20180182 Ver 1_DRAFT_Red Barn MBI_Dec 2018_20190218

ECOSYSTEM
.. PLANNING &
RESTORATION
DRAFT
MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT
AND
MITIGATION PLAN
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Surry County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID No. SAW -2018-1441
RFP No. 54 -JC -03040101, 16-006993
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
December 2018

AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE RED BARN MITIGATION BANK
IN THE YADKIN RIVER BASIN (HUC 03040101), SURRY COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
December 2018
USACE approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory approval required for the Red
Barn Mitigation Bank Site to be used to provide compensatory mitigation for Department of the
Army permits pursuant to 33 C.P.R. 332.8(a)(1). This Instrument is not a contract between the
Sponsor or Property Owner and USACE or any other agency of the federal government. Any
dispute arising under this Instrument will not give rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property
Owner for monetary damages. This provision is controlling notwithstanding any other provision
or statement in the Instrument to the contrary.
This Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) is made and entered into on this day of
2019, by Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR), PLLC hereinafter Sponsor,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and each of the following agencies, upon its
execution of this MBI; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The Corps, together with
the State and Federal agencies that execute this MBI, are hereinafter collectively referred to
as the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish a mitigation bank (Bank) providing
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts separately authorized by
Section 404 Clean Water Act permits and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in
appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the IRT agree that the Bank site is a suitable mitigation
bank site, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan is likely to result in net gains in
wetland and/or stream functions at the Bank site, and have therefore approved the Mitigation
Plan;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this MBI.
Section I: General Provisions
A. The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration, rehabilitation, creation,
and enhancement activities at the Bank site, and for the overall operation and management of
the Bank. The Sponsor assumes the legal responsibility for providing the compensatory
mitigation once a permittee secures credits from the Sponsor and the District Engineer (DE)
receives documentation that confirms the Sponsor has accepted responsibility for providing the
required compensatory mitigation.
B. The goals of the Bank site are to restore, rehabilitate, enhance, and create wetland and
stream systems and their functions to compensate in appropriate circumstances for
unavoidable wetland and stream impacts authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

permits and or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in circumstances deemed
appropriate by the Corps after consultation, through the permit review process, with members
of the IRT.
C. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by Clean
Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State legislation, rules and regulations. This
agreement has been drafted in accordance with the regulations for Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources effective June 9, 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Mitigation
Rule).
D. The IRT shall be chaired by the DE of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District (District). The IRT shall review documentation for the establishment of mitigation bank
sites. The IRT will also advise the DE in assessing monitoring reports, recommending remedial
measures, approving credit releases, and approving modifications to this instrument. The IRT's
role and responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections 332.8 of the Mitigation Rule. The
IRT will work to reach consensus on its actions.
E. The DE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount and type of
compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted wetland and/or stream
impacts, and whether or not the use of credits from the Bank is appropriate to offset those
impacts. In the case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under
the Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the NCDWR will determine
the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from the Bank. Any credits used to offset impacts
solely authorized by Section 401 cannot be used for other impacts authorized under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
F. The parties to this agreement understand that a watershed approach to establish
compensatory mitigation must be used to the extent appropriate and practicable. Where
practicable, in-kind compensatory mitigation is preferred.
Section Il: Geographic Service Area
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area within which the Bank is authorized
to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits. The GSA for this Bank shall
include the entire Yadkin River Basin Hydrologic Unit 03040101 within North Carolina. Credits
are to be used in the same HUC in which they were generated.
Pa

Section III: Mitigation Plan
Any Mitigation Plan submitted pursuant to this agreement must contain the information
listed in 332.4(c) (2) through (14) of the Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
A. The Sponsor will perform work described in the approved Mitigation Plan.
B. The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site as described in the approved Mitigation
Plan, until such time as the IRT determines that the performance standards described in the
Mitigation Plan have been met.
C. Mitigation Plans submitted for inclusion in this bank must meet the requirements of any
District guidance that is current at the time the new site is submitted to the District, including any
updates made to monitoring requirements, credit releases, long term management, or any other
provisions that are required and/or specifically addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The addition of
any site to this instrument shall be considered as a modification to this instrument and processed
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Mitigation Rule.
D. The members of the IRT will be allowed reasonable access to the Property for the
purposes of inspection of the Property and compliance monitoring of the Mitigation Plan.
Section IV: Re ou rting
A. The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT, an
annual report describing the current condition of the Bank Site and the condition of the Bank
Site in relation to the performance standards in the Mitigation Plan. The Sponsor shall provide
to the DE any monitoring reports described in the Mitigation Plan.
B. As part of each annual monitoring report, the Sponsor shall also provide ledger reports
documenting credit transactions as described in Section VIII of this MBI.
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall provide notification to
the DE within 30 days of the transaction. This notification shall consist of a summary of the
transaction and a full ledger report reflecting the changes from the transaction. Additionally,
signed copies of the Compensatory Mitigation Transfer of Responsibility Form shall be
submitted to the Corps Project Manager for the permit and the Corps Bank Manager for the bank
site.
Section V: Remedial Action
A. The DE shall review the monitoring reports, as required in the Mitigation Plan, and
may, at any time, after consultation with the Sponsor and the IRT, direct the Sponsor to take
remedial action at the Bank site. Remedial action required by the DE shall be designed to
achieve the performance standards as specified in the Mitigation Plan. All remedial actions

required under this section shall include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take
into account physical and climactic conditions.
B. The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above.
C. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required performance standards, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial action to all
members of the IRT. No remedial actions shall be taken without the concurrence of the DE, in
consultation with the IRT.
Section VI: Use of Mitigation Credits
A. Description of credit classifications and provisions pertaining to the use of those credits
shall be provided in the Mitigation Plan to be included in this bank. Credit classifications (e.g.,
cold water stream, cool water stream, warm water stream, coastal wetlands, non -riparian
wetlands, riparian non-riverine wetlands, and riparian riverine wetlands) will be in accordance
with current District guidance at the time the Mitigation Plan is submitted to the District. In
general, these classifications will be used to determine if a particular credit qualifies as "In -
Kind" mitigation. Exceptions to the use of "In -Kind" mitigation may be allowed at the
discretion of the permitting agencies on a case-by-case basis.
B. Wetland and stream compensation ratios are determined by the DE on a case-by-case
basis based on considerations of functions of the wetlands and/or streams impacted, the severity
of the wetland and/or stream impacts, the relative age of the mitigation site, whether the
compensatory mitigation is in-kind, and the physical proximity of the wetland and/or stream
impacts to the Bank Site.
C. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits
from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions concerning the
amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by
Department of the Army permits, shall be made by the DE, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act and implementing regulations and guidance. These decisions may include notice to and
consultation with the members of the IRT through the permit review process if the DE determines
this to be appropriate given the scope and nature of the impact.
Section VII: Credit Release Schedule
A. All credit releases must be approved in writing by the DE, following consultation with
the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved.
B. A credit release schedule shall be provided in the Mitigation Plan that is included in
this bank. The release schedule will list all of the proposed credit releases and any
performance standards associated with those releases.
C. In general, the initial allocation of credits shall be available for sale only after the
completion of all of the following:
1. Execution of this MBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for
4

membership in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement, to include the approval of
any modifications to this agreement when new sites are added to it;
2. Approval of a final Mitigation Plan;
3. Confirmation that the mitigation bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of executed financial assurances as specified in the Mitigation Plan;
5. Delivery of a copy of the recorded long-term protection mechanism as described in as
specified in the Mitigation Plan, as well as a title opinion covering the property
acceptable to the DE; and
6. Issuance of any DA permits necessary for construction of the mitigation site (if
necessary).
The Sponsor must initiate implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan no later than the first
full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (i.e., construction of the initial
physical and biological improvements proposed in the approved Mitigation Plan must be started
by the end of the first full growing season following the initial sale of any credits from the Bank.
This provision does not apply to preservation -only sites that do not include any physical or
biological improvements. Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all
required performance standards and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be
available for sale by the Sponsor as specified in the final Mitigation Plan.
Section VIII: Accounting Procedures
A. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for maintaining
accurate records of debits made from the Bank. Such procedures shall include the generation of
a ledger by the Sponsor showing credits used at the time they are debited from the Bank. All
ledger reports shall identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit and shall include for
each reported debit the Corps ORM ID number for the permit for which the credits were utilized
and the permitted impacts for each resource type.
B. When credits from the bank are sought by a permit applicant, the Sponsor shall prepare a
reservation letter for the applicant to include with the Corps permit application, that documents
the number and type of credits available to be debited from the bank, and the amount of time (if
any) that those credits will be held for that applicant (with an expiration date for the letter of
availability).
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall notify the DE within
30 days of the transaction with a summary of the transaction and a full ledger report showing the
changes made. Signed copies of the Transfer of Mitigation Responsibility form shall also be
submitted to the Corps permit Project Manager and the Corps Bank Manager for that bank.
D. The Sponsor shall prepare an annual ledger report, on each anniversary of the date of
execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, any changes in credit availability (e.g.,
additional credits released, credit sales, suspended credits, etc.), and the beginning and ending

balance of remaining credits. The Sponsor shall submit the annual report to the DE, for
distribution to each member of the IRT, until such time as all of the credits have been utilized, or
this agreement is otherwise terminated.
Section IX: Financial Assurances
A. Financial assurances for the Bank site will be detailed in the Mitigation Plan. The
Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the DE, sufficient to assure
completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work
required pursuant to this MBI. The financial assurance value should be based on the cost of
doing the mitigation work, including costs for land acquisition, planning and engineering, legal
fees, mobilization, construction, and monitoring. For preservation only Bank Sites, no financial
assurances will generally be required unless there are specific activities necessary to ensure the
successful preservation of resources on the site, in which case appropriate financial assurances
may still be required.
B. All financial assurances shall be made payable to a standby trust or to a third -party
designee, acceptable to the Corps, who agrees to complete the project or provide alternative
mitigation. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the Corps in the event of default
by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable.
C. The form and amount of financial assurances must be stated in the Mitigation Plan in
order for the Mitigation Plan to be approved. This must include the name of the specific
provider of those assurances and the method by which the financial assurances will be
provided in the event that they must be utilized. Original copies of the financial assurance
documents must be provided to the DE prior to the initial release of credits.
D. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the DE receives notification at
least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
Section X: Site Protection
A. The Sponsor shall grant a Conservation Easement (CE) in form acceptable to the DE,
sufficient to protect the Bank Site in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual, preserve all natural
areas, and prohibit all use of the property inconsistent with its use as mitigation property,
including any activity that would materially alter the biological integrity or functional and
educational value of wetlands or streams within the Bank Site, consistent with the Mitigation
Plan. The purpose of the CE will be to assure that future use of the Bank Site will result in the
restoration, protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland and/or stream functions
described in the Mitigation Plan. The name and contact information for the Corps approved
easement holder and a draft copy of the CE will be provided in the Mitigation Plans.
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the mitigation
property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that would conflict with its
use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that have priority over the recorded CE.

C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank Site property
either in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state agency, or other
appropriate nonprofit organization approved by the Corps. The Sponsor is responsible for
ensuring that the CE is re-recorded so that it remains within the chain of title. The terms and
conditions of this conveyance shall not conflict with the intent and provisions of the CE nor shall
such conveyance enlarge or modify the uses specified in the easement. The CE must contain a
provision requiring 60 -day advance notification to the DE before any action is taken to void or
modify the CE, including transfer of title to, or establishment of any other legal claims over, the
project site.
Section XI: Long-term Management
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long-term management plan as described in the
Mitigation Plan. The property that comprises the Bank is privately owned. The Sponsor will
provide perpetual protection on the Bank through the establishment of a permanent
conservation easement that will comply with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidelines.
B. The long-term management plan will include a list of annual maintenance, monitoring,
and/or repair activities for the mitigation site, the associated annual cost for each activity, and
the required total amount necessary to provide all future site management. The long-term
management plan should explain how the funds will be managed and provided to the designated
long-term manager (e.g., an endowment managed through a separate account holder). The long-
term management plan should include a contingency section that addresses how the
responsibility and funding for the long-term site management will be passed on to a new
manager in the event that the selected long-term management entity is no longer able to provide
for management of the site.
Section XII: Default and Closure
A. It is agreed to establish and maintain the Bank site until: (i) credits have been exhausted
or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the Sponsor provided to the
DE and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been determined and agreed upon by the DE
and IRT that the debited Bank site has satisfied all the conditions herein and in the Mitigation
Plan. If the DE determines that the Bank site is not meeting performance standards or complying
with the terms of the instrument, appropriate action will be taken. Such actions may include, but
are not limited to, suspending credit sales, adaptive management, decreasing available credits,
utilizing financial assurances, and terminating the instrument.
B. Any delay or failure of Bank Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if and to the
extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or conditions beyond the
Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its
obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, or
interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by any governmental body; (iii)
change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or
enforcement thereof; (iv) any order, judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or
local court, administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of
any permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of the Bank Sponsor
is affected by any such event, Bank Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the IRT as soon

as is reasonably practicable. If such event occurs before the final availability of all credits for
sale, the Sponsor shall take remedial action to restore the property to its condition prior to such
event, in a manner sufficient to provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior
to such delay or failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized by
Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the Sponsor only to the
extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the IRT.
C. At the end of the monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance standards, the
Sponsor may submit a request to the DE for site close out. The DE, in consultation with the IRT,
shall use best efforts to review and comment on the request within 60 days of such submittal. If
the DE determines the Sponsor has achieved the performance standards in accordance with the
mitigation plan and all obligations under this MBI, the DE shall issue a close out letter to the
Sponsor.
Section XIII: Miscellaneous
A. Modification of this MBI shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 332.8 of
the mitigation rule.
B. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories
hereof, their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof.
C. This MBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject
matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
D. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this MBI are held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability will
not affect any other provisions hereof, and this MBI shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal
or unenforceable provision had not been contained herein.
E. This MBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North
Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
F. This MBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
G. The terms and conditions of this MBI shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto and their respective successors.
H. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below.

Sponsor:
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration, PLLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
Corps:
Mr. Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
USEPA:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USFWS:
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
NCWRC:
Ms. Andrea Leslie
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
20830 Great Smokey Mountain Expressway
Waynesville, NC 28786
NCDWR:
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
NCSHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
4617 Mail Service Center
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617

NMFS:
Mr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries, NOAA
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Red Barn Mitigation Bank in the Yadkin River Basin (HUC
03040101), Surry County, North Carolina":
BANK SPONSOR
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
By: Date:
INTERAGENCY REVIEW TEAM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
By: Date:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By: Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By: Date:
N.C. Division of Water Resources:
By: Date:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By: Date:
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
M
National Marine Fisheries Service:
Date:
By: Date:
11

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Geographic Service Area Map
Appendix B: Draft Mitigation Plan — Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
(This plan includes construction costs, maintenance and monitoring costs, draft copy of
financial assurance documents, draft copy of site protection instrument, and a long term
management plan as appendices to the plan.)
12

Lenoir
Legend
= Proposed Service Area (H UC 0304010 1)
patr�CK
Sprinys
103~
"V, lra
North Car line
h, 040
311
Boonville rel all Sto
Oak
Yadkinville
Kernersville
Lev:isville
Win Ston -S al e In
Taylorsville
© ,Mocksville
Statesville
Clenlmons.
Lexington
High,
Thomasville
PREPARED FOR:
0 5 10 RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
USACE
Miles PROPOSED SERVICE AREA MAP
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
PREPARED BY:
MBI APPENDIX A SURRY COUNTY, NCyyy ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
RESTORATION
�!171'!'
22,
Taff,
I -
$­Zfl
,Ar r.
I
rwrr��
A.y.'76r,
pn
NGrth arohne
J1 �
,DRi
••
parte
loud
A4 ! : r ,
'''
Jefferson
Aid.
21
,,.,• ////.-sQ" West
Jefferson
•'r' •Arlt �/�+ 194 -��~ A�!< -
.�.
- --
Hays Pleasant Hi 11 _ -
nr 6o
Mulberry Elkin
Jonesville
y
Millers Creek
4_'
Cricket
�-Wilkesboro
_ North Wilkesboro
_
rr-
• ter:_
90th
Lenoir
Legend
= Proposed Service Area (H UC 0304010 1)
patr�CK
Sprinys
103~
"V, lra
North Car line
h, 040
311
Boonville rel all Sto
Oak
Yadkinville
Kernersville
Lev:isville
Win Ston -S al e In
Taylorsville
© ,Mocksville
Statesville
Clenlmons.
Lexington
High,
Thomasville
PREPARED FOR:
0 5 10 RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
USACE
Miles PROPOSED SERVICE AREA MAP
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
PREPARED BY:
MBI APPENDIX A SURRY COUNTY, NCyyy ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Ir
, �.. ECOSYSTEM
�l(/� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Surry County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID No. SAW -2018-1441
RFP No. 54 -JC -03040101, 16-006993
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
December 2018
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Surry County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID No. SAW -2018-1441
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
Prepared by:
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration, PLLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contributing Staff:
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Cidney Jones, PE, CFM
Christine Gears
Amy James, PWS
Jake Byers, PE
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018
.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Ir
, �.. ECOSYSTEM
�l(/� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC (EPR) is performing restoration and enhancement
activities through the Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site (Site, Project) to provide stream and wetland
mitigation units (SMUs) in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040101). The
Project involves the restoration of wetlands, riparian buffers, and streams in the Stewarts Creek
watershed. The Site will generate 8,159 cool temperature stream mitigation units (SMU's) and
2.56 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMU's).
The Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site is located in Surry County, North Carolina, off Ester
Drive/Timeless Trail Road, south of NC 80 and approximately 0.5 miles west of Mount Airy
(Figure 1). The project is located within the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin
03-07-03 and the DMS targeted local watershed 03040101100010.
The goals for the Site are derived from immediate needs for cool stream credits outlined in NCDOT
RFP #54 -JC -03040101 and NCDMS RFP #16-006993. Planning efforts for the Ararat River -
Upper Yadkin Local Watershed Plan (LWP) identify the Stewarts Creek sub -watershed as
adversely affected by degraded riparian buffers through agricultural and pasture lands. Restoration
activities at the Site will address this water quality stressor while also providing SMU's to a
proposed service area that includes Winston-Salem, Yadkinville, Elkin, Mount Airy, North
Wilkesboro, and a significant portion of the I-77 and NC -52 corridors.
The Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site is associated with a proposed conservation easement that
encompasses 25.4 acres of land. The easement will protect riparian buffers and will be fenced to
exclude livestock in areas where the conservation easement boundary lies within active pastures.
Buffers wider than 30 feet have been incorporated where possible. The work described in this plan
will consist of a total of 7,017 linear feet of stream restoration and 568 linear feet of enhancement.
The Bank Sponsor's contact information is:
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration, PLLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone]
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 i

Ir
, �.. ECOSYSTEM
�l(/� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
SITE INFORMATION...................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Property Ownership and Boundary.................................................................................. 2
1.2
Utilities............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3
Site Access....................................................................................................................... 2
1.4
Site Protection Instrument................................................................................................ 3
2.0
WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ................................................ 3
2.1
Watershed Benefits of Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site ................................................... 3
2.2
General Need for Mitigation in the Upper Yadkin River Basin ...................................... 4
3.0
BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................ 4
3.1
Landscape Characteristics................................................................................................ 4
3.2
Existing Vegetation.......................................................................................................... 5
3.3
Project Resources.............................................................................................................
6
4.0
FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT................................................................................................... 8
5.0
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................12
5.1
401/404...........................................................................................................................
12
5.2
Biological and Historical Resources..............................................................................
13
5.3
FEMA Floodplain Compliance......................................................................................
13
6.0
MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...........................................
14
7.0
DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN ......................................
15
7.1
UTI to Stewarts Creek...................................................................................................
17
7.2
UT2 to Stewarts Creek...................................................................................................
19
7.3
UT3 to Stewarts Creek...................................................................................................
20
7.4
Wetlands.........................................................................................................................22
7.5
Vegetation and Planting Plan.........................................................................................
22
7.6
Project Risks and Uncertainties......................................................................................
23
8.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS...................................................................................
24
8.1
Restored Stream Channels.............................................................................................
24
8.2
Riparian and Wetland Vegetation..................................................................................
24
8.3
Wetlands.........................................................................................................................25
8.4
Compatibility with Project Goals...................................................................................
25
9.0
MONITORING PLAN....................................................................................................
26
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 ii

Ir
, �.. ECOSYSTEM
�l(/� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
9.1 Stream Monitoring......................................................................................................... 27
9.2 Wetland Monitoring....................................................................................................... 28
9.3 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring.................................................................................... 29
10.0 ADAPTIVE AND LONG-TERM MANANGEMENT................................................. 30
11.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS............................................................................... 30
12.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Vicinity Map
Figure 2.
Existing Site Features
Figure 3.
Parcel Location Map
Figure 4.
Watershed Location Map
Figure 5.
Historic Aerial Map (1936)
Figure 6.
Historic Aerial Map (1966)
Figure 7.
LIDAR Map
Figure 8.
Soils Map
Figure 9.
FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 10.
Asset Map
Figure 11.
Proposed Monitoring Features
Figure 12.
Riparian Buffer Zones
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
General Project Information.
Table 2.
Jurisdictional Stream Resources Within the Project Boundary.
Table 3.
Jurisdictional Wetland Resources Within the Project Boundary.
Table 4.
NC SQT Function -Based Parameters and Measurement Methods.
Table 5.
Functional Category Summary for Project Reaches.
Table 6.
Summary of NCWAM Wetland Functional Ratings for Existing and
Proposed Conditions.
Table 7.
Summary of Regulatory Considerations.
Table 8.
Wetland Impacts.
Table 9.
Goals and Objectives for the Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site.
Table 10.
Morphology Table for UT to Little Fisher River Reference Reaches.
Table 11.
Project Objectives and Associated Performance Criteria.
Table 12.
Stream Monitoring Summary.
Table 13.
Wetland Monitoring Summary.
Table 14.
Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Summary.
Table 15.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Asset Tables.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 iii

Ir
, �.. ECOSYSTEM
�l(/� PLANNING &
RESTORATION
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1.
Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2.
Site Photographs
Appendix 3.
Stream and Wetland Determination and Quality Assessment Forms
Appendix 4.
Assessment Data
Appendix 5.
Agency Correspondence
Appendix 6.
Plan Sheets
Appendix 7.
Design Criteria
Appendix 8.
Maintenance Plan
Appendix 9.
Financial Assurance
Appendix 10.
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Appendix 11.
Credit Release Schedule
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 iv

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
1.0 SITE INFORMATION
Four unnamed tributaries (UT) to Stewarts Creek have been adversely impacted by the loss of riparian
buffers and direct access by cattle. Based on observed soil profiles it is apparent that wetlands were
once prevalent along portions of the stream reaches, and some were partially drained with a series of
ditches. Cattle access to portions of the streams has caused significant bank erosion and prevented the
establishment of riparian buffers that had been mostly cleared from the area in the past.
UTI is a perennial channel located along the northern project boundary. The existing alignment of
UTI joins a ditch that runs along the property line while the proposed UTI alignment follows the
natural valley alignment into wetland A. The proposed alignment of UTI is separated into three
reaches (UT Ia, UTIb and UT3 c) based on geomorphic properties. UT2 is a perennial feature located
in the middle portion of the Site that flows through wetland B, an active cattle pasture. UT2 is
separated into three reaches (UT2a, UT2b, and UT2c) based on geomorphic properties and restoration
approach. UT3 is a perennial feature located in the southern portion of the Site and while it is not
currently impacted by active cattle grazing, livestock have been present in the recent past and the
stream is heavily incised and actively eroding throughout. UT3 is separated into four reaches (UT3c
through UT3d) based on changes in stream condition and geomorphic properties. Wetland C and D
are located along UT3. UT4 is an intermittent deep gulley draining to UT3. The naming convention
and existing locations for the stream reaches and wetlands within the Project are illustrated in Figure
2. All four streams have either sustained significant cattle damage and/or have been channelized to
maximize cattle grazing activities. Practices will be implemented to prevent livestock access to
mitigation areas. Stream restoration approaches will involve raising the streambeds and/or re -
meandering the channels through existing wetlands thereby enhancing the stream and wetland
resources within the Project. Buffers in excess of 30 feet, and greater than 50 feet in most areas, will
be restored along all proposed stream mitigation reaches for a total of 25.4 protected acres. Wetlands
will be rehabilitated through increased surface connection with restored channels and planting of
native species.
Site mitigation activities, which will provide a total of 8,159 cool temperature stream mitigation units
(SMU's) and 2.56 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMU's) within a 25.4 -acre conservation
easement, include the following:
• 7,017 linear feet of stream restoration and 568 linear feet of enhancement (design lengths) on
stream channels that have been straightened and channelized for agricultural purposes;
• Creation or rehabilitation of 3.45 acres of wetland hydrology by raising and reconnecting the
restored stream beds to an active floodplain;
• Restoration of riparian buffers at least 30 feet in width (wider along most stream reaches) with
native wetland and riparian vegetation; and
• Implementation of BMPs to remove cattle from the streams, riparian buffers, and wetlands.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 1

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
Table 1. General Project Information.
Project Information
Project Name Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
County
Surry
Easement Area (acres)
25.4
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 360
29'23.28" / -800 38'27.9594"
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted)
20.3
1.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The property that comprises the Site is privately owned. The Sponsor has provided a perpetual
conservation easement that complies with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidelines (Appendix 1).
The Site will be operated as a compensatory mitigation bank that will provide offsets for impacts to
aquatic resources within the approved resource area.
Practices will be implemented to prevent livestock access to mitigation areas. Fencing will be erected
around the protected area to exclude livestock and posted signs will designate the protected area and
state that public entry is not allowed. Three farm crossings and two pedestrian crossings are included
in the stream design and are listed below by location and type proposed:
• Culverted farm crossing between UT 1 b and UT 1 c;
• Culverted farm crossing on UT2b;
• Pedestrian bridge over UT2c valley;
• Culverted farm crossing on UT3c; and
• 10 ft wide ATV crossing through riffle on UT3c.
The three culverted crossings are removed from the conservation easement and are not included in
the creditable length of the proposed stream. The riffle crossing on UT3c is also removed from the
creditable length of proposed stream. The pedestrian bridge over UT2c is proposed to span the valley
and will not negatively impact the underlying resources.
1.2 Utilities
A 30 ft power line easement crosses UTI at the upstream property boundary, shown in Figure 3. The
conservation easement abuts this easement. No other utilities are within or adjacent to the easement.
1.3 Site Access
All portions of the conservation easement are located on privately owned property. The deed provided
in Appendix 1 provides the Grantee or its authorized representative the right to enter the Property and
Conservation Easement Area. Property owners, parcels, roads, and access features are shown on
Figure 3.
UTI and UT2 are accessed off state -maintained SR 1461 (Ester Drive) and the private road named
Timeless Trail. Timeless Trail is a gravel road that ends at a gated access to the Site property. Past
the gate, the gravel road continues for approximately 740 feet. UTI is located to the west of the gravel
road, while UT2 is located southeast of the road.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 2

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
UT3 is accessed off state -maintained SR 1380 (Airview Drive) and Cletius Moser Trail, a private
road. The conservation easement will be accessible using a 30 -ft access easement off Cletius Moser
Trail that is to be installed as part of the proposed work.
1.4 Site Protection Instrument
The draft conservation easement deed and plat provided in Appendix 1 are currently under review by
the USACE as of September 4th, 2018. The recorded conservation easement (CE) grants the Bank
Sponsor the right to develop the Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site on the easement. The natural
resources on the Site will be protected within the 25.4 -acre conservation easement consisting of six
parcels shown in Figure 3.
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The Stewarts Creek watershed (03040101100010), shown in Figure 4, is a NCDMS targeted local
watershed (TLW; NCEEP, 2009). Stewarts Creek is also part of the Ararat River -Upper Yadkin Local
Watershed Plan (LWP) area as identified in the Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP). The NCDWQ Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Plan Summary (2008) identifies
increasing nutrient enrichment, urbanization, and wastewater as stressors to water quality in the
proposed service area. Major goals for the Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin as identified in the
RBRP include:
1) Restoration of water quality and aquatic habitat in impaired stream segments;
2) Protection of high -resource value waters, including those designated by NCDEQ as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) and WS waters, and those
containing large numbers of rare and endangered species;
3) Continuation of existing watershed restoration and protection initiatives and projects;
4) Collaboration with local resource agencies and landowners to implement new stream, riparian
buffer and wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation projects in priority sub -
watersheds within TLWs;
5) Improved management of stormwater runoff, especially in urban and suburban areas
contributing to downstream degradation; and
6) Implementation of agricultural BMPs within high-priority rural sub -watersheds.
2.1 Watershed Benefits of Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
In addition to these larger watershed goals, water quality concerns from agricultural lands, pasture
operations, degraded riparian buffers, and impervious surfaces are listed in the Ararat River -Upper
Yadkin Basin LWP, Technical Memorandum, Task 2, EEP-08050 (EcoEngineering, 2008) as
stressors to the Stewarts Creek sub -watershed.
The Project will restore healthy headwater stream -wetland complexes in currently active, or recently
active, cattle pastures in a watershed that is dominated by agricultural land use. The Project will
restore riparian buffers at least 30 feet in width (50 feet or more in most areas) along stream reaches
and provide significant improvements to wetland connectivity and function within the riparian buffer.
Agricultural BMPs will be implemented to exclude cattle from streams, buffers, and wetlands to
ensure these resources provide long-term stability and water quality improvements. As such, the
Project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Stewarts Creek and
Yadkin River watersheds. The Project will continue existing water quality initiatives in the watershed
and address each of the above-mentioned watershed goals by:
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 3

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
Stabilizing eroding stream banks to improve the water quality of receiving waters;
Providing riparian buffers to improve the water quality of stormwater runoff, rehabilitate
wetland function, and permanently protect project streams, wetlands, and buffers from future
development; and
Excluding livestock from the streams, wetlands, and buffers.
2.2 General Need for Mitigation in the Upper Yadkin River Basin
The goals for the Site (see Section 6.0) are derived from immediate needs for cool stream credits
outlined in NCDOT RFP #54 -JC -03040101 and NCDMS RFP #16-006993. Planning efforts for the
Ararat River -Upper Yadkin LWP identify the Stewarts Creek sub -watershed as adversely affected by
degraded riparian buffers through agricultural and pasture lands. Therefore, restoration activities at
the Site will provide needed cool stream SMU's while also addressing identified water quality
stressors in the Stewarts Creek sub -watershed. The proposed service area includes Winston-Salem,
Yadkinville, Elkin, Mount Airy, North Wilkesboro, and a significant portion of the I-77 and NC -52
corridors.
3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Site is in a rural but developing area of Surry County. Land use within the UTI 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. The Project
is impacted by farming practices, past stream channelization, riparian buffer loss, and direct cattle
access. According to historic aerial photography, the streams have been in their approximate current
alignment since prior to 1936 (Figures 5 and 6), and the Site has been in various agricultural practices
since that time. Riparian buffers have been partially to completely cleared along all stream reaches,
and cattle frequently access much of the streamside area. Livestock hoof shear, past row crop
production, and/or shear stresses have severely impacted the stream banks and wetlands throughout
the Site, causing significant, on-going sedimentation to downstream waters. Photographs of the Site
are provided in Appendix 2.
While the Site is near the city of Mount Airy, there are no foreseeable signs of impending land use
changes or development pressure that would impact UTI and UT2. These watersheds have been fully
developed since the late 1970s. A single home is being built to the north of UT3 and there is potential
for further development along UT3. This potential for development in the UT3 watershed was taken
into account in the design of UT3 and is discussed in Section 7.6 - Project Risks and Uncertainties.
3.1 Landscape Characteristics
The Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site is located in the Northern Inner Piedmont EPA Level IV
ecoregion. The area gets 45 inches of annual average precipitation, which, on average, is evenly
spread throughout the year. All of UT4 and portions of UTI, UT2, and UT3 are bounded by gently
sloping, low hills. The downstream portions of each tributary are within the broad floodplain of
Stewarts Creek (Figure 7). Each UT ends at a confluence; UTI ends at UT2, UT2 ends at UT3, UT4
ends at UT3, and UT3 ends at Stewarts Creek. Wetlands A, B and C lie within the Stewarts Creek
floodplain and are associated with UTI, UT2 and UT3, respectively. The UTs provide water while
the local topography of the Stewarts Creek floodplain retains the water and supports these wetlands.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 4

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
Figure 8 shows that the soils in the project area are primarily Dillard fine sandy loam and Toast-
Bannertown complex (UTI floodplain), Colvard and Suches soils (UT2 floodplain and lower UT3),
and Rhodhiss-Bannertown along the UT3 valley. The Dillard series consists of moderately well -
drained soils that are rarely flooded, non -hydric, and typically found along stream terraces. The Toast-
Bannertown complex is a well -drained, non -hydric, coarse sandy loam that is commonly very rocky.
Colvard soils are a sandy loam consisting of well -drained, non -hydric soils found in Piedmont
floodplain natural levees. Suches soils are loamy, non -hydric, well -drained soils found in Piedmont
floodplains. The Rhodhiss-Bannertown complex consists of very rocky, well -drained, non -hydric
soils that formed on Piedmont upland slopes.
A soil investigation was conducted at the Site by Three Oaks Engineering in June 2016 and is
provided in Appendix 4. Nine soil borings were augered within and around the area where the historic
flow path of UTI was suspected to be, based on topography. Soils were classified as either `Hydric
over Hydric' (indicator F3 Depleted Matrix) or `Non -hydric'. Evidence of a current and historic
wetland presence in the concave drainageway along the likely historic flow path of UTI, coupled
with the lack of soil wetness indicators elsewhere, supports the theory that the channelized section of
UTI was relocated in the past away from its natural drainage way. Detailed topography information
for the Site also confirms that the existing channelized alignment of UTI was dug through high
ground and does not follow a natural drainage way. The proposed alignment of UTla and UTlb
follows the concave drainage of the valley and will increase stream and wetland function at the Site.
A debris jam that formed during June 2018 is currently (at the time of producing this report) diverting
flow from the channelized section of UTI (UTI old flow path in Figure 2) back into the historic flow
path for UTI, toward wetland A.
3.2 Existing Vegetation
Canopy cover along the existing UTIs is approximately 30% and consists primarily of red maple
(Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and American
beech (Fagus grandifolia). The sapling/shrub layer is absent for most of UTla, most likely due to
livestock having access to the entire project area. The understory layer is dominated by Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) and a few individuals of canopy species. Herbaceous vegetation includes fescue
grass (Festuca spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and beefsteak plant
(Perilla frutescens). Vine species present include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Wetland A (WA) forms
where the channelized UTI ends and consists mainly of herbaceous species such as seedbox
(Ludwigia alternifolia), devil's beggar -tick (Bidens frondosa), and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
UT2 is located on the middle portion of the Site and flows through active cattle pasture. Sparse
woody vegetation such as red maple (Acer rubrum) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) are
present at the beginning of the reach, with southern red oak (Quercus falcata) and white oak
(Quercus alba) dominating the higher elevations on the hillside to the south. The rest of the reach
lacks woody vegetation, except for Chinese privet and a few scattered small trees along the stream
corridor and is dominated by fescue grass. Wetland B (WB) is located along UT2 and consists of
herbaceous species such as smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica), soft rush, and ironweed (Vernonia
noveborecensis).
UT3 flows along the wooded edge of a pasture, though cattle are not currently present in the pasture
area. The left bank is completely wooded, with a canopy consisting largely of white oak, southern
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 5

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
red oak, American beech, black cherry, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and red cedar
(Jumperus virginiana). The sapling/shrub layer is dominated by dogwood (Cornus florida),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Chinese privet, multiflora rose, and saplings of canopy species,
with pockets of rhododendron (Rhododendron catawbiense) along the stream corridor. For most of
the left bank, the herb layer is sparse, except for wetland C, near UT3's confluence with UT2,
which is largely comprised of herbaceous species such as rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), Asian
dayflower (Murdannia keisak), and sedges (Carex spp.) Wetland D is located on the left bank, near
the beginning of UT3. This wetland appears to be the result of an old impoundment and is
comprised largely of herbaceous species such as rice cutgrass, smartweed, and American water
horehound (Lycopus americanus). On the right bank of UT3, there is a thin canopy of trees
consisting of species such as sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), and white
oak along the stream, with a shrub and sapling layer similar to the left bank. However, beyond the
first 10-15 feet away from the streambank, pasture grasses dominate. UT4 is located on the right
bank of UT3 consisting of the thin canopy of sycamore, river birch, and white oak. Pasture grasses
dominate the UT4 drainage starting just upstream of the headcut where UT4 becomes intermittent.
3.3 Project Resources
EPR conducted investigations for jurisdictional features in January 2017, and May and June 2018.
Field assessments were performed using the methodologies presented in the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement
(2012). Potential jurisdictional wetlands were assessed using the USACE Wetland Determination
Data Form (Appendix 3) and the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM; Appendix 3). Site
photographs are provided in Appendix 2. Streams were assessed using the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form, and the Stream Quantification Tool (SQT). A copy of the NCDWR stream
identification forms can be found in Appendix 3 and assessment data using the SQT are in Appendix
4. Four jurisdictional streams (Table 2) and four wetlands (Table 3) were delineated during the on-
site investigations. The functional assessments for streams and wetlands, SQT and NCWAM, are
discussed in the following section.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) package was submitted to the USACE in July 2018.
A site visit was conducted on November 7, 2018 with William Elliott and Steve Kichefski (USACE),
and Sue Homewood (NCDWR) to review the resources delineated by EPR. Site features as shown in
Figure 2 reflect the outcome of this site visit; the approved PJD package is provided in Appendix 3.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 6

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
Table 2. Jurisdictional Stream Resources Within the Project Boundary.
Reach Summary
Reach
UTI
UT2
UT3
UT4
Existing Length (LF)
862.8
2,188
2,836
86.8
Drainage area (acres)
47.4
93.23
82.21
10.22
Drainage area (sq. miles)
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.02
Valley slope (ft/ft)
0.022
0.005
0.022
0.07
EPR - NCDWR Stream Score
36.5
30.0
39.5
27.5
Perennial or Intermittent
P
P
P
I
NCDWR Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NC SQT Existing Condition Score
0.25
0.29-0.37
0.62-0.67
N/A
Rosgen Classification
B5
B5/175
B/G 5, B4c
and F4
B5
Stream Evolution Model SEM Stage
Stage 2/5
Stage 2/5
Stage 3-5
Stage 5
FEMA Zone Classification
AEA
AEA
AEA
X
Table 3. Jurisdictional Wetland Resources Within the Project Boundary.
Wetland Summar
Wetland
WA
WB
WC
WD
Size of Wetland
1.4
2.4
0.79
0.04
AC
Wetland Type
Riparian riverine
Predominant
Dillard fine sandy
Colvard and
Colvard and
Rhodhiss-
Mapped Soil
loam
Suches
Suches
Bannertown
Series
Complex
Drainage Class
Moderately Well-
Well -drained
Well -drained
Well -drained
Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non -Hydric'
Non -Hydric'
Non -Hydric'
Non -Hydric'
Source of
Precipitation and runoff
Groundwater, precipitation, runoff
Hydrology
and overbank flooding
Stream
Drainage
Excess sediment,
Hydrologic
realignment/
ditches, cattle
stream incision
No obvious
Impairment
diversion of flow,
downstream of
impairment
cattle access
access
debris jam
Native Vegetation
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh *
Headwater
Community
Forest §
% Exotic Invasive
Weedy, pasture species present; no
No obvious
Vegetation
obvious presence of invasive
25%
invasive species
species
component
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified on soils mapped as non -hydric.
* These wetlands have been functioning as herb -dominated marsh wetlands for at least 80 years; therefore,
they have been categorized as such.
§ Wetland D is a small pocket wetland along a bench that, while dominated by herbaceous species, has a woody
component and is functioning more like a headwater forest wetland than a marsh.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 7

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
UTI begins incised and entrenched for the first 300 LF, where the valley is steep and the stream has
been channelized against the toe of slope adjacent to residential properties. The UTI watershed is the
most urban of the three tributaries and the upstream watershed is contributing sediment from some
bank erosion, as the streambed within the Project consists primarily of sand. The bed is actively in
flux through this section of stream, as monitoring wells that were installed in pools along UTI were
found buried following storm events and the thalweg had migrated within the confined channel. The
existing alignment of UTI misses the low part of the valley as shown in UTI XS2 in Appendix 4.
During field investigations in 2016 and 2017, UT1's alignment was directed north off the property
into an incised, trapezoidal ditch running along the property line and draining west then southwest to
Stewarts Creek (as shown in Figure 2). There is a headcut forming where UTI enters this ditch at the
property line. During a field investigation in June 2018 a debris and sediment jam had formed at the
approximate location of the headcut and flow from UTI was found to be dispersing through the
pasture, toward wetland A.
Two smaller tributaries confluence at the property boundary to form UT2. The upstream watershed
of UT2 consists primarily of residential and forested land uses. The first 100 feet of UT2 is wide and
shallow, functioning as a braided stream system but with active bank erosion and active cattle access.
UT2 narrows as it travels west toward the large wetland complex (WB). Approximately 530 feet
downstream of the wetland, UT2 narrows again into a ditch along the property line and heads toward
UT3 and Stewarts Creek as an incised and entrenched channel.
Upstream of the easement boundary, a newly installed gravel driveway crosses UT3 (where the stream
is considered ephemeral). Immediately downslope of the culvert UT3 remains ephemeral and there is
an area of old appliances, furniture and other large discarded items. UT3 then transitions to a perennial
channel at a headcut just inside the easement boundary. A series of headcuts are scattered throughout
the UT3 profile; the largest one is 4.5 feet tall within UT3a where the stream bed has down cut to
bouldersibedrock. Throughout UT3 the left bank is forested while much of the right bank consists of
a single line of trees. Bank erosion is prevalent throughout UT3 which provides a large sediment
supply to the reach. The gauge that was installed in this reach in March 2018 was fully buried after a
storm event. While portions of UT3 have a defined bench, the channel is still actively incising in
many locations so the benches are generally higher than the bankfull channel, resulting in an incised
channel condition. Migrating headcuts will result in further incision and erosion.
UT4 is an intermittent tributary to UT3 that begins at a head cut just below a farm path. This tributary
drains 10.2 acres of the adjacent pasture and is shown in the photographs in Appendix 2. Upstream
of the farm path, the valley swale has no riparian buffer and cover consists of mowed pasture.
Downstream of the headcut UT4 takes several sharp bends in its short length before meeting with
UT3 in an eroded bowl with 7 -foot tall banks.
4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT
This section of the report is provided to document the existing and proposed functional conditions of
the Project. While functional parameters are assessed and presented, the functional assessment used
is not proposed for mitigation crediting or determining project success. Performance standards are
provided in Section 8.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 8

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
In their current condition, the hydrologic resources on the Site are severely degraded. The most severe
impairments present on the Site are direct cattle access to streams and wetlands, past channelization,
and the loss of riparian buffers. Functional uplift will come from excluding livestock from project
resources, restoring natural wetland and riparian vegetation, and restoring the project streams to a
stable condition, connected to their adjacent floodplains. The exclusion of livestock will remove a
direct source of nutrients, coliform, and sediment from the system. Due to the extent of the bank
erosion in all four project streams, and for UT3 in particular, restoring a stable stream condition will
reduce the amount of sediment in receiving waters. In -stream structures consisting of large woody
debris will ensure channel stability and improve aquatic habitat for native species. Restored riparian
buffers will provide floodplain roughness, bank stability, woody debris and detritus for aquatic
organisms, shade, and diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion
and landscape setting.
Based on field evaluations of the project stream reaches and proposed mitigation practices, functional
ratings were developed for the existing and proposed conditions of the project reaches using the North
Carolina SQT, Version 3.0 (Harman and Jones, 2017). The SQT follows the methodology and
definitions described in Harman, et al. (2012). The functional uplift in each of the five functional
categories of the stream functions pyramid were assessed using the function -based parameters and
measurement methods listed in Table 4. Table 5 shows the SQT scores and proposed lift that could
be achieved during the monitoring period. The SQT scores function -based parameters and functional
categories on a scale of 0.00 to 1.00 where 0.00 to 0.29 represents conditions that are not functioning
like a reference condition (shown in red), scores of 0.70 to 1.00 are functioning like a reference
condition (shown in green), and scores falling in the middle of these ranges are functioning -at -risk
(shown in yellow). The SQT worksheets are provided in Appendix 4.
The proposed restoration will lead to some small improvements in reach hydrology by changing
adjacent land uses from pasture to riparian wetlands and/or woody riparian buffer. The bulk of the
functional lift will occur in the hydraulic and geomorphic functional categories. Hydraulic
functioning is assessed in the SQT using floodplain connectivity, which is not functioning in all but
the most severely trampled or aggrading reaches. The proposed practices will reconnect streams to
their floodplains or excavate floodplains at the new channel elevation to decrease entrenchment and
remove incision.
Geomorphologic functioning was assessed using large woody debris (LWD), lateral stability, riparian
vegetation, bed form diversity, and plan form parameters. Throughout the Site, the riparian vegetation
on one or both banks consists of pasture grass. The proposed work described in Section 7.0 will plant
native wetland, riparian, and upland species throughout the conservation easement and improve both
the composition and structural aspects of riparian vegetation. Cattle access and channelization have
led to low lateral stability and plan form scores in the SQT for all reaches. By removing the cattle and
restoring the plan form to stable channel dimensions, these scores will increase. Lateral stability will
also be improved in the short term by stabilizing banks using coir fiber matting, toe wood, and sod
mats. As the proposed riparian buffer is established, lateral stability should improve further and
increase the resiliency of the restored channels. Since UTI and UT2 are channelized sand bed streams
with minimal riparian buffer, there are few pieces of large woody debris in the channels to create
diverse bed forms. The proposed design will restore the bed form diversity to these reaches primarily
using large woody debris in order to provide functional uplift in the geomorphology functional
category.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 9

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
;• RESTORATION
Table 4. NC SQT Function -Based Parameters and Measurement Methods.
Functional Category
Function -Based Parameters
Measurement Methods
UTla UT2a UT2b,c
Catchment Hydrology
Curve Number
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Curve Number
0.42
0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity
Bank Height Ratio
-,0.39
0.53
Entrenchment Ratio
0.70
Large Woody Debris (LWD)
Large Woody Debris Index
Lateral Stability
Dominant BEHI/NBS
0.45
0.70-1.00
Physicochemical0.40
Percent Eroding Bank
Riparian Vegetation
Buffer Width
-
Geomorphology
Biology
Stem Density
1.00
1.00
-
Pool Spacing Ratio
Bed Form Diversity
Pool Depth Ratio
Percent Riffle
Aggradation Ratios
Plan Form
Sinuosity
Temperature
Summer Daily Maximum
Physicochemical
Organic Carbon
Percent Shredders
Biology
Macroinvertebrates
Biotic Index
' Aggradation Ratio was not used in reaches UT2b, UT2c, or UT3b as excessive deposition was not
noted in the existing condition and is not expected in the proposed condition.
Table 5. Functional Category Summary for Project Reaches.
Functional
Category
Existing
Proposed Score
UTla UT2a UT2b,c
UT3a,c
UT3b
UT4*
Hydrology
0.34 0.45 0.47
0.42
0.42
0.56
0.43-0.56
Hydraulics
0.004 0.39
-,0.39
0.53
0.25
0.70
Geomorphology
0.25 0.20 0.15 1
0.32 - 0.45
0.55
0.45
0.70-1.00
Physicochemical0.40
0.57 0.57
0.84
0.84
-
Modest Lift
Assumed for UTI
and UT2.
Biology
0.2 .25 .25
1.00
1.00
-
* As an intermittent stream, only the following parameters were evaluated: catchment hydrology, floodplain
connectivity, large woody debris, lateral stability, and riparian vegetation. Due to the narrow valley of the
channel, riparian buffer widths are limited by topography.
Stream gauges and macroinvertebrate samples have provided some insight into the current
functioning of physicochemical and biology parameters within the Site reaches. The stream gauges
were installed near the upstream extent of each of the three perennial streams and record water level
and temperature. Macroinvertebrate samples were collected at two locations in May 2018: within
UT3a just downstream of the UT4 confluence and at the beginning of UT2c (location is downstream
of proposed confluence with UTI and was used to quantify conditions for both UTI and UT2). Note
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 10

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
that while functional parameters are assessed and presented in this section, the functional assessment
used is not proposed for mitigation crediting or determining project success. Performance standards
are provided in Section 8.
• The maximum summer temperatures recorded from the gauges on UTI and UT3 scored
functioning -at -risk for cool -water streams. The maximum summer temperatures observed on
UT2 for the 2018 season was in the functioning range. This outcome is likely due to the urban
land uses in the upstream catchments of UTI and UT3, while the catchment of UT2 is more
forested by comparison. Due to the locations of the gauges near the upstream extent of the
project reaches, functional uplift in temperature is not likely to be documented; however,
slight temperature improvements are likely on UTI and UT2 as the riparian buffer establishes
and improves shading of the stream channels throughout the Site.
• The macroinvertebrate sample collected in UT3 yielded functioning scores for both organic
carbon (percent shredders) and macroinvertebrate parameters. While the sample location
exhibited excessive deposition, with sand choking what cobble was present, it was likely not
the worst location within the reach. EPR believes some functional uplift in physicochemical
and biologic functioning is possible by removing the excessive sediment supply but this lift
would not be captured by our limited sampling methods. The macroinvertebrate sample
collected in UT2 yielded not functioning scores for both organic carbon and macroinvertebrate
parameters. While the UT 1 and UT2 systems are much lower gradient and naturally sandy,
they are not expected to achieve scores as high as those observed in UT3, but modest lift can
be achieved as there is a likely source and pathway for aquatic communities to inhabit the
restored reaches.
In addition to the analysis of site conditions noted above, the known impacts from cattle access have
provided an input of nutrients and fecal coliform that, when combined with the loss of wetland
function and connectivity, is likely to have further degraded physicochemical and biology functions.
These impacts, along with the quantified impairments to supporting functional categories shown in
Table 5, indicate that the physicochemical and biology functional categories are functioning -at -risk
or not functioning at the Site. The stream restoration approach will reduce the input of sediment,
nutrients, and fecal coliform to the stream channels by fencing out the cows, stabilizing the banks,
and establishing a riparian buffer. Forested wetland areas adjacent to the stream will promote
increased plant uptake and retention of surface runoff before it reaches the stream channels,
minimizing overland flow velocities while also encouraging nutrient removal processes.
The existing wetlands on the Site are severely degraded from cattle access and past attempts to drain
them. Functional uplift is proposed to be achieved for the existing wetlands by removing the cattle,
planting native vegetation communities, removing ditches and decreasing drainage, and reconnecting
them to the streams. Wetland creation is proposed to connect WA and WB by excavating a valley and
stream channel (UT Ic). To establish a baseline for wetland functions, NCWAM was used to assess
the four wetlands at the Site. WA, WB, and WC have been in a largely herbaceous condition since at
least 1936, based on historic aerial photography. Therefore, these wetlands were rated in NCWAM
as non -tidal freshwater marshes instead of headwater forest, since they have been functioning as
marshes for more than 80 years. The functional ratings for each wetland are presented in Table 6. The
NCWAM results are provided in Appendix 3. NCWAM was also used to predict proposed conditions
given that functional uplift will be achieved in water quality and habitat functions in WA, WB, and
WC (Table 6). The proposed rehabilitation will convert the medium functioning non -tidal freshwater
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 11

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
marsh wetlands into high functioning headwater forest wetlands. NCWAM shows lift primarily in
water quality and habitat functional categories although the proposed work is also expected to
improve hydrologic functioning in the wetlands.
Table 6. Summary of NCWAM Wetland Functional Ratings for Existing and Proposed
Conditions
Existing Condition
Wetlands and Functional Ratings
WA
WB
WC
WD
NCWAM Wetland
Type
Non -Tidal
Freshwater
Marsh
Non -Tidal
Freshwater
Marsh
Non -Tidal
Freshwater
Marsh
Headwater
Forest
Hydrology
High
High
High
Medium
Water Quality
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Habitat
Low
Low
Low
Low
Overall Score
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Proposed Condition
WA
WB
WC
WD
NCWAM Wetland
Type
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
Hydrology
High
High
High
N/A
Water Quality
High
High
High
N/A
Habitat
Medium
High
Medium
N/A
Overall Score
High
High
High
N/A
5.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulatory considerations for the Site are shown in Table 7 and described in the following sections.
Table 7. Summary of Regulatory Considerations
Regulatory Parameter
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs.
Waters of the United States - Section 401/404
Yes
Yes
Appendix 3
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
National Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or
CAMA
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
I Yes
No
Appendix 5
Essential Fisheries Habitat
I No
N/A
N/A
5.1 401/404
There will be minor impacts to the wetlands onsite due to realignment of channel features, but
restoration activities will increase the acreage of wetlands on the Site and improve overall wetland
function of Site wetlands. Table 8 shows anticipated impacts to existing wetlands due to stream
channel realignment. A PJD package was submitted to NCDWR and USACE in July 2018 and a site
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 12

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
visit was conducted with USACE and NCDWR in November 2018. The PJD package was approved
in December 2018 and is provided in Appendix 3.
Table 8. Wetland Impact
Stream channel impacts will be temporary due to restoration activities and relocation of the restored
channels to follow the valley. Construction activities will be conducted under a Nationwide Permit
#27, Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment Activities with the submittal and
approval of a pre -construction notification.
5.2 Biological and Historical Resources
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.0 1531 et seq.), defines protection
for species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered
Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become
an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range" (16 U.S.0 1532).
EPR requested review and comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North
Carolina Wildlife Resources (WRC) on March 16, 2018 regarding the project's potential impacts to
threatened or endangered species. The USFWS did not provide any comment within the 45 -day time
frame. A response from the WRC dated April 10, 2018 indicates the project will not impact wild trout
resources. The USFWS and WRC letters are included in Appendix 5. Additionally, WRC is a member
of the IRT and provided comment to the USACE on the Site prospectus. This communication is also
provided in Appendix 5.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) assists in the "identification,
evaluation, protection, and enhancement of properties significant in North Carolina history and
archaeology." Following a review of the project and surrounding area through the State's HPOWEB
map server, EPR sent an email to the NC SHPO on March 16, 2018 indicating no known historic
properties were found on the Site. As of December 2018, a response has not been received and it is
assumed NC SHPO agrees with EPR's findings. All correspondence with SHPO is included in
Appendix 7.
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Upon review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance
Program's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM) panels 3711501000J and 3710591900J,
effective August 18, 2009, Stewarts Creek is mapped using detailed methods, putting most of UTI,
UT2, WA, WB, and WC within the 1 Percent Chance Annual Flooding Zone (Zone AE; Figure 9).
No work is proposed on Stewarts Creek as a part of this project and EPR will submit an application
for a no -rise associated with the work on the tributaries. Correspondence with the local floodplain
administrator is provided in Appendix 5.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 13
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland C
Wetland D
Acreage
0.12
0.07
0.10
0.01
Square Feet
5,095
2,855
4,383
328
Stream channel impacts will be temporary due to restoration activities and relocation of the restored
channels to follow the valley. Construction activities will be conducted under a Nationwide Permit
#27, Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment Activities with the submittal and
approval of a pre -construction notification.
5.2 Biological and Historical Resources
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.0 1531 et seq.), defines protection
for species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered
Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become
an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range" (16 U.S.0 1532).
EPR requested review and comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North
Carolina Wildlife Resources (WRC) on March 16, 2018 regarding the project's potential impacts to
threatened or endangered species. The USFWS did not provide any comment within the 45 -day time
frame. A response from the WRC dated April 10, 2018 indicates the project will not impact wild trout
resources. The USFWS and WRC letters are included in Appendix 5. Additionally, WRC is a member
of the IRT and provided comment to the USACE on the Site prospectus. This communication is also
provided in Appendix 5.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) assists in the "identification,
evaluation, protection, and enhancement of properties significant in North Carolina history and
archaeology." Following a review of the project and surrounding area through the State's HPOWEB
map server, EPR sent an email to the NC SHPO on March 16, 2018 indicating no known historic
properties were found on the Site. As of December 2018, a response has not been received and it is
assumed NC SHPO agrees with EPR's findings. All correspondence with SHPO is included in
Appendix 7.
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Upon review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance
Program's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM) panels 3711501000J and 3710591900J,
effective August 18, 2009, Stewarts Creek is mapped using detailed methods, putting most of UTI,
UT2, WA, WB, and WC within the 1 Percent Chance Annual Flooding Zone (Zone AE; Figure 9).
No work is proposed on Stewarts Creek as a part of this project and EPR will submit an application
for a no -rise associated with the work on the tributaries. Correspondence with the local floodplain
administrator is provided in Appendix 5.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 13

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
6.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The programmatic goal of the Project is to provide stream and wetland mitigation units to be applied
as compensatory mitigation credit for impacts to waters of the U.S. in the proposed subject area. More
specific project goals and objectives were developed for the Stewarts Creek Watershed based on the
Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP (NCEEP, 2009) and Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan (NCDWQ, 2008) and are provided in Table 9.
Table 9. Goals and Ob'ectives for the Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site.
MMW
Goals Objectives
■ Reduce the amount of land in active livestock pasture.
Reduce Sediment
Install fencing to exclude livestock from project streams.
Inputs and Stream
Increase distance between active farming operations and receiving
Turbidity
waters.
■ Restore riparian buffers to filter runoff.
■ Stabilize eroding stream banks.
■ Reduce the amount of land in active livestock pasture.
■ Install fencing to exclude livestock from project streams.
Reduce Nutrient
Increase buffer widths between active farming operations and
Inputsreceiving
waters.
■ Restore riparian buffers to filter runoff.
■ Decrease drainage of restored/enhanced wetlands, promoting
higher water table conditions, and denitrification.
■ Reduce the amount of land in active livestock pasture.
Reduce Fecal
■ Exclude livestock from project streams.
Coliform Inputs
Increase buffer widths between active farming operations and
receiving waters.
■ Restore riparian buffers to filter runoff.
■ Restore riparian buffer vegetation to filter runoff and provide
Restore / Enhance
organic matter and shade.
Degraded Riparian
0 Rehabilitate existing riparian wetlands and decrease drainage of
Buffers
created riparian wetland areas.
■ Protect riparian buffers with a permanent conservation easement.
Reduce
0 Restore minimum 30 -foot riparian buffers between suburban
Urban/Suburban
homes and receiving waters.
Stormwater Runoff
0 Protect riparian buffers with a permanent conservation easement.
■ Restore stream channels with appropriate dimension, pattern, and
profile.
Reduce Stream
0 Install in -stream structures to provide stream channel and stream
Channel and Stream
bank stability.
Bank Instability
0 Restore riparian buffer to provide bank protection and stability.
■ Install fencing to exclude livestock from project streams.
■ Protect riparian buffers with a permanent conservation easement.
■ Exclude livestock from project streams.
Improve Aquatic
0 Restore stream channels with appropriate dimension, pattern, and
Habitat
profile.
■ Install in -stream structures to provide improved aquatic habitat.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 14

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
The performance standards associated with these goals and objectives are covered in Section 8.0 of
this report.
7.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
The Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site involves the restoration of four unnamed tributaries (UT) to
Stewarts Creek as shown in the plan set provided in Appendix 6. UTI is a perennial feature located
on the northern end of the Site that currently leaves the property but will be re -aligned to flow into
wetland A. UTI is separated into three reaches (UT 1 a, UT 1 b and UT3 c) based on geomorphic
properties; UTIb and UTIc are new channels, restored by redirecting UTIa to follow the lowest part
of the valley instead of draining into a ditch along the northern property line. The existing ditch will
still convey flow from the properties to the north. UT2 is a perennial feature located in the middle
portion of the Site that flows through active cattle pasture and wetland B. It is separated into three
reaches (UT2a, UT2b, and UT2c) based on increases in drainage area and changes in restoration
approach. UT3 is a perennial feature located in the southern portion of the Site that is heavily incised
and actively eroding throughout. UT3 is separated into four reaches (UT3a through UT3d) based on
changes in stream condition and geomorphic properties. UT3c partially feeds wetland C and will be
realigned to improve the hydrology of wetland C. UT4 is an intermittent deep gulley draining to UT3.
The existing resources are shown in Figure 2 and the proposed assets for the Site are shown in Figure
10.
Recently collected reference reach data and the rural Piedmont regional curve (Harman, 1999) were
used to verify bankfull discharge and area on project streams. However, the smallest drainage area in
the dataset used to create the regional curve is 0.2 square miles. Since UTI and UT3 have only 0.05
square mile drainage areas at the project boundary, EPR conducted a search for reference streams
within the region with a drainage area comparable to the project streams. Two potential reference
sites were located, both of which are on private property and require permission to access. The first
site, UT to Pauls Creek, has a drainage area of 0.14 square miles and had consistent bankfull indicators
throughout the reach but was impacted by a gravel road running down the hillslope to a neighboring
agricultural field. Rapid methods were used to collect a riffle cross section and the difference between
water surface and bankfull features at this site. The second site, UT to Little Fisher River, has a
drainage area of 0.02 square miles and was surveyed in detail. The bankfull area of these reference
sites are provided with the regional curve data in Appendix 7.
UT to Little Fisher River was separated into two reaches and EPR collected longitudinal profiles and
cross sections within both reaches. While there was flowing water in both reaches, the two reaches
are separated by a dry section of channel (14 feet in length) where the flow was subterranean during
both site visits. The upstream reach was within a colluvial valley draining to the large Little Fisher
River floodplain. The downstream reach consisted of 40 feet of a single -thread sandy channel on the
Little Fisher River floodplain before a collapsed pedestrian/ATV crossing disrupts the channel and
the flow disperses into a wetland. Geomorphic data are summarized for both of these reaches in Table
10.
In addition to the reference reaches described above, the design criteria applied to the Project are
based on surveys of multiple reference reaches conducted in the past, published reference reach data,
and on design criteria and monitoring data from past successful restoration projects performed
throughout the Piedmont region of North Carolina. Specifically, reference data compiled and
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 15

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
presented by Lowther (2008) for similar stream types, drainage areas, and slopes within the Piedmont
of North Carolina were reviewed to evaluate appropriate ranges of sinuosity and pattern data. Lowther
evaluated 19 reference reach streams across the Piedmont of North Carolina — our assessment focused
on streams in the dataset with small drainage areas and low slopes. EPR evaluated this reference
information against past completed stream restoration projects that have performed well and have
been tested by significant storm events. EPR staff has several successful projects similar to the Site
that were restored over 15 years ago and have remained stable with incorporated wetland components.
These include the Hanging Rock Creek Site in Avery County, the Mitchell River — Darnell Site in
Surry County, and the Mitchell River — Kraft Site in Surry County. Each of these past projects have
similar drainage areas to the design Red Barn stream reaches, similar slopes and bed conditions, and
have been in place for over 15 years. The design criteria used for the Red Barn site relied heavily on
lessons learned from these past projects. Regional curve data and design criteria are provided in the
morphological tables provided in Appendix 7.
Table 10. Mornhologv Table for UT to Little Fisher River Reference Reaches
V
Parameter
An
Upstream Reach
Downstream
Reach
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.02
Valley Width feet
40
11
Channel/Reach Classification
C
B
Bankfull Width feet
6.3
5.1
Bankfull Mean Depth feet
0.5
0.3
Bankfull Area (ft2)
2.9
1.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
> 6
2.1
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.048
0.02
Sinuosity
1.3
1.04
D16/ 35/ 50 /84/
95/ di avement/di sub avement mm
0.04/0.81/5.13/38/
60/-/-
0.02/0.05/0.11/5/
.6/-/-
9.6/-/-
An analysis was performed regarding the likely channel forms that would have been present through
the Site, prior to its conversion to agriculture. EPR has collected data on headwater stream systems
in the Southeastern U.S., and found a strong relationship between channel form, drainage area, and
valley slope (Tweedy, 2008). As drainage area and valley slope increase, drainages tend to form
more defined stream channels. EPR has used this tool successfully to evaluate the proper design form
for restoration projects and believes the approach will be successful for this project due to the
extremely low slopes of the channels within the Stewarts Creek floodplain. Topography data for the
Site were used to evaluate both drainage area and valley slope for the project streams. Data from the
evaluated project reaches are presented in Graph 1, where reach drainage areas are plotted against the
estimated design valley slope.
The results of this analysis indicate that all proposed design reaches except UTlb would be expected
to have a moderately to well-defined channel form under natural conditions, with a visible ordinary
high-water mark (OHW). Therefore, the stream reaches were designed using Natural Channel Design
(NCD), which has been used successfully in the past for small Coastal Plain streams.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 16

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
Channel Formation Data
4.00%
Channels with Ordinary
+ Red Barn Reaches
+ UT3a
High Water Mark
■ Poorly Defined
♦ Moderately Defined
+
UT1a + UT3c DO
O Well Defined
• NC Coastal Plain RR
+ UT2a •
O
•
• GA Coastal Plain RC
CP 0
O Texas RR
O ■
O
•
• Florida
a)
CL
O
O O
O
•
Trendline
o
0.40%
O
■ UT2b +
UT1 c UT2c
• O
>
■
■
°
°
o
o °
0.04%
UT1b + 100 100 1
Channels without Ordinary
High Water Mark
Drainage Area (acres)
Graph 1. Channel Formation Analysis for Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site.
A quantitative sediment entrainment analysis was performed for UT3 and is discussed in Section 7.3.
Since sediment transport in sand bed streams is better quantified by capacity analyses rather than
competency, entrainment calculations were not performed for UT 1 and UT2. A qualitative sediment
capacity analysis for UTI and UT2 was performed based on the channel formation analysis described
above and the design width depth ratio (WDR). WDR is directly related to stream power and therefore
sediment capacity; decreasing the WDR for a given bankfull discharge and slope will increase stream
power.
Design criteria and data characterizing the geomorphologic condition of the existing and proposed
reaches are provided in Appendix 7.
7.1 UTI to Stewarts Creek
UTia begins off-site and enters the Project as an incised channel. UTla will consist of 760 LF of
Priority 2 (P2) restoration to abandon the existing channel and align with the valley, providing more
buffer between the residential properties and the stream. The maximum cut in this P2 section (3.8
feet) occurs within the first 200 LF of the proposed UT 1 a profile. This area will be wide and relatively
flat in order to promote natural deposition of the sediment supply from upstream in the floodplain.
The cut for the remaining 560 LF of P2 begins at 1.8 feet and ties into within 0.5 feet of existing
ground before curving around the hillside.
Following the P2 restoration, Priority 1 (P1) restoration will be used as UTia falls with the valley,
wrapping around the hillslope. Based on visual observations, topographic data, and soil inspections,
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 17

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
the proposed alignment represents the historic alignment of UTI. It is evident that the existing UTI
alignment was excavated through a slight hill in the past to drain directly to Stewarts Creek. A review
of aerial photography back to 1936 shows that the streams on the Site were channelized prior to the
available dates of aerial photography; therefore, no photographs or maps have been identified that
show the original stream alignments (Figures 5 and 6). However, topographic information indicates
that the natural drainage for UTI would have wrapped around the hillside as proposed. The proposed
alignment was further confirmed by survey data and a soil investigation, showing that the fall of the
valley and hydric soils follow the proposed alignment around the hillside (see the soils report provided
in Appendix 4). Within the P1 section, between design stations 20+07 and 25+90 the floodplain will
be cut slightly, less the 0.5 ft, in order to center the valley within the easement.
Rock structures are not required due to the size of the channel and the bed material. Log steps, log
vanes, and woody riffles will be incorporated into the restoration design to improve bedform diversity
and provide structures for aquatic organisms. The restored stream channel will be sized to carry the
bankfull discharge, with larger flows spreading out onto the adjacent floodplain.
UTla will be designed as a Cb stream type using the restoration approaches described above.
Sediment transport within UT 1 a was qualitatively assessed throughout the reach. Fresh deposition
was evident on bars within the confined valley during multiple field visits and deposition was
documented with a gauge that was installed in March 2018 and found buried 3 months later (see
photos in Appendix 2). Since there is sediment coming from upstream of the project, the first 200 LF
of the reach is designed to encourage sediment deposition on the bankfull bench. In this area the
channel will have a low slope and a high width depth ratio. This segment will help to limit the
sediment load transported downstream and provide stability to UTlb and UT 1 c. After the first 200
LF of UT 1 a, the bankfull slope exceeds two percent as the channel wraps around the hillside and then
gradually flattens out into the existing wetland. The sediment load to this portion of UT 1 a is expected
to be low and will easily be transported downstream.
UTlb begins where the valley flattens and the proposed channel transitions to a narrow baseflow
channel meandering through existing wetland A (WA). While the UT 1 a valley is steep and somewhat
confined, UTlb and UTlc are within an unconfined alluvial valley. UTlb will meet grade at the
lowest elevation in the existing wetland and maintain a low slope and narrow channel to a culverted
farm crossing. As shown in Graph 1, the valley slope of UTlb would not naturally be expected to
maintain an ordinary high-water mark. Based on the valley topography, soil investigations, and
observed site conditions, EPR believes that a narrow baseflow channel can be maintained through a
proposed stream -wetland complex. Standing water is present in the existing depression of the wetland
for multiple days following a rain event. This length of stream, however, is not included in the credit
accounting to provide SMUs (see Section 11). Construction of the proposed channel will excavate a
narrow portion of the wetland; excavation to the bankfull elevation is less than 0.5 ft. Nearer the
crossing and outside the existing wetland, the maximum excavation is 0.8 ft.
UT 1 c will connect wetlands WA and WB within the conservation easement. The majority of this
reach is within the proposed wetland creation area for the Site and excavation below the culvert is 0.5
ft but gradually increases to 1.5 ft near the confluence with UT2. Wetland creation is discussed in
more detail in Section 7.4.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 18

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
Graph 1 shows that the valley slope for UT 1 c is on the trendline that delineates between channels that
maintain an ordinary high-water mark and channels that do not. The drainage area and valley slope
are very similar to reference reaches that exhibit single threat channels and EPR expects that the
channel will meet the criteria to maintain a single -thread channel through this reach.
Due to the low slopes of UT 1 b and UT 1 c, minimal structures are proposed throughout these reaches;
sod mats and log vanes will promote lateral stability and bed form diversity in UT 1 c. Sediment
transport was considered throughout these reaches but due to the low slopes, deposition can be
expected if there is a sediment supply. The proposed work on UTla will reduce the amount of
sediment by stabilizing the banks within the project reach and creating a depositional reach at the
project boundary.
7.2 UT2 to Stewarts Creek
UT2a enters the southeast corner of the Site in a wide, aggraded area at the confluence of two
unnamed tributaries. Similar to UT 1 a, the upstream land uses contribute sediment supply to the reach;
however, the remainder of UT2a has not exhibited signs of excessive deposition or aggradation due
to this large aggraded area (shown in the photos in Appendix 2) that allows the incoming sediment to
deposit. This section of UT2a will be stabilized and shaped to reduce the erosion from a swale running
down the hillslope on the right bank, but its depositional function will remain intact. UT2a will stay
within the existing channel for 103 LF before transitioning to P2 restoration. The proposed channel
will be centered within the valley and the existing channel will be abandoned and filled. The cut for
this section of P2 restoration begins at 3.1 feet and ties into within 0.5 feet of existing ground before
entering the existing wetland. Following the P2 restoration, P 1 restoration will be used as UT2a flows
through the existing wetland. UT2a ends at its confluence with UT 1 c.
The downstream portion of UT2a currently functions as a small D5/6 stream system and was observed
as more of a flowing emergent marsh than a stream channel. Direct cattle access to the reach has
caused significantly embedded hoof prints throughout the area and trampling of any stream forms
that may have formed. The valley slope and drainage area through the wetlands is estimated to be
sufficient to maintain a well-defined ordinary high-water mark as shown in Graph 1. Once the cattle
are removed, EPR believes the reach will function as a single -thread channel. Therefore, UT2a will
be designed as a C stream type utilizing wood structures due to the bed material. Log steps, log vanes,
and woody riffles will be incorporated into the restoration design to improve bedform diversity and
provide structures for aquatic organisms. The restored stream channel will be sized to carry the
bankfull discharge, with larger flows spreading out onto the adjacent floodplain.
Sediment transport was qualitatively assessed throughout the reach. While the bed was actively
changing between site visits, there was not the same widespread bank erosion, excessive deposition,
and active channel adjustment that was observed in UTI. The gauge that was installed within a pool
downstream of a debris jam in March 2018 was no longer in a pool as the debris jam had dislodged
and the pool filled in. However, the gauge was not buried and when the site was visited in September
2018, the conditions were similar to those observed in June even though significant rain events had
occurred.
UT2b begins at the confluence of UTlc and UT2a as the valley transitions from an expansive bowl
stream -wetland complex to a narrower valley leading southwest to Stewarts Creek. The valley for
UT2b and UT2c has an average width of 150 ft and is bounded by a hillslope to the south and east
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 19

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
and a slight concave feature to the west separating Stewarts Creek and UT2. The existing channel is
incised and entrenched and is therefore disconnected from the natural valley. Due to slope constraints,
the proposed design will excavate a valley at the existing channel elevation, with a maximum cut of
approximately 5 feet. UT2b will be designed as a C stream type using minimal rock. The proposed
design will re -meander the stream within the excavated valley. Toe wood and ditch plugs will prevent
flow from cutting through the old channel. A culverted farm crossing will be installed partway
through UT2b to provide land owner access to both sides of the easement. Additionally, a narrow
pedestrian bridge will be installed within UT2c to allow for the land owners private enjoyment of the
easement.
UT2c heads south towards UT3, and similar to UT2b is incised and entrenched. Due to the proximity
to Stewarts Creek, UT2c will be designed as a Bc channel, implementing an Enhancement I approach.
The proposed design will shape the bankfull channel dimensions, excavate a floodplain area, and
install structures to provide grade control and to improve bed form diversity.
As shown in Graph 1, UT2b and UT2c are expected to maintain a moderately well -formed channel
at the given valley slope. The proposed practices will stabilize the streambanks and limit the supply
of sediment from within the reaches. Additionally, the proposed stream -wetland complex upstream
will limit the sediment load transported downstream and provide stability to UT2b and UT2c.
7.3 UT3 to Stewarts Creek
UT3a enters the conservation easement at the southeastern most portion of the project boundary.
Upstream of the conservation easement, UT3 is ephemeral but quickly becomes perennial from
additional spring discharges just within the easement boundary. The UT3a bed elevation is currently
being controlled by tree roots in the upstream most extents of the reach but has headcut up to that
point and is very deeply incised throughout most of the rest of the reach. Remnants of an old dam
are located approximately 100 feet downstream from the start of UT3a. This dam has been long
breeched and abandoned terrace behind the dam supports wetland D. Currently, the bed along the
entire length of UT3 is inundated with sand. This is likely due to the extreme bank erosion found
throughout much of this reach. In an undisturbed setting, this steep headwater stream would more
likely have had a gravel and cobble bed. Pebble count and bar sample information were collected
from the reach. These samples provide data that shows a bed material that is much finer than what
would exist in this location in an undisturbed setting. UT3a is classified as a G5 stream type
throughout most of its length.
UT3a is designed as a P1/P2 restoration where the bed elevation is being brought back up to the
natural valley elevation and bankfull benches are being excavated to provide adequate floodplain and
fill material to raise the bed elevation. Many areas along this reach will connect the design bankfull
elevation to the historic floodplain elevation. This reach is designed as a B4 stream type which is
likely what existed in this steep headwater valley prior to disturbance. UT3a will incorporate instream
structures such as log drops and constructed riffles to provide grade control and encourage pool scour
and bioengineering such as toe wood and geolifts to provide bank stability and improved habitat. A
culverted farm crossing will be installed partway through UT3a to provide land owner access to both
sides of the easement.
The 87 -foot long, intermittent UT4 enters UT3a downstream of the proposed culverted crossing as
an incised (BHR >10) and entrenched G5 stream. UT4 is intermittent at a large headcut and
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 20

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
Enhancement I activities will reconnect the stream to its floodplain and shape a stable channel,
incorporating grade control, to meet the proposed grade of UT3a.
UT3a and UT4 are considered sediment supply reaches and as such, a quantitative sediment transport
analysis would not provide useful information. However, comparing the design critical shear stress
to Shield's Curve shows that the stream will have enough energy to entrain particles of approximately
100 mm. This shows that the stream will move the fines through the restored system. The restoration
of this reach will greatly reduce bank erosion which will reduce the fine sediment supply. The
constructed riffles will incorporate material large enough to be immobile during storm events and will
provide a stable bed form.
UT3b begins where the channel is not as severely incised and the valley is beginning to widen. This
short 190 -foot section of channel has some stable bank sections and mature vegetation. Even though
this reach is not as dramatically incised as UT3a, stormflows during the bankfull discharge do not
access the floodplain and historic cattle access and hoof shear along the banks is apparent. Like
UT3a, UT3b is inundated with sand but more gravel is present. UT3b is proposed for Enhancement I
activities which include reconnecting the stream to its historic floodplain by raising the bed elevation,
constructing the correct bankfull geometry, and installing in -stream structures to improve bed form
and provide grade control. The channel will remain in its current alignment. To the extent possible,
existing mature trees will not be disturbed along this reach. Due to the wider valley, this channel is
designed as a C4b stream type.
UT3c begins where the valley further flattens and the widens and becomes the floodplain for Stewarts
Creek. UT3c has been channelized and moved to the edge of the valley along the toe of the slope.
Due to this channelization and subsequent degradation, UT3c is incised and overly wide and classifies
as a F4 stream type. This stream flows for approximately 974 feet to the confluence with UT2. A
series of headcuts exist along this reach as it nears the confluence with UT2. UT3c is designed as a
P 1 restoration with a C4 stream type. The stream will be moved to the low point in the center of the
valley and re -meandered through the existing degraded wetland which will improve wetland
hydrology by increasing the frequency of overbank events and raising the stream bed. A riffle pool
bedform sequence will be established and in -stream structures such as rock and woody constructed
riffles, and j -hook vanes will be used to control grade and promote pool scour. Toe wood will be
used to protect meander bends and to increase the amount of woody debris within the stream. A
narrow (10 ft wide) ATV crossing will be installed partway through UT3c to provide land owner
access to both sides of the easement. This stream length is not included to generate SMUs.
Since this entire stream reach and the reaches upstream are being restored and stabilized, the sediment
load entering UT3c will be greatly reduced. The constructed riffles that will be installed will consist
of material that will be immobile during storm events. The design critical shear stress is capable of
entraining particles from approximately 50 to 100 millimeters in diameter. This will ensure that any
fines supplied from the upstream reaches are either transported through UT3c or deposited on the
floodplain.
UT3d is a short, incised reach that begins at the confluence with UT2 and ends at Stewarts Creek.
The pattern follows a few tight bends and the channel is completely disconnected from the floodplain.
This reach will be re -aligned slightly to move the confluence away from an eroding bank and the
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 21

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
channel will be shaped to contain bankfull dimensions, thus reducing erosion and the sediment load
into Stewarts Creek.
7.4 Wetlands
Wetland rehabilitation is proposed for the portions of existing wetlands WA, WB, and WC that are
outside of the proposed stream banks (refer to Figure 10). These areas have been maintained in
herbaceous vegetation and trampled by cattle due to long-established agricultural practices.
Additionally due to these agricultural practices, WA and WC are partially disconnected from their
associated stream reaches. Restoration activities planned for the Site involve planting native woody
wetland vegetation and re-establishing direct hydrologic connections with Site streams in existing
wetland areas.
Wetland creation is also proposed along UTI and UT2 where existing topography, in concert with
proposed stream restoration activities, suggest a potential for these areas to develop wetland soil and
hydrology indicators. The main wetland creation area occurs between existing WA and WB.
Realigning UTI to connect with UT2 will provide a consistent source of hydrology downslope of
existing WA. In addition, existing WB has the potential to be enlarged towards WA given the bowl -
like nature of this area and very low slopes. At some point, ditches were dug through WB that drain
towards UT2. Instead of filling these features, ditch plugs will be placed along the ditches to decrease
drainage and encourage longer inundation times. Areas of potential wetland creation will not be
counted towards wetland mitigation credit unless groundwater gauge data are provided that shows
jurisdictional wetland hydrology during the annual monitoring period and consultation with the IRT
has occurred.
Five main activities will be employed to rehabilitate or create wetlands:
• Re -align UTI to its historic location, which will route flow through the lowest part of the
valley and through WA and WB (this water is currently directed away from the Site);
• Re -align UT3 through existing WC, providing increased hydrology and overbank flooding;
• Minor grading activities to increase surface storage and inundation;
• Plant native woody wetland species; and
• Restore or maintain an overbank flooding regime by designing channels that flow out of
their banks at bankfull discharges.
As a result of these activities, significant hydrologic lift will occur across the project area, raising the
local water table and fostering the development of wetland plant and hydrology indicators in areas
where they might be reasonably expected to occur after implementation of the Project.
7.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan
Species selection for re -vegetation of riparian buffer areas will generally follow those suggested by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) for Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Schafale (2012) for
Piedmont Alluvial Forest, as well as wetness tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN -RS -4.1
(WRP 1997). Species selection for existing and proposed wetland areas are modified to include more
species with greater wetness tolerances than the riparian buffer areas. Where the limits of disturbance
within the easement includes the toe of the hillslopes, upland seeding and tree species will be planted.
The native species selected for establishment at the Site represent a range of growth rates and varying
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 22

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
tolerances to shade and moisture. These range of characteristics were selected to ensure that the
appropriate vegetation cover develops over the Site.
The species lists, site preparation, planting density, planting methods, and materials are detailed in
the construction drawings and specifications included in Appendix 6.
Invasive species identified at the Site are sparse but present, particularly in wetland C. Common
invasive species vegetation found at the Site include Chinese privet, multiflora rose, Japanese
honeysuckle, and fescue grass. During construction, the existing invasive vegetation species will be
controlled using mechanical methods.
7.6 Project Risks and Uncertainties
Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the development
of design plans for the Site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address these concerns.
• Land use development: There is potential for increased land development around the Site in the
future that could lead to additional runoff and changes to watershed hydrology.
o Methods to Address: Development upstream and around UTI and UT2 is not likely to
occur. The upstream catchments are already built out and the adjacent land owners are
likely to continue their agricultural practices. The land is within a floodplain and
unlikely to be approved for further development. However, there is active construction
of a house along the northern hillslope of UT3a and further development of the northern
pastures is possible along the length of UT3. Restoration of the Site to reconnect
streams to their floodplains will reduce the likelihood of future degradation from
watershed changes, as increased flows will spread over a wider floodplain. There is
also little elevational fall across the Site so the risk of channel instability is low once
vegetation is established. Grade control (in the form of constructed instream structures
and natural bedrock outcrops) present across the restored site decrease the chances of
future channel incision.
Channel Formation: Since the project involves headwater systems, flow duration and channel
formation performance standards may not be met.
o Methods to Address: The design team is confident that the headwater stream systems
will form as designed. This conclusion is based on observations of site wetness
condition, soils, topography, watershed sizes, and past project experience. Flow gauges
will be installed, and observations of channel formation and ordinary high-water mark
features will be recorded. In the first few years, channels may become obscured by
dense herbaceous vegetation. Over time as trees grow and provide shade, the
herbaceous species will be reduced, and the channels will typically become more
defined and pronounced.
• Easement Encroachment: There is potential for landowner encroachment into the permanent
conservation easement.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 23

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
o Methods to Address: EPR has had considerable discussions with the landowner
regarding the project requirements and limitations of easement access and is confident
that the landowner fully understands and will maintain the easement protections. The
easement boundaries will be fenced and clearly marked. Any encroachments that do
occur will be remedied by EPR or the long-term steward to remedy any damage and
provide any other corrections required by the IRT.
• Beavers: Hydrologic trespass due to flooding is likely in the vicinity of the UT1/UT2 confluence
if beaver occupy the Site. While there was no evidence of beaver activity during Site assessments,
there is potential for beavers to inhabit the Site.
o Methods to Address: EPR will take steps to trap and remove beaver if they appear on
the Site during the monitoring period.
• Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring
period of the project.
o Methods to Address: EPR will apply adaptive management techniques as necessary to
meet the performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include replanting,
channel damage repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive management activities
are significant, additional monitoring may be required by the IRT.
8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Performance criteria outlined in 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), will be followed and are briefly outlined
below. Monitoring information can be found in Section 9.0.
8.1 Restored Stream Channels
The required performance criteria for restored stream channels, per USACE Guidance are
summarized briefly below:
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 for all measured cross sections on a given reach.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be 1.4 or above for all measured riffle cross-sections on a
given reach.
• BHR should not change by more than 10% in any given year for a majority of a given
reach.
• Must document occurrence of at least 4 bankfull events in separate years during the
monitoring period.
8.2 Riparian and Wetland Vegetation
The required performance criteria for planted riparian vegetation, per USACE Guidance are
summarized below:
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 24

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
• Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at
year 3; a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210
stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved
planting list for the Site.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems per monitoring plot.
• Vegetation must be planted, and plots established, at least 180 days prior to the initiation
of the first year of monitoring.
• Permanent plots will be randomly located throughout the Site, and random plots will not
make up more than 50% of the plots.
Invasive species will be managed and controlled using a combination of chemical and/or mechanical
methods to ensure that these species comprise less than 5% of the total easement acreage.
Management and control will continue throughout the project until this percentage is achieved.
8.3 Wetlands
All wetland areas within the project easement are proposed to have consistent monitoring and success
criteria, including 10% wetland hydroperiod and vegetation indicative of a jurisdictional wetland as
defined by USACE guidelines. Wetland hydroperiod will be monitored by continuously recording
groundwater gauges and will be presented in annual monitoring reports. Areas that do not exhibit
sufficient hydroperiod and/or hydric soil indicators will be not be added to wetland mitigation unit
upon completion of the monitoring period.
8.4 Compatibility with Project Goals
The required performance criteria described above, plus project -specific criteria, allow evaluation of
whether the project goals have been met after the Project has been completed. In Table 11, the Project
objectives are listed, along with the performance criteria that will allow documentation of whether
these objectives have been achieved. Fulfillment of these objectives will allow the Project to achieve
the goals outlined in Section 6.0.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 25

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
Table 11. Project Objectives and Associated Performance Criteria
Objective
Performance Criteria
Reduce amount of land in active
• Recordation of a conservation easement meeting
livestock pasture.
USACE guidelines that removes approximately 16 acres
of land from active livestock pasture.
Install fencing to exclude livestock
• Visual inspection of fence installed to exclude cattle
from project streams.
from the stream and riparian buffer, demonstrating no
encroachment.
Increase distance between active
• Protect minimum 30 ft. riparian buffers between project
farming operations and receiving
streams and active farming operations with a
waters.
conservation easement meeting USACE guidelines.
Restore and protect riparian
• Restore minimum 30 ft. riparian buffers between project
buffers to filter runoff from
streams and surrounding agricultural and suburban land
agricultural and suburban land
uses.
uses and provide organic matter,
.Recordation of a conservation easement meeting
shade, and bank protection and
USACE guidelines
stability.
• Woody vegetation establishment meeting defined
success criteria.
• Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable sections over
the monitoring period.
Stabilize eroding stream banks.
• Visual inspection of fence installed to exclude cattle from
the stream and riparian buffer, demonstrating no
encroachment.
• Maintenance or development of wetland indicators
(vegetation, hydrology, and soil), as defined by the
Rehabilitate existing riparian
USACE.
wetlands and decrease drainage of
• The percent saturation/hydroperiod threshold shall be
created riparian wetland areas.
exceeded.
• Woody vegetation success criteria of 320 native
stems/acre in Year 3, 260 native stems/acre in Year 5 and
210 native stems/acre in Year 7.
Restore stream channels with
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 for all
appropriate dimension, pattern,
measured cross sections on a given reach.
and profile
* photographic documentation of stable stream banks.
• Documentation of a stable longitudinal profile.
Install in -stream structures to
• Visual documentation of in -stream structure stability
provide stream channel and stream
during annual monitoring.
bank stability and improved
• Geomorphic cross sections that document a variety of
aquatic habitat
channel depths and forms.
9.0 MONITORING PLAN
Per the "Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" (October 24,
2016), Site monitoring must occur for seven years post -construction, unless the District, in
consultation with the IRT, agrees that monitoring may be terminated early. Monitoring reports will
be completed for all seven years and provided to the USACE no later than April 1 of the following
year. Reports will be written and formatted in accordance with Regulatory Guidance Letter 08-03 and
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 26

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
will include a yearly summary of applicable activities such as vegetation monitoring and stream and
wetland hydrologic monitoring. After USACE's review of the documentation, additional monitoring
protocols may be required to ensure project success can be achieved.
While monitoring reports will be completed annually, not all monitoring reports will include the same
information. A visual assessment of the entire project will be conducted on an annual basis. All
monitoring reports will include at least a brief narrative of site developments, a representative photo
log, and a Current Condition Plan View (CCPV). Specifically, problem areas of vegetation, in -stream
structures, and channel movement (pattern, dimension, or profile) will be noted on the CCPV and
documented with photos. Further monitoring measurements to be included in the annual monitoring
reports are detailed in the following sections.
In addition, a final as -built survey and report, with information as outlined in the Wilmington District
October 2016 Update, will be submitted to the USACE within 90 days of completion of all physical
and biological improvements to the Site (including planting).
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring will include monitoring of the hydrologic and geomorphic functions of UT's 1, 2,
3, and 4. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table
12. Monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow monitoring of parameters to
document site performance related to the project goals listed in Section 6.0. The proposed locations
of monitoring features (cross sections and gauges) are shown in Figure 11.
Table 12. Stream Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/ Frequency
Number/ Extent
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
As -built only (unless
All four stream
otherwise required)
channels.
5 on UTI;
Stream Dimension
Cross sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
6 on UT2;
6 on UT3; and
1 on UT4
Visual Assessment
Yearly
All four stream
channels.
Only if instability is
Channel Stability
Additional Cross sections
Yearly
documented during
monitoring
1 each on UT 1 a,
Pressure transducers
Continuous recording
UTIc, UT2a UT2c,
Precipitation recorder
through monitoring
UT3a, UT3c, and
Stream Hydrology
period
UT4; and
I Tipping bucket
Photos of flood
Yearly
All four stream
indicators
channels.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 27

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
9.2 Wetland Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after hydrological
modifications are performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing
season at intervals necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional hydrology success criteria within each
wetland creation area (USEPA 1990). According to the Soil Survey of Surry County, the growing
season is from April 8 to October 26 (USDA 2007). The beginning of the growing season will be
confirmed annually by soil temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 20 inches (50cm) depth
and/or bud burst. Soil temperatures will be collected in late March/early April of each monitoring
year and will be reported in the annual monitoring report. Monitored parameters, methods,
schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table 13. The proposed locations for groundwater
gauges are shown in Figure 11.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 28

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
Table 13. Wetland Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/
Number/ Extent
Data Collected
Permanent
Frequency
6 plots, spread
Species, height,
vegetation plots,
Continuous
4 gauges; one each
Soil temperature at the
Vegetation
0.02 acre in size
recording
in WA WB WC
beginning of each
Wetland
Pressure
through
and the creation
monitoring period,
Hydrology
transducers
growing
area between WA
groundwater and rain
vegetation plots,
season
and WB.
data for each
0.02 acre in size
drop
selected each
monitored period.
Permanent
5 plots; one each in
vegetation
WA, WC, and the
Species, height,
plots, 0.02 acre
As -built,
creation area
location, planted vs.
Years 1, 2,
between WA and
volunteer, age, woody
Vegetation
in size
(minimum)
3, 5, and 7
WB, and
stems count.
establishment
two in WB.
Annual random
and vigor
Between
vegetation
July 1 st and
3 plots, randomly
Species, height,
plots, 0.02 acre
leaf drop
selected each year
woody stems count.
in size
(minimum)
9.3 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring will evaluate the establishment of planted and volunteer vegetation across the
Site. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are summarized in Table 14.
Monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow monitoring of parameters to
document site performance related to the project goals listed in Section 6.0.
Table 14. Riparian Vegetation Monitoring Summarv.
Parameter
Method A
Schedule/
Frequency
Number/
Extent*
Data Collected
Permanent
6 plots, spread
Species, height,
vegetation plots,
As -built, Years
location, planted vs.
Vegetation
0.02 acre in size
1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
across riparian
planting zones.
volunteer, age,
establishment
minimum
wood stems count.
Annual random
7 plots,
and vigor
Between July
vegetation plots,
1 st and leaf
randomly
Species, height,
0.02 acre in size
drop
selected each
woody stems count.
minimum
year.
* Values do not include the vegetation plots in the wetlands on the Site described in Table 13.
+ Random plots could occur in riparian, wetland, or upland planting zones (Zones 2, 3, or 4).
During quantitative vegetation sampling, sample plots (100 square meters, or 0.02 acre) will be
installed within the Site as per guidelines established by the Level 1 and 2 protocols in CVS -DMS
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Visual observations of the percent
cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by photograph. The proposed
locations of permanent vegetation plots are shown in Figure 11.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 29

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
During the monitoring period, the Site will be reviewed annually to locate and quantify any residual
invasive species vegetation. If invasive species are identified at the Site during the monitoring period,
their location and extent will be shown on the current condition plan view (CCPV). A corresponding
discussion will be included in the annual monitoring report outlining the proposed management plan.
Invasive species vegetation will be managed and reviewed on an annual basis to minimize its long-
term impact to planted native species. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be
performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
10.0 ADAPTIVE AND LONG-TERM MANANGEMENT
A permanent conservation easement will be established on the mitigation areas to provide perpetual
protection. Following the release and sale of all available credits for the Site, long-term management
of the property will be assumed by a third -party conservation organization.
Until close-out, the conservation easement will be held by EPR Conservation Easement Holdings,
LLC, a company established for the express purpose of holding conservation easements during the
construction and monitoring phases of mitigation sites. In the event the mitigation site or a specific
component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary performance standards as specified in
Section 8, EPR shall notify the members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency
plans and remedial actions. A maintenance plan is provided in Appendix 8, summarizing the types of
issues that may arise during monitoring and how those issues would be addressed. A statement
regarding the financial assurances for the project can be found in Appendix 9.
To handle management of the Site after close-out, the Sponsor will institute a Long-term Management
Plan for assessing the condition of the mitigation Site and implementing maintenance provisions to
maintain performance of the Site. The proposed site protections will ensure that only IRT -approved
activities take place, and a non -wasting endowment fund will be established to fund long-term
maintenance and management activities. The Sponsor has discussed the project with the Piedmont
Land Conservancy (PLC), and conducted a site visit with PLC to review the project and the proposed
restoration plans. PLC has expressed interest in being the long-term steward for the project after
monitoring has been completed and all credits sold. Therefore, the Sponsor's plan is to transfer the
easement to PLC after bank close-out.
11.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in Table 15 are projections based upon site design. Upon completion of
site construction, the project components and credit data will be adjusted, if necessary, to be consistent
with the as -built condition, and any changes will be described in the As -built Monitoring Report. The
project proposes to provide stream credits derived from stream enhancement level II (UT3d), stream
enhancement level I (UT2c, UT3b and UT4) and stream restoration (UTla, UTIc, UT2ab, and
UT3ac) activities as shown in Table 15a and Figure 10. Where possible, stream riparian buffers in
excess of the minimum 30 -feet have been restored along both banks for 25.4 protected acres. The
methodology outlined in the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator (Updated
1/19/2018) was used to calculate additional buffer credits. The Wilmington District Stream Buffer
Credit Calculator documentation is provided in Figure 12 and Appendix 10.
The project proposes to provide wetland credits derived from wetland rehabilitation and creation as
shown in Table 15b and Figure 10. Since there is higher demand for stream credits in the service area
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 30

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
for the Site, the credit generating wetland areas are smaller than the proposed wetland creation and
rehabilitation areas outlined in the planting plan and Section 7 of this report.
Descriptions of the stream mitigation units (SMUs) are presented below in Tables 15a. Wetland
mitigation units (WMUs) are presented in Tables 15b. The proposed credit release schedule is
provided in Appendix 11.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 31

4,� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Table 15a. Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Stream Asset Table
A R = Restoration, E= Enhancement
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 32
Existing
Mitigation
Restoration
Approach
Mitigation
Mitigation
10
Project
Component
Footage
Stationing
Plan
Level A
Priority
Ratio (X: 1)
Credits
Notes/ Comments
Footage
Level
(SMUs)
UTla
862.8
10+00 to
1,590
R
Pi
1
1,590
25+90
25+90 to
E channel through wetland
UTlb
0
538
-
Pi
0
0
- may not maintain high-
31+28
water mark.
UTIc
0
31+28 to
688
R
P2
1
688
50 ft crossing not included
38+66
in miti ation length.
UT2a
1019.36
10+00 to
1,186
R
P1
1
1,186
21+86
UT2b
928.5
21+86 to
1,011
R
P2
1
1,011
50 ft crossing not included
32+47
in miti on length.
UT2c
240.1
32+47 to
244
EI
-
1.5
163
34+91
UT3a
1527
10+00 to
1,378
R
P2
1
1,378
30 ft crossing not included
24+10
in mitigation length.
UT3b
198
24+10 to
190
EI
-
1.5
127
26+00
UT3cd
1123.5
26+10 to
1,164
R
Pi
1
1,164
10 ft crossing not included
37+94
in miti on length.
UT4
86.8
10+00 to
134
EI
-
1.5
89
11+10
Net Change in Credit from Buffers using the
763.74
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator (Updated 1/19/2018)
Total Assets Summary:
8,159 SMUs
A R = Restoration, E= Enhancement
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 32

4,� ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Table 15b. Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site Wetland Asset Table
. Areas of existing and proposed wetlands that will be used to generate stream credits are not included in this table.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 33
Wetland
Position
Existing
Mitigation
Restoration
Mitigation
Mitigation
Asset
and
Acreage
Plan
Level
Ratio
Credits
Notes/ Comments
Hydro
Acreage *
(WMUs)
Type
WA
RR
1.4
0.77
Rehabilitation
1.5
1.16
Planting, excluding livestock,
WB
RR
2.4
1.00
Rehabilitation
1.5
0.67
and increase surface hydrology.
WC
RR
0.79
0.54
Rehabilitation
1.5
0.36
Creation
RR
0
1.14
Creation
3
0.38
Connecting WA and WB and
removing berm from WB.
Total Assets Summary:
2.56 WMUs
. Areas of existing and proposed wetlands that will be used to generate stream credits are not included in this table.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 33

�.. ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING Sc
RESTORATION
12.0 REFERENCES
EcoEngineering, 2008. Upper Yadkin Basin Local Watershed Plan Technical Memorandum, Task 2.
EEP-08050, October 2008.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function -
based framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals, performance standards
and standard operating procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.
Harman, W.A. and C.J. Jones. 2017. North Carolina Stream Quantification Tool: Spreadsheet User
Manual, NC SQT v3.0. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC.
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and J.P.
Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Lowther, Brian. 2008. Stream Channel Geomorphology Relationships for North Carolina Piedmont
Reference Reaches — a thesis prepared in the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept.
of North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River
Basin Restoration Priorities.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008. Yadkin Pee -Dee Basinwide Water
Quality Plan.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.
Tweedy, K.L. 2008. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater
Systems. Conference Proceedings: Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the
Science and Practice. November 3 - 6, 2008, Asheville, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. J. F.
Berkowitz, J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -12-9. Vicksburg, MS:
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team.
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
December 2018 Page 34

Site Coordinates
36.4898 °N
80.6411 °W
a
Oak Ridye<z
Rea Brush Rd
Ceorr�e Chandler Ra
Legend
= Conservation Easement
n�•mou
Fb,
S"
oI Rd
C Ric
hdra
�a
yr
c -ea
N
m
x
3
o.
a
Airvicw V O
C �
C �O
v
t
io
a
o
O ?Ko Rd
114, Scott Bun *ns Creek
Q, /
9ry eY �f �^ tc
n Hwy ckrr�r�eY � 2
8/(1e117ont Rd
Casale
O
Sno,Nh111 Pr
a
u
0
Prrleview Or C
s
fou
u.
N O
y
V
N
bVorth St
Linvil
cy
Rive m de
Park
Q`ce
5�
E Oak St 2 i
2,
m
-41, tPp Future
Park
�a
Carp Sl ,t
0
� ego
R
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED BY:
0 1,500 3,000 ECOSYSTEM
Feet PLANNING &
VICINITY MAPtil I
RESTORATION
FIGURE 1 SURRY COUNTY, NC DECEMBER 201 8
Z`��
Fd�
42
L6
rn
CL
Blvd
a
Hardy', ===iIStir -_
t8� --- ----
-
�11h P
---
cne�d�icc
o A
Custom Gr, it - -finer
Center
Old
Mt Al
w
T�oS�Rd
ry Pin
est
!-
II 4(
oI Rd
C Ric
hdra
�a
yr
c -ea
N
m
x
3
o.
a
Airvicw V O
C �
C �O
v
t
io
a
o
O ?Ko Rd
114, Scott Bun *ns Creek
Q, /
9ry eY �f �^ tc
n Hwy ckrr�r�eY � 2
8/(1e117ont Rd
Casale
O
Sno,Nh111 Pr
a
u
0
Prrleview Or C
s
fou
u.
N O
y
V
N
bVorth St
Linvil
cy
Rive m de
Park
Q`ce
5�
E Oak St 2 i
2,
m
-41, tPp Future
Park
�a
Carp Sl ,t
0
� ego
R
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED BY:
0 1,500 3,000 ECOSYSTEM
Feet PLANNING &
VICINITY MAPtil I
RESTORATION
FIGURE 1 SURRY COUNTY, NC DECEMBER 201 8

A<
•" ,_,._ Mfr,_. ��..
i
TO
gob
9MM Ju
t ® 1f
DIme�
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
UT1 old flow path7
UT1a m�
UT2a3� .
UT2b
UT2c u
UT3a w
UT3b R
UT3d
v
® Wetlands
0 250 500 RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED
ECOSYSTEM
Feet EXISTING SITE FEATURES PLANNING &
RESTORATION
FIGURE 2 SURRY COUNTY, NC DECEMBER 201 8

---- --����� 591900894216 / o
BEA5917 750JV
� `✓��� ��=--- �? ius Moser TO
BEASLEYtTERRY G/
w..k59.1908891501 / I

0
C, RPh
°'c
Iz-
hit Airy v,
R�
rr o
II S�
O
r
0
S�
LEGEND
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS
TARGETED LOCAL WATERSHED 11-c'
(03040101 1 0001 0) wy
eek
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED
0 0.5 1 ECOSYSTEM
Miles WATERSHED LOCATION MAP ril I PLANNING &
RESTORATION
FIGURE 4 SURRY COUNTY, NC DECEMBER 201 8

6
s' 'r
�l
`� • ''
jr
lit-
tf
r - -
Legend +
Conservation Easement -
.
PREPARED BY:
0 250 500 RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE ECOSYSTEM
Feet HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP PLANNING &
(1966) tilRESTORATION
FIGURE 6 SURRY COUNTY, NC DECEMBER 201 8

■
i
r
LEGEND
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
HIGH: 1189
Low: 1006
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED ECOSYSTEM 0 250 500
Feet LIDAR MAPtil
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
FIGURE 7 SURRY COUNTY, NC DECEMBER 201 8

ir
A
k.
try"` l
a
tIlk ..,
`.
r ,
r- r
r. a
LEGEND
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT '
r
SOILS ,
COLVARD AND SUCHES (CSA)
0 DILLARD FINE SANDY LOAM (DRB)
HATBORO LOAM (HAA)
RHODHISS BANNERTOWN COMPLEX (RBD) xloll
1 'v
0 TOAST-BANNERTOWN COMPLEX (TTC) ♦' r
- WATER (W)
0 250 500 RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED
ECOSYSTEM
Feet SOILS MAP PLANNING &
RESTORATION
FIGURE 8 1 SURRY COUNTY, NC I DECEMBER 201 8

r( S Y
ata G
- i1x'i.
. •/ � . i r ROY AYERS LN
., i
I
CAIRo,TR
. .... ... :: 1 ZONE X
•..
.
.... �. ;
o-
• a 06
V`.,.
6 •
t
z sr
NEA , 70
(EL 1023) ZONE X 3
? c
FFEC fS FROM' ZONE X
T= CF'EEK X022 ��r- *
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
0
ZONE
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED BY:
0 250 500 " ECOSYSTEM
Feet FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPPLANNING &
..
RESTORATION
FIGURE 9 SURRY COUNTY, NC DECEMBER 201 8

IT
r s• R}
R6'>.
,
t ,
fi a < k r'
s y i i
%FNw
LEGEND
STREAM RESTORATION (1: 1) �-
STREAM ENHANCEMENT 1 (1.5: 1) r m'
a
w
STREAM ENHANCEMENT II (2.5:1) •
CONSERVATION EASEMENTNA
4
WETLAND CREATION (3: 1) :4
WETLAND REHABILITATION (1 .5:1)JLe
6
-.:�..v .
® EXISTING WETLANDS
0 250 500 RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED
ECOSYSTEM
Feet ASSET MAP PLANNING &
RESTORATION
FIGURE 10 SURRY COUNTY, NC DECEMBER 201 8

IDEAL BUFFER LONES
ACTUAL BUFFER ZONES
'
-
0-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
roe.
30-50
50-75
75-100
100-125
125-150
y
w
0 250 500 RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE PREPARED
ECOSYSTEM
Feet RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONES ril I PLANNING &
RESTORATION
FIGURE 12 SURRY COUNTY, NC DECEMBER 201 8