20180182 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_FINAL_20220203

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20180182 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/03/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/3/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Kevin Tweedy [e-mail]
Project Information
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180182 Version:• * 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
County: Surry
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Red Barn_MY2_FINAL.pdf 29.36MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Russell Myers
Signature:*

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
ECOSYSTEM 1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27511
PLANNING &
EPR RESTORATION Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Mr. Steve Kichefski
151 Patton Ave, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
January 12, 2022
RE: Final Monitoring Year 2 Report
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Surry County, North Carolina
SAW-2017-01927
Dear Mr. Kichefski,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC (EPR) has prepared the Final Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) Report following the revised DMS Monitoring Guidance Templates
(released October 2020) and based on comments provided in the MY1 credit release of the Red
Barn Mitigation Bank letter dated April 20, 2021.
As noted in the report, during MY2 most wetland gauges on the Site continue to not meet the
hydroperiod performance criteria. With this letter and Monitoring Report EPR is proposing to
abandon wetland credits, return the WMU's already released to USACE, and perform a wetland
delineation at project closeout to ensure that the total wetland area for the Site was not reduced.
An MBI Modification will be submitted to reflect these changes.
Additionally, in MY2 three areas were released from the recorded conservation easement. These
areas include a pedestrian crossing over UT2c where a pedestrian bridge will be installed; a riffle
crossing connecting the properties on either side of UT3c; and an area along the property line of
UT1a where leaving an existing fence will help protect the easement against encroachment. Legal
documentation of the release was provided to USACE in May 2021.
If you have any questions regarding the Monitoring Year 2 Report, please contact me at 919-999-
0262 or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely, Kevin Tweedy, PE
Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment ----

Year 2 Monitoring Report
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Surry County, North Carolina
Monitoring Year 2
Data Collection Period: Submission Date:
August 2021 — November 2021 January 2021
,
> 4 a k , r
� ,r
, ''f 0
.,„
„' r4, '
a �a
3 .A s� . tet 'u' 6 s.
kw:;4,f4:, ','ak,,,,_-:-',7.3°3-.*WY''*,'
';, t � ,e d� a� e' `�a 5,,` , : •
t. `-ate f� t
b #
�- m X 3 a ; ::
• a� F ri • t'a \_: e :Al
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01927
Prepared For: Prepared By:
US Army Corps of Engineers Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
E ,[ri I i Wilmington District 1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
�" 151t , Room 208 �� Cary, NC 27511
Asheville
ton, NC Avenue 28801

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1
1.1 Goals and Objectives 1
1.2 Performance Criteria 2
2.0 MONITORING DATA ASSESSMENT 10
2.1 Stream Monitoring 10
2.1.1 Stream Dimension 10
2.1.2 Stream Profile 11
2.1.3 Channel Stability 11
2.1.4 Stream Hydrology 12
2.2 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring 12
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Data 13
2.3 Wetland Monitoring 14
2.3.1 Wetland Hydrology Monitoring 14
2.3.2 Wetland Vegetation Monitoring 15
3.0 REFERENCES 17
TABLES
TABLE 1. PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES AND CREDITS 3
TABLE 2. GOALS, PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS 6
TABLE 3. PROJECT ATTRIBUTE TABLE 9
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2. CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW (CCPV): OVERVIEW MAP
FIGURE 2A. CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW (CCPV): ASSET MAP
FIGURE 2B. CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW (CCPV): ASSET MAP
FIGURE 2C. CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW (CCPV): ASSET MAP
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
rI-'R Surry County,North Carolina

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data
Tables 4a. through 4d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photo Log
Vegetation Photo Log
Stream Gauge Photo Log
Wetland Gauge Photo Log
Appendix B: Vegetation Plot Data
Tables 6a. through 6c. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Tables
Table 7a. through 7b. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Tables
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross Section Plots with Annual Overlays
Tables 8a. through 8i. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 9. Monitoring Data - Cross-Section Monitoring Data Table
Appendix D: Hydrologic Data
Table 10. Stream Flow and Bankfull Event Verification
Figure 3. Monthly Rainfall Data
Precipitation and Water Level (Stream Flow and Groundwater) Hydrographs
Table 11. Wetland Hydrology Annual Summary
Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Information
Table 12. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 13. Project Contacts Table
Appendix F: Conservation Easement Annual Monitoring
Pre-Closeout Conservation Easement Annual Monitoring Form
Appendix G: IRT Correspondence
IRT Site Visit Meeting Notes from March 23, 2021
MY1 Credit Release Letter
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
rI-'R Surry County,North Carolina

PROJECT SUMMARY
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC (EPR) implemented the Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Site (Project; Site) to provide cool water thermal regime stream mitigation credits (SMCs) and
riparian wetland mitigation credits (WMCs) in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) 03040101. The Project restored and enhanced 7,586 linear feet (LF) of three
perennial unnamed tributaries (UT) to Stewarts Creek, and one intermittent tributary to
Stewarts Creek. The three main perennial tributaries are referred to as "UT1", "UT2", and
"UT3", while the intermittent tributary is referred to as "UT4." The Project also created and
rehabilitated 3.67 acres of wetland hydrology by raising and reconnecting the restored stream
beds to an active floodplain to restore a stream-wetland complex within the 25.3-acre
conservation easement. Mitigation assets are listed in Table 1.
The Site is located in the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division
of Mitigation Services (DMS) Targeted Local Watershed 03040101100010. The Project location
is shown in Figure 1. The Site was historically utilized for agricultural and cattle practices. As
such, wetlands and streams at the Site were adversely impacted by direct cattle access, farming
activities, and stream channelization. The Site is in a rural but developing area of Surry County.
Land use within the UT1 and UT2 watersheds is comprised of 37.3% pasture lands, 27.4%
deciduous forest lands, and 35.3% residential development. Land use within the UT3 watershed
is comprised of 49.2% cultivated crops and hay, 30.5%forest land, and 20.2% urban land, with
2.3% of the urban land being impervious. Prior to construction activities, all four Project
streams had either sustained significant cattle damage and/or had been channelized to
maximize agricultural production. The adjacent wetlands were drained by channelization of the
Project streams and, in the case of WA and WB, were also trampled heavily grazed by livestock,
and drained by multiple ditches. Pre-construction, or pre-existing, Site conditions are provided
in Table 3 (below) and in Table 8 (Appendix C). Photos and a more detailed description of Site
conditions before restoration are available in the Mitigation Plan (Final version submitted
November 2019).
This report references the revised Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Report submitted January 19, 2021
to, and approved by the USACE on April 20, 2021. The MY1 Report approval letter notes that
notification is needed once the conservation easement was amended to release three areas.
The executed Amendment and Releases were fully executed and provided to USACE via e-amil
in May 2021. The other issues noted as concerns in the USACE letter dated April 20, 2021 are
addressed in relevant sections of this report.
Goals and Objectives
The Project goals were established based on an assessment of Site conditions and restoration
potential, with careful consideration of the stressors identified in the Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
rPRYear 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County North Carolina
PR

River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) Report (NCEEP, 2009) and the NCDWQ Yadkin Pee-Dee
River Basin Plan Summary (2008). Goals and objectives are presented in Table 2.
Site construction was completed in March 2020 and the as-built survey was completed in May
2020. Initial site planting occurred in March and April 2020. Repair work was performed in July
2020 to move the culvert on UT3 out of the easement and reconfigure the fencing and gates in
this area. The July repair work also included some minor grading, seeding, and matting to repair
some hillslope rilling adjacent to Reaches UT2b and UT3a that resulted from the large flood
event that occurred in April 2020. In April 2021 additional material was added to riffle crossing
on UT3c to make it passable by ATV. Supplemental planting was conducted to replace planted
saplings under warranty according to the Mitigation Plan with no deviations of density or
species. Supplemental planting occurred on April 6, 2021. A detailed timeline of the Project
activity and reporting history are provided in Appendix E.
performance Criteria
Project success criteria were established in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—
Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District (October 24, 2016).
Table 2 details the USACE success criteria that evaluate whether Project goals have been met
throughout the monitoring period. For more detailed success criteria, refer to the Final
Mitigation Plan or the As-built Baseline Monitoring Report.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County,North Carolina
rPR 2

Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Original Original
Project Original Original
Mitigati As-built Mitigation Priority Mitigation
Component on Plan (ft/ac) Thermal Regime Restoration Level Mitigation Credits Notes/Comments
(reach ID,etc.) (ft/ac) Category Level Ratio(X:1)
UT1a 1567 1567 Cool R P1 1.00000 1567 Creditable length begins following utility
easement.
UT1b 538 538 Cool P1 0.00000 0 E channel through wetland may not maintain
high-water mark.
UT1c 688 688 Cool R P2 1.00000 688 Culverted crossing not included in mitigation
length.
UT2a 1186 1186 Cool R P1 1.00000 1186
Culverted crossing not included in mitigation
UT2b 1011 1023 Cool R P2 1.00000 1023 length.Channel re-aligned during
construction to avoid bedrock.
UT2c 240 240 Cool El 1.50000 160 Pedestrian crossing not included in mitigation
length.
UT3a 1378 1378 Cool R P2 1.00000 1378 Culverted crossing not included in mitigation
length.
UT3b 190 190 Cool El - 1.50000 127
UT3c 1087 1087 Cool R P1 1.00000 1087 Riffle crossing not included in mitigation
length.
UT3d 97 97 Cool Ell - 2.50000 39
UT4 134 130 Cool El 1.50000 86 Jurisdictional point moved downstream
during construction.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County,North Carolina
EPR 3

Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits (continued)
Original Original
Project Original Original
Mitigati As-built Mitigation Priority Mitigation
Component on Plan (ft/ac) Thermal Regime Restoration Level Mitigation Credits Notes/Comments
(reach ID,etc.) (ft/ac) Category Level Ratio(X:1)
Planted,excluded livestock,plugged ditches,
and encompasses section of Priority 2 reach.
Wetland A(WA) 1.400 0.830 0.830 RR 1.50000 0.00 There was a calculation error in the approved
mitigation plan that was revised in the As-
Built Monitoring Report.
Wetland B(WB) 2.400 1.030 1.030 RR 1.50000 0.00 Planted,excluded livestock,plugged ditches,
and encompasses section of Priority 2 reach.
Planted,excluded livestock,plugged ditches,
Wetland C(WC) 0.800 0.540 0.520 RR 1.50000 0.00 and encompasses section of Priority 2 reach.
Riffle crossing that is excluded from the
easement was relocated during construction.
Wetland Planted,excluded livestock,plugged ditches,
0.000 1.290 1.290 RR 3.00000 0.00
Creation and encompasses section of Priority 2 reach.
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level Stream Credits Riparian Wetland Credits Non-Rip Wetland Coastal Marsh
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 6929.000
Re-establishment
Enhancement
Enhancement I 373.000
Enhancement II 39.000
Rehabilitation 0.000
Preservation
Creation 0.000
Totals 7341.000 0.000
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County,North Carolina
EPR 4

Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits(Continued)
Total Base SMCs 7341.000
Credit Loss in Required Buffer -238.490
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 929.870
Net Change in Credit from Buffers 691.390
Total Adjusted SMCs* 8032.390
*Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator(Updated 1/19/2019)
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County,North Carolina
eEPR 5

Table 2. Goals, Performance and Results
Goal Objective/Treatment Likely Functional Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results
Uplift
• Reduce the amount of land in active • Recordation and
livestock pasture. protection of a
Reduce • Exclude livestock from riparian buffers, conservation Minor easement encroachment was
sediment streams,and wetlands. easement meeting noted at UT3.A mower or small
inputs and • Increase distance between active USACE guidelines. tractor had been within the
operations and receivingVisual Assessment
stream farming P • Visual inspection of easement.No lasting damage was
turbidity waters. fencing installed to Conducted yearly throughout recorded.Landowners and
• Restore riparian buffers to filter runoff. exclude cattle from the easement. contractors have been contacted
• Stabilize eroding stream banks. the stream and regarding their responsibilities with
• Reduce the amount of land in active ' The exclusion of
livestock has riparian buffer, easement encroachment.
livestock pasture. demonstrating no
buffers, removed a direct
• Exclude livestock from riparian
source of nutrients, encroachment.
streams,and wetlands.
• Increase distance between active coliform,and
Reduce sediment from the Permanent Vegetation Plots
nutrient farming operations and receiving system,as well as a • Restore minimum 30 11 permanent vegetation Nine(9)out of the 11 permanent
waters. ft.buffers between
inputs major contributor plots,0.02 acre in size vegetation plots meet the success
• Restore riparian buffers to filter runoff. Project streams and
• Decrease draina a of to channel (minimum),surveyed during criteria of 320 stems/acre in Year 3.
g din
restored/enhanced wetlands, instability. surrounding As-built,Years 1,2,3,5,and Two(2)permanent vegetation plots
■ Restored riparian agricultural and 7 between July 1st and leaf do not meet the species diversity
promoting higher water table suburban land uses.
buffers will provide drop.Data collection performance standard and are
conditions,and denitrification. ■ Vegetation success
woody debris and includes species,height, dominated by a single species
• Reduce the amount of land in active detritus for aquatic criteria of 320 native planted vs.volunteer,and (sycamore).
livestock pasture. organisms,reduced stems/acre in Year 3, age.
Reduce • Exclude livestock from riparian buffers, 260 native stems/acre
Fecal streams,and wetlands. water temperatures
and increased in Year 4 and 210
Coliform • Increase buffer widths between active dissolved oxygen native stems/acre in
Inputs farming operations and receiving Year 7.
concentrations,as Annual Random Vegetation
waters. well as shade to the ' Trees must average 7
• Restore riparian buffers to filter runoff. feet in height at Year Plots All random vegetation plots meet
stream resources. 10 randomlyselected the success criteria of 320
• Restore riparian buffer vegetation to 5,and 10 feet in
filter runoff and provide organic matter height at Year 7. vegetation plots,0.02 acre in stems/acre.Five(5)random
Restore/ and shade. • Any single tree species size(minimum),surveyed vegetation plot do not meet the
Enhance • Rehabilitate existing riparian wetlands can only account for during As-built,Years 1,2,3, performance standard for species
Degraded and decrease drainage of created 50%of the required 5,and 7 between July 1st and diversity and are dominated by
Riparian riparian wetland areas. stems per monitoring leaf drop. Data collection sycamore.
Buffers • Protect riparian buffers,streams,and plot. includes species and height.
wetlands with a permanent
conservation easement.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County,North Carolina
EPR 6

Table 2. Goals, Performance and Results
Goal Objective/Treatment Likely Functional Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results
Uplift
• Restore minimum 30-foot riparian Stream Profile A full longitudinal survey of the
Reduce buffers between suburban homes and Full longitudinal survey on all Project streams was conducted
Urban/ restored and enhanced
receiving waters. during As-built monitoring.No signs
Suburban stream channels.Data were
• Protect riparian buffers,streams,and • All streams must of instability or degradation were
Stormwater collected during As-built
Runoff wetlands with a permanent maintain an Ordinary survey only(unless otherwise noted during MY2 monitoring,so a
conservation easement. High-Water Mark new profile was not surveyed.
(OHWM),per RGL05- required).
05. The Year 2 monitoring cross-section
■ Riparian buffers and • Bank height ratio Cross Sections survey indicates that the Project
• Restore stream channels with wetlands will (BHR)cannot exceed Cross sections are surveyed streams are geomorphically stable
appropriate dimension,pattern,and provide diverse 1.2 for all measured during Years 1,2,3,5,and 7. and some restored reaches have
profile. aquatic and cross sections on a 18 total cross sections. processed the increased sediment
• Install in-stream structures to provide terrestrial habitats given reach. 5 cross sections on UT1, supply observed during Monitoring
Reduce stream channel and stream bank that are appropriate • Entrenchment ratio 6 cross sections on UT2, Year 1. Note that due to small
Stream stability. for the ecoregion (ER)must be 2.2 or 6 cross sections on UT3,and channel dimensions,the 10%
Channel and • Restore riparian buffer to provide bank and setting. above for all 1 cross section on UT4 change in BHR occurs with small
Stream Bank protection and stability. • The addition of in- measured riffle cross adjustments in dimensions.
Instability • Exclude livestock from riparian buffers, stream structures sections for C/E
streams,and wetlands. helps to ensure stream types and 1.4 Stream photo points and visual
• Protect riparian buffers,streams,and channel stability or above for B stream assessment indicate that all restored
Visual Assessment
wetlands with a permanent and will provide types. Conducted yearly on all streams are in good condition and
conservation easement. greater bedform • BHR should not restored stream channels. performing as intended.No
diversity,enhancing change by more than significant stream problem areas
aquatic habitat for 10%in any given year were observed.
native species. for a majority of a
given reach. Additional Cross Sections No instability was documented
•• Exclude livestock from riparian buffers, Documentation of Only surveyed if instability is during MY2 monitoring,so no
streams,and wetlands. four bankfull events in documented during additional cross sections were
Improve • Restore stream channels with different years monitoring. surveyed.
Aquatic appropriate dimension,pattern,and throughout the
Habitat profile. monitoring period.
• Install in-stream structures to provide Bankfull events were documented
improved aquatic habitat. Visual Assessment on five out of seven stream gauges
Photos of Flood Indicators
this monitoring year.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
EPR
Surry County,North Carolina
7

Table 2. Goals, Performance and Results
Goal Objective/Treatment Likely Functional Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results
Uplift
■ Documentation of 30 Stream Hydrology
■ Wetland hydrology days of consecutive Monitoring Flow gauge data from MY2 indicate
• Raise and reconnect the restored stream flow in all 7 pressure transducers and a that all Project streams met the
stream beds to an active wood lain. and in channel reaches each
hydraulics have rain gauge will record established success criteria of 30
• Decrease drainage of monitoring year. and streamflow da s or more of consecutive flow
been improved by precipitation y
restored/enhanced wetlands, restoring Project • All wetland areas must data continuously through throughout the year.
Improve promoting higher water table channels to their maintain a the monitoring period.
conditions,and denitrification. hydroperiod of 10%of
Wetland historic valley,
• Exclude livestock from riparian buffers, the growing season,as
Function raising the Wetland Hydrology
streams,and wetlands. defined from April 8 to Only wells WG8 and WG9 met the
streambeds,and Monitoring
• Protect riparian buffers,streams,and connecting them to October 26(USDA 9 pressure transducers and a hydroperiod performance criteria
wetlands with a permanent 2007) for the growing season 2021.No
adjacent wetlands rain gauge will record
conservation easement. at lower flows. • Wetland creation precipitation and water wetland mitigation credits are
• Restore wetland vegetation. areas must document requested for release for MY2 and
the development of surface elevation data EPR will not pursue wetland credits
continuously through the
hydric soil indicators. for the Site.
monitoring period.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County,North Carolina
EPR 8

Table 3. Project Attribute Table
Project Background Information
Project Name Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
County Surry County
Project Area(acres) 25.3
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 36.489800,-80.641100
Planted Acreage(Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 22.2
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Northern Inner Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin Pee-Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040101 USGS Hydrologic 3040101100010
8-digit Unit 14-digit
Project Drainage Area(Acres and Sq.Mi.) 233.1 acres/0.47 Sq.Mi.
Project Stream Thermal Regime Cool
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 1%
CGIA Land Use Classification Pasture(22.5%),Forest(27.3%),Residential(21.3%),
Cropland(17.4%),Urban(7%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4
Length of reach (linear feet) 2255 2449 2752 130
Valley confinement(Confined,
moderately confined,unconfined) Unconfined Unconfined Confined Confined
Drainage area(Acres and Square Miles) 47.4 acres/0.05 sq. 93.23 acres/ 82.21 acres/0.25 10.22 acres/0.02
mi. 0.15 sq.mi. sq.mi. sq.mi.
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral Perennial Perennial/ Perennial Intermittent
Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification N/A
Stream Classification (existing) B5 B5/F5 B/G5,B4c,and F4 B5
Stream Classification(proposed) C5b/C5 C5/B5c B4/B4c/C4 B4c
Evolutionary trend (Simon) Stage 2/5 Stage 2/5 Stage 3-5 Stage 5
FEMA classification AE/X AE/X AE/X X
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 ID#SAW
2017-01927
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No.4134
-ID#18-0182
Division of Land Quality(Erosion and General Permit NCG010000-ID#SURRY-2020-
Sediment Control) Yes Yes 015
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
Appendix 5 in Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA or No N/A
CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes Surry County Zoning Permit approved
8/23/2019
Essential Fisheries Habitat No - N/A
• Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 2 Monitoring Report
EPRSurry County,North Carolina
CI^' 9

MONITORING DATA ASSESSMENT
Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) data were collected in August and November 2021. Current Site
conditions and monitoring data were described in the following sections to evaluate whether
the Project is meeting the success criteria established in Mitigation Plan (Final version
submitted November 2019).
Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring involves field data collection to assess the hydrologic, hydraulic, and
geomorphic functions of UT1, UT2, UT3 and UT4. Monitored parameters, methods,
schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table 2. These monitoring parameters
follow USACE guidance, but will also allow for monitoring of other parameters to document Site
performance related to the Project goals listed in Table 2. The locations of the established
monitoring cross sections are shown in Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV).
2.1.1 Stream Dimensior.
Eighteen (18) permanent cross sections were installed across the Site; 5 on UT1, 6 on UT2, 6 on
UT3, and 1 on UT4. Nine (9) cross sections were installed in riffles and 9 were installed in pools.
Each cross-section was marked using a length of rebar and T-posts on both streambanks. The
location and elevation of each pin facilitates data comparison from year to year. Cross-sections
were surveyed using a Topcon RL-H5A Self Leveling Laser Level. Reported data include
measurements of Bankfull Elevation (consistent with the Baseline As-Built Report), Bank Height
Ratio (BHR), Low Top of Bank (LTOB) Elevation, Thalweg Elevation, LTOB Max Depth, LTOB
Cross-Sectional Area, and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). BHR measurements were made using the
DMS Cross-Section Tool by holding the bankfull area recorded in the Baseline As-built report
constant and adjusting the bankfull elevation. All other geomorphic measurements were made
by maintaining a constant benchmark bankfull elevation as recorded in the Baseline As-built
report. Reference photos were taken of both streambanks to provide a visual assessment of
any changes that occurred.
The Year 2 monitoring cross-section survey indicates that the Project streams are
geomorphically stable and restored channel dimensions have not changed significantly during
Monitoring Year 2. Stream cross-sections showed only minor fluctuations compared to MY1. All
cross-sections met the performance criteria as established in the Mitigation Plan and shown in
Table 2:
• Cross-section 8, pool on UT2b -the BHR was increased by 20%. In MY1 the BHR at this
cross-section was reduced by 14%from the As-Built condition. The adjustment from ASB
to MY1 was potential aggradation, but the adjustment back toward design bankfull
dimensions indicates a change toward stability.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 10
rEYear 2 Monitoring Report
ar' Surry County,North Carolina

• Cross-section 11, riffle on UT2c - the BHR increased by 15%. In MY1 the BHR at this
cross-section was reduced by 19%from the As-Built condition. The adjustment from ASB
to MY1 was potential aggradation, but the adjustment back toward design bankfull
dimensions indicates a change toward stability.
• Cross-section 12, riffle on UT3a the BHR and ER were reduced by 12% and 28%,
respectively. Overall, UT3 is very stable with little aggradation or erosion. The drainage
area to this cross-section is small and the observed adjustment is not concerning.
These results are largely due to the small size of the channels where small adjustments
(generally 0.1 foot) lead to larger changes in the calculated BHR and ER values. However, there
is evidence of some deposition within reaches UT3a and UT4 (Cross-sections 12, and 18,
respectively). Within these reaches, sandy hillslopes that were exposed during construction to
frequent rainfall events have led to some deposition within the channel and floodplain. UT2c
(cross-section 11) was one cross-section that was exhibiting signs of aggradation last year but
the stream has adjusted dimension toward the as-built condition this year. For the other
reaches, EPR does not expect the deposition to cause instabilities; conditions within these
reaches will be monitored to determine whether adaptive management is needed. The cross-
section plots, photos, and data summary (Table 9) are included in Appendix C.
2.1.4 Stream Profile
A full longitudinal profile was surveyed in May 2020 for the entire length of the restored stream
to document as-built conditions. This survey is tied to a permanent benchmark and includes
thalweg, water surface, right bank and left bank features. Profile measurements were taken at
the head of features (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the max depth of pools.
The longitudinal profile will not be surveyed during annual monitoring unless vertical channel
instability has been observed during monitoring and remedial actions or repairs are needed.
• Channel Stability
Channel stability is assessed on a yearly basis using photographs to visually document the
condition of the restored Project streams. Photographs are taken from the same location in the
same direction each year. Thirty-two (32) photo points were established during baseline
monitoring and are shown in the CCPV (Figure 2). Visual assessments of channel stability and in-
stream structure condition were also made regularly throughout Monitoring Year 2.
Stream photo points and visual assessment indicate that all restored channels and in-stream
structures are in good condition and performing as intended. No significant stream problem
areas were observed.
The IRT has expressed concern about sediment deposition at the upstream end of reach UT2a
and vegetation growth in the UT1c channel (Appendix G). Conditions observed in the field, and
shown in Photo Point 10A and 10B, demonstrate that the upstream portion of UT2a is moving
the sediment supply coming from offsite. The section of UT2a through the wetland, containing
NEPP-It Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 11
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Ear' Surry County,North Carolina

pool cross-section 6 and riffle cross section 7, are showing signs of aggradation but this could
also be attributable to vegetation growth within the channel and a monitoring year that was
drier than normal. Vegetation removal from the channel is planned for this winter following
guidance provided by the USACE on vegetation removal in channels during monitoring.
.1.4 Stream Hydrology
Two (2) pressure transducers were installed on UT1, UT2 and UT3, and one pressure transducer
was installed on UT4 (for a total of 7 stream gauges) to document stream flow and the
occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period. The locations of these gauges are
shown in the CCPV (Figure 2). Gauges were installed in the downstream end of pools. The
constructed bankfull elevation at each gauge was recorded, as well as the elevation of the
downstream controlling grade (thalweg elevation at the head of riffle). These elevations were
compared with the gauge readings to determine whether the stream is flowing and if a bankfull
event has occurred.
A tipping bucket rain gauge was also installed and maintained to accurately document rainfall
at the Site. The rainfall data were compared to the flow gauge data to verify that high flows at
the Site were correlated with rainfall events. The monitoring gauges were downloaded
regularly throughout Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) and rainfall data are presented in the flow gauge
plots in Appendix D.
Flow gauge data from MY2 indicate that all Project reaches met the established success criteria
of 30 days or more of consecutive flow throughout the year. The upstream end of UT2a and
UT4 are both intermittent, while UT1c is a restored reach that is expected to be intermittent.
All gauges showed continuous flow during the sampling period with the exception of SG2
(UT1c). SG2 shows periods of no or very low flow during much of the summer and fall months
reinforcing its classification as an intermittent stream.
• SG6 on UT4 suffered a device malfunction, and as a result, is lacking data from
3/17/2021—8/23/2021. However, the stream exhibited flow during the entire period of
record that was recorded for 2021.
Recorded bankfull events at Red Barn Mitigation Site ranged from no events (UT2a and UT3a)
to 6 separate bankfull events (UT1a and UT1c). UT2a and UT3a experienced near bankfull
events this year. All project reaches are anticipated to meet the performance criteria of 4 or
more documented bankfull events in separate years over the course of project's monitoring
period. The dates and timing of the bankfull events correlated with significant rainfall as
recorded by the tipping bucket rain gauge on site.
Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
Riparian vegetation monitoring evaluates the growth and establishment of planted and
volunteer vegetation across the Site. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency,
and extent are summarized in Table 2. These monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance,
Nwr‘ Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 12
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Ear' Surry County,North Carolina

but will also allow for monitoring of other parameters to document Site performance related to
the Project goals listed in Table 2.
Note that there are 11 permanent vegetation plots and 10 random vegetation plots for the Site.
Wetland vegetation monitoring is reported separately in Section 2.3 of this report.
c.l Vegetation ivionitonng uat
Six (6) permanent riparian vegetation monitoring plots were established across the site (Plot
numbers 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, and 11). The corners of the permanent vegetation plots were marked
using steel t-posts and the location of each plot was surveyed during the as-built survey. The
individual trees within each permanent plot were tagged and identified to facilitate annual
monitoring. In addition to 6 permanent plots, 7 randomly placed vegetation plots are
established each year and the location of these plots is recorded using a GPS. In MY2, the 6
random riparian vegetation plots were taken, and an extra wetland vegetation plot was taken
(refer to Section 2.3.2). This year the random plots taken are Plot numbers 12, 13, 14, 15, 19,
and 20. All vegetation plots for MY2 are shown in the CCPV (Figure 2). Table 5 in Appendix A
summarizes the results of a visual review of the conservation easement, mapping bare areas,
areas of low stem density, invasive species, or easement encroachments.
Year 2 vegetation monitoring occurred in August and September 2021 before leaf drop. Annual
vegetation data are compiled and summarized using the DMS Vegetation Data Entry Tool in
Appendix B. Planted stem counts for each plot ranged from 5 trees per plot (202 trees per acre)
in VP-1 to 19 trees per plot (769 trees per acre) in VP-13. The average density of planted stems
from all 12 riparian vegetation plots (permanent and random) was 15 trees per plot (594 trees
per acre). All plots except VP-1 are meeting the interim success criteria for stem density for
Monitoring Year 2. For multiple vegetation plots, a single species (sycamore) exceeded 50% of
the stems in that plot. Riparian herbaceous vegetation that was either undisturbed during
construction, or established after construction, is flourishing throughout the Site, which is
shading the saplings.
• VP-1 does not meet the performance standard for stem count (202 stems/acre,
respectively)
• VP-10, VPR-13, VPR-14, VPR-15, an VPR-19 do not meet the performance standard for
stem diversity (54%, 53%, 54%, 58%, and 50% dominant species composition). Because
these plots have dominant species compositions that are close to the success threshold
of 50%, the time period for which the site has been monitored must be taken into
account. The dominant species composition does not concern EPR at this time. It is
believed as time progresses that other species will compete and diversity will even out.
The vegetation plots that did not meet the performance standard for density or diversity will
continue to be monitored in MY3. It is anticipated that additional trees will become more
evident in these areas as the trees grow above the grass stage. EPR will selectively plant
additional stems in small low-stem density areas across the site in early 2022 to replace dead
Nwr‘ Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 13
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Ear' Surry County,North Carolina

trees. This effort is expected to be minimal and will address the few areas that could benefit
from some larger trees.
Invasive species were absent from monitoring plots. There was no evidence of significant
invasive plant growth or establishment. Some scattered multiflora rose and Chinese privet were
noted in very small amounts around the project, and these will be spot treated as necessary
during Monitoring Year 3. Small patches of cattail were found in the vicinity of UT1 and will be
cut out before the 2022 growing season.
The other permanent vegetation plots are located in wetlands and described in Section 2.3.2.
Wetland Monitoring
Wetland monitoring includes monitoring of the hydrologic functions and the growth and
establishment of planted and volunteer vegetation within WA, WB, WC, and the wetland
creation area. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are
summarized in Table 2. These monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance, but will also
allow for monitoring of other parameters to document Site performance related to the Project
goals listed in Table 2.
.3.1 Wetland Hydrology Monitoring
Two (2) pressure transducers were installed in WA, 2 were installed in WC, 3 pressure
transducers were installed in WB, and 2 were installed in the wetland creation area to
document hydroperiod at the Site during monitoring. The locations of these wetland gauges are
shown in the CCPV (Figure 2). Groundwater levels were recorded throughout the growing
season at 6-hour intervals. According to the Soil Survey of Surry County, the growing season is
from April 8 to October 26 (USDA 2007). The period of record for the 2021 growing season at all
wetland wells was from April 8, 2021 to October 26, 2021.
A tipping bucket rain gauge was also installed and maintained to accurately document rainfall
at the Site. The rainfall data were compared to the groundwater gauge data to verify that high
water levels at the Site were correlated with rainfall events. The monitoring gauges were
downloaded regularly throughout the monitoring year and data are presented in Appendix D.
Water level gauge data from MY2 indicate that only two (WG8, WG9) of the nine wetland
gauges met the established success criteria of maintaining a hydroperiod of 10% of the growing
season, as defined from April 8 to October 26 (10% of 201 days is 20 consecutive days). WG8 is
located in the center of WC, which is the groundwater fed wetland. The gauge documented 170
days of the growing season in which water was within 12 inches of the ground surface
(saturated) and a maximum of 44 consecutive days. WG9 was moved into WC prior to the
growing season, in response to the gauge being previously placed outside the wetland
boundary. WG9 shows water was within 12 inches of the ground surface for 116 consecutive
days and 165 cumulative days.
NEPP—it Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 14
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Ear' Surry County,North Carolina

The wells within WB (WG5, WG6, and WG7) all show spikes in the water level following major
rain events, yet no persistent ground saturation was recorded. These wells showed 5 to 13 days
saturated within the growing season with a hydroperiod that ranged between 2 and 5 days.
The four remaining wells, in WA and the wetland creation areas, exhibit very flashy
hydrographs and little to no retention following a rain event. The wells were saturated for 1 to
6 days during the growing season with hydroperiods of only 1 to 2 days.
EPR will not be seeking wetland mitigation credits for the wetland assets at the Site. The
wetland credits that have been previously released will be returned to USACE. Based on
preliminary estimates, EPR believes that the total acreage of wetlands on the site will be
approximately the same as prior to the project. The overall quality of the wetlands should be
significantly higher due to the exclusion of livestock, extensive vegetation planting, and
perpetual protection from the conservation easement. A wetland delineation at close-out will
be performed to ensure that the total wetland area was not reduced. While Wetland A may
have a reduced footprint from pre-project conditions, there has already been wetland creation
along the floodplain of UT2 and throughout UT3 reaches that are expected to offset these
losses. An MBI Modification will be submitted to USACE.
Wetland Vegetation Monitoring
Five permanent vegetation monitoring plots were established across the Site wetlands (Plots
numbered 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9). The corners of the permanent vegetation plots were marked using
steel t-posts and the location of each plot was surveyed during the as-built survey. The
individual trees within each permanent plot were tagged and labeled to facilitate annual
monitoring efforts. In addition to the 5 permanent plots, 3 randomly placed vegetation plots
are established each year and the location of these plots is recorded using a GPS. This year four
random wetland vegetation plots were taken (Plot numbers 16, 17, 18, and 21). All vegetation
plots for MY2 are shown in the CCPV (Figure 2).
Year 2 vegetation monitoring occurred in August and September 2021 before leaf drop. Annual
vegetation data is compiled and summarized using the DMS Vegetation Data Entry Tool in
Appendix B. Planted stem counts for each plot ranged from 7 trees per plot (283 trees per acre)
in VP-5 to 29 trees per plot (1174 trees per acre) in VP-9. The average density of planted stems
from all 9 vegetation plots (permanent and random) was 14 trees per plot (553 trees per acre).
All but VP-5 are meeting the interim success criteria for stem density for Monitoring Year 2. A
single species (sycamore) exceeds 50% of the stems in fixed plot 4 and random plot 17.
Herbaceous vegetation continues to flourish throughout the site, which in some cases is
shading the saplings.
• VP-4 and VPR-17 do not meet performance standards for species diversity (83%, 71%
dominant species composition respectively). These plots will continue to be monitored
closely as EPR believes with time these plots may meet performance standards.
• VP-5 does not meet performance standards for stem density (283 stems/acre).
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 15
Year 2 Monitoring Report
rEPR
Surry County,North Carolina

• VPR -21 was taken in a replanted wetland that was previously considered a problematic
area. Stem count/species composition within this plot along with a visual assessment of
surrounding area indicate this wetland zone is trending towards success.
The vegetation plots that did not meet the performance standard for density or diversity will
continue to be monitored in MY3. It is anticipated that additional trees will become more
evident in these areas as the trees grow above the grass stage. EPR will selectively plant
additional stems in small low-stem density areas across the site in early 2022 to replace dead
trees. This effort is expected to be minimal and will address the few areas that could benefit
from some larger trees.
Invasive species were absent from wetland monitoring plots. There was no evidence of
significant invasive plant growth or establishment.
r Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 16
rE
Year 2 Monitoring Report
ar' Surry County,North Carolina

REFERENCES
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2008. Yadkin Pee-Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of Issuance
of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for
Wilmington District.
USDA. 2007. Soil Survey of Surry County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 17
er . Year 2 Monitoring Report
PF:t Surry County,North Carolina

y 'r hiernorn1 -r. 4.
p
1 Par;
I sr
TrI
' m * 1i. Qp �7hY7i
F d� ;i 57, H • .,a0
J SURRY COUNTY �� ?*
j }1 7
2 r'. Rrre r de
• b
I Pad.
1 a ky b f '
'"" .. ., d
L ��f� ' 1nde9el`d�Ce SW N l Oak St $�
Site Coordinates "a`d'�5 e°ur �� 4'
0 CustornGolf • -_=1At pine St tioasr
36.4898 °N a.4 Center r Old '�a e' Pt-Ps", IIAtAIry
p off.. st -.--
G 80.6411 °W 7 7r Rcd i s
gt
s
m Oak RrdgeQ tYk t'-`� ` la jlv+fS'P/ "o
0 1.0 ii sr
•
9
w @‘ 8t4ernant Rd N u `Sr
N
4tl Brush Rd
cau
6V orIh St
N.
S.
Wed..
Z
ry Q6 34O
di
Mlle
FStl7 yCr ParkAiryi y O y` t � ryr
p 1 44
A
*C 4)•
l Can& i
Wae v
Rd h
PirteY1EW orwt
d ❑
Carter 5t C
a , par
G` pe Chondirr. Rp � mih''Os
4
-o
n
6
"' q 3
0 Scott guet-d Rns Craek
Legend `k
'�Ey� �s o
Conservation Easement '" �ek;,1nc "� x
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED BY:
0 1,500 3,000 ECOSYSTEM
Feet PLANNING &
VICINITY MAP
EPP RESTORATION
FIGURE 1 SURRY COUNTY, NC DEC 2021

n7' * ram. ,'^f ,,
?r _ ,,I, :' '" _
sx. •FIGURE 2A '� s hr 1
, , , ,, .., _ ,,_*„4: ',,,,,. .::ii :LI. 4 '''41:L'4'4''')-4:'4::,i't,'''11:.;41111 \"*';',,,.+11',"4:
4
•
.* FIGURE ffiE3 ` ,./.. '; Y ?ilk,
s
*4 °'.: 61 lr'''1'7-
IP w e,.
_ es. �
A, " i.
\4 FIGURE ,'.,
111P1110,11).--- "1/4, ,i •'4'
' L ' firitif: '.. --I ,i4'.- ':'V
" 14 rx; ,y `i 43 y w
" * � f' .
6 -- wiI� tif..
Aft 4:7
Photo Points Cross Section Vegetation Plots Monitoring Gauges Easement Encroachment Area
- Gates Wetland -Creation Fixed Plot- Successful • Baro Gauge
I I Fencing I::::::1: :•1 Wetland - Existing Fixed Plot- Unsuccessful ® Rain Gauge
Project Streams Structures Random Plot-Successful ® Stream Gauge
Conservation Easement Top of Bank I////A Random Plot- Unsuccessful • Wetland Gague NC OneMap Orthoimagery(2018)
0 300 600 N RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE ECOSYSTEM
Feet CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: OVERVIEW MAP PLANNING&
1 inch=600 feet MY2: 2021 EPR RESTORATION
FIGURE 2 SURRY COUNTY, NC DEC 2021

i
UT1a
//---- \ ----
•
- 1114
:: „'2
XS2_ B--
r I
SG1 PR15 ME
VPF2
I..1 'i. ""iti'#10
WA
\`---
rPF3 UT1 b
47. —,,,...,
•
RAIN c, GE''...... (15::. •\\: /
WG3• : {'
-RV@
RAIN G, • E © i p
b.
XS4
� G4 WB
2 •
'Og VPF4
VPR1 4.
XS �`�
U T1 c - :'.. WG '.::: •.••.'.
VPR21 NC OneMap Orthoimagery(2018)
) Photo Points ---- Cross Section Structures Vegetation Plots Monitoring Gauges
Gates Wetland -Creation Top of Bank Fixed Plot-Successful ED Baro Gauge
Fencing k•:::°::':•.1:•1 Wetland - Existing Pre-Existing Streams Fixed Plot- Unsuccessful EA Rain Gauge
Project Streams Easement Encroachment Area 1 Random Plot Successful EA Stream Gauge
Conservation Easement V///I Random Plot- Unsuccessful ED Wetland Gague
0 100 200 N RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
Feet CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: ASSET MAP
1 inch=200 feet MY2: 2021
FIGURE 2A SURRY COUNTY, NC DEC 2021

XS4 ./ . ,
2 WG4 WB
�g VPF4 � u ? s'
cr
XSS% ,.
UT1c tfilr : :.::i
VPR21. .. ::�
wW�c
�cs
1000B
S9
�- \13'�. ::.::. y VPF6 V'
l�
(:VPF7 Et' 1 if ,.a,
y
0 !
VPR 9 -- --i UT2b
-- A
18
SG4 VPF8
UT2c
Pedestrian Crossing
0
19 V R18 5
30 ,
29 4-4
j # ti !,
VPR12 XS1
i�- d
......,,,,,, ,(\ ,
UT3d 4 E ' f) -
V1I.� $ ,, y
,,i,,. " UT3c S .y4":
� ; NO 3ne1A Orthoimagery(2018)
0 Photo Points ---- Cross Section Structures Vegetation Plots Monitoring Gauges
A Gates Wetland-Creation Top of Bank Fixed Plot-Successful • Baro Gauge
+1 Fencing r.•::'::•:•:::.1 Wetland- Existing Pre-Existing Streams Fixed Plot- Unsuccessful ED Rain Gauge
Project Streams Easement Encroachment Area K///1 Random Plot-Successful ED Stream Gauge
Conservation Easement V///I Random Plot- Unsuccessful • Wetland Gague
o 100 200 N RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
Feet CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: ASSET MAP
1 inch=200 feet MY2: 2021
FIGURE 2B SURRY COUNTY, NC DEC 2021

F 4
N ,,,,t*
WC / � �,
i 4;[
l
- /I -„yr
WG8 i 'M' 1 '(1 1 r ,.
• BA )R 4
VPF9
K
"'
-XS16 Riffle Crossing
G9
®G® ©�
N
‹.............. _____.
VPF10
UT3c VPR13 _ 4 * .
UT4
XS15
UT3b / XS18 A Conservation Easement
XS141 31 Encroachment Area
, G6 a SG7 1VPR14
3 ® ,
I
XS13
+� i UT3a i VPF11
"R f I�W1, /
'1 I
!4a� XS 12
Kt
If'_
"--,0- .'�
.'.. ,_ , NC OneMap Orthoimagery(2018)
0 Photo Points ---- Cross Section Structures Vegetation Plots Monitoring Gauges
A Gates Wetland-Creation Top of Bank Fixed Plot-Successful • Baro Gauge
+1 Fencing .•::'::':•:::•1 Wetland- Existing Pre-Existing Streams Fixed Plot- Unsuccessful ED Rain Gauge
Project Streams Easement Encroachment Area K///1 Random Plot-Successful ED Stream Gauge
Conservation Easement V///I Random Plot- Unsuccessful • Wetland Gague
o 100 200 N RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
Feet CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: ASSET MAP
1 inch=200 feet MY2: 2021
FIGURE 2C SURRY COUNTY, NC DEC 2021

Appendix A
Visual Assessment Data
Tables 4a. through 4d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photo Log
Vegetation Photo Log
Stream Gauge Photo Log
Wetland Gauge Photo Log

Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT1
Reach ID UT1
Assessed Stream Length (ft) 2793
Assessed Bank Length (ft) 5586
Number Total Amount of % Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable Performing
Performing As-built Footage as Intended
as Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor 0 100%
Bank growth and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears
Toe Erosion likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, 0 100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, 0 100%
or collapse
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 52 52 100%
grade across the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence
Bank Protection does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in 33 33 100%
DMS monitoring guidance document)
Appendix A ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT2
Reach ID UT2
Assessed Stream Length (ft) 2449
Assessed Bank Length (ft) 4898
Number Total Amount of % Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable Performing
Performing As-built Footage as Intended
as Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor 0 100%
Bank growth and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears
Toe Erosion likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, 0 100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, 0 100%
or collapse
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade 42 42 100%
across the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence
Bank Protection does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in 38 38 100%
DMS monitoring guidance document)
Appendix A ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 4c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT3
Reach ID UT3
Assessed Stream Length (ft) 2792
Assessed Bank Length (ft) 5584
Number Total Amount of % Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable Performing
Performing As-built Footage as Intended
as Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor 0 100%
Bank growth and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears
Toe Erosion likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, 0 100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, 0 100%
or collapse
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 99 99 100%
grade across the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence
Bank Protection does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in 70 70 100%
DMS monitoring guidance document)
Appendix A ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 4d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT4
Reach ID UT4
Assessed Stream Length (ft) 130
Assessed Bank Length (ft) 260
Number Total Amount of % Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable Performing
Performing As-built Footage as Intended
as Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor 0 100%
Bank growth and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears
Toe Erosion likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, 0 100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, 0 100%
or collapse
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 8 8 100%
grade across the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence
Bank Protection does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in 0 0 -
DMS monitoring guidance document)
Appendix A ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Planted Acreage 20.7
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous 0.1 acres 0.00 0.0%
material.
Low Stem Density Woody stem densities clearly below target levels 0.1 acres 0.10 0.5%
Areas based on current MY stem count criteria.
Total 0.10 0.5%
Areas of Poor Growth Planted areas where average height is not meeting 0.25 acres 0.00 0.0%
Rates current MY Performance Standard.
Cumulative Total 0.10 0.5%
Easement Acreage 25.4
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and
within the easement and will therefore be calculated
against the total easement acreage. Include species
Invasive Areas of with the potential to directly outcompete native, 0.1 acres 0.01 0.04%
Concern young, woody stems in the short-term or community
structure for existing communities. Species
included in summation above should be identified in
report summary.
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon.
Encroachment to be mapped consists of any
Easement violation of restrictions specified in the conservation
Encroachment Areas easement. Common encroachments are mowing, None 0.1 0.2%
cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has
no threshold value as will need to be addressed
regardless of impact area.
Appendix A ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 2 - Photo Log (Photo Points)
UT1
C Gl X r> lc'} x' it t r 4 ta�iz y l`; aJ N� 1{x I 1 �',
d d"
„, ...,„it 1\ ff.,•:';,,y.i..olty.2„.-:,.-..ik,,,,.z.,, .-.A.,,c,telv 4 . •. --.6,...-466s., .......4,- '1696 •&4,.L,..' . e'.6„.::;:‘,....-sk, ,..:.z.:...,.., ',..'',, ..--;,,,,,...7./,;',....,:,,,,',..'.....,6,' '''''... . . .i.''.'.l',1 lo Alio
Otg g,
R
° ,IT ,. t,,, +l�i. i.,?,:".•x '..t p o2.. Rr-x T a�,-yeva. °! a' f� NP,
'YT
.`.-, i t' [ '° a F �in''s'y"i -� x z x ','sA yy y pk gk 1 5
1� a / ° ', j° & '''fi g „C ;
3%,t"� �= • e_SxVfi_ u k — / \I h �� - _ /., -��'x-S 'F c gar "'Vic;
_iJ 4'` Y - c M _, --a, .-•-: Oat "iti . s,
-- !. . ._,.., • •.>_::, ."'''''''''''''' ..- -'fr"..1--'''OS'.'1." ;:4 N.%.'N-r.tv.... 1 .,...p:,:.,
•
} .:. �'.. / x : . fi• • -•t�4� -' .. fV o! •M�h . t' f _• -.
Photo Point 1 —Sta. 12+25 Photo Point 2—Sta. 14+35
Facing Upstream (11/23/2021) Facing Upstream (11/23/2021)
�wx �Y ilT ' ty ie � ' ° ',45 ' � " •0 - i 44
N i . w : .1y # ax t k} A° yfyaI C ` 'r $
k ‘1.''-'it,''' -..:'' ..11.17,1"-;':,-;61:-4.--•-•i'' .44:10-.:*,.,v4f;,;':.'f,,....,. -
N
M _ ^ 9 xs 44 ,
e.,,: .,._:,,,.,,,,,,,:,v-i.:.,.-s),....,..,„,,;,,,,,,,-c,, ,,,.,,,..:,..1,,,.:,,.,
..,..k,,,,..,,
:,,.,,,...„:,,,...„1.1.0 4..,..,,,.,-.4... ,,,,- .-,,,,.,,,,.•-,,%., -:.
1-`%'a ''� .r "^. R I e--sue/ - a 4�' �ti�t:� '{ `�; ;.,- ,:r �Y 'Y' 1 . r ?` \i E IrA,
�H�4'� a '' .ty; i�i ,r}[f �''�`� tr.'' NA0,- '.t t`4't '"°p. "� n :-�P��' ;� 4?w'x,r :, .,�'� v
az �s "dtk T r{ k Yr' r n,a� E s.- t
a`y °, ;t �. 1 ,• r r t az' - ' - r ` r u a 4 �� ,,, �, v.
V s 1 st va}o��.� y n � a
N 1 Itt $ ! �, r f '1',- i. - 1} + Y lyf..6r` 1 . 'r' z N .-
h a x:�1 T a r r,, 1 -'�` �,1 x- .�titt 4 a -4j.c '11 ,.s i r %x;
I� l � I- rr I / d {7„�°`'a } tlat:43.,'. w* te, - ' + f t,1
• A k,b !. 4°' 4 r 1.4.. -/x - ,' x'�',,' '-j.r�ti E .. M1 -v.:r�. e' s'. r. :' y 2#3
',.;,,-1:,j4.,.. 4,,.,..„.„.... ,...„,,,...4„..
,., .„...„,„.,,...„,,,.
Photo Point 3—Sta. 14+40 Photo Point 4—Sta. 21+70
Facing Downstream (11/23/2021) Facing Downstream (11/23/2021)
.0....., :
fAY
_ � „5 r r ' ...
3 Yy Z,� t' `& ,� ,.-., i's�� ." ,y.s a
,. 44
C""` `,, x f.-1,:,i:::;:...;ffift-;'%04.117. a ,- y'c ,j VI.2 r 4 3qyi�.,,,, 'dt, Wi �� „� '}tt 's v4• 'y e. 'I _ , ,Y �s' ;f � ., i �` I F� of,y':,,Prd P 4 „"x.l ;visit!f 7. y k� -•" ' i i f•,
; `E,-" z 'I��` _r r 3 !:': `c ¢ 1,:,r. ll 41 �,.3z'Y z ,;/
�t -� f )h k ,' ,a �1 - A
4 1 '�4 'B- S - $ ,. ''t ry t 4 rig -," 11 ,,, ,A-",,, h F p.',
" ,;'6 �, f :c P w. 1,-7y ',':' x 3R
Photo Point 5—Sta. 23+80 g,".1r1'''''", ••'''.."4,,• .'•ei.e//,',.• .':''.''•,,'' s',;,,e'. r".-i:.0..'-',....::),9''.%,..,,,..:44..-", ,il'''4
Photo Point 6—Sta. 29+60
Facing Downstream (11/23/2021) Facing Upstream (11/23/2021)
Appendix A
ECOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank . PLANNING&
RESTORATION

UT1
imirirl7e7,77,r117:11,. „,,,.....,_, , ,.1,,,,,,,ei,,,,n1.4.t . .
•
r �v �� t�+ �, gam' a
v.
-' . a r1,,' F� .t tp;f �, Am _. mI
!ilL
1 ¢7�`f h {r a;:
44..:..14,t,,e,..V.;41,„....;14..1gisbY44.14:44:45,117,&...i.:4'-;. ..irf,i..,.1.,.:,75,;;'::.;.,.•..,..,;,,,,k........:2;r:..'...t.'
Photo Point 7—Sta. 31+50 Photo Point 8—Sta. 31+50
Facing Downstream(11/23/2021) Facing Upstream (11/23/2021)
UT2
•
Iv' 1
T , sw.i✓ P', fk ��e T
r f F '.a k t�a rrU .
fi:;.442:41''.;.14;r:.. . i.:;-.',epr:-:?:''eAset-,...t.: ;:: ,.,‘. ...'1•,..*-:,;,",:i_.„..A.F...,k-*.i:.:_ ,..'11•±114,5r.,-...-`.1•.'-'4.,,. .;44.L'...1r.'",:;,,,r •,?.15.''''.,:.-.- '.1_7'".,--V4t,.._1:7'41X..-:•• -;"%:1.- 7'----`'-
31 (
1, ' sy I4i
!f.r.:4' --.4,' ' 1cN
�� e' x"�da y 1 v `1 �e�'� _ -a
Photo Point 9—Sta. 34+40 Photo Point 10A—Sta. 10+40
Facing Upstream (11/23/2021) Facing Downstream (11/23/2021)
•p. E b •• ,. --..4,:lai,4k.':v.ilff VIVI;
M1M' San I R t.. ""qq } roC` tq2.
r,'*, .-• SS, •A- •1 0." Y k• tr 7it . .C' -e'A ' � 1 - `t' � 'gym' t �ieJ
� '1 '`0
ir
40
r a "" �_ 4ia• 'ate, : -- r s.h• �p,,y:� .I.ri.tni9 «� -,oi
ay*, K T 1� ' . i 1' 9 f r 4yt
ic
r..c'��� � 7." N il} z».�4'"-. i :ka� t r
�);[..- / ;r. € 5 4 r a 'ii,K'y 7 C, t ;.}� j,' ,::• r�,� k ,_.,. ',. r�'3 •-
'-. -f' }` � S�p .2,kirf__ 9f�' Fr deb_ .'. .d,.k.;�'Itf:.i
Photo Point 10B—Sta. 10+40 Photo Point 11 —Sta. 14+75
Facing Upstream (11/23/2021) Facing Upstream (11/23/2021)
Appendix A
EGOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank PLANNING&
RESTORATION

U T2
•
- . r'
• J' yR It. D.no arr� y L i+ IIIJayy}q ' �TrI m: y:,.., 4rk , �- e S*ki r P > fi ,... ,,
;#41,..,P4.40.g.lnYr.r.r1t1,„*41A*1;•NiAirra.,..„
t'�.', .:C akv -,+$ r S 3 i- s � 'g,� v4 ". sp_
�v� 99��k _� 1.
•
,., iT fit a en ' . - { r e y , F � �s.,� t tu}, - JJba;:5.. ., C `. a. .
. My e, 4 - F /rL.e,b ,hCi - ::^w}
Photo Point 12-Sta. 15+80 Photo Point 13-Sta. 18+65
Facing Upstream (11/23/2021) Facing Upstream (11/23/2021)
�' .. ��v �
4fir, &`' 4 :cE w w r� �; , yyet�''� � '�� „" e �'" a 'w rr � 1'44 `,; 3� m5 , -A-1-.As. yt
,�` fr -3 s 'rr�,. r i --"`� 4,.r>rw 4 r 7 1 tl';,x sl y,
A• '�&, ".. "_NA4s. `. r' 'e�&'`- �� .L.;'^ �. L�'S, `s ph, ..a� x�• a-"'Z 'air LC I;'
Photo Point 14-Sta. 22+00 Photo Point 15-UT2 Culvert
Facing Upstream (11/23/2021) Facing Upstream (11/23/2021)
'\ pomp .#, )
4 ?R r ^ �s >.v- '"•' .sk:$'' }Y „ fit! , c .,'1'h:-:-At'':?:.:,'
p`i rS`s t�f.�j II�jj
,ly 1
m x „ S-,kc 1 st
-a i 'd+il ,-s i`3& � £ ¢ p` 'ra. krr� >si r 5{�-e a '. I I
t..,....-i,t'.--•<>1P-- i '-'11 it 1:4„,.f.'if.si.i ,
4
?`�'� M �} ,.'> ,.-- -f -E - "� j ,, t }5 b r.: 4, r W S ; i k �'�.,d r'. p -
",�f x s, j , � : - . � tit /
,:„... atr9,4::,...-,',$:...*4
2.,.. ..„„,„.„,,,._,,,„,,,,L..._,..-,,,,,,r
:''L'''''.1''.''--.-..-:.:".'.5''..4',.-''.!'Ht.:L:?:'-:•'.:..4.::'%.','3,.i4.1',''.,„'1f..4,'..1.'4-'''''''.1-.'0.7',-.,'-,-
.-,t;:,4:*A4..',,'k.,;A4i,,,pit'4r'.i„1l,:i.4<:,:,1,--:1-44,7v.-
NV',,,?.?:...„..{.,.,.),P/,',,,.1',,''.'.'."'.„'.„',,,'''f.:-,V.,:.,.",':,..,-'.,,.•,,,,.'..„..'.ftd.,'i•).,.i",.V„i,',:it.r',,aL1„,71v.:'','.,,!,9'..0,,;1,,'1.,,...,'..„.'4'-.
.;.g*..,.4,.-.,.4.r;:.‘"'',4.1',.0_‘.......V..,4..7.;;.,;..,.,4e'.r,ira,$W,
. t
t �1.Is. 1� s 41 .< vrj
t''''..'6 t'1,i.,'"0,,Vr,.,.c.::3:t.i2:,•*-,.r.;4.V,,',.-.„A.'!„L.,,'',1,2...,._'..7':.;i..V•\);.:..'.0 3.10.i',,..:.-'...4/1'.,.!.n'f
. .... -5 .,1 F.J&t_r '." ., t',.k,.a t', L.„, " . .F.k k `� 1«`.t n�t� c #f \ fl
1.
Photo Point 16-UT2 Culvert Photo Point 17-Sta. 29+50
Facing Downstream(11/23/2021) Facing Upstream (11/23/2021)
EcosysTEM
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank PLANNING&
' RESTORATION

UT2
'fVfl i F
& c •NV .piF t �, Sri ,,xe„ f}k:a'
ark x ,fa ` -
t ✓:
r.
�� y
' a" ' z�t i s 103::$.....iirli,-;;t:3„1; . m - ,.t.s < '.`": T • y,F ,, . j '.I r .. 7 * ,vP--; 2' 3 s k 'vIP'4-:`'12:4
� '. R+ifs � Y-.fit'+ :� , 'S �''-� 6r—. 1, rh -- 7 ,� T � ��1 ,�� i r i L 9 'A1a ti
,. . ...,- -2.4......... ,. A.:„..„, .. ,,,,,,_..„,..,,,,„ .., - ,.:.e,a,,,,,,,Ii.,.-...„ ,.:„. 4,. ...,. ,,,,._, •_5,,,,,...,.. .
Photo Point 18—Sta 31+36 Photo Point 19—Sta 34+10
Facing Downstream(11/23/2021) Facing Upstream, Pedestrian Crossing (11/23/2021)
UT3
Y
`ely, u"`� a i�.e J Fr,7 -'' as
a
441toi
k _ ,g�x ay P �;qY ��q H� t•
Photo Point 20—Sta. 13+50 Photo Point 21 —UT3 Culvert
Facing Upstream (11/17/2021) Facing Upstream (11/172021)
jli
d� °F� n + 3,.- ""aR`s ,62yj 5y4 h{'; S '1
-.Y,''f:'-'1/4?;_-:''.7.,"*.A.P:ri;.i .,,',2';',Wk,,i-4,5:4-:isoiv,!-Af$4::-,:17. -sf...-- ,..":;-:.'_e.....-• . -''..',1:;_.'4,7".•:,...-... -,.-:sf,-,-(: , - ..
,,'•,?:.."44.' '' vi'oto ; ..11101.-. i;-''' "''''4;3 74.4.',1,
9.1
Photo Point 22—UT3 Culvert Photo Point 23—Sta. 22+00
Facing Downstream(11/17/2021) Facing Upstream (11/17/2021)
ECO5Y5TEM
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank . PLANNING&
RESTORATION

UT3
kfl., L+ .1.
r � �,r �� f i' i y
''; g
k
4r ., r[ E 'y` „„. M1 2 _ wily l?
4v w(4 •}a ?� J 4. 5y ' i4 d �;3, h�i n' b t r , rc . r,,,. . , rn, r `'`' /.
i,)t'
`r 3
9r
�g, ;' w %. ! { i . .4• - -'. i-"` ' Five ,.]
�,, .-, t , ,; t, f ,\✓,.. ef�r ; "_ ' b`s_ t�� �''' > -rr Cam^.-'? I •. � -- -
S,}q iti��T Y n - ir ,v�' . Y( cf `53 1 KiM r%�4 ,4tt 4 xy''�^.�'�"- � � }
', r�lyT•; -ITtrJ fj .x • * t'`.- af�, ,-4. s_: s ..- . '+ f "" f . / Ii4
'"'',. : 1,i./..., ,,:'^ie:dt--,,i," *,,:i., .,:.,; s ,7.-- Iittig:T"---'-ttk,:- ' ,ii;i4.41t..i-::;:'-1,..it.,I,:;i.:::7-,,,,:.;k,',.., .1.47..•.,,i,IN.:::‘,...1.11 .„':;;....,l',....::34.ft_.•....,:;:::44.1t,,,'',
it,
�7 n
Photo Point 24—Sta. 25+50 Photo Point 25—Sta. 28+05
Facing Upstream (11/17/2021) Facing Downstream(11/17/2021)
„ ,?
')P r 5� f 9 4a f ,..1.1 �N xt to j A
#' PPPIII+ x ;i
Ili
M 44971.4,
, A / ...t _ Yi. 9 y�. } 1` {^,� - 'Err{7 �y
i.
�1 E/s
y-„ -- t a'ir1.F y - 5 Q ..T i'E'¢7* . ate-
3444
A Lei�!!, rr= „s
. .,..,_.4.,:„.-..,,,
� 'Et',• ?r il..7 .-1,/��� ` t/"l,KPy��fv, •, s'A.,w- r r.' YJ yr N'.'rar� .c
•
Photo Point 26—Sta. 30+75 Photo Point 27—Sta. 33+00
Facing Upstream,ATV Crossing (11/17/2021) Facing Upstream(11/17/2021)
' -ow, P .Syf 7 , � il, r' .c �
¢ a
r#��� Tom$,.. 'r�, '4� 7 �4 ) �;' r �; 'a. q a e yy�.tC .i
'f �f,. N�kd .. 4 4Y N;`t �§ . ; da, " Lt 1n .,,"� r� } .. v� i y"
,'. '4",k ' �' -' ,, , c, N�,, ` '4 4.E e 3 n r d -ss -,2„, • 3>t,,z`;e 3., , s`r.
x gr +d7 w _ r a'& s ri.4./.'to �„'aS„,' >N i y t.x.y 4 r Sf ,4. ',�n T. wR g Atf-y' r F ,. �. ,, -€ an - �` f mm
44.
"tkst, .., 4 4 L. ,/',F w. u�. ,+"` '�i v Y `Ht,;� '' Ft ''' r}+��' ' ' %, '� �s ,�, ,�^ •,y k i �.7"'+ll� .�f
ti
r � S��� ,�! >M `p,;_'j, i e V` fa -F�" y tk - *.,
,� „. �.� r+4 �' i... °i �i,'4 w c YJN �. 4 #�,t d t, P` Py,,�,,,,,,,-
am. ,
,,,,,,,,...„,,,,....,„..... ,,,...„.„,.....,....
.„ ,.,,,,,.,.,
Photo Point 28—Sta. 36+00 Photo Point 29—Sta. 36+65
Facing Upstream (11/17/2021) Facing Upstream (11/17/2021)
Appendix A
RESTORATION
ECOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank " PLANNING
.

'Pr"�f F.
N �
AriZ
d' �. 4 ; i''' G'yk s. 'r e
; r E G„ 4 , j
" • t ° ax law
e r :.art } ` .:
Photo Point 30—Sta. 36+85
Facing Downstream(11/17/2021)
UT4
r
. n ;f .. 4� �_ c- yam c�a�
K yv uLi�J ''y, Y' \1" 1 4 " �A,� 3'' a" £ ,Z, �]
, .V� x r a ' 'era P
x
r�-F#�"�.� , �;^ "'�_..�. es' �.�.* �G ''�.:. x� .�, ��;_,
Photo Point 31 —Sta. 10+25 Photo Point 32—Sta. 11+00
Facing Upstream (11/17/2021) Facing Upstream (11/172021)
Appendix A
ECOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank . G&
' PLANNINATION RESTOR

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 2 -Vegetation Photo Log
f
34.1
ray ,,
"}g5 ' h 3 '4 5'd v`- ,i' .. A
r 'q.,F„ Z "5. �h L
'� �' �t Ye r Ik F 9 a, �°4, is
y - b''. r ' �,' �X 4 '� :''
. ,',--3011$,*!40-/fiFt. '..4'.'0.,.1.! .. .,
N�'� ' �'E:t Ei�!as:° rr
-.1�r 4 u^:7''b �. !,�3.e �":rl w E�..tii �nAa'.7
Vegetation Plot 1 (Fixed)—NW Corner(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 2 (Fixed)—E Corner(August 2021)
IIIIIIIPIIjllIlIlr//tf/j. .,.
;, �lR
Y� k'^•�'dah � It'J .-,;',I, N UJy'✓ r 5� 3F.SJ` �.
p 4 y d .y. ? dry„& .� "� - ' }
Wiii
ri+ F a�,�J ��^a 3ki'� q3z r €' � a�� L ��-' � _ s ' � 'E.L�b
3'Y' s St s f. rr a j i'k3 "Y �i �Jr • IA'�F^n G^"'�e.^ '
'--rifi.'"r:.i.'' ',' •- ' '
" 'f� .:.,...4.., �' � -` r �sX'� +. '� 'Y ��v-"� r.,
:..' d� 1 :•_�}.1 i,q.ag jt r.. +i7y r �e.,,,,,......,..,„,„,,,,-.„--.„.",-4.,,,N �:, -"s t;•-
-- r. �'ti..ul -':r„ _ .. ''TVs. \�wa .n '.,- "d '£` �� -:A�" .a •
Vegetation Plot 3 (Fixed)—N Corner(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 4 (Fixed)—W Corner(August 2021)
x' �,
•
S xl�. h ,F.,
,�^ }
:',.;:::,,,liv-'..N.-,k0.,):24,.,P,,&;444g;.,ktik.4*,'It.,4a4
r,
..yy• d �'
�' �' bA "' S >y,� • w� ,efF'�' do-4- } 'Eh a6
,.`.-4,-, :fg7 -q_ it "" �brc✓i fd "� '",�t
7t7
`° _' f a mod ;4- , _ • g ';,7 y'fr. �• �v - _
Vegetation Plot 5 (Fixed)—SE Corner(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 6 (Fixed)—W Corner(August 2021)
Appendix A
EGOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank . PLANNING&
RESTORATION

- - n
•ra, 9 .
gqq-. r x f� _ 'i
F.s.'...:0.,..,...,i.. ,--,,,‘x,',,,....,,s,.,„'";,,:,4,5,,,,.--
'fir,, .P';'• - '..
t+ta#8
Vegetation Plot 7 (Fixed)—W Corner(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 8 (Fixed)—W Corner(August 2021)
ri
,''yi,,� ss..'.�� - 2 1d�,';' >� : 11f1"�LA'Ya ''.Yy`;�t�; ` Ir, y y '41yi� ,`' '
.,+(erg{ T ila�'''' / T'k L'*\ ' ^ .� A '�, ;2 1: 1+' l,,:SC„WW F9 k ^.Y d.�J'^ �!C i
•"� ,,"� ,g,'. 'N r t� - ask�, • 1 44.17 at. '� F�., ? w '
OFFca F " . '�s �"1;a _, $'.
� is r i. � r {
T< r $j r . ix r;, - gP,f • '� .. 7 Win. .
L! 4L
,..„ .(2.-.-'• z.,::• 1 A- ,4 ; .- wh �,..s->�+�t .a ,°., .'-. l' l r,. �4 4ii
!. . ', ` , '
Vegetation Plot 9 (Fixed)—S Corner(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 10 (Fixed)—S Corner(August 2021)
•
a. .,�`:ss1y;�3g.• v'••.'k,'r":E..: ',, ;. y(y'
, ..... ,,.. .
, :,.,, ...., ,..„.4 ...
.'� , .•. zi, ' •••
fb > � - .. •t"; %.,.s'S i.•�,S..a Y�pk;- r E,,fN ..-.
.A
a' • 2....
s• a�g fy � � "`'4. sy:t', •R "~• ` J,.. � a4, "'' ' .h'
+ Yip r fi >.% s".r :"ii
.""'h a/3 , . .,,•, ` e.S � •'�f# :f� 'Y k'( y
r r �p f t, a ` .• .,1'. 'ems ,ri, : � ri"�
,,,� x+d' . ����ssaa a a� s ::� �
'. .., _,,,,,' � a s4x.,.r • i s'7s,'. .< , rY� � ,� G`i•�tF• 1 Jy•' ' f'
�` f' ."° ;,+.*a"h'&,� '""' N x "�` .�. 1 ••'..she M' -^ qS��.1•3 • • a `1., �5%.' 'r},ice. i -y - ° ', ;"`l,4'fr._4„ --,,,, '" itl' IM
may, 5 .q'y," .�
4 " a1 ,4.x_• F ;..`'• , k�:• N.a`e; ,`�[7
Vegetation Plot 11 (Fixed)—SE Corner(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 12 (Random)—(August 2021)
Appendix A
EGOSYSTEM PLANNING&
Red Barn Mitigation Bank .
RESTORATION

i.
. rx.s - I.C. 5 .:�'., •�
al"
s•
. vV
�:.::.,.:..:.•.>�.. .:::' - -t R
�.":':r if : y: ,.0.� -5+4 �Y-� it
•
�y %y..;q:' ...' .:�Via . '•:. `=.�:;>3�?'
_... •-
..- .. '1. ;:�. ter. ..:,�- - : -:. ��>3i' ;y.,: .. ,
i
;'; :j+;t�'' .��}: .fit '.� .�..�4 � -N,;i_?.,
[ M
�:� a ;L�4v._J.:���a �:��. 'Ak..-t3o- '.::. :ti-4:a'�•z.41 'r. 4.t... :.L.•,._,oxr,«a 2r.r�.`..
Vegetation Plot 13 (Random)—(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 14 (Random)—(August 2021)
P. _
..:s..... . N, J ✓t �f...� �>�"::iT..,i'��.z`rr"rx' �'>'I^ ' 1-a''�°:-.:1"•, '. a,'- a�.,'': a J Y ,44 J ,.> l,d
iii
t. �° & am:.i ak K? 4 ;''' 1. 'pt3 �'' ''"r :�i - 3,
, :a ac -dam�3 , P a R .r ' �ibz b:i`r r::+ �N Fi.51
,; - f °i' M ^4 tip = y - ixy i ®^j k - h r < a"04 ' u ,, y` v V1F �>` x 4 '� � `x � y 4,v ! . ,�r.� < ,; a ki � � - . 3,,vss ti ✓lr•„i ," .,...,, . �,rK8 yy44` %C _A ;; t.fiJ- �s f .• ;, , ' L':
Vegetation Plot 15 (Random)—(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 16 (Random)—(August 2021)
,'> s..
ar _
r° a '0�.r ., ,1 s ti ""c`-'" � :�a r, - z d sw -
ts'
'�' 7tr, x , ,:4p x,;-�, P x 'a<,- T --,F, �r 4e ,
•
-z a,„ rd p7 � � ny , y. . g '� Ra { .
v +cry ; r .kV h -,4d15� € „ • '_
t .b fi a 4- 1 1 r: a4z.: oM .� M ,,; x .x+ r
a��tr �+` 'r" - -' h a � � t§s4 - �.�' .� Sr' ° '� rf '�`4' b' � � r '�
1• ����fl � :S - .y yti� ru�N,,+s, � �.' tv. t °31 s. s `��f Y. z<
•
' 'Yee'Ei 7 T$' a f * -
x '' . ,s, I i :. ; •fix'4� fti ',Po,'4 4 -' 9 " aA si r e?
� .a !< ��� .L.' � a � S pan � � ��. fr � �. � I
-u P { a' ^ !r tCCtrj,, '� , ,+ ,� T G . ( i`'. _- lt, r . 'e {. E '" '6,.., ati :
`!-• Sf t� <W 4• YH 'fF,{g r 'j 9 7� 1 �5 7'' 2 1 ,
,b i-_ E` kt..'i 'fl4k,'"'iy 1 k0' 1 . W Y I . .Yk .41.of i5fg 1
Vegetation Plot 17 (Random)—(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 18 (Random)—(August 2021)
EGOSYSTEM
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank . PLANNING&
RESTORATION

5 :-4 [ 'i?
r 'L^b x '�ro ��� �k' � teY'�9 �^ � �`dr ,f.
;... ....-.,':.-....,:,',;.:?,.41...,:44:11±.
FgK L` ."rk 3� , "a
yf f 1"
sA ,c �,: x"' # 4 '4'v- .�. .a �{'�. R it ", ,, , - 1 '. . -. ,s: �. : �r'�F !
C ii' � ayF +. i f ; '; { >4 X� � ', . y` .. r i g v '' l; $
�S�.A � � �fF��..�JG �.•� Ft_ �k'. �' s!L6 . �' .. n . �9_..;.. !'4 .
Vegetation Plot 19 (Random)—(August 2021) Vegetation Plot 20 (Random)—(August 2021)
1
111**4741
a r,
,"- .t.:tkr.07.-.:.•-•'",:'''l ';',;.-.'... 14;4.:A.,;:;,..1,4,-.:-..-,,..;..'..Ni::.;.#...e.:''.1!-,•AN'k.'-4.-:
4,
a �� � of y�y,�� $ �. ry
f ks ,F= r f x•w,§7% w^as � .+4 vi���
Vegetation Plot 21 (Random)—(August 2021)
ECOSYSTEM
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank . PLANNING&
RESTORATION

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 2—Stream Gauge Photo Log
«, 4 -� h .�. .' '6 , $g w i erg$ ',
:oy;t','M A„ _ - ; ,c i
l . t C iN�gy?j' .`3,, � n ' q s 3 -}� S ,�M1; - �, .', {a i¢ - ?� ° ab ,A,..,,,: �' „�'+_ ,�,
l '`�. ' ,w- & `''x,'�F'ti ,!"3'W I'a�, &1 - '�a a�� 3 '1 �, } "
i" 'F��-4 t a° i ,:-A,a° 'f a'r' . ". -,' .' 1" r A ' 1,1 -:`!te " W''" z,"� , ,�;
. ,
x' ,'�i ' ' "' i / ''vim `4 r'`a,y ..T -i5 aL� !` L.
Is
1Iry
-
•
' 4...,
i$ s 1 y � 9:1�1A ` �, 7 il '. P J '1',A. ' ',' � A' aI e Y i:. ., ''f°:, �.L.. A"'ems �/ hP i t "w y 3
•
iii
Stream .;:
Gauge 1 —UT1 —(11/23/2021) Stream Gauge 2—UT1 —(11/23/2021)
.4.. r k 1
•pA ",�s' r -+�, �„,.� ';,,g'�r`,�,,q "" £ :' FIr Fw�.� ' ^ q�' r a
- 11,44
.;;:.:',Am..,,-;,,.,-� �` Y' g� - x+y.� h,-- � a*}y'� S� a��4 S �ji '."A' Se J b
. . $ �
{ 8 "x m T i1P {,y^ : ��"--f .'. ��5 I.„ , FG y.� I'4,.:: ,F �y,r
'["y '?.." ,•u„t a .,+ •ry `�r ,; " �y$& % �,� `! F �gr �5`�c.�• 1 \"a f
r".� 6' _ '' tip° g 'v, - "*?' -.l ,� x9 �, !� -
,,,,-,_,v,....01,„... ...,.:::t,:,.„:„;,,,..,,44„,k,..
Stream Gauge 3—UT2—(11/23/2021) Stream Gauge 4—UT2—(11/23/2021)
t " -. ,
•
« A *a+ • r
. � � '
x
4." _ .4.:„?‘,....;.1 'F �fYz~'I' § E b`SF` } K � I A7.,j'(^V 4.M' k l..t�c 7. ,.
7 °( � Cam" ' ¢¢4''.... `°FF N, �' .0,
. • �., 4 x 4
1,,,,........,,,,..,....'Y 3 >; �E� 7 4x �9
-- -;+ ` i # •.'• F I d �1a)�S M 'ps -. ��sFn•`,t „� ���' i .a 'l
,n..„,„.....„.,....,..„ ...,.. ., ..,
..,.;01:,......„
's `�;' .r ., .s't 'fit W4 - 6 ..,., ,,,,„...,..,„:4,. ..kv,i. P-.:"..... .. -.9---,..". 1—.10—'0'. j-.4`.--..--.-. , .T.- - •
.
,,,474"' Lv,.f,'', '.,....:).,-.3'.....,..1.',,:; ,:•.-",,,,,,,,..:.wir, 2.-.,,.. .,..__,,,,_ r.„:.±„....4:::4,;„7,,,_„::- .,.
, _.A',p.::'-., .,_•••, .„,-..-: --,..•;.,- k., ,.,..,..,;.,..,4,,....41.-.,.' . ,,,,••.-_-4,—A-—••,-- , r ',kettii' '.'-
ill!
Stream Gauge 5—UT3—(11/23/2021) Stream Gauge 6—UT4—(11/23/2021)
EGO5Y5TEM
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank PLANNING&
RESTORATION

��
`�'" fir;
r ; ate.'
� $ 4 % 4,1.P
v
11V4
. ' s
�� I e8 v ,� ka
f ) a j i- � a
'. ' f - [` e Z 6
ii,
Stream Gauge 7—UT3—(11/23/2021)
Appendix A
ECOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank . PLANNING&
RESTORATION

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 2—Wetland Gauge Photo Log
"' ¢ - °: ' :' ;y - ' f „�i Y ; s .t ?y� a ','- z^ ,'a :Y's. v r �t ttil � S j74$ _qg ; ', t ',fed : a, f' sn `�1{ sa DC C y 1- � y� a4
4
.::::: r
47,-;:,•,t.%4''14,'''':!,ITCI.C.A..4k,tff:1:11-,,:itIA'l
, ; s',1 ay +� 'x 1' !4 :fIn , it x'y` �.11 `3 s.
�7 ,. t, G a ." v _
�- ; t — a 1. , s:
%.,. .10,:chx,-„, ..it ,,,;,...,.,..r. ---e-.:,;,...„,' ., e,....- 4 tlit'k:f.'..71?'
V YN�Sz y'JI.a'f .f� .. � _ f°h _ ry r. 4 `A ` \ ti. ��, 't.1 {`
Wetland Gauge 1 —(11/23/2021) :::lan0vdtt:::::_2,:::1/:,3.,/,,2,„10„:31,..,),,,)
r "$ha �, 6
'f a k r� # �- i r &}: 1.3.'y4,,a ' �+ I +.r,�f y r r eka `rr �' ga x'. +e zg:s� ", v , .,,,,'Y,, -,4 L' ' i+n ,?k,-;. r-. .`:. Si =,y r a t/ {"�,,t'y _s }vp;�7 tl y.
fiC k i. i k.r'r' i, c' v iF 4Y4- t ? vi tip .
'e } ,, � "-� r 4Dyye :,i� , �,,- i I q� y ) ` NA'
i t'. ."x i '3� xX �E � .a r ,�� '. ` a �'C, Al far �, 'c
L- -%,�1 " v *' - ' '
ill-
rs¢L �� ,,�, ^� - � - � , \' - '��- �yt � F�§ �f ., � -'q:
•'1::',•'''''";•"•':11°c 1",:.It',1*-A,Ni ;;•''':1-)14',:I.:,..lArt1-:i,.;,,,$1 i'',:g.,l'i.;„„;;.,t,.
.44 i 4 ;{ r` �' +, ap,v ,rE 4,,'
Wetland Gauge 3—(11/23/2021) Wetland Gauge 4—(11/23/2021)
� F n5- rs,.. fr
\ y ;�'.x�"t�*if` -� - -¢`�I, r kM1 .= L'' .� >'' ray.,
i
W '- �a" t"a z� ir 7 � " Ils ' r" Nye`
1.,;5,,,,,,14.3. -i,:,' ''%, :,-4",!,,,,4 ."-'41.'t''.''''‘;';itr-','!,'.'', "'- "."' - '-'-''''-", 0
, ,
`c r 1 ;y ,'z r
c .. ,..�._ ... .a '..�o-y'. s,ts :J:'r", he. '1 .\:.1", .L A a
Wetland Gauge 5—(11/23/2021) Wetland Gauge 6—(11/23/2021)
Appendix A
EGO5Y5TEM PLANNING&
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
RESTORATION

yg.f H `y. w� C 3sT L "" i 3• . 44(0�r h-1` ,"Si s. &3 S f
� I I,." ' ram " ' '"./ a ` s - 'j -, F-^'zzia'; ' 4. ;x a
T t 1 '_? i J. _ - r
� � y. '� orb ` .$:4 -''. , - ?
,FiFiII
giT" . \ 1., - •\ h :fd ;..e .`m 'h ,ram£,--...-„, ,_,4.4.. ,-,5,,, _.,.. . --. 1,..,$,. -„,— ,,,.;:,--7-. ,...
A �; 'k'�. f` k$
•
t'Z
` ' { i a �./ � T l alp a
� h
Wetland Gauge 7—(11/23/2021) Wetland Gauge 8—(11/23/2021)
I
0.. i"C" ,F
ii
....gri.4-N3 ,.., . ,
' -TVs
,fi a
/ •{ m .* i �
r
,e
Wetland Gauge 9—(11/23/2021)
ECOSYSTEM
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank . PLANNING&
RESTORATION

Appendix B
Vegetation Plot Data
Tables 6a. through 6c.Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Tables
Table 7a. through 7b. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Tables

Table 6a.Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Planted Acreage 20.7
Date of Initial Plant 4/1/2020
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s) 4/6/2021
Date(s)Mowing -
Date of Current Survey 9/2/2021
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/Sh Indicator Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F
Scientific Name Common Name
rub Status
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC 1 1
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 1
Corn us amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 2 2
Species Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU
Included in other
Approved Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 4 4 2 2 10 10 3 3
Mitigation
Plan Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree FACU 1 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 1 1 1 1
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 3 3 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 4 5
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree
U/mus americana American elm Tree FACW
Sum Performance Standard 5 5 13 13 12 13 12 12 7 7
Post Acer rubrum red maple Tree FAC
Mitigation
Plan Species Juglans nigra black walnut Tree FACU 1
Sum Proposed Standard 5 5 13 13 12 13 12 12 7 7
Current Year Stem Count 5 13 13 12 7
Mitigation Stems/Acre 202 526 526 486 283
Plan Species Count 5 5 6 3 3
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 20 29 38 83 43
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 5 2 7
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 5 13 13 12 7
Post Stems/Acre 202 526 526 486 283
Mitigation
Species Count 5 5 6 3 3
Plan
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 20 29 38 83 43
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 5 2 7
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Meets Interim Performance Criteria Does Not Meet Interim Performance Criteria

Table 6b.Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Planted Acreage 20.7
Date of Initial Plant 4/1/2020
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s) 4/6/2021
Date(s)Mowing -
Date of Current Survey 9/2/2021
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/Sh Indicator Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F Veg Plot 10 F
Scientific Name Common Name
rub Status
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL 2 2 1 1 2 2
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 4 4 1 1 3 3
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL
Corn us amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1
Species Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU
Included in other 1 1 1 1
Approved Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 6 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 7 7
Mitigation
Plan Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree FACU
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 4 4 2 2 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 1 1 5 5 2 2 8 8 1 1
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 4 4 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 10 10
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree 1 1
U/mus americana American elm Tree FACW 1 1 6 6
Sum Performance Standard 19 19 12 12 18 18 29 29 13 13
Post Acer rubrum red maple Tree FAC 1 1
Mitigation
Plan Species luglans nigra black walnut Tree FACU
Sum Proposed Standard 19 19 12 12 18 18 29 29 13 13
Current Year Stem Count 19 12 18 29 13
Mitigation Stems/Acre 769 486 729 1174 526
Plan Species Count 7 5 5 7 5
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 30 42 32 34 54
Standard Average Plot Height 2 3 2 3 1
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 19 12 18 29 13
Post Stems/Acre 769 486 729 1174 526 I
Mitigation
Species Count 7 5 5 7 5
Plan
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 30 42 32 34 54
Standard Average Plot Height 2 3 2 3 1
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Meets Interim Performance Criteria Does Not Meet Interim Performance Criteria

Table 6c.Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Planted Acreage 20.7
Date of Initial Plant 4/1/2020
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s) 4/6/2021
Date(s)Mowing -
Date of Current Survey 9/2/2021
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Veg Plot 12 Veg Plot 13 Veg Plot 14 Veg Plot 15 Veg Plot 16 Veg Plot 17 Veg Plot 18 Veg Plot 19 Veg Plot 20 Veg Plot 21
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/Sh Indicator Veg Plot 11 F R R R R R R R R R R
rs
Planted Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL 2 2 1 1 2 2
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 4 4 1 2 3 3 2 3 4 2 2 2
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1
Corn us amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 2
Species Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 5 2
Included in other 1
Approved Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 5 10 7 7 5 10 7 9 3 4
Mitigation
Plan Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 1 2
Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree FACU 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 3 3 4 1 2 3
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 2 1 4
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree 1
U/mus americana American elm Tree FACW 4 4 2
Sum Performance Standard 14 14 16 19 13 12 12 14 15 19 15 10
Post Acer rubrum red maple Tree FAC
Mitigation
Plan Species Juglans nigra black walnut Tree FACU
Sum Proposed Standard 14 14 16 19 13 12 12 14 15 19 15 10
Current Year Stem Count 14 16 19 13 12 12 14 15 19 15 10
Mitigation Stems/Acre 567 648 769 526 486 486 567 607 769 607 405
Plan Species Count 5 8 5 5 4 4 3 6 7 7 5
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 29 31 53 54 58 42 71 47 47 20 40
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 1 2 5 3 4 2 1 5
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 14 16 19 13 12 12 14 15 19 15 10
Post Stems/Acre 567 648 769 526 486 486 567 607 769 607 405
Mitigation
Species Count 5 8 5 5 4 4 3 6 7 7 5
Plan
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 29 31 53 54 58 42 71 47 47 20 40
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 1 2 5 3 4 2 1 5
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Meets Interim Performance Criteria Does Not Meet Interim Performance Criteria

Table 7a. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2 202 2 5 0 526 2 5 0 5 6 /Pr 0
Monitoring Year 1 445 1 8 0 405 2 8 0 3 5 0
Monitoring Year 0 769 1 N/A 0 567 1 N/A 0 1 N/A I. 0
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht.(ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species % Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2 486 2 3 0 283 7 3 0 769 2 7 0
Monitoring Year 1 567 1 4 0 283 4 3 0 5 1 4 0
Monitoring Year 0 688 1 N/A 0 567 2 N/A 0 7 1 N/A 0
Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species % Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2 486 3 5 0 729 2 5 0 1174 3 7 0
Monitoring Year 1 486 3 5 0 648 2 5 0 607 2 5 la 0
Monitoring Year 0 850 2 N/A 0 728 2 N/A 0 728 ' 3 N/A 0
Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 R
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species % Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2 526 1 5 0 567 2 5 0 648 111 2 8 0
Monitoring Year 1 445 1 5 0 364 1 4 0 324 1 3 0
Monitoring Year 0 850 1 N/A 0 567 1 N/A 0
Meets Interim Performance Criteria Does Not Meet Interim Performance Criteria
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot"groups". Random plots are denoted with an R,and fixed plots with an F.

Table 7b. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Veg Plot 13 R Veg Plot 14 R Veg Plot 15 R
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht.(ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) #Species % Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2 769 2 5 0 526 1 5 0 486 2 4 0
Monitoring Year 1 324 2 5 0 364 3 3 0 526 4 2 0
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot 16 R Veg Plot 17 R Veg Plot 18 R
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht.(ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) #Species % Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2 486 5 4 0 567 3 3 0 607 4 6 0
Monitoring Year 1 405 2 5 0 526 1 4 0 405 2 4 0
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot 19 R Veg Plot 20 R Veg Plot 21 R
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) #Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) #Species % Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2 769 2 7 0 607 1 7 0 405 5 5 0
Monitoring Year 1 364 1 3 0 202 1 3 0 486 2 3 0
Monitoring Year 0
Meets Interim Performance Criteria Does Not Meet Interim Performance Criteria
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.

Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross Section Plots With Annual Overlays
Table 8a through 8i. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 9. Monitoring Data - Cross-Section Monitoring Data Table

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS1-UT1a
Station 11+87-Pool
tk ; ♦ I ,'t' ate,-
- i .- 'fir
_Itos
440. 2_11.-0,z,v, _- 1 .. ,,---....:, --q:';'-"L' ..4;fit' :1':;-:-.*:- -1:.z.',
11,
\liklik
4
4
i�, r
XS1 looking upstream XS1 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1043.97 1043.98 1044.06
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.97 0.89
Thalweg Elevation 1042.64 1042.78 1043.03
LTOB Elevation 1043.97 1043.94 1043.95
LTOB Max Depth 1.33 1.16 0.92
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 7.36 6.81 5.47
Entrenchment Ratio - - -
XS1 Pool - 11+87
1050
-As-Built-May 2020
1049 - - -Floodprone
- - -Bankfull
-MY2-2021
1048 MY1-2020 -
1047
1046
4-
°• 1045
(15
"' ______ _viiiii\.. .... ..r,..airOg01"-.- ' -=
1044
1043
1042
1041
1040
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS2-UTla
Station 20+33-Pool
V 2 --I ,I ,,$ / b
'yy� fr
r
1 z
I i
/ `J fii-t7i:
`1
y �
. � ��yii��� lam_ M1
�; I
r-----. ' - - -- .- -
_......., , :,,,,,,
,,,, . t . 1, ,,,, ,
XS2 looking upstream XS2 looking downstream
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1023.76 1023.75 1023.75
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.97 1.06
Thalweg Elevation 1022.85 1022.80 1022.71
LTOB Elevation 1023.76 1023.72 1023.81
LTOB Max Depth 0.91 0.92 1.1
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 4.14 3.90 4.68
Entrenchment Ratio - - -
XS2 Pool - 20+33
1029
-As-Built-May 2020
1028 - - - -Bankfull
-MY2-2021
1027 MY1-2020 -
1026 -
4
1025 -
4-
C
1024 �� — r0 _
) I
1023 ��
1022
1021
1020 -
1019
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS3-UTla
Station 22+60-Riffle
r
taki
.. - 1 t- �- _' :.
. / . sue' -ilk'�`.- �'- ^ti
- •i ' A.* -,--A -
.ss
r ' :i: 1-' Irj ‘114 ' \11
:r w fl S T Y � �P, u,
,y 1 ti4li' S _T�
XS3 looking upstream XS3 looking downstream
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1021.58 1021.55 1021.60
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.03 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 1021.11 1020.98 1021.04
LTOB Elevation 1021.58 1021.57 1021.60
LTOB Max Depth 0.47 0.59 0.56
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 1.73 1.83 1.73
Entrenchment Ratio >6.87 >7.3 >6.51
XS3 Riffle - 22+60
1027
As-Built-May 2020
1026 — — —Floodprone
— — —Bankfull
MY1-2020
1025
MY2-2021
1024
1023
g_
C
1022 -
03
cu
"' 1021
1020
1019
1018
1017
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS4-UT1b
Station 33+64-Riffle
•
yet" ;; ;• g
,'�� �* s `;,�„ ' •
fr
'911,34
a: J £
r B
XS4 looking upstream XS4 looking downstream
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1018.47 1018.46 1018.48
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.07 1.07
Thalweg Elevation 1017.75 1017.75 1017.78
LTOB Elevation 1018.47 1018.51 1018.53
LTOB Max Depth 0.72 0.76 0.75
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 3.07 3.44 3.39
Entrenchment Ratio >9.29 >8.47 >8.83
XS4 Riffle - 33+64
1024
-As-Built-May 2020
1023 — — —Floodprone
— — —Bankfull
1022 MY1-2020
-MY2-2021
1021
4J
1020
1019
LT' 1018
1017
1016
1015
1014
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS5-UT1b
Station 36+40-Pool
S a , --1,vult<::7iiACWlii'=-V4,x4tq,f:4:A,::
d . 7
� x t.
< . i, �z
XS5 looking upstream XS5 looking downstrea''';--:'. -• ' '''-:t6 .-.''.tri.641i,'$%'..: 's:.,::iti_ 4';:-A:41: ' `,V., 41 4;.'''\''.:;,z1v,1.421,Eirii:V.: ,-4,,,'„,_,,,,. ,`,',4"
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1017.76 1017.78 1017.74
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.05 1.11
Thalweg Elevation 1016.70 1016.64 1016.76
LTOB Elevation 1017.76 1017.84 1017.85
LTOB Max Depth 1.06 1.20 1.09
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 5.10 5.69 6.45
Entrenchment Ratio - - -
XS5 Pool - 36+40
1023
As-Built-May 2020
1022 — — —Bankfull
MY1-2020
1021 MY2-2021
1020
▪ 1019
▪ 1018
v
"' 1017
1016
1015
1014 — -
1013
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS6-UT2a
Station 14+74-Pool
4
- c ,�k^n' . Y 'y fi`S e k s'h!- �ry 9 it '' js b
/ A*. '
r a, l�1:4;.----,*2:1.:.tOir.',";:lit'!'r �� ��, . ate. _ r 3
XS6 looking upstream XS6 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY
MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1023.50 1023.56 1023.68
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.93 0.87
Thalweg Elevation 1022.13 1022.00 1022.26
LTOB Elevation 1023.50 1023.45 1023.49
LTOB Max Depth 1.37
5.76
1.45 1.23
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 7.90 6.81
Entrenchment Ratio
XS6 Pool - 14+74
1028
1029 I
As-Built May 2020
— — —Bankfull —
MY1-2020
1027 MY2-2021 —
1026 -
1025
c
o 1024
\f'
a.)7-11023
1022
fa
1021 -
1020 -
1019
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS7-UT2a
Station 19+16-Riffle
'.,as we s E t, Y � "{ y
ti � a- .g �') F .?{ i i'3a#Y ,',.may, aq F xi_ f+
'i.4,16'..'.41t
ter ! Ste.�r �� ,!.. ..: , �, Jos-.1 '-"w f `
j
r''',10.\'''.,-,-,:.,.si't'A-744
ss-r - fir'+ � x k - _
" '..;s � ,: j- � *:
-S �;.._ ,c4„,...0.,,,.,.f,1
.,fix?+' . ~-
XS7 looking upstream XS7 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on 1019.51 1019.55
Bank Height - AB-BankfullBankfull AreaArea 1.001019.49
0.84 0.89
AB
ThalwegRatioBased Elevation 1018.79 1018.77 1018.82
LTOB Elevation 1019.49 1019.39 1019.47
LTOB Max Depth 0.70 0.62 0.65
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 2.95 2.19 2.38
Entrenchment Ratio >7.04 >6.45 >6.68
XS7 Riffle - 19+16
1025
As-Built-May 2020
1024 — — —Floodprone
— — —MY2MY1-Bankfu20212020ll
-
1023
1022
4
1021
C
1020
03
cu
"' 1019
1018
1017
1016
1015
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS8-UT2b
Station 22+44-Pool
co-,9,4pi,-,1,. ,..t
y,roil, ar '�� [•fp�✓h F � Y�;' F" t `� 4£ `cx ql �',-'
4 k. ,,.ri fl k 5" cr 1 ,i` ,ry .. 7G J f �'f - i !
3• K F ¢ d7kd ",A. S \'IDS h *{M,.1t �
•
- "`�`. ix .� "� �,� y � �'`Y j-l5t j� s .1`,.. yam, "p a r ,
_ i". .., r- 5z�� - .. ,z-� - �,�_
.°4-4
a9. P
✓,, ;` MCA �. 1 -2. �^�
�1
= _
XS8 looking upstream XS8 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1016.72 101.6.93 1016.66
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.86 1.04
Thalweg Elevation 1015.25 1015.36 1015.14
LTOB Elevation 1016.72 1016.71 1016.71
1.47
LTOB Max Depth
_NEI _
8.47 6.36
1.35 1.57
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 9.07
Entrenchment Ratio - - -
XS8 Pool - 22+44
1022
As-Built-May 2020
1021 — — —Bankfull
MY1-2020
1020 MY2-2021
1019
1018 \ -
c
1017
"' 1016
VJ
1015
1014 -
1013
1012
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS9-UT2b
Station 24+41-Riffle
< ^ v-" a �, a�" A '1r �- K $T & i ' �4
2:
r ,,it,,,,-,
r a- ` ... o y ``
•
�°` a r _ �.'' .' „�,-�n4 i ��''.• ;f i°° � -a;��, w. : Wv,71:45:411Z::*::::.
n �, -di,:+�"� yam�
� x
ZN-7,445;Z:;:•-?-;-!$:1•1A"' 'X',47:-):;-: ::'st''''''1,1:41i:;,?:.,-%'' W-7. ' '7 1/fot462114:01N'--'
i �t
XS9 looking upstream XS9 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1016.16 1016.19 1016.15
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.02 1.10
Thalweg Elevation 1015.30 1015.30 1015.33
LTOB Elevation 1016.16 1016.20 1016.23
LTOB Max Depth 0.86 0.90 0.90
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 4.14 4.40 4.88
Entrenchment Ratio >6.40 >6.35 >6.58
XS9 Riffle - 24+41
1021 I I
As-Built-May 2020
1020 — — —Floodprone _
— — —Bankfull
MY1-2020
1019 MY2-2021 —
1018
—
i
1017 — — — — —
i
o
1016
a.) I
LT' 1015
1014
1013
1012
1011
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance(ft)

Cross SectionXS10-UT2b Plot-MY2
Station 29+27-Pool
ccItt,Al
1,4,tivr:A.,4,, ,,.:eigf,,-..!,;;.-
ex - "` " e ' T' a h3c {i 7 * r ! v t ,:4 �� .;5 §. A ' Y-- r 1i.� 1� i 17y'.444
�y � Y � a z , � 1 �+-. t .,40,,,,,,,,;:,,,,,,;_--
?;-e€.jam/, 4. ,l `... 'fi,. ? �.\ ♦ ? F„c•.� ,^ -.. .r� �-
� �� .��� �� ,�,,, s ! 1 f� ! _w t r r� _ .+3 iF . .'; , a ds
.:,-ii#4.:A§:_44yo,
hir. _
�,�}-���� � �`�v ��' . � �/ r 6�f ��� k � '� ��-- CSC. :Y#'•h�{a�`/• � &�)� �
7\
' v teev,Nil ' pl.[ .�''� a , +— _ -- .^ C�gi3 r�r. / �. S
° _..!'� 1. I X� 'fi _—.',
XS10 looking upstream XS10 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1014.60 1014.61 1014.59
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.00 0.93
Thalweg Elevation 1012.53 1012.40 1012.55
LTOB Elevation 1014.60 1014.61 1014.46
LTOB Max Depth 2.07 EMI
2.21 1.91
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 10.45 10.43 9.20
Entrenchment Ratio - - -
XS10 Pool - 29+27
1020
As
1019 — — —Bankfull-Built-May 2020
1018
MY1-2020
MY2 2021
1017
1016
g—
c
1015 _
03
—7
cu
"' 1014 /
1013
1012
1011
1010
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS11-UT2c
Station 32+53-Riffle
�iti it J..,.:*--- -....---...-i-:-....,-,-1-'r--p"- ,--ti,, 44.kr,,,',..,,. - -
x & ' f
c
r L. � �, n �. �,., .��s - a� se
I ;'b x ?
Ar
�5'.. i. '�. k 'a--,' "" r�-" asp '4�"{ !j
p-'� ''�Yw �` s
l.
� „� .-'' it s ,
It �.� S`= �, - Y.� i .' k a�.2. .. � � ��T' fix:•
v; ..r
XS11 looking upstream XS11 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1013.38 1013.45 1013.43
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.81 0.93
Thalweg Elevation 1012.56 1012.76 1012.70
LTOB Elevation 1013.38 1013.32 1013.38
LTOB Max Depth 0.82 0.56 0.68
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 3.90 2.81 3.46
Entrenchment Ratio 4.48 3.63 4.61
XS11 Riffle - 32+53
1020
As Built May 2020
1019 — — —Floodprone
— — —Bankfull
1018 MY12020
MY2-2021
1017
▪ 1016
▪ 1015
fa
"' 1014 \�_ __ i
o
�_
1013 \ �� -
1012
1011
1010
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS12-UT3a
Station 11+20-Riffle
w'e . ��r � 'a . IMF %`
, FC � � fix.,.� a` � �� ' �i� '� �` � ,�� � `'--
1.
'-t �qg ! ,v` ''' �er. y�r n a '' - fir x_ a ',�
3 - = G ® yrA 3 „, F I S
r , Yam°''"s .- 1 '� f "'�
'kr
e 'er,. _ f �� � � , � A,*^,.
XS12 looking upstream XS12 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1070.58 1070.64 1070.71
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.00 0.88
Thalweg Elevation 1070.07 1070.13 1070.20
LTOB Elevation 1070.58 1070.64 1070.65
LTOB Max Depth 0.51 0.51 0.45
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 1.57 1.58 1.19
Entrenchment Ratio 5.55 4.71 3.4
XS12 Riffle - 11+20
1076 I
As-Built May 2020
1075 - - -Floodprone
- - -Bankfull
MY1-2020
1074 — r
MY2-2021
1073
1072
c
1071 -
v
L' 1070
1069
1068 -
1067
1066
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS13-UT3a
Station 17+81-Pool
w
z
v ti
. 7 ! c .,-
.. ,:17,,,,;,i,h,,.--._,_—_,- '-'41"Azi,:::!-'''-.."., -'--,7, :'.,-..,7-'r":4-T.,0}',-.A
'�4af;.,e�-•�ti .+y?K �qfj. j.1 i 1 Fed .9g, � lT A • 33''S''T�
" ) +� 'n•z "mil °i r �� F � 'A`� ti ti.
1' iCs uFF°� '... Sa44,/l tv 3._.s 4 r .�r° n,,,i_�:._ '.'tl
XS13 looking upstream XS13 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1052.09 1051.92 1052.05
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.08 0.99
Thalweg Elevation 1050.32 1049.97 1050.16
LTOB Elevation 1052.09 1052.08 1052.03
LTOB Max Depth 1.77 2.11. 1.87
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 8.79 10.78 8.54
Entrenchment Ratio - - -
XS13 Pool- 17+81
1058
As-Bu i It-May 2020
1057 - — — —Bankfull
MY1-2020
1056 IMY2-2021
1055
▪ 1054
4-
c
•° 1053
a)"' 1052 — — — — - -
\k\ ...
1051
1050
1049
1048
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS14-UT3a
Station 21+94-Pool
cw 3F � i '. ., 7 . 1 A 41
r''. -7.A.-4,,Ii'..,;11': •'-'-„iitti.;,.,.-
g
s rr ,.aar re`�""$s.`R;y �#�t i s 1 1 i ,'�' . -,.„,,,,-0,-!'",.,.. .,,)-',;,,' rr ' .A
,
,F , �
<¢t. ^ash - Rb -ti 1
/fir � ,� y r- �'�v . ,�.�.� �.� � '��'�a +s,'� '` i�-.� .�}�' �.
.
f � ,, Ul
, ter': 4 , E 7r rt,? Sys K t�S'.., - apt y d
XS14 looking upstream XS14 looking downstream
KAYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1041.94 1042.04 1041.98
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.93 1.01
Thalweg Elevation 1040.44 1040.47 1040.28
LTOB Elevation 1041.94 1041.94 1042.00
LTOB Max Depth 1.50 1.47 1.72
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 6.74 5.98 6.87
Entrenchment Ratio - - -
XS14 Pool -21+94
1048
As-Built-May 2020
1047 — — —Bankfull
MY1-2020
1046 MY2-2021
1045
1044
\
° 1043
03
v
"' 1042 `_\
\1041
, ✓
1040
1039
1038
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS15-UT3b
Station 24+12-Riffle
d
�{3 pp' �
.i ,', �'' -' x, ice` { ,,v" . ^ :ii?`6P �,5 €w ..."k , a 4 °Ai.' 7 Y-
`� y .� s ��, -r--"E ` 1-, ,� i ,
r .. ,,'�4 - i ' ''` r 4 '' ,� -y `7 ' , k4 S, d.S GY x .
-- I -%' 1- Y
XS15 looking upstream XS15 looking downstream
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1037.67 1037.71 1037.70
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.99 0.99
Thalweg Elevation 1036.90 1036.87 1036.85
LTOB Elevation 103.7.67 103.7.70 103.7.69
LTOB Max Depth 0.77 0.83 0.84
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 3.74 3.67 3.68
Entrenchment Ratio 3.58 3.43 3.43
XS15 Riffle 24+12
1044
As-Built-May 2020
1043 — — —Floodprone
— — —Bankfull
MY1-2020
1042 MY2-2021
1041
1040
g-
c
•° 1039
v
L' 1038
1037 \
1036
1035
1034
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS16-UT3c
Station 31+49-Riffle
a �, � r " I t d�
J,w. r'�$ ,w.-`^h. '�a3}yam,�» ���"-K'' �, Zb s'. X4 62.
4" } Y -,4',.',''/- :-;c::r1r,4411;":5
XV` � �,y7""."
,,'- ' V . T.�.S1r`„� �h y r' � I.� ,7� d 9 "r��"3 $ `, $ v � YE
#mow 2'" /-r 4 •a� r --tea - a1 ` �- 'r;`3"�`'`,� ,
j`�'= ' c e r� dummy "i' 9^
�' .` �^« bra ..t; ae- s
g"
XS16 looking upstream XS16 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1026.46 1026.52 1026.50
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.09 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 1025.81 1025.91 1025.79
LTOB Elevation 1026.46 1026.58 1026.50
LTOB Max Depth 0.65 0.67 0.71
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 3.46 3.98 3.47
Entrenchment Ratio >5.13 >4.92 >5.57
XS16 Riffle 31+49
1032
As-Built May 2020
1031 — — —Floodprone
— — —Bankfull
MY1-2020
1030
MY2-2021
1029
1028
4
c
o 1027
L' 1026
1025
1024
1023
1022
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS17-UT3c
Station 34+91-Pool
3 r y t f � z J 4 a `, s x.{t _,�'47, _ ,, , ,*- „„c,
eS A ?A` 4 •$$ �p a
Y r. I 4 "'.t § •
i£Y . '�,n. . 5 1 AFT M Q /fit; 4 d
il
" a r p a�^ ¢ ` � y^'+. -.4-4
-s5 � 7
• r 1'w,p�m r �
,-=`;';'".--'-' ':-. 7r;o7t-,, , -- -,-- —,, -,:. ,:15/.., lb',' .t,';'-'2°1,- -4t., , ,4.4.,..,,,A-4,'
XS17 looking upstream XS17 looking downstream
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
1020.25 1020.08
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1020.20
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.98 0.99
Thalweg Elevation 1017.74,020.20 1017.65 1020.19 1017.56 1020.05
LTOB Elevation
LTOB Max Depth 2.46 2.54 2.49
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 12.74 12.13 12.40
Entrenchment Ratio - - -
XS17 Pool 34+91
1025
As-Built-May 2020
1024 — — —Bankfull
MY1-2020
1023 MY2-2021
1022 — —
---..
1021
1020
v
"' 1019
1018
1017
1016
1015
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance(ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY2
XS18-UT4
Station 10+73-Riffle
(F
A 3r. \ 1 '�'
{1 y - 1 _, i k' ,>gr+r ,r p fu� �, t. A t -t pa- ai r � . ' sM6 •�A,
? e
"c', ••'4..,..-!,•! t•'t 'Iri'tr,---2,,,
' ,I.Wit:*,,,k+1,7„.:- ;14ti:-4.1*. • ,..'..11--,-';,5 ,1•-L, . -_,,,
g ) i k� a ' ,
I !�r rr�` .� S': li` :! --�:y1 ' a ... ,,. ,. rz ./ .��_t f `irF�r
XS18 looking upstream XS18 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
1043.15
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1043.01 1043.09
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.79 0.73
Thalweg Elevation 1042.59 1042.69 1042.67
LTOB Elevation 1043.01 1043.01 1043.02
LTOB Max Depth 0.42 0.32 0.35
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 1.22 0.90 0.79
Entrenchment Ratio 2.76 2.70 3.31
XS18 Riffle 10+73
1049
As-Built-May 2020
1048 — — —Bankfull
— — —Floodprone
MY1-2020
1047 MY2-2021
1046
1045
g—
c
1044
,...._................„• "/
03
cu
"' 1043 \—
1042
1041
1040
1039
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance(ft)

Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT1a (1590 feet)
Parameter ' Regional Curve ' Pre-Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es) Data ' Design ' Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 1 7 3.3 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.1 - 2 3.5 7.0 10.4 6.5 7.0 7.3 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 - 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 9.1 9.4 9.4 9.6 - 2 7.7 24.7 41.6 30.0 35.0 40.0 >40.3 >40.3 >40.3 >40.3 - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 1 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 - 2 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 - 1
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 - 2 0.2 0.7 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1 6 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.9 - 2 1.0 3.5 6.0 2.6 3.0 3.7 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 12.8 13.4 13.4 14.0 - 2 12.0 15.0 18.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 - 2 2.2 3.1 4.0 4.3 5.1 5.8 >6.87 >6.87 >6.87 >6.87 - 1
1Bank Height Ratio 2.1 4.3 4.3 6.5 - 2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 4.0 17.3 18.2 29.0 10.9 4 Total riffle length 50%of reach length 10.0 20.5 32.0 13.4 18.6 18.8 22.8 3.1 10
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I I I 0.008 0.024 0.043 0.013 0.025 0.024 0.037 0.007 10
Pool Length(ft) 10.0 10.6 10.7 11.0 0.4 3 Total pool length 50%of reach length 7.0 13.0 24.0 13.5 20.0 20.6 25.8 4.8 10
Pool Max depth(ft) 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 2 0.4 1.7 3.0 0.7 1.2 1.6 0.9 1.7 1.6 2.2 0.3 10
Pool Spacing(ft) 17.9 25.5 20.5 38.0 8.9 3 10.4 29.5 48.7 16.0 36.0 50.0 29.3 38.1 35.9 50.2 7.8 10
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 13.0 21.0 21.0 29.0 8.2 4 N/A N/A 83.2 10 25.9 39 12.3 26.3 25.3 43.0 7.7 40
Radius of Curvature(ft) 22.0 61.6 47.0 130.0 40.9 5 7.0 21.7 36.4 14.5 16.5 20.5 12.0 18.0 17.7 23.8 2.9 41
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 3.7 10.4 7.8 22.0 6.1 5 2.0 2.8 3.5 2.1 2.4 3.0 2.0 3.1 3.0 4.1 0.5 41
Meander Wavelength(ft) 96.0 176.5 177.0 256.0 88.4 4 24.5 74.7 124.8 49 59.5 73 46.0 60.9 61.8 73.5 6.5 40
Meander Width Ratio 2.2 3.5 3.5 4.8 1.2 4 N/A N/A 8.0 1.4 3.8 5.6 2.1 4.5 4.3 7.3 1.3 40
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)Ib/f` 0.54 0.60 0.30
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 93 75 63
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m` 32.7 33.6 26
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B5 C5b C5b C5b
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 0.5 30.0 3.6 3.1 3.1 5.8
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 3 30 10.2 10 10 10
Valley length(ft) 617 1292 1292
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 650 1590 1590
Sinuosity(ft) 1.1 1.2 to 1.6 1.2 1.2
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.021 0.0162 0.0165
BF slope(ft/ft) 0.021 0.0162 0.0167
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) 0.1 1.0 2.0
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks 36%
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 then exceeds 3
Note that the valley length has increased in the proposed alignment.
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING&
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT1c (738 feet)
Parameter ' Regional Curve ' Pre-Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es) Data ' Design ' Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 2 8 3.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.2 7.5 10.2 6.9 7.5 8.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 - 1
Floodprone Width(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.2 25.0 40.8 65.0 142.5 220.0 >57.4 >57.4 >57.4 >57.4 - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 1.1 0.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.40 0.53 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 - 1
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.50 0.70 0.90 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.5 6.5 3.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.5 4.0 6.5 2.76 4.00 5.60 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 - 1
Width/Depth Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.0 14.0 16.0 12.00 14.00 16.00 12.34 12.34 12.34 12.34 - 1
Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.2 3.1 4.0 8.70 19.10 29.50 >9.29 >9.29 >9.29 >9.29 - 1
1Bank Height Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total riffle length 50%of reach length 12.0 24.0 32.0 16.2 24.4 23.8 34.0 6.8 4
Riffle Slope(fUft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I I I 0.003 0.006 0.010 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.002 4
Pool Length(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total pool length 50%of reach length 11.0 16.0 22.0 12.5 19.3 19.4 26.0 5.3 4
Pool Max depth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5 1.8 3.0 0.9 1.5 2.0 1.1 1.4 1.2 2.1 0.4 4
Pool Spacing(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30.0 41.3 52.5 20.0 30.0 53.0 41.0 49.0 50.5 54.1 5.3 4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14.7 23.0 81.6 26.8 38.6 47.4 29.4 38.7 39.0 45.7 3.8 11
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.4 14.0 35.7 16.7 20.7 23.7 14.3 20.4 21.3 25.7 3.2 13
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 2.8 3.5 2.2 2.8 3.2 2.3 3.3 3.4 4.1 0.5 13
Meander Wavelength(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29.4 48.5 122.4 64.0 76.0 83.0 58.5 73.0 73.8 83.2 8.1 11
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.5 4.5 8.0 3.6 5.2 6.4 4.7 6.2 6.3 7.4 0.6 11
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)Ib/f` - 0.09 0.10
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull - 27 30
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m` - 1.5 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification - C5 C5 C5
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 0.6 22.0 3.7 - 0.6 3.9
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 4 33 13.0 - 12 12
Valley length(ft) - 537 537
Channel Thalweg length(ft) - 738 738
Sinuosity(ft) - 1.2 to 1.6 1.4 1.4
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) - 0.0032 0.0034
BF slope(fUft) - 0.0032 0.0031
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) - 1.8 0.6
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 then exceeds 3
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING&
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 8c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT2a (1197 feet)
Parameter ' Regional Curve ' Pre-Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es) Data ' Design ' Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min I Mean Med I Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 2.5 8 4.0 7 13 13 19 - 2 4.6 7.6 10.1 6.9 7.5 8.0 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 - 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 10 50 50 89 - 2 10.1 25.3 40.4 40.0 70.0 100.0 >53.9 >53.9 >53.9 >53.9 - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 - 2 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.40 0.53 0.70 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 - 1
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 - 2 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.50 0.70 0.90 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.8 6.8 3.8 4 4 4 4 - 2 1.8 4.3 6.8 2.76 4.00 5.60 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 12 52 52 91 - 2 12.0 13.5 15.0 12.00 14.00 16.00 19.62 19.62 19.62 19.62 - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2 3 3 5 - 2 2.2 3.1 4.0 5.40 9.40 13.40 >7.04 >7.04 >7.04 >7.04 - 1
1Bank Height Ratio 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.8 - 2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 8 21 23 30 9 4 Total riffle length 50%of reach length 10.0 17.0 40.0 11.5 19.0 17.0 32.2 6.9 10
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I I I 0.009 0.014 0.024 0.009 0.013 0.012 0.018 0.002 10
Pool Length(ft) 7.6 9 8 11 1.5 3 Total pool length 50%of reach length 8.0 15.5 29.0 10.0 18.9 19.3 28.0 5.6 12
Pool Max depth(ft) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 - 1 0.6 1.8 2.9 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.7 2.4 0.3 11
Pool Spacing(ft) 18 26 21 38 8.9 3 30.4 41.8 53.2 25.0 41.0 54.0 30.3 43.2 40.6 55.6 8.5 13
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 67 67 67 67 - 1 16.1 23.0 80.8 19.3 29.3 48.2 23.2 34.7 33.9 50.1 6.9 22
Radius of Curvature(ft) 40 55 55 69 - 2 9.2 14.0 35.4 16.7 19.0 23.7 11.7 19.1 19.1 24.6 3.1 24
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 3.1 4.2 4.2 5.3 - 2 2.0 2.8 3.5 2.2 2.6 3.2 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.2 0.4 24
Meander Wavelength(ft) 288 288 288 288 - 1 32.2 48.5 121.2 48.0 69.0 83.0 48.4 66.9 66.9 82.6 9.1 22
Meander Width Ratio 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 - 1 3.5 4.5 8.0 2.6 3.9 6.5 3.0 4.5 4.4 6.5 0.9 22
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)Ib/f` 0.17 0.27 0.22
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 41 58 50
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m` 9.4 16.3 15
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B5, D5 through wetland C5 C5 C5
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 0.6 18.9 3.8 2.3 2.4 4.7
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 4 34 14.4 14 14 14
Valley length(ft) 882 917 917
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 956 1197 1197
Sinuosity(ft) 1.08 1.2 to 1.6 1.28 1.3
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0091 0.0093 0.0092
BF slope(ft/ft) 0.0091 0.0093 0.0091
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) 1.0 1.5 1.5
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks 44%
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 then exceeds 3
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING&
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 8d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT2b (1062 feet)
Parameter I Regional Curve I Pre-Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es)Data I Design I Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min I Mean Med I Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 3.8 16 6.0 8 8 8 8 - 1 6.0 11.0 15.0 8.4 9.9 10.2 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 - 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 - 1 13.2 36.6 60.0 40.0 55.0 70.0 >54.9 >54.9 >54.9 >54.9 - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 - 1 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.60 0.70 1.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 - 1
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft; 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - 1 0.5 1.1 1.8 0.70 1.00 1.40 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3 15 7.2 6 6 6 6 - 1 3.0 9.0 15.0 5.04 7.00 10.20 4.14 4.14 4.14 4.14 - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 12 12 12 12 - 1 12.0 13.5 15.0 10.00 14.00 15.00 17.85 17.85 17.85 17.85 - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 1 1 - 1 2.2 3.1 4.0 4.30 5.90 7.50 >6.4 >6.4 >6.4 >6.4 - 1
1Bank Height Ratio 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 - 1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 29 91.3 80 165 56 3 Total riffle length 50%of reach length 7.0 21.0 50.0 15.9 28.2 25.3 45.7 9.6 13
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I I I 0.009 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.002 13
Pool Length(ft) 118 142 141.5 165 - 2 Total pool length 50%of reach length 13.0 26.5 39.0 19.0 23.9 22.6 35.7 4.8 10
Pool Max depth(ft) 1.3 1.8 1.8 2.1 0.3 4 0.8 2.6 4.4 1.1 1.8 3.1 1.4 1.7 1.7 2.1 0.2 10
Pool Spacing(ft) 128 246 272 339 88 3 44.0 60.5 77.0 26.0 55.0 69.0 44.5 56.3 57.3 67.0 7.6 10
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 127 127 127 127 - 1 21.0 23.0 120.0 19.3 43.8 66.3 23.2 46.4 47.9 62.7 10.8 13
Radius of Curvature(ft) 35 73 64 121 44 3 12.0 14.0 52.5 15.7 27.7 32.7 21.1 26.9 27.6 32.9 3.5 12
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 4.4 9.2 8.0 15.1 4.5 3 2.0 2.8 3.5 1.7 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.8 0.4 12
Meander Wavelength(ft) 542 542 542 542 - 1 42.0 48.5 180.0 86.0 101.0 165.0 78.3 102.6 97.7 152.8 17.3 14
Meander Width Ratio 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 - 1 3.5 4.5 8.0 2.1 4.7 7.1 2.7 5.4 5.6 7.3 1.3 13
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 0.19 0.13 0.09
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 25 33 26
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 11.1 8.4 9
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification F5 C5 C5 C5
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 0.6 30.0 3.9 1.9 1.6 6.8
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 9 90 27.8 20 28 28
Valley length(ft) 1065 840 840
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 1095 1050 1062
Sinuosity(ft) 1.03 1.2 to 1.6 1.25 1.3
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.005 0.0032 0.0030
BF slope(ft/ft) 0.005 0.0032 0.0031
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) 0.3 1.1 1.0
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks N/A
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 then exceeds 3
*Note that the valley length has increased in the proposed alignment.
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 8e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT2c (244 feet)
Parameter I Regional Curve I Pre-Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es)Data I Design I Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min I Mean Med I Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 4 17 6.2 8 8 8 8 - 1 6.0 11.3 15.5 9.2 9.8 10.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 - 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 - 1 13.2 37.6 62.0 72.0 98.0 124.0 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 - 1 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.60 0.70 0.90 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 - 1
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft; 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - 1 0.5 1.1 1.8 0.70 1.00 1.20 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3 16 7.7 6 6 6 6 - 1 3.0 9.5 16.0 5.52 I 7.00 9.18 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.90 - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 12 12 12 12 - 1 12.0 13.5 15.0 12.00 14.00 15.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 1 1 - 1 2.2 3.1 4.0 7.40 10.10 12.80 4.48 4.48 4.48 4.48 - 1
1Bank Height Ratio 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 - 1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 29 91.3 80 165 56 3 Total riffle length 50%of reach length 9.0 25.5 32.0 14.8 23.2 23.9 28.4 4.6 5
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I I I 0.005 0.006 0.014 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.009 0.002 5
Pool Length(ft) 118 142 141.5 165 - 2 Total pool length 50%of reach length 15.0 20.5 25.0 14.2 20.8 23.9 24.3 4.6 3
Pool Max depth(ft) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 - 1 0.8 2.7 4.5 1.2 1.8 2.6 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.5 0.3 3
Pool Spacing(ft) 339 339 339 339 - 1 45.2 62.2 79.1 28.0 48.0 50.0 41.0 45.9 47.6 49.2 3.5 3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Wavelength(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 0.19 0.13 0.08
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 25 33 22
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 11.1 8.4 8
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification F5 B5c B5c B5c
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 3.3 5.8 3.9 1.9 1.6 7.2
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 10 93 29.8 20 28 28
Valley length(ft) 237 242 242
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 244 244 244
Sinuosity(ft) 1.03 1.01 1.0
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.005 0.0035 0.0030
BF slope(ft/ft) 0.005 0.0035 0.0030
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) 0.3 0.5 0.1
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks 56%
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 then exceeds 3
*Note that the valley length has increased in the proposed alignment.
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 8f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT3a (1410 feet)
Parameter I Regional Curve I Pre-Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es)Data I Design I Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min I Mean Med I Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 2 8 3.5 5 6 6 6 0.7 3 4.2 7.7 10.8 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 - 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 6 8 8 10 1.6 3 5.9 14.8 23.8 9.0 11.5 14.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 3 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 - 1
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft; 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.0 3 0.3 0.8 1.3 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.5 6.5 3.2 2 2 2 3 0.1 3 1.5 4.0 6.5 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 9 12 12 16 2.7 3 12.0 15.0 18.0 13.00 13.00 13.00 19.93 19.93 19.93 19.93 - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 2 2 0.1 3 1.4 1.8 2.2 1.40 1.80 2.20 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 - 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.9 1.3 3.3 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 3 9 9 15.8 4 5 Total riffle length 60-70%of reach length 4.5 15.0 29.0 12.5 17.9 17.5 27.6 4.1 11
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I I I 0.024 0.033 0.043 0.021 0.030 0.030 0.042 0.006 11
Pool Length(ft) 2 10 10.1 17 6 4 Total pool length 30-40%of reach length 5.0 14.0 21.0 6.7 11.0 10.8 15.1 3.0 12
Pool Max depth(ft) 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.1 5 0.5 1.8 3.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.3 0.3 12
Pool Spacing(ft) 5.3 18.75 19.95 29.800 8.776 4 3.9 21.2 38.5 6.0 23.0 44.0 21.5 29.8 29.5 45.4 6.2 10
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.2 17.2 28.2 9.0 14.1 13.8 20.9 2.8 12
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15.7 20.1 27.1 18.1 24.1 28.1 28.1 4.4 13
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.5 3.2 4.4 3.2 4.3 5.0 5.0 0.8 13
Meander Wavelength(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 45.0 61.0 141.0 47.4 78.2 79.7 132.6 26.2 14
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.5 2.8 4.5 1.6 2.5 2.5 3.7 0.5 12
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 0.57 0.7 0.43
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 85 117 82
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 9 17 21
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B/G 5 B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 0.5 20.7 3.7 2.6 1.7 3.2
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 3.5 31 11.7 5 5 5
Valley length(ft) 1315 1395 1395
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 1476 1410 1410
Sinuosity(ft) 1.12 1.1 to 1.2 1.07 1.01
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0241 0.0269 0.0256
BF slope(ft/ft) 0.0241 0.0269 0.0258
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) 0.2 0.3 0.7
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks 30%
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 then exceeds 3
*Note that the valley length has increased in the proposed alignment.
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 8g. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT3b (190 feet)
Parameter I Regional Curve I Pre-Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es)Data I Design I Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min I Mean Med I Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 2 8 3.5 7 7 7 7 - 1 4.2 7.7 10.8 7.6 7.6 7.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 - 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 10 10 10 10 - 1 5.9 14.8 23.8 11 14 17 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 - 1 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 - 1
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft; 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1 0.3 0.8 1.3 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.5 6.5 3.2 4 4 4 4 - 1 1.5 4.0 6.5 4.50 4.50 4.50 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 10 10 10 10 - 1 12.0 15.0 18.0 13.00 13.00 13.00 12.76 12.76 12.76 12.76 - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2 2 2 2 - 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 1.40 1.80 2.20 3.58 3.58 3.58 3.58 - 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 - 1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total riffle length 60-70%of reach length 15.0 20.0 25.0 8.9 14.9 15.0 21.2 4.3 6
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I I I 0.020 0.020 0.027 0.022 0.029 0.030 0.038 0.005 6
Pool Length(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total pool length 30-40%of reach length 10.0 15.0 24.0 14.7 16.5 16.2 20.3 1.8 6
Pool Max depth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5 1.8 3.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.0 2.9 0.4 6
Pool Spacing(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.6 28.9 46.2 20.0 35.0 44.0 15.4 31.6 33.7 45.0 9.9 6
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Wavelength(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 - 0.49 0.52
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull - 91 91
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 - 13 28
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification - B4c B4c B4c
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 0.5 20.7 3.7 - 3 3.6
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 3.5 31 11.7 - 13.32 13.32
Valley length(ft) - 183 183
Channel Thalweg length(ft) - 190 190
Sinuosity(ft) - 1.1 to 1.3 1.04 1.04
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) - 0.0155 0.0159
BF slope(ft/ft) - 0.0155 0.0153
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) - 0.1 0.1
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 then exceeds 3
*Note that the valley length has increased in the proposed alignment.
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 8h. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT3c (1097 feet)
Parameter I Regional Curve I Pre-Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es)Data I Design I Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min I Mean Med I Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 2.5 9.5 4.4 8 8 8 8 - 1 4.9 8.6 11.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 9 9 9 9 - 1 >10.8 >10.8 >10.8 25.0 50.0 75.0 >40.0 >40.0 >40.0 >40.0 - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - 1 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 - 1
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft; 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 - 1 0.4 0.9 1.5 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2 9 4.5 4 4 4 4 - 1 2.0 5.5 9.0 4.50 4.50 4.50 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 15 15 15 15 - 1 12.0 13.5 15.0 13.00 13.00 13.00 17.73 17.73 17.73 17.73 - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 1 1 - 1 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 3.30 6.60 9.90 >5.13 >5.13 >5.13 >5.13 - 1
1Bank Height Ratio 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 - 1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total riffle length 60-70%of reach length 5.0 14.0 29.0 11.4 19.2 18.8 29.1 5.1 12
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I I I 0.014 0.022 0.042 0.013 0.018 0.017 0.025 0.003 12
Pool Length(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total pool length 30-40%of reach length 10.0 15.0 41.0 10.9 17.7 18.1 25.9 4.6 18
Pool Max depth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5 1.9 3.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.3 2.3 3.1 0.4 14
Pool Spacing(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30.1 45.2 60.2 10.0 23.5 58.0 10.9 40.4 42.1 59.8 12.0 16
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17.2 23.0 92.8 17.0 26.4 39.5 16.9 26.6 25.3 35.9 6.0 18
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.8 14.0 40.6 15.8 19.1 24.8 9.2 23.0 25.6 29.8 6.6 20
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 2.8 3.5 2.1 2.5 3.3 1.2 2.9 3.3 3.8 0.9 20
Meander Wavelength(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 34.3 48.5 162.4 59.0 75.0 95.0 46.0 73.6 78.7 85.9 11.4 16
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.5 4.5 8.0 2.2 3.5 5.2 2.2 3.4 3.2 4.6 0.8 18
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 - 0.63 0.54
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull - 108 94
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 - 19 35
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification F4 C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 0.8 12.5 3.8 - 3.3 4.4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 7 25 16.9 - 15.06 15.06
Valley length(ft) - 920 920
Channel Thalweg length(ft) - 1097 1097
Sinuosity(ft) - 1.2 to 1.4 1.19 1.19
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) - 0.0198 0.0201
BF slope(ft/ft) - 0.0198 0.0201
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) - 1.1 1.1
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks 70%
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 then exceeds 3
*Note that the valley length has increased in the proposed alignment.
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 8i. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT4 (134 feet)
Parameter I Regional Curve I Pre-Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es)Data I Design I Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min I Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 1 5 2.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.4 5.1 7.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 - 1
Floodprone Width(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.4 9.7 16.1 7.0 9.5 12.0 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.2 0.8 0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 - 1
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft; N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 0.5 3 1.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5 1.8 3.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 - 1
Width/Depth Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.0 15.0 18.0 13 13 13 14.72 14.72 14.72 14.72 - 1
Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.4 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 - 1
1Bank Height Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1.1 1 1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total riffle length 50%of reach length 10.0 10.0 18.0 20.0 22.9 22.9 25.9 2.9 2
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I I I I I 0.005 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.015 0.015 0.017 0.003 2
Pool Length(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total pool length 50%of reach length 9.0 10.0 15.5 13.8 19.0 19.0 24.2 5.2 2
Pool Max depth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.3 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.85 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.1 2
Pool Spacing(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.7 19.1 30.6 20.0 23.0 33.1 46.3 46.3 46.3 46.3 0.0 1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Wavelength(ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 N/A 0.02 0.27
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull N/A 7 40
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 N/A 0 2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B/G 4 B4c B4c B4c
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 0.7 18.0 3.5 N/A 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 2 9 5.3 N/A 0.62 0.62
Valley length(ft) 130 129 130
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 134 134 134
Sinuosity(ft) 1.03 1.1 to 1.3 1.04 1.03
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0241 0.0084 0.015
BF slope(ft/ft) 0.0241 0.0084 0.015
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) N/A 0.2 0.05
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks N/A
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 then exceeds 3
*Note that the valley length has increased in the proposed alignment.
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Table 9. Monitoring Data-Cross Section Monitoring Data Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
UT1a(1590 feet) UT1c(738 feet)
Cross Section 1(Pool) Cross Section 2(Pool) Cross Section 3(Riffle) Cross Section 4(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Ell (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 1043.97 1043.98 1044.06 1023.76 1023.75 1023.75 1021.58 1021.55 1021.60 1018.47 1018.46 1018.48
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.00 0.97 0.8940719 1.00 0.97 1.06 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.07
Thalweg Elevation 1042.64 1042.78 1043.03 1022.85 1022.8 1022.71 1021.11 1020.98 1021.04 1017.75 1017.75 1017.78
LTOB2 Elevation 1043.97 1043.94 1043.95 1023.76 1023.72 1023.81 1021.58 1021.57 1021.60 1018.47 1018.51 1018.53
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 1.33 1.16 0.92 0.91 0.92 1.1 0.47 0.59 0.56 0.72 0.76 0.75
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 7.36 6.81 5.47 4.14 3.90 4.68 1.73 1.83 1.73 3.07 3.44 3.39
Entrenchment Ratio - - - - - - >6.87 >7.3 >6.51 >9.29 >8.47 >8.83
UT1c(738 feet) UT2a(1,197 feet) UT2b(1077 feet)
Cross Section 5(Pool) Cross Section 6(Pool) Cross Section 7(Riffle) Cross Section 8(Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
(2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 1017.76 1017.78 1017.74 1023.50 1023.56 1023.68 1019.49 1019.51 1019.55 1016.72 1016.93 1016.66
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.00 1.05 1.11 1.00 0.93 0.87 1.00 0.84 0.89 1.00 0.86 1.04
Thalweg Elevation 1016.7 1016.64 1016.76 1022.13 1022 1022.26 1018.79 1018.77 1018.82 1015.25 1015.36 1015.14
LTOB2 Elevation 1017.76 1017.84 1017.85 1023.5 1023.45 1023.49 1019.49 1019.39 1019.47 1016.72 1016.71 1016.71
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 1.06 1.2 1.Og 1.37 1.45 1.23 0.7 0.62 0.65 1.47 1.35 1.57
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 5.10 5.69 6.45 7.90 6.81 5.76 2.95 2.19 2.38 8.47 6.36 9.07
Entrenchment Ratio - - - - - - >7.04 >6.45 >6.68 - - -
UT2b(1077 feet) UT2c(244 feet) UT3a(1410 feet)
Cross Section 9(Riffle) Cross Section 10(Pool) Cross Section 11(Riffle) Cross Section 12(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
(2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 1016.16 1016.19 1016.15 1014.60 1014.61 1014.59 1013.38 1013.45 1013.43 1070.58 1070.64 1070.71
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.00 1.02 1.10 ■ 1.00 1 0.93 1.00 0.81 0.93 1.00 1 0.88
Thalweg Elevation 1015.3 1015.3 1015.33 ■ 1012.53 1012.4 1012.55 1012.56 1012.76 1012.70 1070.07 1070.13 1070.20
LTOB2 Elevation 1016.16 1016.2 1016.23 ! 1014.6 1014.61 1014.46 . 1013.38 1013.32 1013.38 1070.58 1070.64 1070.65
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 0.86 0.9 0.9 Im. 2.07 2.21 1.91 IMI 0.82 0.56 0.68 0.51 0.51 0.45
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.14 4.40 4.88 10.45 10.43 9.20 3.90 2.81 3.46 1.57 1.58 1.19
Entrenchment Ratio >6.40 >6.35 >6.58 -=Mm. - - - .m 4.48 3.63 4.61 5.55 4.71 3.4
UT3a(1410 feet) UT3b(190 feet) UT3c(1097 feet)
Cross Section 13(Pool) Cross Section 14(Pool) Cross Section 15(Riffle) Cross Section 16(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
(2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 1052.09 1051.92 1052.05 1041.94 1042.04 1041.98 1037.67 1037.71 1037.70 1026.46 1026.52 1026.50
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.00 1.08 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.09 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 1050.32 1049.97 1050.16 1040.44 1040.47 1040.28 1036.9 1036.87 1036.85 1025.81 1025.91 1025.79
LTOB2 Elevation 1052.09 1052.08 1052.03 1041.94 1041.94 1042.00 1037.67 1037.7 1037.69 1026.46 1026.58 1026.50
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 1.77 2.11 1.87 1.5 1.47 1.72 0.77 0.83 0.84 0.65 0.67 0.71
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 8.79 10.78 8.54 6.74 5.98 6.87 3.74 3.67 3.68 3.46 3.98 3.47
Entrenchment Ratio - - - - - - 3.58 3.43 3.43 >5.13 >4.92 >5.57
UT3c(1097 feet) UT4(134 feet)
Cross Section 17(Pool) Cross Section 18(Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation MY+
(2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024 MY+ (2020) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 1020.20 1020.25 1020.08 1043.01 1043.09 1043.15
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.79 0.73
Thalweg Elevation 1017.74 1017.65 1017.56 1042.59 1042.69 1042.67
LTOB2 Elevation 1020.2 1020.19 1020.05 1043.01 1043.01 1043.02
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 2.46 2.54 2.49 0.42 0.32 0.35
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 12.74 12.13 12.40 1.22 0.90 0.79
Entrenchment Ratio - - - 2.76 2.7 3.31
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS,the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward.They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull area
and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 -Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2,then the MY1 bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey=10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank(LTOB)
elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator.This same process is then carried out in each successive year.
2-LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above.The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
Note:The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection,therefore inter-annual variation in morphological measurement(as a percentage)is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.
ECOSYSTEM
Appendix C PLANNING&
Red Barn Mitigation Bank EPR RESTORATION

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data
Table 10. Stream Flow and Bankfull Event Verification
Figure 3. Monthly Rainfall Data
Precipitation and Water Level (Stream Flow and Groundwater) Hydrographs
Table 11. Wetland Hydrology Annual Summary

Table 10. Stream Flow and Bankfull Event Verification
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Overbank Events
Gage ID MY1 (2020)* Days** MY2(2021)* Days** MY3(2022) Days MY4(2023) Days MY5(2025) Days MY6(2026) Days MY7(2027)
18 separate events:
4/13/2020
5/27/2020
7/10/2020
8/5/2020
8/12/2020
8/15/2020 6 separate events:
8/25/2020 1/1/2021
RBSG1 8/31/2020 2/16/2021
UT1a 9/17/2020 266 3/19/2021 327
9/29/2020 7/2/2021
10/11/2020 8/18/2021
10/29/2020 9/22/2021
11/12/2020
11/30/2020
12/4/2020
12/14/2020
12/16/2020
12/24/2020
21 separate events:
4/13/2020
4/30/2020
5/20/2020
5/28/2020
7/10/2020
8/5/2020
8/12/2020 6 separate events:
8/15/2020 2/13/2021
8/25/2020 2/16/2021
UT1c 8/31/2020 75 3/19/2021 71
RBSG2 9/17/2020
9/29/2020 3/28/2021
10/11/2020 3/31/2021
10/25/2020 9/22/2021
10/29/2020
11/12/2020
11/30/2020
12/5/2020
12/14/2020
12/16/2020
12/25/2020
5 separate events:
4/13/2020
UT2a 10/29/2020
RBSG3 11/11/2020 266 No events 327
12/14/2020
12/25/2020
*Indicates the number of separate bankfull events recorded throughout the monitoring year.
**Indicates the maximum number of consecutive days of flow recorded throughout the monitoring year.
Appendix D ECOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank PLANNING&
g EPR RESTORATION

Table 10. Stream Flow and Bankfull Event Verification (continued)
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Overbank Events
Gage ID MY1 (2020)* Days** MY2(2021)* Days** MY3(2022) Days MY4(2023) Days MY5(2025) Days MY6(2026) Days MY7(2027)
21 separate events:
4/13/2020
4/30/2020
5/22/2020
5/28/2020
7/10/2020 10 separate events:
8/5/2020 1/1/2021
8/12/2020 1/8/2021
8/14/2020 1/12/2021
8/24/2020 2/15/2021
UT2c 8/31/2020 266 3/19/2021 327
RBSG4 9/17/2020
9/29/2020 4/11/2021
10/11/2020 6/12/2021
10/25/2020 7/18/2021
10/29/2020 8/18/2021
11/11/2020 9/22/2021
11/30/2020
12/5/2020
12/14/2020
12/16/2020
12/24/2020
15 separate events:
4/13/2020
4/30/2020
5/27/2020
8/15/2020
8/31/2020
9/29/2020 2 separate events:
UT3c 10/11/2020 266 8/18/2021 327
RBSGS 10/25/2020
10/29/2020 9/22/2021
11/12/2020
11/30/2020
12/4/2020
12/14/2020
12/16/2020
12/24/2020
11 separate events:
4/13/2020
4/30/2020
5/27/2020
10/11/2020
UT4 10/29/2020 1 separate event:
RBSG6 11/12/2020 266 9/22/2021 93
11/30/2020
12/4/2020
12/14/2020
12/16/2020
12/24/2020
3 separate events:
UT3a 4/13/2020
RBSG7 10/29/2020 266 No events 327
11/11/2020
*Indicates the number of separate bankfull events recorded throughout the monitoring year.
**Indicates the maximum number of consecutive days of flow recorded throughout the monitoring year.
Appendix D ECOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank PLANNING&
g rPR RESTORATION

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Figure 3. Monthly Rainfall Data
Monitoring Year 2 - 2021
2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) —30th Percentile —70th Percentile
12.00
10.00
8.00
c
CO
4-
c
cc 6.00
a
t
c
0
2
4.00
I
2.00
0.00 -
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Month
Note:Historic rainfall data from WETS Station:Mount Airy 2 W,NC,1971-2019.Project rainfall data from HOBO Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge located at the Red Barn Mitigation Bank,3.5 miles SE.
Rainfall Summary
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Annual Precip Total 67.90 49.25 - - - - -
WETS 30th Percentile 43.95 43.95 - - - - -
WETS 70th Percentile 52.86 52.86 - - - - -
Normal Y Y - - - - -
*Note:2021 rainfall data does not include data from part of November or December because the gauge was last downloaded in November during MY2 monitoring.

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Streamflow Data
RBSG1
1024 16
1023.8
1023.6
- 12
1023.4
1023.2 10
C H
o a,
}, 1023 •• a •- - 8 u
ra c
v 1022.8 ... _ _ • •
L.TJ ... .
_. ,.,
: : = : =I: : :::I:t
.E , r -� L -_
1022.2 • - 2
1022 A__A__ — - M A - 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
-Water Level(ft) DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -• Bankfull Elevation(ft) Logger Elevation
-Daily Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile • 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in)
Site Info Year 2(2021)Streamflow Data
Stream Red Barn Mitigation Bank Gauge ID RBSG1
Reach UT1a Start Date 1/1/2021
Date Installed 7/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2021
Serial Number 20727110 Flow Criteria (Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation (ft) 1022.42
Controlling Grade Elevation (ft) 1023.00
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 1023.76
Most Consecutive Days of Flow 327
Total Days of Flow 327
Max High Water Level Above Bankfull (ft) 0.15
Bankfull Events 6

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Streamflow Data
RBSG2
1019 16
i .. i
tE1018.5 441--
6A111/1111it u
as c
v 1017.5 — • —
w -
4
1017 — _ — — — — � -
- - �' -
_
A� 1 A ^ JL
A
' n M6 - 2
1016.5 A - AA _A,MAAAA 1L A AA 11 _ ..11 A A .. . AAA _ 11 A — ne A 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
-Water Level(ft) DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -Bankfull Elevation(ft) Logger Elevation
-Daily Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in)
Site Info Year 2(2021)Streamflow Data
Stream Red Barn Mitigation Bank Gauge ID RBSG2
Reach UT1c Start Date 1/1/2021
Date Installed 7/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2021
Serial Number 21040307 Flow Criteria (Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation (ft) 1017.43
Controlling Grade Elevation (ft) 1017.76
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 1018.74
Most Consecutive Days of Flow 71
Total Days of Flow 155
Max High Water Level Above Bankfull (ft) 0.35
Bankfull Events 6

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Streamflow Data
RBSG3
1020 I I 16
1019.8 --- -----• •--
- 14
1019.6 -
- 12
1019.4
1019.2 10
c '"
a,
.2▪ 1019 • • 8 u
co c
✓ 1018.8 ' e •
LTJi
1018.6 � 1- - - -
- 4
1018.4 . . . . -- — — i -- — — .. -
- • — — _
1018.2 A� 1 -_ /fin _n IM
1018 A„M I_MLA „ A A _ _n 1 A A r 2
A AAA _ M A _ n• A _ 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
-Water Level(ft) DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -Bankfull Elevation(ft) Logger Elevation
-Daily Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile • 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in)
Site Info Year 2(2021)Streamflow Data
Stream Red Barn Mitigation Bank Gauge ID RBSG3
Reach UT2a Start Date 1/1/2021
Date Installed 7/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2021
Serial Number 20727111 Flow Criteria (Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation (ft) 1018.73
Controlling Grade Elevation (ft) 1018.85
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 1019.8
Most Consecutive Days of Flow 327
Total Days of Flow 327
Max High Water Level Above Bankfull (ft) -0.04
Bankfull Events 0

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Streamflow Data
RBSG4
1014.5 I I I 16
14
1014 I
12
1013.5
10
c '"
o a,
, 1013 •• • 8 -c,.,
c
w . 9- • 6
1012.5 I - - -.
� - •
...„ - .._. ._a_._ .... _ i*. may. -
_
1012 - _
A� /� M - 2
`
1011.5 D A - AA AAltAAAA � -I, A A _ _A r A A A „ ., AAA _\ _ A i- n• A _ 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
-Water Level(ft) DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -Bankfull Elevation(ft) Logger Elevation
-Daily Rainfall(in) - - -30th Percentile - - -70th Percentile • 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in)
Site Info Year 2(2021)Streamflow Data
Stream Red Barn Mitigation Bank Gauge ID RBSG4
Reach UT2c Start Date 1/1/2021
Date Installed 7/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2021
Serial Number 20234989 Flow Criteria (Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation (ft) 1012.09
Controlling Grade Elevation (ft) 1012.74
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 1013.78
Most Consecutive Days of Flow 327
Total Days of Flow 327
Max High Water Level Above Bankfull (ft) 3.76
Bankfull Events 10

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Streamflow Data
RBSG5
1027 I 16
1026.8
- 14
1026.6
- 12
1026.4
1026.2 _ - 10
c '"
v
o t
▪ 1026 • Mi 1 8 u
co . a
✓ 1025.8 • • 6
w — - _
i
1025.6 � _ - - - •
1025.4 � _ ' i - - _ � _ �
-� 2
1025.2 A A ^^ M
1025 TA n� _At _A
Ae AI► _�� A A A _ ..11 1 A A A .. .. LA _ PI A — n• A 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
-Water Level(ft) DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -Bankfull Elevation(ft) Logger Elevation
-Daily Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile 2020 Monthly Rainfall(in)
Site Info Year 2(2021)Streamflow Data
Stream Red Barn Mitigation Bank Gauge ID RBSG5
Reach UT3c Start Date 1/1/2021
Date Installed 7/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2021
Serial Number 20234995 Flow Criteria (Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation (ft) 1025.19
Controlling Grade Elevation (ft) 1025.91
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 1026.68
Most Consecutive Days of Flow 327
Total Days of Flow 327
Max High Water Level Above Bankfull (ft) 0.08
Bankfull Events 2

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Streamflow Data
RBSG6
1043.8 16
1043.6
- 14
1043.4 -
� �� - 12
1043.2
1043 10
c '"
v
▪ 1042.8 •• • 8 u
> • c
✓ 1042.6 • •LTJ - 6
1042.4 � _ � � - - - - ...• •
— — - 4
1042.2 ... ••• ••• ... .1\..
- - - _ - - - - i _ —• ► _
1042 A� 1 n ^ AI ' . A
- 2
1041.8 - A _ AAN'lA A AA 1 L AA A _ _ . 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
-Water Level(ft) DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -Bankfull Elevation(ft) Logger Elevation
-Daily Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile • 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in)
Site Info Year 2(2021)Streamflow Data
Stream Red Barn Mitigation Bank Gauge ID RBSG6
Reach UT4 Start Date 1/1/2021
Date Installed 7/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2021
Serial Number 20234987 Flow Criteria (Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation (ft) 1042.53
— — — Controlling Grade Elevation (ft) 1042.70
Note:Gauge data from SG6 was corrupted from Bankfull Elevation (ft) 1043.45
3/17/21-8/24/21 and the data was not recoverable. Most Consecutive Days of Flow 93
The gauge appears to be functioning as normal as of Total Days of Flow 169
December 2021. Max High Water Level Above Bankfull (ft) 0.05
Bankfull Events 1

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Streamflow Data
RBSG7
1051.5
I I i t •
- 16
- 14
- 12
1051
^. - 10
4-
c '"
o a,
.� 1050.5 1 8 u
w ....
i - 6
' ' * ..-ti• _ _
s` 4
1050 � � � � �
_ ....
JC_� _ fa JC A� A A ^1049.5A 6 n� _A A A AA w11 11 T :JI A :T :1-
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
-Water Level(ft) DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -Bankfull Elevation(ft) Logger Elevation
-Daily Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in)
Site Info Year 2(2021)Streamflow Data
Stream Red Barn Mitigation Bank Gauge ID RBSG7
Reach UT3a Start Date 1/1/2021
Date Installed 7/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2021
Serial Number 20234988 Flow Criteria (Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation (ft) 1049.86
Controlling Grade Elevation (ft) 1050.40
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 1051.26
Most Consecutive Days of Flow 327
Total Days of Flow 327
Max High Water Level Above Bankfull (ft) -0.15
Bankfull Events 0

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Groundwater Data
RBWG1
1021 16
- 14
1020 - - 12
1019 _— - -
r - 10
I
a)
::::
mowritioI • • 18- - - - — —
• 6
— — —
- 11- _ — • _
—
jilt 1 M { II q / �1
i/�.i/ 1 ilk A. a k ii fR Ai i/ .„ i ii ,i , �`i i 1 he
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
Water Level(ft) — — —Ground Elevation(ft) 12 in.Below Ground
— — —Begin Growing Season — — —End Growing Season Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info(Year 2) Growing Season Information(Year 2-2021)
Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Begin Date 1/1/2021 Gauge ID RBWG1
End Date 11/23/2021 Serial# 20234991
Total Days of Well Data 327 Growing Season Start Date 4/8/2021
Growing Season End Date 10/26/2021
Total Growing Season Days 201
NRCS Soil Series Dillard Fine Sandy Loam
10.0% Growing Season(Days) 20
12.5% Growing Season(Days) 25
Most Consecutive Successful Days Within Growing Season 1
Percent of Growing Season with Consecutive Successful Days 0.5%
Average Water Level Elevation During Growing Season(ft) 1017.07
Total Cumulative Successful Days Within Growing Season 1

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Groundwater Data
RBWG2
1021 16
- 14
1020 - -
JL
I I II - 12
1019
c v
1018 • • — i 8
kwrttivewor-,1 c
a) • �w. - 6
w 1017
� — - • -
— •
— - - - 4
1016 — . . . . . — — — — 1— — — — — — _ _ — — — — — — _ — — — •
11
Sf� �R ti L, A' i Pw n s I 2
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
Water Level(ft) — — —Ground Elevation(ft) 12 in.Below Ground
— — —Begin Growing Season — — —End Growing Season Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info(Year 2) Growing Season Information(Year 2-2021)
Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Begin Date 1/1/2021 Gauge ID RBWG2
End Date 11/23/2021 Serial# 20234992
Total Days of Well Data 327 Growing Season Start Date 4/8/2021
Growing Season End Date 10/26/2021
Total Growing Season Days 201
NRCS Soil Series Dillard Fine Sandy Loam
10.0% Growing Season(Days) 20
12.5% Growing Season(Days) 25
Most Consecutive Successful Days Within Growing Season 2
Percent of Growing Season with Consecutive Successful Days 1.0%
Average Water Level Elevation During Growing Season(ft) 1017.32
Total Cumulative Successful Days Within Growing Season 3

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Groundwater Data
RBWG3
1021 16
- 14
1020 - - _
- , — — — I - 12
1019I. 1 -
- - - 10
v)
v
•° 1018 • — i - 8 �
co c
a) •w 6
1017
� — - • -
- - 4
L.-
1016 — . . . . . — — — — i— — — — — — — — — • — — — — — ' _ - — — —
11
Sf� , �R ti . �' i pi, n s I 2
�. S . 4 p i* ► i w n �S A A i i, . h h �1. . p . ' i•
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
Water Level(ft) — — —Ground Elevation(ft) 12 in.Below Ground
— — —Begin Growing Season — — —End Growing Season Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info(Year 2) Growing Season Information(Year 2-2021)
Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Begin Date 1/1/2021 Gauge ID RBWG3
End Date 11/23/2021 Serial# 20234993
Total Days of Well Data 327 Growing Season Start Date 4/8/2021
Growing Season End Date 10/26/2021
Total Growing Season Days 201
NRCS Soil Series Dillard Fine Sandy Loam
10.0% Growing Season(Days) 20
12.5% Growing Season(Days) 25
Most Consecutive Successful Days Within Growing Season 1
Percent of Growing Season with Consecutive Successful Days 0.5%
Average Water Level Elevation During Growing Season(ft) 1017.28
Total Cumulative Successful Days Within Growing Season 1

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Groundwater Data
RBWG4
1021 16
14
1020
12
1019 I — - - — — — — — — — —
I10
▪ 1018 -- — -- • 8 c
co
a) •
_ 6
w 1017 I i I — —
- - � . — • 4
1016 — — — — — — _ — — — — — — _ - — ' — - — — _ — _ _ _ — —
• s n - - - -
II
Sf� . �Rti . L �' i ,A Pw n s •
1015 , . . ,4 ..i 10 n.vS ---:1:,:.'.n__ i..-n_8:--'�---'--- -., _,)* .,.0` i i-"---= ji a ,__. 4_ ' ` • 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
Water Level(ft) — — —Ground Elevation(ft) 12 in.Below Ground
— — —Begin Growing Season — — —End Growing Season Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info(Year 2) Growing Season Information(Year 2-2021)
Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Begin Date 1/1/2021 Gauge ID RBWG4
End Date 11/23/2021 Serial# 20727104
Total Days of Well Data 327 Growing Season Start Date 4/8/2021
Growing Season End Date 10/26/2021
Total Growing Season Days 201
NRCS Soil Series Dillard Fine Sandy Loam
10.0% Growing Season(Days) 20
12.5% Growing Season(Days) 25
Most Consecutive Successful Days Within Growing Season 2
Percent of Growing Season with Consecutive Successful Days 1.0%
Average Water Level Elevation During Growing Season(ft) 1016.73
Total Cumulative Successful Days Within Growing Season 6

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Groundwater Data
RBWG5
1021 16
14
1020 -
12
1019 -
- - — - - I 10
c al
•° 1018 • • 11 8
1017LTJ ... i .... — - - - -
— —
— -
— — — 4
1016 — — — — — — — — — — — — .... .... — — ' — — _ — - — _ _ - - _ •
—
• s - - -
Sf� 1 �Rti I �' i Pw n s 2
%. ti . %{'', ► r ' $ i r :1 �1. . . ' i•
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
Water Level(ft) — — —Ground Elevation(ft) 12 in.Below Ground
— — —Begin Growing Season — — —End Growing Season Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info(Year 2) Growing Season Information(Year 2-2021)
Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Begin Date 1/1/2021 Gauge ID RBWG5
End Date 11/23/2021 Serial# 20727107
Total Days of Well Data 327 Growing Season Start Date 4/8/2021
Growing Season End Date 10/26/2021
Total Growing Season Days 201
NRCS Soil Series Dillard Fine Sandy Loam
10.0% Growing Season(Days) 20
12.5% Growing Season(Days) 25
Most Consecutive Successful Days Within Growing Season 5
Percent of Growing Season with Consecutive Successful Days 2.5%
Average Water Level Elevation During Growing Season(ft) N/A
Total Cumulative Successful Days Within Growing Season 13

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Groundwater Data
RBWG6
1021 16
14
1020 -
12
1019 -
10
I + al
I
:::
__ �' 1 I_ _ � 1\s
- - — — — — — — - -
O. — — — • -
- . 4
1016 — . . . . . . — — — i— — — — — - - — - • — - — — — — _ — - —
• s - - - - -
•
Sf� k :Rti . L, A I A Pw n s 2
1015 . . . �. ..i u0 n.vS ---:1:.....,11 --.L..-n_8:--j ..,--- -.,! _-._�6�. '�` i i-"---= I a , ^ �`__ I As . 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
Water Level(ft) — — —Ground Elevation(ft) 12 in.Below Ground
— — —Begin Growing Season — — —End Growing Season Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info(Year 2) Growing Season Information(Year 2-2021)
Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Begin Date 1/1/2021 Gauge ID RBWG6
End Date 11/23/2021 Serial# 20727112
Total Days of Well Data 327 Growing Season Start Date 4/8/2021
Growing Season End Date 10/26/2021
Total Growing Season Days 201
NRCS Soil Series Dillard Fine Sandy Loam
10.0% Growing Season(Days) 20
12.5% Growing Season(Days) 25
Most Consecutive Successful Days Within Growing Season 3
Percent of Growing Season with Consecutive Successful Days 1.5%
Average Water Level Elevation During Growing Season(ft) 1016.57
Total Cumulative Successful Days Within Growing Season 11

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Groundwater Data
RBWG7
1021 I - 16
1020 1019 — — —— — - - 14
I 12
_
- - - - ( 10
t 11: \406 a)
•° 1018 1 I • 8 c
co c
w 1017 - - - - - -
O. - - - • -
— — 4
1016 . - . . . . . •— — — _ i— _ — — — — — — — • _ — — — — _ — — — •
Sf� k
s - - - - -
2:R �ti A '. � i � Pw n s
1015 . . . “. ..i u0 n.vS ---:1:.....,11 --.%.._n_8:--.! ..,--- -., __._�6�. '� �'` 1 i-"---= L a , ^ 8`__ I . 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
Water Level(ft) — — —Ground Elevation(ft) 12 in.Below Ground
— — —Begin Growing Season — — —End Growing Season Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info(Year 2) Growing Season Information(Year 2-2021)
Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Begin Date 4/9/2020 Gauge ID RBWG7
End Date 1/1/2019 Serial# 20727109
Total Days of Well Data 0 Growing Season Start Date 4/8/2021
Growing Season End Date 10/26/2021
Total Growing Season Days 201
NRCS Soil Series Dillard Fine Sandy Loam
10.0% Growing Season(Days) 20
12.5% Growing Season(Days) 25
Most Consecutive Successful Days Within Growing Season 2
Percent of Growing Season with Consecutive Successful Days 1.0%
Average Water Level Elevation During Growing Season(ft) 1017.59
Total Cumulative Successful Days Within Growing Season 5

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Groundwater Data
RBWG8
1024.7 L 16
1024.2 14
•
4\1\*44til4
1023.7 12
414.4(
1023.2 ( _ AietN1 `h, _ II\*NI y �` 10
v)
v
1022.7 •• • - 8 u
co c
w 1022.2 • •
— — —
1021.7O. - - - - � � � ' � • 4
- - - - - - g - - - _ _ - •' - - _ _ — — —
1021.2 ! ' 1 1, —• - 2
•
AP •, } H 4 11 n n O
1020.7 - .
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
-Water Level(ft) — — —Ground Elevation(ft) 12 in.Below Ground
-Begin Growing Season — — —End Growing Season Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info(Year 2) Growing Season Information(Year 2-2021)
Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Begin Date 1/1/2021 Gauge ID RBWG8
End Date 11/23/2021 Serial# 20727114
Total Days of Well Data 327 Growing Season Start Date 4/8/2021
Growing Season End Date 10/26/2021
Total Growing Season Days 201
NRCS Soil Series Dillard Fine Sandy Loam
10.0% Growing Season(Days) 20
12.5% Growing Season(Days) 25
Most Consecutive Successful Days Within Growing Season 44
Percent of Growing Season with Consecutive Successful Days 21.9%
Average Water Level Elevation During Growing Season(ft) 1023.27
Total Cumulative Successful Days Within Growing Season 170

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Year 2 (2021) Groundwater Data
RBWG9
1030 I 16
1029.5 14
1029 — I - — - — — — - - 12
1028.5 10
c - --- JP14 a,
° 1028 • 8 u
r ( c
w 1027.5 • _ ca
— • — 6
� — • - - -
1027 — — — '� 4
R.1026.5 ;, • 2
4 t' } ' A 0 �i n ^ i
�i i A n,1"'(i,� , n A I s ,i i A iA }i ,. ,10 0 ? i i n }f` iii A i. i�•
1026 .. ..,. .•1. ,. . .'_._1 t,a : ._, -----^-- 0
1/1/2021 1/31/2021 3/2/2021 4/1/2021 5/1/2021 5/31/2021 6/30/2021 7/30/2021 8/29/2021 9/28/2021 10/28/2021 11/27/2021 12/27/2021
Date
-Water Level(ft) — — —Ground Elevation(ft) 12 in.Below Ground
-Begin Growing Season — — —End Growing Season Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2021 Monthly Rainfall(in) — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info(Year 2) Growing Season Information(Year 2-2021)
Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Begin Date 1/1/2021 Gauge ID RBWG9
End Date 11/23/2021 Serial# 20727115
Total Days of Well Data 327 Growing Season Start Date 4/8/2021
Growing Season End Date 10/26/2021
Total Growing Season Days 201
NRCS Soil Series Dillard Fine Sandy Loam
10.0% Growing Season(Days) 20
12.5% Growing Season(Days) 25
Note:WG9 was relocated to within the Most Consecutive Successful Days Within Growing Season 116
conservation easement on 4/8/2021 Percent of Growing Season with Consecutive Successful Days 57.7%
Average Water Level Elevation During Growing Season(ft) 1028.38
Total Cumulative Successful Days Within Growing Season 165

Table 11. Wetland Hydrology Annual Summary
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Performance Standard: 10%
WETS Station: Mount Airy 2 W,NC
Monitoring Growing Season: 4/8 to 10/26(201 days)
Gauge Max.Consecutive Hydroperiod(%)
MY1(2020) MY2(2021) MY3(2022) MY4(2023) MY5(2024) MY6(2025) MY7(2026)
Days* %** Days % Days % Days % Days % Days % Days %
RBWG1 2 1.0% 1 0.511
RBWG2 1 0.5% 2 1.0%
RBWG3 2 1.0% 1 0.5%
RBWG4 3 1.5% 2 1.0%
RBWGS 12 6.0% 5 2.5%
RBWG6 6 3.0% 3 1.5%
RBWG7 12 6.0% 2 1.0%
RBWG8 57 28.4% 44 21.9%
RBWG9 1 0.5% 116 57.7%
Meets Success Criteria
*Most consecutive successful days within the growing period
**Percent of the growing season represented by period of most consecutive days of gauge success.
Appendix D ECOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank PLANNINGO
g EPR RESTORATION

Appendix E
Project Timeline and Contact Information
Table 12. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 13. Project Contacts Table

Table 12. Project Activity and Reporting History
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 1 yrs 9 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 1 yrs 9 months
Number of reporting Years: 2
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery
Institution Date - Oct-17
404 permit date - Nov-19
Final Mitigation Plan 2018 to 2019
Final Design—Construction Plans - Nov-19
Site Earthwork Dec 2019 to April 2020 Apr-20
As-Built Survey Performed May-20 May-20
Bare root plantings - Apr-20
As-built Baseline Monitoring Report(Monitoring Year 0) May-20 Jun-20
Year 1 Monitoring Nov-20 Dec-20
Supplemental plantings - Apr-21
Repairs on UT3c crossing - Apr-21
Year 2 Monitoring Nov-21 Dec-21
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
Appendix E ECOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank PLANNING&
g EPR RESTORATION

Table 13. Project Contacts Table
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration,PLLC
Designer
1150 SE Maynard Rd.Ste 140 Cary, NC 27511
Primary project design POC Kevin Tweedy, PE(919)388-0787
Construction Contractor North State Environmental
2889 Lowery St,Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Construction contractor POC Darrell Westmoreland
Survey Contractor Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
PO Box 148,Swannanoa, NC 28778
Survey contractor POC Lissa Turner(919)827-0745
Planting Contractor North State Environmental
2889 Lowery St,Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Planting contractor POC Darrell Westmoreland
Seeding Contractor North State Environmental
2889 Lowery St,Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Contractor point of contact Darrell Westmoreland
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes and Son Nursery
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration,PLLC
Monitoring Performers
Stream Monitoring POC Cidney Jones, EPR(919)388-0787
Vegetation Monitoring POC Tom Barrett, EPR(919)388-0787
Appendix E
Red Barn Mitigation Bank ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
EPR RESTORATION

Appendix F
Conservation Easement Annual Monitoring
Pre-Closeout Conservation Easement Annual
Monitoring Form

0
I I
Unique Places
To Save
Pre-Closeout Conservation Easement
Annual Monitoring Form
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Name of Property: Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Property Acreage: 25.4 acres
Date Easement Granted: 8/28/2019
Owner Name: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Owner Email: [e-mail]
Owner Phone: [phone]
MONITORING INFORMATION
Date of Inspection: 11/18/2021
General Weather Conditions (temp, cloud cover, precip): Clear, low 60's, no rain
Any Third Parties Attending Inspection: N/A
Time Spent on Inspection: 5 hours
Was Owner Contacted Prior to Inspection?: Yes
Is the Property Currently for Sale?: No

MONITORING OBSERVATIONS
Was fencing fully intact and in good condition?
(if no,please describe and mark on monitoring map location of downed fencing)
Yes,no problems with fencing were found.
Are conservation signs visible and in good condition?
(if no,please describe and indicate how many signs need to be replaced and where on monitoring map)
Yes.All Conservation Easement signs are fully visible and in good condition.
Is there any evidence of trespassing,trash dumping,vandalism or vehicular use?
(if yes,please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
There was evidence of minor easement encroachment. It appears a mower or small
tractor had accessed the easement near the boundary in the area of UT3. This is the
same area that was noted in Monitoring Year 1 and was discussed with the
landowner. This will be addressed again with the landowner as soon as possible.
Is there any evidence of animal grazing, mowing, or disturbance of native vegetation?
(if yes,please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
No evidence of grazing, mowing,or disturbance of native vegetation was present.
Is there any evidence of erosion within the Conservation Area?
(if yes,please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
No erosion was present within Conservation Easement.
Is there any evidence of invasive plant growth or establishment?
(if yes,please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
No significant areas or invasive plant growth or establishment were noted during
visit. There were instances where a single invasive such as Chinese privet or
multiflora rose was found in the easement,but no significant colonization of these
invasives was found.All invasives will be spot sprayed and treated as needed during
Monitoring Year 3. The bamboo that was noted in the MY1 map was determined to
be located outside the easement boundary. This area will continue to be monitored
to ensure the bamboo does not start to grow into the easement.

Is there any evidence of new infrastructure, new roads, or soil disturbance?
(if yes,please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
No new infrastructure, roads or soil disturbances were found in Conservation
Easement aside from the UT3 easement encroachment that was previously
mentioned.
Describe any other activities that may be inconsistent with the Conservation Easement:
(if yes,please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
No other activities that are inconsistent with the Conservation Easement were noted.
SUMMARY OF MONITORING VISIT
Does Unique Places to Save need to be informed of any changed conditions or activities
observed during the monitoring site visit?
(if yes,please summarize why UP2S needs to be informed)
No.
Did the person monitoring the Property observe any potential violations of the
Conservation Easement?
(if yes,please summarize potential violation)
Minor easement encroachment was observed. No other violations existed.
Suggest any actions that should be taken as a result of this site monitoring visit:
The landowners were contacted about the issue regarding easement encroachment
in 2020, and will be discussed again in winter 2021/2022. EPR will coordinate with
the landowner to take action against continued encroachment in 2022.At a
minimum, EPR will install more frequent signs and posts through this area to make
the easement boundary more apparent.
Please suggest any actions that need to be taken for the next annual monitoring visit:
Current contractors and landowners will again been contacted about the easement
encroachment issue. EPR subcontracted to have well,water lines, and cattle
drinkers installed in 2021 and that work was completed in November 2021.

CONTACT INFORMATION & DECLARATION OF ACCURACY OF MONITOR
Name: Russell Myers
Affiliation (company): Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
12/8/2021
Signature of Monitor Date
*This report is a record of one person's observations during one visit.It is not intended to be a statement of landowner compliance of the
conservation easement.
DESCRIPTION OF ENCLOSURES AND ATTACHMENTS
Indicate the number of the following items accompanying this report:
Aerial photos
2 Ground photos
3 Maps and Illustrations
Other
If attachments are separated from this report, note their location:

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 2
.4,
,..
.. ,.... ,v,...p. , , ,
_ ,,
e � P- - ,- y
,. . ,. ..r, ,,,....,,,,,„...
, r
, f
, .tit1 7...,,,,,,,,„.,,,v,,,,,t,
, ,,,,(,1,4,1;#=z,u-
-, .., „!,:p.„:„,t,„
.
yy
Vehicle tracks through edge of conservation easement along UT3.
Facing west(11/19/2021)
I �+ 4 y f .. to,it.,.
i
a»+ r Y y
i4;,.� � 1 dSr r._��. vit� � Jii . { . }
.- �� ta a, mF�I �' ' � �,' %y E;' ' YM (, , k v, at F, � of i yr4' '-" , , £ ,4� .r ,�} da § , � ( ""e Y 4 9 4 ; ,7P4"jA ax `"+ 7i Y � sqe a f s' . ,fa ��Ir�t ' t� " ; "' e "a , 7 ` r�,e - c°y � `" in
W.
.. ^ 1� Y ; a
��. " 4- ram r t4- 4 .u k i t k i J ;^
'{ 3 it f 4 f 'x'i, 4 i /1:41---:'':.:-,1,,,,- ',,,:-":`', ' -.4•.;,,„'• ,:,v,11, FW-t.,9i--,'. --,'9.1.- ,, '-,,..,.,-. )
Vehicle tracks through edge of conservation easement along UT3.
Facing east(11/19/2021)
ECOSYSTEM
Red Barn Mitigation Bank PLANNING&
RESTORATION

i
UT1a
//---- \ ----
•
- 1114
:: „'2
XS2_ B--
r I
SG1 PR15 ME
VPF2
I..1 'i. ""iti'#10
WA
\`---
rPF3 UT1 b
47. —,,,...,
•
RAIN c, GE''...... (15::. •\\: /
WG3• : {'
-RV@
RAIN G, • E © i p
b.
XS4
� G4 WB
2 •
'Og VPF4
VPR1 4.
XS �`�
U T1 c - :'.. WG '.::: •.••.'.
VPR21 NC OneMap Orthoimagery(2018)
) Photo Points ---- Cross Section Structures Vegetation Plots Monitoring Gauges
Gates Wetland -Creation Top of Bank Fixed Plot-Successful ED Baro Gauge
Fencing k•:::°::':•.1:•1 Wetland - Existing Pre-Existing Streams Fixed Plot- Unsuccessful EA Rain Gauge
Project Streams Easement Encroachment Area 1 Random Plot Successful EA Stream Gauge
Conservation Easement V///I Random Plot- Unsuccessful ED Wetland Gague
0 100 200 N RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
Feet CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: ASSET MAP
1 inch=200 feet MY2: 2021
FIGURE 2A SURRY COUNTY, NC DEC 2021

XS4 ./ . ,
2 WG4 WB
�g VPF4 � u ? s'
cr
XSS% ,.
UT1c tfilr : :.::i
VPR21. .. ::�
wW�c
�cs
1000B
S9
�- \13'�. ::.::. y VPF6 V'
l�
(:VPF7 Et' 1 if ,.a,
y
0 !
VPR 9 -- --i UT2b
-- A
18
SG4 VPF8
UT2c
Pedestrian Crossing
0
19 V R18 5
30 ,
29 4-4
j # ti !,
VPR12 XS1
i�- d
......,,,,,, ,(\ ,
UT3d 4 E ' f) -
V1I.� $ ,, y
,,i,,. " UT3c S .y4":
� ; NO 3ne1A Orthoimagery(2018)
0 Photo Points ---- Cross Section Structures Vegetation Plots Monitoring Gauges
A Gates Wetland-Creation Top of Bank Fixed Plot-Successful • Baro Gauge
+1 Fencing r.•::'::•:•:::.1 Wetland- Existing Pre-Existing Streams Fixed Plot- Unsuccessful ED Rain Gauge
Project Streams Easement Encroachment Area K///1 Random Plot-Successful ED Stream Gauge
Conservation Easement V///I Random Plot- Unsuccessful • Wetland Gague
o 100 200 N RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
Feet CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: ASSET MAP
1 inch=200 feet MY2: 2021
FIGURE 2B SURRY COUNTY, NC DEC 2021

F 4
N ,,,,t*
WC / � �,
i 4;[
l
- /I -„yr
WG8 i 'M' 1 '(1 1 r ,.
• BA )R 4
VPF9
K
"'
-XS16 Riffle Crossing
G9
®G® ©�
N
‹.............. _____.
VPF10
UT3c VPR13 _ 4 * .
UT4
XS15
UT3b / XS18 A Conservation Easement
XS141 31 Encroachment Area
, G6 a SG7 1VPR14
3 ® ,
I
XS13
+� i UT3a i VPF11
"R f I�W1, /
'1 I
!4a� XS 12
Kt
If'_
"--,0- .'�
.'.. ,_ , NC OneMap Orthoimagery(2018)
0 Photo Points ---- Cross Section Structures Vegetation Plots Monitoring Gauges
A Gates Wetland-Creation Top of Bank Fixed Plot-Successful • Baro Gauge
+1 Fencing .•::'::':•:::•1 Wetland- Existing Pre-Existing Streams Fixed Plot- Unsuccessful ED Rain Gauge
Project Streams Easement Encroachment Area K///1 Random Plot-Successful ED Stream Gauge
Conservation Easement V///I Random Plot- Unsuccessful • Wetland Gague
o 100 200 N RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
Feet CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: ASSET MAP
1 inch=200 feet MY2: 2021
FIGURE 2C SURRY COUNTY, NC DEC 2021

Appendix G
IRT Correspondence
IRT Site Visit Meeting Notes from March 23, 2021
MY1 Credit Release Letter

Cidney Jones
From: Kevin Tweedy
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:20 AM
To: Leslie, Andrea J; Davis, Erin B; Steve Kichefski
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Wilson, Travis W.; Cidney Jones;Jake Byers
Subject: DRAFT Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2021
Attachments: Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes 20210323_draft.docx
Please see attached for draft meeting minutes from the IRT visit to our Red Barn Bank Site in Surry County on
Wednesday of this week. Please let me know if you have any comments/additions that should be made. Thanks—have
a great weekend!
-Kevin
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
E P RESTORATION
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Vice President
Principal Water Resources Engineer
1150 SE Maynard Road
Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
919-388-0787 (office)
919-999-0262 (cell)
919-388-0789 (fax)
Blockedwww.eprusa.net
III 0 MI

ECOSYSTEM
rEPLANNING&
PR RESTORATION
Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes
Date: March 23, 2021
Time: 3:00—5:10 PM
Location: Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site; Mount Airy, NC
Attendees: Steven Kichefski - USACE
Todd Tudwell—USACE
Erin Davis - NCDEQ
Andrea Leslie—NC WRC
Jake Byers- EPR
Kevin Tweedy—EPR
Minutes:
• Minutes recorded by Kevin Tweedy and Jake Byers.
• Kevin and Jake started the meeting with a brief overview of the site conditions at the end of
Year 1 monitoring, and concerns/issues that were raised in the Year 1 monitoring report,
which included:
o Most groundwater wells did not meet wetland hydrology criteria. Group discussed
options of changing the wetland crediting for the site, or possible abandoning
wetland credits all together. EPR is going to evaluate in the future and decide, and
until that point will not request further wetland credit releases.
o Update on easement encroachment issues.
o Stream flow in UT1 and possible relocation of stream gage SG2.
o Replanting of some areas with higher tree mortality.
• The group walked north and started the site walk approximately 400 feet downstream of
the start of UT1.The following notes are in regards to discussions during the walk of UT1:
o Corps commented that some of the planted stems were very small. EPR attributes
some of the higher mortality to the size of the stems that were planted and is one of
the reasons supplemental planting is proposed.
o Group inspected the conditions of Wetland WA in the vicinity of WG1, above the UT1
culverted crossing. EPR explained that the pre-restoration wetland hydrology
appears to have been driven by perched water, and a depressional landscape. After
restoration, the stream is providing some drainage of the valley, and there appears
to be no connection between the local water table and the stream water level. Group
agreed that hydrology in this area will be hard to obtain except for some isolated
pockets, without a complete redesign and reconstruction. EPR is evaluating options
for this area.
o Group crossed the culverted crossing to the downstream reach of UT1. Group
inspected the location of stream gage SG2. After discussion and review of the rest of
UT1, Group agreed to leave SG2 in its current condition.
o Corps noted that there was vegetation in lower end of UT1 and that flow as obviously
reduced. Corps mentioned that they allow providers to remove vegetation from the

channel during the first 3 monitoring years with no penalties to allow the stream to
stabilize. Any "cleaning" should not be done right before a scheduled IRT field visit.
o Group discussed performance of wetland gages WG4 and WG5, near the confluence
of UT1 and UT2. Discussed poor performance of gages, and EPR's belief that the
situation could be improved by cutting off some surface drainage that appears to be
occurring.
• Group then walked to the upper end of UT2. Concern as expressed about the sand load in
the middle of the reach, but conditions appeared better at the top of the reach. EPR
explained that while the sand load is high from offsite, the stream appears to be processing
the sand without aggradation of the stream.
• Group briefly looked at wetland WB in the vicinity of gage WG7 on the south side of UT2
and noted it had hydrology and standing water.
• Group continued down UT2. EPR noted the wet floodplain that has formed along much of
UT2 from approximately the culverted crossing downstream. Corps confirmed that any
wetland credits developed from these areas would be at a "creation" ratio, due to the depth
of cut.
• Group inspected the foot bridge on lower UT2. No concerns were expressed.
• Group continued up UT3. Group noted the wetland around well WG8 appeared much
wetter than others, and it was the one well that met criteria during the previous year.
• Group looked at location of well WG9 which was mistakenly installed just outside the
proposed wetland line. EPR explained that they planned to move well WG9 downstream
slightly to get away from the ATV crossing. Corps suggested to relocate this well to the south
side of UT3.
• Group discussed the ATV crossing. EPR explained that they plan to lay the left bank back
slightly and install stone, so that an ATV can cross easier. EPR also explained that they
expect very little is any ATV traffic in the future.
• Tour concluded around 5:10. Steve said that he would issue the credit release letter for Year
1 (which will be stream credits only) later that week. EPR will evaluate options for the
wetland on the site and notify the Corps of any plans before any actions are taken.
• Corps confirmed that if EPR determined that wetland assets were not viable or they did not
want to pursue, only a delineation at close out would be required to ensure that the total
wetland area was not reduced. The Corps would also take into account that the pre-
restoration wetlands were generally low quality.

� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
4-Ye'1 WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
a 151 PATTON AVENUE
l a 11 4) ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
TFdf4
STATES OF•
April 20, 2021
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2017-01927
Re: MY1 credit release of the Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Mr. Kevin Tweedy
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration, PLLC
1150 SE Maynard Rd., Ste 140
Cary,NC 27511
Dear Mr. Tweedy:
This correspondence is in reference to the Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Report and request
for credit release, dated January 19, 2021, for the Red Barn Mitigation Bank. Also please
reference the NC Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) site visit meeting held on June 23, 2021
and the site visit meeting minutes provided by EPR via email on March 26, 2021. The Red Barn
Mitigation Bank Site is located off Ester Drive/Timeless Trail Road, south of NC 80 and
approximately 0.5 miles west of Mount Airy in Surry County,North Carolina. The 25.4-acre site
project entails stream restoration and enhancement generating cool stream mitigation units
(SMU's), as well as,wetland rehabilitation and creation generating riparian wetland mitigation
units (WMU's) along tributaries to Stewarts Creek, in the Upper Yadkin Watershed of the Upper
Pee Dee River Basin (03040101).
Pursuant to the Mitigation Banking Instrument(UMBI) entitled, "Agreement to Establish
the Red Barn Mitigation Bank in the Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101), Surry County,North
Carolina", approved December 18, 2019; and the site-specific Red Barn Final Mitigation Plan
dated November 2019,ten percent(10%) of the mitigation site's total stream restoration and
enhancement credits shall be available for sale immediately upon completion of the required
tasks.
The MY1 Report and cover letter referenced, document that most wetland gauges on the
Site are not meeting the hydroperiod performance criteria. EPR is evaluating its options in this
regard and no wetland credit for is currently being released for MY1.

By copy of this correspondence, we confirm that you have satisfied the above
requirements for the Year 1 cool stream credit release for all parcels within the bank and 803.2
SMU's are now available for sale. To date, 3,212.8 SMU's constituting forty percent(40%) of
the site's total stream restoration and enhancement credits, as well as, 0.61 WMU's constituting
thirty percent(30%) of the site's wetland rehabilitation and creation credits have been released
for sale.
During the NCIRT site meeting of March 23, 2021, several comments were made by
agency representatives regarding concerns noted with site conditions. Many of these concerns
were summarized in the site visit minutes submitted on March 26, 202. Those and other agency
concerns include:
1. IRT concerns over most wetland gauges on the Site not meeting the hydroperiod
performance criteria. EPR needs to determine their recommended course of
action. If this involves abandoning wetland credits,the IRT needs to be notified,
the WMU's already released will need to be addressed, as well as, an evaluation
of whether there was a reduction of wetland, as a result of the project.
2. Continued concerns regarding the amount of sediment deposition on UT2 where it
enters the project area and now further down that reach. Continue to update on
this area in future monitoring reports.
3. Graphs on page 87-102, need to fix right side y axis to reflect rainfall in inches
per month (not per day).
4. The vegetation plot data appears to be heavily influenced by Sycamore
throughout the site creating dominant species composition criteria to be exceeded
in many locations, mainly the random plots.Not very concerned with mortality at
this point although another year of abnormal precipitation patterns may influence
the outcome of MY2. Recommend EPR moving forward with AMP for planting
bare root stock to increase species diversity and stem density.
5. Stream Gage SG2 can remain in its current location and the IRT concurs with
moving WG9 to just within the wetland boundary.
6. Vegetation was noted in the lower end of UT1 and the IRT expressed concern for
the long-term presence of a stream channel versus wetland. Continue to update on
this area in future monitoring reports.
7. Notification is needed once the amend and release to the CE is finalized in the
three areas agreed upon.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,please contact
Steve Kichefski at(828) 271-7980 extension 4234.
Sincerely,
for
Scott Jones, Chief
Asheville and Charlotte Regulatory Field Offices

Electronic Copies Furnished:
Erin Davis (NCDWR)
Andrea Leslie (NCWRC)
Travis Wilson (NCWRC)
Holland Youngman (USFWS)
Todd Bowers (USEPA)
Todd Tugwell (USACE)
Kim Browning (USACE)
Casey Haywood (USACE)
Scott Jones (USACE)