96 3.94 1.70
November
(2022) 3.18 1.71 3.89 2.45
December
(2022) 3.72 2.55 4.44 1.61
January 3.64 2.62 4.30 3.81
February 3.32 2.35 3.93 3.55
March 3.83 2.64 4.56 2.55
April 3.96 2.52 4.77 4.51
May 3.89 2.55 4.68 2.40
June 4.27 3.13 5.01 4.57
July 4.90 3.51 5.79 11.10
August 4.44 3.09 5.28 -
Total Annual ** 46.74 31.36 55.80 42.20
Above Normal
Limits
Below
Normal
Limits

WETS Station: Yadkinville, NC. Approximately 13 miles from the site.
*Project Location Precipitation is a location-weighted average of surrounding gauged data retrieved by the
USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool. Gauges used include Elkin, King, Yadkinville 6 E.
**Total Annual represents the average total precipitation, annually, as calculated by the 30-year period.

Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events

MY0/1
2020
1 1.28
MY1 2021 0 N/A
MY2 2022 2 0.23
MY3 2023 0 N/A
MY0/1
2020 10 1.77
MY1 2021 5 0.98
MY2 2022 2 0.88
MY3 2023 4 1.30
MY0/1
2020 1 217 217 5/28/2020-12/31/2020
MY1 2021 1 257 257 1/1/2021-9/14/2021
MY2 2022 1 59 59 1/1/2022-3/1/2022
MY3 2023 1 63 63 6/6/2023 - 8/9/2023
MY0/1
2020 9 53 114 9/12/2020-11/3/2020
MY1 2021 11 75 140 7/1/2021-9/14/2021
MY2 2022 1 233 233 1/1/2022-8/23/2022
MY3 2023 1 342 342 9/1/2022 - 8/9/2023
Flow Gauge CH1
Flow Gauge CH2
11/11/2020
N/A
12/22/2022
N/A
Flow Gauge CH1
11/11/2020
8/18/2021
2/3/2022
6/23/2023
Year Number of Flow Events Maximum Consecutive Flow Days Maximum Cummlative Flow Days Maximum Consecutive Flow Date Range
Year Number of Bankfull Events Maximum Bankfull Height (ft)Date of Maximum Bankfull Event
Stage Recorder HC3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
2023 Scout HC3 Stage Recorder Graph
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
2023 Scout CH1 Flow Gauge Graph
Daily Precip (in)FG CH1 Downstream Riffle Elevation Top of Bank63 Days Consecutive Flow
6/6/2023 ‐8/9/2023
63 Days Consecutive Flow
6/6/2023 ‐8/9/2023
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
2023 Scout CH2 Flow Gauge Graph
Daily Precip (in)FG CH2 Downstream Riffle Elevation
342 Days of Consecutive Flow
9/1/2022 ‐8/9/2023
342 Days Consecutive Flow
9/1/2022 ‐8/9/2023