20180182 Ver 1_Red_Barn_MY3_2022_FINAL_01202023_20230120

ID#* 20180182 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 01/23/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/20/2023
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O 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 STREAM Site
County: Surry
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Red _ Barn _MY3_2022_FINAL _01202023.pdf 44.67MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Jordan Cocanower
Signature: *

Year 3 Monitoring Report
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Surry County, North Carolina
Monitoring Year 3
Data Collection Period: Submission Date:
September 2022 December 2022 January 2023
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01927
Prepared For: Prepared By:
US Army Corps of Engineers Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Wilmington District 1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 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 ........................................................................................................ 13
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Data ..................................................................................................... 13
3.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 14
TABLES
TABLE 1. PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES AND CREDITS3
TABLE 2. GOALS, PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS
TABLE 3. PROJECT ATTRIBUTE TABLE
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 3 Monitoring Report
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
Vegetation Photo Log
Photo Log
Stream Gauge Photo Log
Wetland Gauge Photo Log
Additional Photos
Appendix B: Vegetation Plot Data
Tables 6a. through 6c. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Tables
Table 7a. through 7b. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Tables
2022 Supplemental Planting List
MY3 Supplemental Planting Maps
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
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
MY2 Credit Release Letter

Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina

1.0 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) 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
intermittent tributary
The Project also raised and reconnected stream beds to an active floodplain to restore a
stream-wetland complex within the 25.3-acre conservation easement. The MY1 and MY2
Reports document that most wetland gauges on the Site were not meeting the hydroperiod
performance criteria. On February 11, 2022 EPR submitted an MBI modification to reflect that
wetland mitigation units will no longer be a part of the Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site. USACE
approved the MBI modification on July 7, 2022 (Appendix G). Wetland Monitoring will no
longer be discussed in this and future reports, though wetland gauge data is provided in
Appendix D. 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).
Њ͵Њ Dƚğƌƭ ğƓķ hĬƆĻĭƷźǝĻƭ
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
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.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina
1

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 2020 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 and supplemental planting was conducted to replace planted saplings under
warranty according to the Mitigation Plan with no deviations of density or species. Additional
supplemental planting along with minor channel vegetation clearing using hand tools along
approximately 100 feet of lower UT1a and 200 feet of UT2a occurred during March 2022.
Additionally, the Johnson property was sold to David Torres in 2022. A detailed timeline of the
Project activity and reporting history are provided in Appendix E.

Њ͵Ћ tĻƩŅƚƩƒğƓĭĻ /ƩźƷĻƩźğ
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, the As-built Baseline Monitoring Report, and the MBI modification.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina
2

3

water mark.
included in mitigation included in mitigation
-

moved downstream
aligned during
not

-
channel through wetland

Notes/Comments

Creditable length begins following utility easement.Narrow baseflowmay not maintain highCulverted crossing not included in mitigation length. Culverted crossinglength. Channel reconstruction
to avoid bedrock.Pedestrian crossing not included in mitigation length.Culverted crossing not length. Riffle crossing not included in mitigation length. Jurisdictional point during
construction.

0
3986
688160127
15671186102313781087
Credits
Mitigation

0000000000000000
555
.00000
Original
1.0000001.000001.000001.000001.1.000001.1.000002.51.
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)

----
P1P1P2P1P2P2P1
Level
Priority

-
RRRRRR
EIEIEI
EII
Level
Original
Restoration

CoolCoolCoolCoolCoolCoolCoolCoolCoolCoolCool
Original
Category
Mitigation
Thermal Regime

)

built

97
-
538688240190130
ft/ac 15671186102313781087
(
As

)

67

97
538688240190134
ft/ac
151186101113781087
(
on Plan
Original Mitigati
Monitoring Report

County, North Carolina

3

Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Year Surry

UT4
UT1cUT2cUT3c
UT1aUT2aUT3a
UT1bUT2bUT3bUT3d
Project
Component
(reach ID, etc.)
Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits

4

Marsh

Coastal

Rip Wetland
-

Non

Riverine
-
Non
Credits

Riparian Wetland

Riverine

(continued)

Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category

Cold

Credits

Cool

39.000

373.000

6929.000
7341.000

Stream

Warm
Monitoring Report

County, North Carolina

3

Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Year Surry
. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits

1

establishment
-
Table Restoration Level RestorationReEnhancementEnhancement IEnhancement IIRehabilitationPreservationCreation Totals

5

(Continued)

238.490
929.870691.390
-
7341.0008032.390

standard Buffer Width calculation using Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator (Updated 1/19/2019)
Buffers
-

Monitoring Report

County, North Carolina

3
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Year Surry
Total Base SMCs
Total Adjusted SMCs*
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
Net Change in Credit from
Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits*Credit adjustment for Non

is

4)
-
not

and

)

The area
es
(VP

1

6
(

of 320
do

dominated

One
19)
is

-
) random
1
(

(VPR

vegetation plots

One
vegetation plot

not meet the performance

permanent
Cumulative Monitoring Results es

The visual assessment shows there has been no easement encroachment during MY3.of previous encroachment found during MY1/MY2 has regrown and shows no signs of use. Allmeet the success
criteria stems/acre in Year 3.permanentdostandard for species diversitydominated by sycamore.All random vegetation plots meet the success criteria of 320 stems/acre. vegetation plotmeet
the performance standard for species diversity and by sycamore.

and

st

and leaf

st
0.02 acre in

surveyed during
age.
Data collection
Plots
Assessment

built, Years 1, 2, 3,
-
Measurement the easement.
Visual
drop. Data collection
10 randomly selected
plots, 0.02 acre in size built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and
-
includes species, height,
leaf drop.
11 permanent vegetation
size (minimum), surveyed
planted vs. volunteer, and
7 between July 1
Annual Random Vegetation
includes species and height.
Permanent Vegetation PlotsAs
(minimum),
during As
vegetation plots, 5, and 7 between July 1
Conducted yearly throughout

age 7
species
.
tree
320 native
and 210

installed to
4

.
ing
roject streams and
Recordation and protection of aconservation easement meeting USACE guidelines.Visual inspection offencexclude cattle fromthe stream and riparian buffer,demonstrating noencroachmentRestore
minimum 30ft. buffers between Psurrounding agricultural and suburban land uses.Vegetation success criteria of stems/acre in Year 3,260 native stems/acre in Year native stems/acre in
Year 7Trees must averfeet in height at Year 5, and 10 feet in height at Year 7.Any single can only account for50% of the required stems per monitoring plot.
Performance Criteria

as

Uplift
Likely Functional
The exclusion oflivestock hasremoved a directsource of nutrients,coliform, and sediment from the system, as well as amajor contributorto channelinstability.Restored riparian buffers
will provide woody debris and detritus for aquaticorganisms, reduced water temperatures and increased dissolved oxygen concentrations,well as shade to the stream resources.

buffers,

between activebetween active

provide organic matter
buffer widthsbuffer widths
Objective/Treatment
Monitoring Report
Reduce the amount of land in activelivestock pasture.Exclude livestock from riparian buffers,streams, and wetlands.Increase distance between activefarming operations and receivingwaters.Restore
riparian buffers to filter runoff.Stabilize eroding stream banks.Reduce the amount of land in activelivestock pasture.Exclude livestock from riparian buffers,streams, and wetlands.Increase
farming operations and receivingwaters.Restore riparian buffers to filter runoff.Decrease drainage ofrestored/enhanced wetlands,promoting higher water table conditions, and denitrification.Reduce
the amount of land in activelivestock pasture.Exclude livestock from riparian streams, and wetlands.Increase farming operations and receivingwaters.Restore riparian buffers to filter
runoff.Restore riparian buffer vegetation tofilter runoff and and shade.Rehabilitate existing riparian wetlands and decrease drainage of createdriparian wetland areas.Protect riparian
buffers, streams, and wetlands with a permanentconservation easement.

County, North Carolina

3
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Year Surry
Goals, Performance and Results
.

2

Goal
Table Reduce sediment inputs and stream turbidityReduce nutrient inputsReduce Fecal Coliform InputsRestore / Enhance Degraded Riparian Buffers

No
stable,
section

-
.

continue
7

to small

year.

ue
condition and
monitoring, so a

during Monitoring

3
monitoring, so no

3
surveyed.
dimensions, the 10%
monitoring
monitoring cross

Note that d
were observed.
ty or degradation were
built monitoring. No signs
3
-
this
observed
out of seven stream gauges

Year
adjustments in dimensions.six
performing as intended

process the increased sediment
channel
Year 1. during MY
additional cross sections were
No instability was documented
Stream photo points and visual
Cumulative Monitoring Results
change in BHR occurs with small
survey indicates that the Project
significant stream problem areas
on
streams are in good
to Bankfull events were documented
streams are geomorphically
supply
The
and some restored reaches
A full longitudinal survey of the Project streams was conducted during Asof instabilinoted during MYnew profile was not surveyed. assessment indicate that all restored

ere

.
built
-
on UT4
on UT3, and

monitoring
Stream ProfileCross Sections
Measurement
Visual AssessmentVisual Assessment
cross section
documented during
longitudinal survey on all
1
18 total cross sections.
Conducted yearly on all
5 cross sections on UT1, 6 cross sections on UT2,
cross sections
Additional Cross Sections

restored stream channels.
Photos of Flood Indicators
during Years 1,2,3,5, and 7.
Cross sections are surveyed
6
Only surveyed if instability is
Full restored and enhanced stream channels. Data wcollected during Assurvey only (unless otherwise required).
-

-

.
ams must

.
Water Mark
-

eam types and 1.4
All stremaintain an Ordinary High(OHWM), per RGL 0505.Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 for all measured cross sections on a given reachEntrenchment ratio (ER) must be 2.2 or
above for all measured riffle crosssections for C/E stror above for B stream typesBHR should not change by more than 10% in any given year for a majority of a given reach.Documentation
of four bankfull events in different years throughout the monitoring period.
Performance Criteria

-

Uplift
Likely Functional
Riparian buffers and wetlands will provide diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and setting.The addition of instream structures helps to ensure
channel stability and will provide greater bedform diversity, enhancing aquatic habitat for native species.

foot riparian
-

stream structures to provide stream structures to provide

--
Objective/Treatment

Monitoring Report
Restore minimum 30buffers between suburban homes and receiving waters.Protect riparian buffers, streams, and wetlands with a permanent conservation easement.Restore stream channels with
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.Install instream channel and stream bank stability. Restore riparian buffer to provide bank protection and stability.Exclude livestock from
riparian buffers, streams, and wetlands.Protect riparian buffers, streams, and wetlands with a permanent conservation easement.Exclude livestock from riparian buffers, streams, and
wetlands.Restore stream channels with appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.Install inimproved aquatic habitat.

County, North Carolina

3
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Year Surry
Goals, Performance and Results

.

2

Goal
Table Reduce Urban/ Suburban Stormwater RunoffReduce Stream Channel and Stream Bank InstabilityImprove Aquatic Habitat

met the
indicate

,
8
3
C
, with the
throughout the year.
Cumulative Monitoring Results
that all Project streamsestablished success criteria of 30
days or more of consecutive flow
Flow gauge data from MY
exception on SG2 on UT1

Monitoring
Measurement
Stream Hydrology
rain gauge will record
the monitoring period.
pressure transducers and a
data continuously through
7
precipitation and streamflow

at

of

function

will be performed
preliminary
Documentation of 30 days of consecutive stream flow in all reaches each monitoring year.A jurisdictional determination (PJD)prior to closeout to ensure no losswetlandthe Site.
Performance Criteria

channel
Uplift
-
been

Likely Functional
Wetland hydrology and inhydraulics havelikelyimproved by restoring Project channels to their historic valley, raising the streambeds, and connecting them to adjacent wetlands at lower
flows.

and

restored

Objective/Treatment
Monitoring Report
Raise and reconnect the stream beds to an active floodplain.Decrease drainage of restored/enhanced wetlands, promoting higher water table conditions, and denitrification.Exclude livestock
from riparian buffers, streams, and wetlands.Protect riparian buffers, streams, wetlands with a permanent conservation easement.Restore wetland vegetation.

County, North Carolina

3
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Year Surry
Goals, Performance and Results
.

2
Goal
Table Improve Wetland Function

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 USGS Hydrologic
03040101 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%
Pasture (22.5%), Forest (27.3%), Residential (21.3%),
CGIA Land Use Classification
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,
Unconfined Unconfined Confined Confined
moderately confined, unconfined)
47.4 acres / 0.05 sq. 93.23 acres / 82.21 acres / 0.25 10.22 acres / 0.02
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
mi. 0.15 sq. mi. sq. mi. sq. mi.
Perennial/
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral 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?
USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 - ID # SAW-
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes
2017-01927
DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4134
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes
- ID # 18-0182
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and General Permit NCG010000 - ID # SURRY-2020-
Yes Yes
Sediment Control) 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)
Surry County Zoning Permit approved
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes
8/23/2019
Essential Fisheries Habitat No - N/A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina
9

2.0 MONITORING DATA ASSESSMENT
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) data were collected September through December 2022. 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) and the MBI modification (approved July 2022).
Ћ͵Њ {ƷƩĻğƒ aƚƓźƷƚƩźƓŭ
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 Dimension
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 3 monitoring cross-section survey indicates that the Project streams are
geomorphically stable and restored channel dimensions have not changed significantly during
Monitoring Year 3. Stream cross-sections showed only minor fluctuations compared to MY2. All
cross-sections met the performance criteria as established in the Mitigation Plan and shown in
Table 2:
Cross-section 9, riffle on UT2b the BHR was decreased by 13%. In MY2 the BHR at this
cross-section was increased by 10% from the As-Built condition. The channel bed was
UT2b is
stable without evidence of widespread aggradation, conditions are expected to improve
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 10
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina

with increased shading. Also on UT2b, XS8 showed adjustment through MY1 (decrease
in area) and MY2 (increase in area), so sediment may be processing through the reach.
Cross-section 11, riffle on UT2c the BHR increased by 16% from MY2 conditions. This
does not concern EPR as the current BHR shows only a 9% increase from As-Built
conditions. The cross-section appears stable and there is no apparent incision.
Cross-section 12, riffle on UT3a the BHR reduced 24% from MY2. This cross-section
has aggraded over the course of a year. Vegetation in channel may have exaggerated
this aggradation slightly. EPR will continue to watch this cross-section closely over MY4
to determine if any action is necessary.
Cross-section 14, pool on UT3a
instability, structure or headcuts were observed in MY3. EPR will continue to watch this
cross-section closely over MY4 to determine if any action is necessary.
Cross-section 18, riffle on UT4 the BHR increased 18%, from MY2. Overall, UT4 is very
stable with little aggradation or erosion. The drainage area to this cross-section is small
and the observed adjustment back toward design bankfull dimensions 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. Deposition
seems limited in MY3 compared to past monitoring years, with little aggradation present as
shown by the cross-section plot overlays. Cross-sections will continue to be monitored to
ensure they maintain their stable geomorphic forms. The cross-section plots, photos, and data
summary (Table 9) are included in Appendix C.
2.1.2 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.
2.1.3 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 3.
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.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 11
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina

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.
Channel vegetation clearing was performed in small sections of UT1a and UT2a in March 2022
in response to large amounts of herbaceous vegetation growing from the streambed. While
clearing was effective in the short term, it was found that the vegetation grew back in areas
where the channel was not shaded. EPR expects to see more channel shading in the future as
streamside woody vegetation continues to grow. This should reduce the in-stream vegetation
and the need for channel maintenance in the way of channel clearing in the future.
2.1.4 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 3 (MY3) and rainfall data are presented in the flow gauge
plots in Appendix D.
Flow gauge data from MY3 indicate that all Project reaches, except for SG2 on UT1c, 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. Most gauges show periods of continuous flow with infrequent
periods of little to no flow during the monitoring year. The exception to this is SG2 on UT1c.
SG2 shows periods of no or very low flow during much of MY3.
SG2 on UT1c does not show the 30 days of continuous flow as required. While 5 bankfull
events were recorded over the course of MY3, continuous flow is lacking. It is possible
that extremely low precipitation during the late fall/early winter months (October-
December 2022) contributed to the lack of continuous flow during spring in MY3. In past
monitoring years, these are months of low infiltration and generally coincide with the
start of the continuous flow period. SG2 will be watched closely in the future to garner
the necessary hydrologic information needed to determine success.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 12
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina

Recorded bankfull events at Red Barn Mitigation Site ranged from no events (UT3a) to 14
separate bankfull events (UT1a). UT3a reported 3 bankfull events in MY1 that exceeded the
bankfull elevation of 1051.04 feet. In January 2021, the gauge was re-surveyed and the bankfull
elevation was reported as 1051.26, which is 0.22 feet higher than the previous value. The
maximum stage recorded at SG7 in 2021 was 1051.11 feet and the maximum stage recorded at
SG7 in 2022 was 1051.16 feet. UT3a experienced one near bankfull event in MY3 and will
continue to be monitored. This gauge will be re-surveyed in MY4. The dates and timing of the
bankfull events correlated with significant rainfall as recorded by the tipping bucket rain gauge
on site.
Ћ͵Ћ wźƦğƩźğƓ ĻŭĻƷğƷźƚƓ aƚƓźƷƚƩźƓŭ
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,
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.
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Data
Eleven (11) permanent riparian vegetation monitoring plots were established across the site
(Plot 1 through Plot 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 11 permanent plots, 10 randomly placed vegetation plots are
established each year and the location of these plots is recorded using a GPS. All riparian
vegetation plots for MY3 are shown in the CCPV (Figure 2). Table 5 in Appendix A summarizes
the results of a visual review of the conservation easement, mapping of any bare areas, areas of
low stem density, invasive species, or easement encroachments.
Easement encroachment had been previously noted in both MY1 and MY2. This encroachment
involved a tractor being driven into the easement, leaving a two-track trail that destroyed some
vegetation. As of MY3, there is no evidence of encroachment at the Site and the two-track trail
previously mentioned has grown up and is no longer noticeable. Appendix F contains photos of
MY1/MY2 easement encroachment and its current state. More information on the
encroachment and corrective actions are documented in MY1 and MY2 reports, Appendix F.
Year 3 vegetation monitoring occurred in September and October 2022 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 9 trees per plot (364 trees
per acre) in VP-5 to 27 trees per plot (1093 trees per acre) in VPR-9. The average density of
planted stems from all 21 riparian vegetation plots (permanent and random) was 15.8 trees per
plot (640 trees per acre). All plots are meeting the interim success criteria for stem density for
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 13
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina

Monitoring Year 3. In VP-4 and VPR-19 a single species (sycamore) exceeded 50% of the stems
in those plots. Riparian herbaceous vegetation is flourishing throughout the Site and stream
side woody vegetation is beginning to shade out the stream.
VP-4 does not meet performance standards for species diversity (56% dominant species
composition). This plot will continue to be monitored closely as EPR believes with time
this plot will meet performance standards.
VPR-19 does not meet the performance standard for species diversity (58% dominant
species composition). Because this plot has 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 diversity will continue to
be monitored in MY4. It is anticipated that additional trees will become more evident in these
areas as the trees grow above the grass stage. EPR selectively planted additional stems in small,
low-stem density areas across the site on March 30, 2022, to replace dead trees and increase
species diversity. These plantings consisted of both bare roots and one-gallon containerized
trees. Supplementally planted species followed the approved species list as laid out in the
Mitigation Plan. Plant spacing was done based solely on visual assessment as to gauge where
these supplementals would be most beneficial. This effort has clearly succeeded in bringing the
site into compliance as all vegetation plots meet performance standards for stem density. It is
anticipated that as understory vegetation begins to thin in coming years, species diversity will
increase as more trees are found. Supplemental planting maps and species list can be found in
Appendix B.
Invasive spot treatment took place March 30, during MY3. This treatment seems to be effective
as 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 4.

3.0 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.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site 14
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina

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 15
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, North Carolina

Appendix A
Table
Table

100%100%100%100%100%100%
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
0000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
Totals
5233
Total
As-built
Number in
5233
Stable,
Number
Performing
as Intended
Metric
include undercuts that are modest,
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT1
NOT
Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
UT127935586Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapseGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. Bank erosion
within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document)
Surface Scour/Bare BankToe ErosionBank FailureGrade ControlBank Protection
Major Channel Category
Appendix ARed Barn Mitigation Bank
Reach IDAssessed Stream Length (ft)Assessed Bank Length (ft)Bank Structure

100%100%100%100%100%100%
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
0000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
Totals
4238
Total
As-built
Number in
4238
Stable,
Number
Performing
as Intended
Metric
include undercuts that are modest,
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT2
NOT
Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
UT224494898Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapseGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. Bank erosion
within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document)
Surface Scour/Bare BankToe ErosionBank FailureGrade ControlBank Protection
Major Channel Category
Appendix ARed Barn Mitigation Bank
Reach IDAssessed Stream Length (ft)Assessed Bank Length (ft)Bank Structure

100%100%100%100%100%100%
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
0000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
Totals
9970
Total
As-built
Number in
9970
Stable,
Number
Performing
as Intended
Metric
include undercuts that are modest,
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT3
NOT
Table 4c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
UT327925584Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapseGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. Bank erosion
within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document)
Surface Scour/Bare BankToe ErosionBank FailureGrade ControlBank Protection
Major Channel Category
Appendix ARed Barn Mitigation Bank
Reach IDAssessed Stream Length (ft)Assessed Bank Length (ft)Bank Structure

-
100%100%100%100%100%
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
0000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
Totals
80
Total
As-built
Number in
80
Stable,
Number
Performing
as Intended
Metric
include undercuts that are modest,
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site - UT4
NOT
Table 4d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
UT4130260Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapseGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. Bank erosion
within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance document)
Surface Scour/Bare BankToe ErosionBank FailureGrade ControlBank Protection
Major Channel Category
Appendix ARed Barn Mitigation Bank
Reach IDAssessed Stream Length (ft)Assessed Bank Length (ft)Bank Structure

0.0%0.0%0.5%0.0%0.5%0.0%
0.00%
% of Planted Acreage
% of Easement Acreage
0.
0.000.100.100.000.100.0
Combined AcreageCombined Acreage
Total
None
0.1 acres0.1 acres0.1 acres
0.25 acres
Cumulative Total
Mapping ThresholdMapping Threshold
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
20.7DefinitionsVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.Planted areas where average
height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.25.4DefinitionsInvasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the
total easement acreage. Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native, 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 violation of restrictions
specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless
of impact area.
Appendix ARed Barn Mitigation Bank
Planted AcreageVegetation CategoryBare AreasLow Stem Density AreasAreas of Poor Growth Rates Easement AcreageVegetation CategoryInvasive Areas of ConcernEasement Encroachment Areas

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 3-VegetationPhoto Log
VegetationPlot 1 (Fixed) NWCorner (10/12/2022)VegetationPlot 2(Fixed)E Corner (10/12/2022)
VegetationPlot 3(Fixed) NCorner (10/12/2022)VegetationPlot 4(Fixed) W Corner (10/12/2022)
VegetationPlot 5 (Fixed) SECorner (10/12/2022)VegetationPlot 6 (Fixed) WCorner (10/12/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

VegetationPlot 7 (Fixed) W Corner (10/12/2022)VegetationPlot 8 (Fixed) W Corner (9/14/2022)
VegetationPlot 9 (Fixed) S Corner (9/14/2022)VegetationPlot 10(Fixed) S Corner (9/14/2022)
VegetationPlot 11 (Fixed) SE Corner (9/14/2022)VegetationPlot 12(Random)(9/14/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

VegetationPlot 13(Random)(9/14/2022)VegetationPlot 14(Random)(9/14/2022)
VegetationPlot 15(Random)(9/14/2022)VegetationPlot 16(Random)(10/12/2022)
VegetationPlot 17(Random)(10/12/2022)VegetationPlot 18(Random)(10/12/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

VegetationPlot 19(Random)(10/12/2022)VegetationPlot 20(Random)(10/12/2022)
VegetationPlot 21(Random)(10/12/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 3 - Photo Log (Photo Points)

UT1

Photo Point 1 Sta. 12+25 Photo Point 2 Sta. 14+35
Facing Upstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)

Photo Point 3 Sta. 14+40 Photo Point 4 Sta. 21+70
Facing Downstream (12/13/2022) Facing Downstream (12/13/2022)

Photo Point 5 Sta. 23+80 Photo Point 6 Sta. 29+60
Facing Downstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

UT1

Photo Point 7 Sta. 31+50 Photo Point 8 Sta. 31+50
Facing Downstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)
UT1 UT2

Photo Point 9 Sta. 34+40 Photo Point 10A Sta. 10+40
Facing Upstream (12/13/2022) Facing Downstream (12/13/2022)

Photo Point 10B Sta. 10+40 Photo Point 11 Sta. 14+75
Facing Upstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)

Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

UT2

Photo Point 12 Sta. 15+80 Photo Point 13 Sta. 18+65
Facing Upstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)

Photo Point 14 Sta. 22+00 Photo Point 15 UT2 Culvert
Facing Upstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)

Photo Point 16 UT2 Culvert Photo Point 17 Sta. 29+50
Facing Downstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)

Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

UT2

Photo Point 18 Sta 31+36 Photo Point 19 Sta 34+10
Facing Downstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream, Pedestrian Crossing (12/13/2022)

UT3

Photo Point 20 Sta. 13+50 Photo Point 21 UT3 Culvert
Facing Upstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)

Photo Point 22 UT3 Culvert Photo Point 23 Sta. 22+00
Facing Downstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

UT3

Photo Point 24 Sta. 25+50 Photo Point 25 Sta. 28+05
Facing Upstream (12/13/2022) Facing Downstream (12/13/2022)

Photo Point 26 Sta. 30+75 Photo Point 27 Sta. 33+00
Facing Upstream, ATV Crossing (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)

Photo Point 28 Sta. 36+00 Photo Point 29 Sta. 36+65
Facing Upstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)

Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

Photo Point 30 Sta. 36+85
Facing Downstream (12/13/2022)
UT4

Photo Point 31 Sta. 10+25 Photo Point 32 Sta. 11+00
Facing Upstream (12/13/2022) Facing Upstream (12/13/2022)

Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 3Stream GaugePhoto Log
Stream Gauge1UT1(12/13/2022)Stream Gauge2UT1(12/13/2022)
Stream Gauge3UT2(12/13/2022)Stream Gauge4UT2(12/13/2022)
Stream Gauge5UT3(11/23/2021)Stream Gauge6UT4(12/13/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

Stream Gauge7UT3(12/13/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 3 Wetland Gauge Photo Log

Wetland Gauge 1 (12/13/2022) Wetland Gauge 2 (12/13/2022)

Wetland Gauge 3 (12/13/2022) Wetland Gauge 4 (12/13/2022)

Wetland Gauge 5 (12/13/2022) Wetland Gauge 6 (12/13/2022)

Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

Wetland Gauge 7 (12/13/2022) Wetland Gauge 8 (12/13/2022)

Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 3Additional Photos
UT1 culvert, facing downstream(12/13/2022)UT2 culvert, facing upstream(12/13/2022)
UT2 culvert,facingdownstream(12/13/2022)UT2 culvert, facing upstream(12/13/2022)
UT3 culvert, facingdownstream(12/13/2022)UT3 culvert, facing upstream(12/13/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

Areaof former encroachment, now regrown
(12/13/2022)
Appendix A
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

AppendixB

# Species# Species# Species# Species
Veg Plot 3 FVeg Plot 6 FVeg Plot 9 F
Veg Plot Group 12 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
# Species# Species# Species# Species
Veg Plot 2 FVeg Plot 5 FVeg Plot 8 F
Veg Plot 11 F
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Table 7a. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
# Species# Species# Species# Species
Veg Plot 1 FVeg Plot 4 FVeg Plot 7 F
Veg Plot 10 F
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.

# Species# Species# Species
Veg Plot Group 15 RVeg Plot Group 18 RVeg Plot Group 21 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
# Species# Species# Species
Veg Plot Group 14 RVeg Plot Group 17 RVeg Plot Group 20 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Table 7b. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
# Species# Species# Species
Veg Plot Group 13 RVeg Plot Group 16 RVeg Plot Group 19 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.

100
($)
to
Cost
up
rounded
were
5951277.50
numbers
($)QuantityTotal
by:TBB
bareroot
Cost
Total
Updated:2/20/2022
t
Updated
Lis
price/stem,
lower
a
HOLD6.5025162.50Ordered1.00100100.00HOLD6.5020130.00Ordered1.25100125.00HOLD6.5025162.50Ordered0.8510085.00HOLD6.5025162.50Ordered1.75200350.00
Planting
BeBeBeBe
OnOnOnOn
receive
Supplemental
SonsToSonsToSonsToSonsTo
&&&&
2022
400100
Barn
3')Dykes4')Dykes4')Dykes4')Dykes
Red
spacing
galBrutongalBrutongalBrutongalBruton
(2(3(3(3
20'
x
450
Neededsay
Neededsay
Trees
Trees
StatusTypeSupplierStatusUnit
90.1Wetland
374.4Riparian
OakFACW1
PlantNote:
elmFACW1elmFACWBR
oakFACBR
bushOBL1
BirchFACWBR
(stems/ac)10920'
SpeciesWet
Chestnut
River
Willow
PersimmonFACBRPersimmonFAC1
(ac)4.1to
Button
AmericanAmerican
Sw.
SupplementalAreaDensityStems446.9say

Appendix C

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS1 - UT1a
Station 11+87 - Pool
XS1 looking upstreamXS1 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1043.971043.981044.061044.10
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.970.890.83
Thalweg Elevation
1042.641042.781043.031043.05
LTOB Elevation
1043.971043.941043.951043.92
LTOB Max Depth
1.331.160.920.87
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
7.366.815.475.29
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS1 Pool -11+87
1050
As-Built - May 2020
1049
Floodprone
Bankfull
1048
MY2-2021
MY1-2020
1047
MY3-2022
1046
1045
1044
1043
1042
1041
1040
0102030405060
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS2 - UT1a
Station 20+33 - Pool
XS2 looking upstreamXS2 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1023.761023.751023.751023.79
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.971.061.03
Thalweg Elevation
1022.851022.801022.711022.90
LTOB Elevation
1023.761023.721023.811023.82
LTOB Max Depth
0.910.921.100.92
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
4.143.904.684.40
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS2 Pool -20+33
1029
As-Built - May 2020
Floodprone
1028
Bankfull
MY2-2021
1027
MY1-2020
MY3-2022
1026
1025
1024
1023
1022
1021
1020
1019
01020304050607080
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS3 - UT1a
Station 22+60 - Riffle
XS3 looking upstreamXS3 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1021.581021.551021.601021.56
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.031.001.04
Thalweg Elevation
1021.111020.981021.041020.98
LTOB Elevation
1021.581021.571021.601021.58
LTOB Max Depth
0.470.590.560.60
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
1.731.831.731.91
Entrenchment Ratio
>6.51>5.63
>6.87>7.3
XS3 Riffle -22+60
1027
As-Built - May 2020
Floodprone
1026
Bankfull
MY1-2020
1025
MY2-2021
MY3-2022
1024
1023
1022
1021
1020
1019
1018
1017
05101520253035404550
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS4 - UT1c
Station 33+64 - Riffle
XS4 looking upstreamXS4 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1018.471018.461018.481018.51
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.071.071.03
Thalweg Elevation
1017.751017.751017.781017.74
LTOB Elevation
1018.471018.511018.531018.53
LTOB Max Depth
0.720.760.750.79
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
3.073.443.393.22
Entrenchment Ratio
>9.29>8.47>8.83>9.59
XS4 Riffle -33+64
1024
As-Built - May 2020
Floodprone
1023
Bankfull
MY1-2020
MY2-2021
1022
MY3-2022
1021
1020
1019
1018
1017
1016
1015
1014
010203040506070
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS5 - UT1c
Station 36+40 - Pool
XS5 looking upstreamXS5 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1017.761017.781017.741017.74
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.051.111.17
Thalweg Elevation
1016.701016.641016.761016.71
LTOB Elevation
1017.761017.841017.851017.92
LTOB Max Depth
1.061.201.091.21
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
5.105.696.457.01
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS5 Pool -36+40
1023
As-Built - May 2020
Bankfull
1022
MY1-2020
MY2-2021
1021
MY3-2022
1020
1019
1018
1017
1016
1015
1014
1013
01020304050607080
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS6 - UT2a
Station 14+74 - Pool
XS6 looking upstreamXS6 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1023.501023.561023.681023.59
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.930.870.90
Thalweg Elevation
1022.131022.001022.261022.25
LTOB Elevation
1023.501023.451023.491023.46
LTOB Max Depth
1.371.451.231.21
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
7.906.815.766.18
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS6 Pool -14+74
1029
As-Built - May 2020
Floodprone
1028
Bankfull
MY1-2020
1027
MY2-2021
MY3-2022
1026
1025
1024
1023
1022
1021
1020
1019
010203040506070
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS7 - UT2a
Station 19+16 - Riffle
XS7 looking upstreamXS7 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1019.491019.511019.551019.58
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.840.890.89
Thalweg Elevation
1018.791018.771018.821018.85
LTOB Elevation
1019.491019.391019.471019.50
LTOB Max Depth
0.700.620.650.65
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
2.952.192.382.39
Entrenchment Ratio
>7.04>6.45>6.68>6.66
XS7 Riffle -19+16
1025
As-Built - May 2020
Floodprone
1024
Bankfull
MY1-2020
1023
MY2-2021
MY3-2022
1022
1021
1020
1019
1018
1017
1016
1015
010203040506070
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS8 - UT2b
Station 22+44 - Pool
XS8 looking upstreamXS8 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1016.721016.931016.661016.78
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.861.040.98
Thalweg Elevation
1015.251015.361015.141015.22
LTOB Elevation
1016.721016.711016.711016.74
LTOB Max Depth
1.471.351.571.52
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
8.476.369.078.11
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS8 Pool -22+44
1022
As-Built - May 2020
Bankfull
1021
MY1-2020
MY2-2021
1020
MY3-2022
1019
1018
1017
1016
1015
1014
1013
1012
05101520253035404550
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS9 - UT2b
Station 24+41 - Riffle
XS9 looking upstreamXS9 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1016.161016.191016.151016.24
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.021.100.97
Thalweg Elevation
1015.301015.301015.331015.44
LTOB Elevation
1016.161016.201016.231016.22
LTOB Max Depth
0.860.900.900.78
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
4.144.404.883.92
Entrenchment Ratio
>6.40>6.35>6.58>6.39
XS9 Riffle -24+41
1021
As-Built - May 2020
Floodprone
1020
Bankfull
MY1-2020
MY2-2021
1019
MY3-2022
1018
1017
1016
1015
1014
1013
1012
1011
0102030405060
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS10 - UT2c
Station 29+27 - Pool
XS10 looking upstreamXS10 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1014.601014.611014.591014.64
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.000.930.87
Thalweg Elevation
1012.531012.401012.551012.59
LTOB Elevation
1014.601014.611014.461014.37
LTOB Max Depth
2.072.211.911.78
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
10.4510.439.208.12
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS10 Pool -29+27
1020
As-Built - May 2020
Bankfull
1019
MY1-2020
MY2-2021
1018
MY3-2022
1017
1016
1015
1014
1013
1012
1011
1010
0102030405060
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS11 - UT2c
Station 32+53 - Riffle
XS11 looking upstreamXS11 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1013.381013.451013.431013.43
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.810.931.08
Thalweg Elevation
1012.561012.761012.701012.69
LTOB Elevation
1013.381013.321013.381013.49
LTOB Max Depth
0.820.560.680.80
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
3.902.813.464.44
Entrenchment Ratio
4.483.634.614.77
XS11 Riffle -32+53
1020
As-Built -May 2020
Floodprone
1019
Bankfull
MY1-2020
1018
MY2-2021
MY3-2022
1017
1016
1015
1014
1013
1012
1011
1010
0102030405060
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS12 - UT3a
Station 11+20 - Riffle
XS12 looking upstreamXS12 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1070.581070.641070.711070.73
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.000.880.65
Thalweg Elevation
1070.071070.131070.201070.36
LTOB Elevation
1070.581070.641070.651070.69
LTOB Max Depth
0.510.510.450.33
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
1.571.581.191.24
Entrenchment Ratio
5.554.713.402.30
XS12 Riffle -11+20
1076
As-Built - May 2020
Floodprone
1075
Bankfull
MY1-2020
1074
MY2-2021
MY3-2022
1073
1072
1071
1070
1069
1068
1067
1066
05101520253035404550
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS13 - UT3a
Station 17+81 - Pool
XS13 looking upstreamXS13 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1052.091051.921052.051052.01
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.080.991.02
Thalweg Elevation
1050.321049.971050.161050.16
LTOB Elevation
1052.091052.081052.031052.05
LTOB Max Depth
1.772.111.871.89
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
8.7910.788.549.27
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS13 Pool -17+81
1058
As-Built - May 2020
Bankfull
1057
MY1-2020
MY2-2021
1056
MY3-2022
1055
1054
1053
1052
1051
1050
1049
1048
051015202530354045
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS14 - UT3a
Station 21+94 - Pool
XS14 looking upstreamXS14 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1041.941042.041041.981041.92
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.931.011.07
Thalweg Elevation
1040.441040.471040.281039.94
LTOB Elevation
1041.941041.941042.001042.06
LTOB Max Depth
1.501.471.722.12
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
6.745.986.877.85
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS14 Pool -21+94
1048
As-Built - May 2020
Bankfull
1047
MY1-2020
MY2-2021
1046
MY3-2022
1045
1044
1043
1042
1041
1040
1039
1038
010203040506070
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS15 - UT3b
Station 24+12 - Riffle
XS15 looking upstreamXS15 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1037.671037.711037.701037.75
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.990.990.96
Thalweg Elevation
1036.901036.871036.851036.97
LTOB Elevation
1037.671037.701037.691037.72
LTOB Max Depth
0.770.830.840.75
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
3.743.673.683.48
Entrenchment Ratio
3.583.433.433.14
XS15 Riffle 24+12
1044
As-Built - May 2020
Floodprone
1043
Bankfull
MY1-2020
MY2-2021
1042
MY3-2022
1041
1040
1039
1038
1037
1036
1035
1034
051015202530354045
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS16 - UT3c
Station 31+49 - Riffle
XS16 looking upstreamXS16 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1026.461026.521026.501026.48
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.001.091.001.07
Thalweg Elevation
1025.811025.911025.791025.80
LTOB Elevation
1026.461026.581026.501026.53
LTOB Max Depth
0.650.670.710.73
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
3.463.983.473.86
Entrenchment Ratio
>5.13>4.92>5.57>5.24
XS16 Riffle 31+49
1032
As-Built - May 2020
Floodprone
1031
Bankfull
MY1-2020
1030
MY2-2021
MY3-2022
1029
1028
1027
1026
1025
1024
1023
1022
0102030405060
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS17 - UT3c
Station 34+91 - Pool
XS17 looking upstreamXS17 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1020.201020.251020.081020.17
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.980.990.94
Thalweg Elevation
1017.741017.651017.561017.61
LTOB Elevation
1020.201020.191020.051020.02
LTOB Max Depth
2.462.542.492.41
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
12.7412.1312.4011.27
Entrenchment Ratio
----
XS17 Pool 34+91
1025
As-Built - May 2020
Bankfull
1024
MY1-2020
MY2-2021
MY3-2022
1023
1022
1021
1020
1019
1018
1017
1016
1015
0102030405060
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot - MY3
XS18 - UT4
Station 10+73 - Riffle
XS18 looking upstreamXS18 looking downstream
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB Bankfull Area
1043.011043.091043.151043.05
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
1.000.790.730.86
Thalweg Elevation
1042.591042.691042.671042.56
LTOB Elevation
1043.011043.011043.021042.98
LTOB Max Depth
0.420.320.350.42
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
1.220.900.790.86
Entrenchment Ratio
2.762.703.312.41
XS18 Riffle 10+73
1049
As-Built - May 2020
Bankfull
1048
Floodprone
MY1-2020
1047
MY2-2021
MY3-2022
1046
1045
1044
1043
1042
1041
1040
1039
05101520253035
Distance (ft)

11111

AppendixD

MY7 (2027)
Days
MY6 (2026)
Days
MY5 (2025)
Days
MY4 (2023)
Overbank Events
7
174347
Days**
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
1 event:
2/4/20226/9/20227/5/20222/4/2022
2/18/20222/24/20223/23/20224/18/20225/23/20225/26/20227/10/20227/27/20228/12/20228/22/202210/1/20222/24/20223/24/20225/27/20228/22/20222/24/2022
MY3 (2022)*
5 separate events:
14 separate events:
Table 10. Stream Flow and Bankfull Event Verification
71
327327
Days**
1/1/20217/2/2021
2/16/20213/19/20218/18/20219/22/20212/13/20212/16/20213/19/20213/28/20213/31/20219/22/2021No events
MY2 (2021)*
6 separate events:6 separate events:
75
266266
Days**
8/5/20208/5/2020
4/13/20205/27/20207/10/20208/12/20208/15/20208/25/20208/31/20209/17/20209/29/202012/4/20204/13/20204/30/20205/20/20205/28/20207/10/20208/12/20208/15/20208/25/20208/31/20209/17/20209/29/202012/5/2020

4/13/2020
10/11/202010/29/202011/12/202011/30/202012/14/202012/16/202012/24/202010/11/202010/25/202010/29/202011/12/202011/30/202012/14/202012/16/202012/25/202010/29/202011/11/202012/14/202012/25/2020

MY1 (2020)*
5 separate events:
18 separate events:21 separate events:
UT1aUT1cUT2a
RBSG1RBSG2RBSG3
Gage ID
*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 DRed Barn Mitigation Bank

MY7 (2027)
Days
MY6 (2026)
Days
MY5 (2025)
Days
MY4 (2023)
Overbank Events
347165347347
Days**
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
2/4/20226/9/20222/4/20222/4/2022
2/24/20223/24/20225/23/20225/27/20227/10/20228/22/202210/1/20222/24/20225/26/20227/10/20228/22/202210/1/20222/24/20223/23/20227/10/20228/22/2022No events
MY3 (2022)*
9 separate events:6 separate events:5 separate events:
93
327327327
Table 10. Stream Flow and Bankfull Event Verification (continued)
Days**
1/1/20211/8/2021
1/12/20212/15/20213/19/20214/11/20216/12/20217/18/20218/18/20219/22/20218/18/20219/22/20219/22/2021No events
MY2 (2021)*
1 separate event:
2 separate events:
10 separate events:
266266266266
Days**
8/5/2020
4/13/20204/30/20205/22/20205/28/20207/10/20208/12/20208/14/20208/24/20208/31/20209/17/20209/29/202012/5/20204/13/20204/30/20205/27/20208/15/20208/31/20209/29/202012/4/20204/13/20204/30/20205/27/20201
2/4/2020
4/13/2020
10/11/202010/25/202010/29/202011/11/202011/30/202012/14/202012/16/202012/24/202010/11/202010/25/202010/29/202011/12/202011/30/202012/14/202012/16/202012/24/202010/11/202010/29/202011/12/202011/30/202
012/14/202012/16/202012/24/202010/29/202011/11/2020
MY1 (2020)*
3 separate events:
21 separate events:15 separate events:11 separate events:
UT4
UT2cUT3cUT3a
RBSG4RBSG5RBSG6RBSG7
Gage ID
*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 DRed Barn Mitigation Bank

Monthly Rainfall (in)

Inches
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches
Elevation (ft)

Inches
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Inches/day
Elevation (ft)

Appendix

Table 12. Project Activity and Reporting History
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:2 yrs 9 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:2 yrs 9 months
1
Number of reporting Years:
3
Activity or DeliverableData Collection CompleteCompletion or Delivery
Institution Date-Oct-17
404 permit date-Nov-19
Final Mitigation Plan 2018 to 2019
-Nov-19
Site EarthworkDec 2019 to April 2020Apr-20
As-Built Survey PerformedMay-20May-20
Bare root plantings-Apr-20
As-built Baseline Monitoring Report (Monitoring Year 0)May-20Jun-20
Year 1 MonitoringNov-20Dec-20
Supplemental plantings-Apr-21
Repairs on UT3c crossing-Apr-21
Year 2 MonitoringNov-21Dec-21
MBI Modification/Landowner Change-Feb-22
Supplemental Plantings/Channel Clearing-Mar-22
Year 3 MonitoringDec-22Jan-23
Year 4 Monitoring--
Year 5 Monitoring--
Year 6 Monitoring--
Year 7 Monitoring--
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
Appendix E
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

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 POCKevin Tweedy, PE [phone]
North State Environmental
Construction Contractor
2889 Lowery St, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Construction contractor POCDarrell Westmoreland
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
Survey Contractor
PO Box 148, Swannanoa, NC 28778
Survey contractor POCLissa Turner [phone]
North State Environmental
Planting Contractor
2889 Lowery St, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Planting contractor POCDarrell Westmoreland
North State Environmental
Seeding Contractor
2889 Lowery St, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Contractor point of contactDarrell Westmoreland
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes and Son Nursery
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
Monitoring Performers
Stream Monitoring POCCidney Jones, EPR [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POCTom Barrett, EPR [phone]
Appendix E
Red Barn Mitigation Bank

Appendix

Pre-#«®²¤®´³ #®­²¤±µ ³¨®­ % ²¤¬¤­³
!­­´ « -®­¨³®±¨­¦ &®±¬
This form is to be used in monitoring a conservation easement over a mitigation bank that
is in its Monitoring Phase, which for restoration banks is typically up to 7 years and for
buffer banks approximately 5 years. The form should be completed by either Unique Places
staff. It is understood that the conditions of the Conservation Easement Area during the
Monitoring Period are not reflective of the final conditions once the mitigation bank is
closed out and has been approved as successful by the appropriate regulatory agency.
02/0%249 ).&/2-!4)/.
Name of Property: 2¤£ " ±­ -¨³¨¦ ³¨®­ " ­ª
Property Acreage: ΑΔȁΓ  ¢±¤²
Date Easement Granted:8/28/2019
Name and Contact Information for Bank Sponsor: %¢®²¸²³¤¬ 0« ­­¨­¦  ­£ 2¤²³®± ³¨®­
Landowner Name: $¤¶ ¸­¤ lj 3§ ±®­ #§ ­£«¤±
Landowner Email:[e-mail]
Landowner Phone: ȨΒΒΕȩ ΘΖ1-7474
Landowner Mailing Address: ΐΒΏ #«¤³¨´² -®²¤± 4± ¨«
-®´­³ !¨±¸Ǿ .# ΑΖΏΒΏ
--------
Landowner Name: 4¤±±¸ lj $¤¡®± § "¤ ²«¤¸
Landowner Email:[e-mail]
Landowner Phone: ȨΒΒΕȩ ΖΗΘ-8938
Landowner Mailing Address: ΑΗΕ #«¤³¨´² -®²¤± 4± ¨«

-®´­³ !¨±¸Ǿ .# ΑΖΏΒΏ
--------
Landowner Name: $ µ¨£ 4®±±¤²
Landowner Mailing Address: ΑΒΓΓ 4´±ª¤¸ &®±£ 2£
-³ȁ !¨±¸Ǿ .# ΑΖΏΒΏ
-/.)4/2).' ).&/2-!4)/.
Date of inspection: 12/13/2022
General weather conditions (temp, cloud cover, precip): /µ¤±¢ ²³Ǿ «®¶ ΓΏ²Ǿ ­® ± ¨­
Any third parties attending inspection: N/A
Time spent on inspection: Δ §®´±²
Was the Landowner contacted prior to inspection, if so, did the Landowner accompany
monitor for site visit?: No
Is the larger Property currently for sale or has there been any subdivision of the larger
Property or Conservation Easement Area?: 4§¤ « ±¦¤± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ­®³ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¥®± ² «¤
 ­£ ³§¤±¤ § ² ­®³ ¡¤¤­  ­¸ ²´¡£¨µ¨²¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸Ǿ ¡´³ ³§¤ *®§­²®­ ¯±®¯¤±³¸
¶ ² ²®«£ ³® $ µ¨£ 4®±±¤² ¨­ ΑΏΑΑȁ
-/.)4/2).' /"3%26!4)/.3
Was fencing fully intact and in good condition?
(if no, please describe and mark on monitoring map location of downed fencing)
9¤²Ǿ ­® ¯±®¡«¤¬² ¶¨³§ ¥¤­¢¨­¦ ¶¤±¤ ¥®´­£ȁ
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)
9¤²ȁ !«« #®­²¤±µ ³¨®­ % ²¤¬¤­³ ²¨¦­²  ±¤ ¥´««¸ µ¨²¨¡«¤  ­£ ¨­ ¦®®£ ¢®­£¨³¨®­ȁ
Is there any evidence of trespassing, trash dumping, vandalism or vehicular use within the
Conservation Easement Area or directly adjacent?
(if yes, please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
.®ȁ 4§¤ ¬¨­®± ¤ ²¤¬¤­³ ¤­¢±® ¢§¬¤­³ ³§ ³ ¶ ² ­®³¤£ ¨­ -9Α § ² ¢¤ ²¤£  ­£ ­®
¤µ¨£¤­¢¤ ®¥ ¥´±³§¤± ¤­¢±® ¢§¬¤­³ ¶ ² ¥®´­£ȁ

Is there any evidence of animal grazing, mowing, or disturbance of native vegetationwithin
the Conservation Easement Area or directly adjacent?
(if yes, please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
.® ¤µ¨£¤­¢¤ ®¥ ¦± ¹¨­¦Ǿ ¬®¶¨­¦Ǿ ®± £¨²³´±¡ ­¢¤ ®¥ ­ ³¨µ¤ µ¤¦¤³ ³¨®­ ¶ ² ¯±¤²¤­³ȁ
Is there any evidence of erosion within the Conservation Easement Area or directly
adjacent?
(if yes, please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
.® ¤±®²¨®­ ¶ ² ¯±¤²¤­³ ¶¨³§¨­ #®­²¤±µ ³¨®­ % ²¤¬¤­³ȁ
Is there any evidence of invasive plant growth or establishment within the Conservation
Easement Area or directly adjacent?
(if yes, please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
.® ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³  ±¤ ² ®± ¨­µ ²¨µ¤ ¯« ­³ ¦±®¶³§ ®± ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¬¤­³ ¶¤±¤ ­®³¤£ £´±¨­¦
µ¨²¨³ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¶¤±¤ ¨­²³ ­¢¤² ¶§¤±¤   ²¨­¦«¤ ¨­µ ²¨µ¤ ²´¢§  ² #§¨­¤²¤ ¯±¨µ¤³ ®±
¬´«³¨¥«®±  ±®²¤ ¶ ² ¥®´­£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¤ ²¤¬¤­³Ǿ ¡´³ ­® ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¢®«®­¨¹ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤²¤
¨­µ ²¨µ¤² ¶ ² ¥®´­£ȁ !«« ¨­µ ²¨µ¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¯®³ ²¯± ¸¤£  ­£ ³±¤ ³¤£  ² ­¤¤£¤£ £´±¨­¦
-®­¨³®±¨­¦ 9¤ ± Γȁ
Is there any evidence of new infrastructure, new roads, or soil disturbance within the
Conservation Easement Area or directly adjacent?
(if yes, please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
.® ­¤¶ ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤Ǿ ±® £² ®± ²®¨« £¨²³´±¡ ­¢¤² ¶¤±¤ ¥®´­£ ¨­ #®­²¤±µ ³¨®­
Easement.
Describe any other activities within the Conservation Easement Area or directly adjacent
that may be inconsistent with the Conservation Easement:
(if yes, please describe and indicate on monitoring map)
.® ®³§¤±  ¢³¨µ¨³¨¤² ³§ ³  ±¤ ¨­¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ #®­²¤±µ ³¨®­ % ²¤¬¤­³ ¶¤±¤ ­®³¤£ȁ
35--!29 /& -/.)4/2).' 6)3)4
Does UP2S 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)
!² ¬¤­³¨®­¤£ ¯±¤µ¨®´²«¸Ǿ ³§¤ *®§­²®­ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¶ ² ²®«£ ³® $ µ¨£ 4®±±¤² ¨­ ΑΏΑΑȁ
4§¤ « ­£ ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ ¨² ­®³ ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ³® ¢§ ­¦¤  ² ³§¤ ¯¤±²®­ ¶§®  ¢°´¨±¤£ ³§¤
¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¶ ²  «±¤ £¸ «¤ ²¨­¦ ¨³ ¥®± ¢ ³³«¤ ¦± ¹¨­¦ ¡¤¥®±¤ ³§¤ ² «¤ȁ

Did the person monitoring the Property observe any potential violations of the
Conservation Easement?
(if yes, please summarize potential violation)
.® µ¨®« ³¨®­² ¤·¨²³ȁ
Suggest any actions that should be taken as a result of this site monitoring visit:
.®  ¢³¨®­² ­¤¤£¤£.
Please suggest any actions that need to be taken for the next annual monitoring visit:
.®  ¢³¨®­² ­¤¤£¤£ȁ
#/.4!#4 ).&/2-!4)/. lj $%#,!2!4)/. /& !##52!#9 /& -/.)4/2
Name: Jordan Cocanower
Affiliation (company/Bank Sponsor): Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
12/13/2022
_______________________________________________________ __________________________
Signature of Monitor Date
*landowner compliance of the
conservation easement.
$%3#2)04)/. /& %.#,/352%3 !.$ !44!#(-%.43
Indicate the number of the following items accompanying this report:
_____ Aerial photos
2 Ground photos
5 Maps and Illustrations
Other __________________________________________________
If attachments are separated from this report, note their location:

Photo taken during MY2-Vehicle tracks through edge of conservation easement along UT3.
Facing west (11/19/2021)
Current condition(MY3)of easement encroachmentpreviouslyreported during MY2.
Facing west(12/13/2022)

wĻķ .ğƩƓ aźƷźŭğƷźƚƓ .ğƓƉ

Appendix

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
July7, 2022
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2017-01927
Re: MY2credit release and modification approval of theRed 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 tothe Monitoring Year 2(MY2) Reportand request
for credit release,dated February 10, 2022,for the Red BarnMitigation Bank. Also, reference
the Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site MBI Modification,submitted on February 11, 2022, to
remove all wetland mitigation.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. The25.4-acre site project entailsstream restorationand
enhancement, as well as, wetland rehabilitation
and creationalong 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 BarnMitigation Bankin the Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101), Surry County, North
C, approved December 18, 2019; and the site-specific Red BarnFinal Mitigation Plan
dated November2019, tenpercent (10stream restoration and
enhancement creditsshall be available for sale immediately upon completion of the required
tasks.
The MY1and MY2 Reports,document that most wetland gauges on the Site are not
meeting the hydroperiod performance criteria. In accordance with section 332.8 of the mitigation
rule, EPR submitted an MBI modification to reflect that WMUs will no longer be a part of the
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site. This MBImodification reflects that EPRproposes to abandon
wetland credits, cancwetland
assessment at project closeout to ensure that there has been no loss of wetland functionas a
wetland rehabilitation and creation credits have been released for sale. According to EPR, none

WMUs have been withdrawn or sold. EPR provided an updated ledger with their
modification proposal showing that the released WMUs have been deducted from
credits and those previously released had been cancelled. Written concurrence was received from
NCDWR and the USEPA for the proposed modification to remove wetland credit from the
project. WMUs are NOT approved or available from this bank now or in the future.
By copy of this correspondence, we confirm that you have satisfied the above
requirements for the Year 2 cool stream credit release for all parcels within the bank and 803.2
are now available for sale. To date, , constituting fifty percent (50%) of the
have been released for sale. In accordance
with the approved modification, no wetland credit is currently being released for MY2 or will be
released in the future in association with this project.
IRT comments based on the MY2 report are noted below:
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
I have reviewed the MY2 monitoring report for the Red Barn Mitigation Bank dated
January 2022 (incorrect date on cover page) sponsored by EPR. As noted in the report,
during MY2 most wetland gauges on the Site continue to not meet the hydroperiod
performance criteria. Due to poor performance, EPR is proposing to abandon 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 (submitted to
the Corps on 2/10/22). Additionally, in MY2 three small areas (crossings) were released
from the recorded conservation easement.

Overall, I am very pleased with the report and the work that has been completed at the
site as well as efforts towards adaptive management and corrective actions for stream
repairs and invasive species treatments.

Supplemental planting on April 6, 2021 noted.
Additional material added to riffle crossing on UT3c noted.
I concur with EPRs plan to abandon the wetland credits on this site due to
abysmal performance of wetland hydrology. However, I recommend continued
monitoring in case the situation drastically improves and to verify no-net-loss of
wetland within the CE boundaries.
Table 2/Page 10: Vegetation height standard is erroneous. For projects located in
the mountain counties, trees in each plot must average 6 feet in height at year five
and 8 feet in height at year seven.
Vegetation removal from UT2a following USACE guidance was noted. No
comments.
30 days or more of consecutive continuous flow in all channels with the exception
of UT1c was noted. Device failure of SG6 (UT4) also noted. Flow here is not an
issue.
Now that wetland credit is removed from the project, all vegetation monitoring
should be combined to summarize the riparian zone for stream credit fulfillment.
EPRs assessment of dominant vegetation species composition >50% was noted as
little concern at this time. I concur with EPRs plan to plant additional stems in

small low-density areas across the site in early 2022 (this should be complete by
now).
Very little amounts of invasive species across the site with spot treatments
expected was noted. No comments.
Conservation easement encroachment issues and corrective action noted. No
comments.
EPA concurs with EPRs plan to not seek wetland mitigation credit at this site.
Recommend keeping the gauges monitored to see better hydrology develops over
the life of the project.
Supplemental information contained in the appendices (photos, charts, graphs,
data, monitoring notes, IRT site visit minutes) was excellent and greatly
appreciated.
Having not been on-site, I really appreciated the photos in the report. I am disappointed
that wetland hydrology fell far short of the project goals and theability to generate credit.
I am pleased that EPR will continue to monitor/delineate the pre-project wetlands to
ensure no-net-loss occurs. I recommend the appropriate credit release for cool stream
SMUs for this monitoring milestone and I concur with EP
and credit adjustments per the Modification Request n and those outlined in the MY2
report.
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1.DWR has no comments/questions for the provider. We are ok with the proposed
credit release and the requested project modification. We do not need to
participate in a site visit as part of this review.
2.From memory, some of the stream reaches appeared questionable (stream vs.
wetland) during thelast site visit. However, all cross sections appear stable and
a bit surprised by the lack for bankfull events on UT2A and UT3A.
Steve Kichefski, USACE:
1.Continue to watch cross-section fluctuations as noted in Section2.1.1, especially
cross-section 12 on UT3a.Cross-section 18 was not mentioned in this section but
appears to show aggradation and a shift in ER>10%.
2.Stream Gauge2 in located in the newly constructed reach UT1c and showsflow
trends as intermittent despite upslope having perennial flow. EPR mentions
vegetation cleanout for this reach as needed. It will be of interest to the IRTif this
reach will be able to maintainits channel during the monitoring period and
establishment ofwoody vegetationto shade herbaceousvegetation will likely be
important to its success.
3.While vegetation plots 1 and 5 did not meet year 3density targets(or year 7
targets for Plot 1), several other plots (4, 10, 13,14, 15, 17 and 19) do not meet
dominant species composition. Although EPR does not propose corrective action
at this time, the IRT will be monitoring future diversity progress. In the MY2
-

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
season, were they larger in size then typical bare root plantings and did they
follow the original site planting plan compositionanddensity? If planting was
done within veg plots, were they documented the way original veg plots were set
up?Remember that supplemental plantings and volunteer plants must be present
for at least two growing seasons before counting toward meeting performance
standards for monitoring year five and seven. Also, any single species stems in
excess of 50% should still be shown on the monitoring table butcannot be used to
demonstrate success.
4.Glad invasive spot treatments will be done in MY3. Make sure to notethis in the
MY3 report.
5.Table 5 and Figure 2C mentionand/or depicta site encroachment, however this
should be noted in the report results in the future. Since the encroachmenthas
occurred more thanonce, increased measures to stop the pattern should betaken.
Please provide more information as to the encroachment and the corrective
actions takenin MY3 report.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
Steve Kichefski at [phone] 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)
Byron Hamstead(USFWS)
Todd Bowers (USEPA)
Todd Tugwell (USACE)
Kim Browning (USACE)
Casey Haywood (USACE)
Scott Jones (USACE)