20170537 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20191217

ID#* 20170537 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 12/17/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/17/2019
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jamey McEachran
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20170537
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Hannah Bridge
County: Johnston
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Hannah Bridge Year 1 Monitoring Report.pdf 18.28MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jamey McEachran
Signature:*

302 Jefferson St. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

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

res.us

December 4, 2019

Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

RE: Hannah Bridge Year 1 Monitoring Report (SAW-2015-01799)

Ms. Dailey,

Please find attached the Hannah Bridge Year 1 Monitoring Report. In Year 1, 14 of the 17 fixed
vegetation plots and one of the three random vegetation plots met the 320 stems per acre success
criteria. The areas (~ 3 acres) in and around the three fixed plots and two random plots that did
not meet success will be supplemental planted in early 2020. Bankfull events were recorded on
all three stage recorders but the flow gauge documented zero full flow days in Year 1. Three of
the 11 groundwater wells and both reference groundwater wells met the 12 percent hydroperiod
success criteria. RES expects the flow data and groundwater data to improve in following years
when a full water/growing seasons data is reported. There were two areas of re-sprouted Chinse
privet reported that will be treated with herbicide in Year 2.

RES is requesting a 10% stream credit release (446.600 SMUs) and a 10% wetland credit
release (1.00 WMU).

Thank you,

Ryan Medric | Ecologist

HANNAH BRIDGE STREAM
AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

SAW-2015-01799

YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Provided by:

Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056

December 2019

Hannah Bridge 1 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project Location and Description ................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Project Success Criteria ................................................................................................................ 3
Stream Success Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 3
Wetland Success Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 4
Vegetation Success Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Project Components ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Design/Approach ......................................................................................................................... 5
Stream ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Wetland ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions ............................................................................................ 7
1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1) ......................................................................................... 7
Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Stream Geomorphology .................................................................................................................................. 8
Stream Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Wetland Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 References ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Contacts Table
Figure 1: Site Location Map

Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos
Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas

Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5: Planted Species Summary
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data

Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Baseline Cross-Section Plots
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Table 10. Stream Reach Morphology Data Table

Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 11. 2019 Rainfall Summary
Table 12. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
MY1 Stream Flow Hydrograph
Table 13. 2019 Max Hydroperiod
Table 14. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
MY1 Groundwater Well Hydrographs

Hannah Bridge 2 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
1.0 Project Summary

1.1 Project Location and Description

The Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (the Site) is located within a watershed dominated
by agricultural land use in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately 5 miles south of the town of
Four Oaks. The project streams and wetlands were significantly impacted by channelization and cattle
access. The project involves the restoration and protection of streams in the Neuse River watershed and the
restoration and enhancement of adjacent riparian wetlands. The purpose of this mitigation site is to restore
and enhance a stream/wetland complex located within the Neuse River Basin. The Site was constructed in
concurrence with the Hannah Bridge Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.

The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201 (USGS, 2012) and within the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Neuse River Sub-basin 03-04-02 (NCDENR, 2005). The
2010 Neuse River Basin Plan (NRBP) identified the Hannah Creek watershed (HUC 03020201150020) as
a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland,
stream, and riparian buffer restoration.

The total easement area is 46.2 acres. The wooded areas along the easement corridor designated for
restoration activities were classified as mixed hardwoods. Invasive species were present throughout the
wooded areas. Channels restored were degraded to a point where they no longer accessed their floodplain,
lacked riparian buffers, allowed livestock access, and aquatic life was not supported. Additionally, the
riparian buffer was in poor condition throughout most of the project area where it was devoid of trees or
shrubs and pasture was present up to the edge of the pre-construction channel.

The Site includes Priority I restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II, and Preservation.
Priority I restoration reaches incorporate the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters
based on data taken from the reference site described above, published empirical relationships, NC Coastal
Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.

The Site includes wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Wetland restoration occurs adjacent
to Priority I stream restoration reaches. The restoration approach was to reconnect the floodplain wetlands
to the stream, fill existing ditches, rough the floodplain surface, and plant native tree and shrub species
commonly found in small stream swamp ecosystems. The wetland enhancement treatment primarily
excludes livestock, improves hydrology via pond removal and ditch plugging and planting native tree and
shrub species.

The Site is to be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the Site will be conducted at a
minimum of twice per year throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring period, or until
performance standards are met. These site inspections will identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. The measure of stream restoration success will be documented by bankfull flows and
no change in stream channel classification. Sand bed channels are dynamic and minor adjustments to
dimension and profile are expected. The measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of
at least 210 seven-year old planted trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of year seven
of the monitoring period.

Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the Site will be transferred to the North
Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection
of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction
document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be
negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.

Hannah Bridge 3 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives

The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified several restoration needs for the
entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for HUC 03020201, specifically. The Hannah Creek watershed (HUC
03020201150020) was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the
need and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The Hannah Creek watershed
includes 34 square miles of watershed area, with forty-two percent of the 102 stream miles lacking wooded
buffers. Fifty-four percent of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes and seven percent is currently
developed.

The Site was identified as a stream and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water quality, habitat, and
hydrology within the Neuse River Basin. This project is intended to provide Stream Mitigation Units to be
applied as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable authorized impacts to waters of the US under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and support the overall goal of “no net loss” of aquatic
resources in the United States. The Site is located within the downstream end of HUC 03020201 and
includes streams that directly discharge into Hannah Creek. The overarching goal of this project is to
address major watershed stressors identified in the 2010 Neuse RBRP for this TLW by promoting nutrient
and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving streams, wetlands, and riparian
buffers and improve functional uplift to the ecosystem. The project design goals and objectives, including
restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and improve terrestrial habitat,
and construction of in-stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will address the degraded water quality
and nutrient input from farming.

The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel along the project
reach with an appropriate riparian plant community (a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp diverse
mix of species).
• Increase plant species diversity and eradicate invasive species within the project boundaries.
• Improve flood bank connectivity by reducing bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios
to reference reach levels.
• Reduce sediment supply from eroding stream banks in order to restore channel stability by restoring
the stream channel pattern, dimension, and profile in stream channels to reference reach conditions.
• Reduce impact of livestock to the stream channels and runoff through the increase in the livestock
exclusion.
• Restore stable flow dynamics by improving stream velocity and shear stress to levels between the
critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits

1.3 Project Success Criteria

The Site follows the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the “Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update” dated October 24, 2016. Cross section and vegetation plot data
will be collected in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream and wetland hydrology data and visual monitoring
will be reported annually.

Stream Success Criteria

Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.

Hannah Bridge 4 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-cutting or
erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. Channel stability should
be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring
period.

Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should
not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth.
Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A
series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.

Wetland Success Criteria

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a current WETs table for Johnston County upon
which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable data station
was determined to be the WETS station for Smithfield, NC. The growing season for Johnston County is
233 days long, extending from March 18 to November 6, and is based on a daily minimum temperature
greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.

Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual
site conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a hydroperiod
for the Bibb soil of 12-16 percent of the growing season. The hydrology success criterion for the Site is to
restore the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12
percent of the growing season (approximately 27 days) at each groundwater gauge location.

Vegetation Success Criteria

Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Site will follow
IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum
of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur between July 1st and leaf drop. The
interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted three-year
old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees at the end of Year 5 with an average height
of seven feet, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average height of
10 feet at the end of Year 7. Height measurement success criteria do not apply to the understory trees or
shrubs. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring
reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems.

1.4 Project Components

The project area is comprised of two separate easement locations along multiple drainage features that flow
into Hannah Creek. The northern easement area captures a single tributary to Hannah Creek and a portion
of its headwaters. The southern easement area is separated from the northern area by an active agricultural
field, and is divided into three different areas due to a utility crossing and a culvert crossing. The stream
and wetland mitigation components are summarized below and in Table 1.

Hannah Bridge 5 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
Mitigation Plan Stream Credits
Reach Mitigation
Type
Stationing
(Mitigation Plan)
Existing
Length (LF)
Mitigation
Plan Length
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio SMUs
HB1 Restoration 0+15 to 1+31 99 117 1:1 117
HB1 Restoration 1+63 to 14+45 1,385 1,284 1:1 1,284
HB2 Enhancement II 14+45 to 18+37 392 392 2.5:1 157
HB3 Restoration 18+37 to 36+44 1,588 1,807 1:1 1,807
HB4 Enhancement I 36+84 to 42+63 579 579 1.5:1 386
HB4 Preservation 42+63 to 44+91 228 228 10:1 23
HF1 Preservation 2+18 to 16+04 1,386 1,386 10:1 139
HF2 Preservation 6+40 to 7+89 149 149 10:1 15
TH3 Enhancement I † 0+63 to 7+79 716 716 1:1 716
Total 6,522 6,658 4,643
† Restoration Credit

Mitigation Plan Wetland Credits
Mitigation Type Total Acres Mitigation Ratio WMUs
Re-establishment 3.27 1:1 3.27
Enhancement - High 12.37 2:1 6.18
Enhancement - Low 1.67 3:1 0.56
Preservation 7.27 10:1 0.73
Protection 2.55 No Credit 0.00
27.13 10.73

1.5 Design/Approach

Stream

The Site includes Priority I restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II, and Preservation.
Priority I restoration reaches incorporate the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters
based on data taken from the reference site, published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional
Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. As a result of the restoration of planform and dimension,
frequent overbank flows, and a restored riparian buffer provide the appropriate hydrology and sediment
transport throughout this Coastal Plain watershed. All non-vegetated areas within the easement were
planted with native vegetation and any areas of invasive species were removed and/or treated.

• Reach HB1 – Reach begins at western limits of project totaling 1,430 linear feet but is adjusted to
1,400 linear feet due to a 30-foot break in the easement due to an overhead power line. Priority I

Hannah Bridge 6 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
Restoration was used for Reach HB1 which included relocating the channel towards the north, such
that it meanders within the middle of the valley.

• Reach HB2 (STA 14+45 to STA 18+37) – Reach begins at the end of HB1 and flows northeast to
the confluence with Reach HB3 totaling 392 linear feet. Enhancement Level II was used for Reach
HB2, beginning approximately 200 feet downstream of the confluence with HF1. Minimal grading
and live stake planting were required in the few areas that exhibited bank erosion. Invasive species
were treated and removed during construction, and those areas were replanted with native riparian
vegetation.

• Reach HB3 (STA 18+37 to STA 36+44) – Reach immediately downstream of Reach HB2 and
flows east to an existing farm crossing totaling 1,807 linear feet. Priority I Restoration was used
for Reach HB3 to address historic straightening and irregular banks resulting from cattle impacts.
The design approach included meandering the channel within the natural valley and backfilling the
existing stream.

• Reach HB4 (STA 36+84 to STA 42+63; STA 42+63 to 44+91) – Reach beginning at farm
crossing just downstream of Reach HB3 and flows north to its confluence with Hannah Creek. A
combination of Enhancement I and Preservation was used for Reach HB4 downstream of the
easement break. Enhancement I was used for over 500 feet beginning downstream of the easement
break, and Preservation was used for the channel from the Enhancement I section to the confluence
with Hannah Creek. The design approach included installing log structures at various points along
the channel to raise the channel invert within the upper section. Because the channel was previously
channelized and relocated to the west side of the valley, the structures allow flows to frequently
inundate the valley floor and existing wetlands located to the east. A floodplain bench was also
constructed along the left bank within the enhancement section.

• Reach HF1 (STA 2+18 to STA 13+58; STA 13+58 to 16+04) – Reach beginning in a forested
area in the southern portion of the project and flows north until its confluence with Reach HB1
totaling 1,386 linear feet. Preservation was used for Reach HF1 because the majority of the channel
is stable throughout the easement and provides a variety of aquatic habitats.

• Reach HF2 (STA 6+40 to STA 7+89) – Reach beginning in agricultural field in the southern
portion of the project and flows north until its confluence with Reach HF1 totaling 149 linear feet
of Preservation.

• Reach TH3 (STA 0+63 to STA 7+79) – Reach begins just downstream of disturbed wetlands and
an existing farm crossing located at the top of the project. The reach flows to the east into Hannah
Creek totaling 716 linear feet. Enhancement Level I was used on Reach TH3. The design approach
on this reach focused on improving the riparian buffer and in-stream habitat and floodplain
benching. Construction activities included cutting a floodplain bench along the south side of the
channel along the upper reach and installing grade control and woody debris structures throughout
to improve vertical stability and aquatic habitat.

Wetland

The Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland restoration and enhancement
is closely tied to the stream restoration. The Site provides 10.73 WMUs through a combination of wetland
restoration, enhancement, and preservation treatments.

Hannah Bridge 7 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
Because of the soil characteristics and variations observed throughout the site, the primary wetland
restoration activities, at a 1:1 credit ratio, were plugging the existing channel and constructing a stream
channel at a higher elevation that elevates shallow groundwater depths and more frequently floods adjacent
wetlands. Additional backfilling to create shallow depressions within the old channel and removal of spoil
from pond excavation along the floodplains aids in the restoration of a natural floodplain surface relative
to the surrounding landscape. Surface roughening and creation of shallow depressions throughout the
restoration area provides an appropriate landscape for diverse habitat. Due to compaction and long term
agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface to a depth of 6 to 8 inches was called for to allow adequate
porosity for infiltration and storage and provide microtopographic relief.

Wetland enhancement is located along the floodplains of the stream restoration and enhancement reaches
within the jurisdictional wetland areas. The construction of a farm pond had altered surface drainage and
placed spoil across the floodplain. As part of the wetland enhancement, this pond was removed, and
hydrology was redirected towards the forested and grazed wetlands. The existing pasture areas on the Site
were treated with wetland enhancement at a credit ratio of 2:1. A credit ratio of 3:1 was used for the grazed,
forested wetland areas. The wetland mitigation treatment was primarily re-planting the disturbed pastures
as forested wetlands and excluding livestock from the pasture and grazed forested wetlands. Enhancement
activities included: reconnecting low-lying areas of hydric soil with the floodplain, farm pond removal,
planting native tree and shrub species commonly found in small stream swamp ecosystems, and surface
roughening to increase infiltration and storage. For the pond removal, the pond will be drained before
breaching the dam and removing all existing PVC pipe. Per direction of the engineer, it is expected that
excess spoil from the project will be placed within the existing pond footprint.

1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions

Stream construction and planting was completed in May 2019. The Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site was
built to design plans and guidelines. Project credits are based on design centerline, but as-built stream
lengths are shown on Table 1. The as-built survey is attached in the Baseline Monitoring Report and
includes a redlined version.

1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1)

The Hannah Bridge Year 1 Monitoring activities were performed in November 2019. All Year 1
Monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation, stream,
and wetland interim success criteria.

Vegetation

Monitoring of the 17 fixed vegetation plots (VP) and three random vegetation plots (RVP) was completed
during November 2019. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot
locations are in Appendix B. MY1 monitoring data indicates that 14 of 17 fixed plots are exceeding the
interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 81 to 1,133
planted stems per acre with a mean of 621 planted stems per acre across the fixed plots. A total of 15 species
were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were reported in two plots. The average planted stem
height was 2.4 feet. Data from the three random vegetation plots showed 769 stems/acre in RVP1, 202
stems/acre in RVP2, and 162 stems/acre in RVP3. The average height in the random vegetation plots was
2.6 feet. VP 11, 15, and 16 as well as RVP 2 and 3, did not meet the interim success criteria in MY1. The
3-acre area that these plots are located in will be replanted in the spring of 2020.

Hannah Bridge 8 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. Chinese privet re-sprouts were observed along the old
HB1 channel and along the easement edge south of HB2. These areas will be treated in 2020.

Stream Geomorphology

Geomorphology data for MY1 was collected during November 2019. Summary tables and cross section
plots are in Appendix D. Overall the MY1 cross sections relatively match the MY0 cross sections. The
MY1 conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all restoration/enhancement
reaches. All reaches were designed as sand bed channels and remain classified as sand bed channels.

Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed
and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.

Stream Hydrology

During MY1, bankfull events were recorded on all three stage recorders. Stage Recorder HB1 recorded two
with a maximum event of 0.50 feet, Stage Recorder HB3 recorded three with a maximum event of 0.99 feet
and Stage Recorder HB4 recorded one that was 1.75 feet. The flow gauge on TH3 failed to document a full
day of flow data. This gauge was installed in May 2019 and RES expects the flow days to increase once
the data captures the wet season. Gauge locations are on Figure 2 and the associated data is in Appendix
E.

Wetland Hydrology

During MY1, three of 11 groundwater wells (GW) and both reference groundwater wells (RGW) met the
12 percent hydroperiod success criteria. Hydroperiods of the 11 groundwater wells ranged from one to 100
percent and the two reference groundwater wells ranged from 17 to 27 percent. Five of the groundwater
wells were installed late into the growing season and RES expects the hydroperiods to increase in future
monitoring years. Groundwater well locations can be found on Figure 2 and the associated data is in
Appendix E.

2.0 Methods

Stream monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates
associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
Morphological data were collected at 20 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®,
and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders include an automatic pressure
transducer flow gauge and a manual crest gauge. The flow gauges were installed within the channel and
will record flow conditions at an hourly interval. The manual crest gauges were installed on the bank at the
bankfull elevation. During quarterly visits to the Site, the height of the corkline will be recorded. Automatic
pressure transducer data from the flow gauges will be corrected using bankfull recordings from the crest
gauges to produce the stage of the channel at hourly intervals. The stage recorder on HB4 does not have a
manual crest gauge and the bankfull events are reported using the elevation of the top of bank. The flow
gauge on the intermittent stream is corrected using the elevation of the downstream riffle to detect stream
flow.

Vegetation success is being monitored at 17 fixed vegetation plots and three random vegetation plots.
Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et al.

Hannah Bridge 9 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are processed using
the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at
the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each
monitoring year. The random plots are to be collected in locations where there are no fixed vegetation plots.
Random plots will most likely be collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transects with variable
dimensions. Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects will be mapped
and new locations will be monitored in subsequent years.

Wetland hydrology is monitored to document success in wetland restoration and enhancement areas (as
requested by NCIRT). This is accomplished with 12 automatic pressure transducer gauges (located in
groundwater wells) that record daily groundwater levels. Ten have been installed within the wetland
crediting area and two within reference wetland areas. One automatic pressure transducer is installed above
ground for use as a barometric reference. Gauges are downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods are
calculated during the growing season. Well installation followed current regulatory guidance. Visual
observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators are also recorded during quarterly site
visits.

Hannah Bridge 10 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site December 2019
3.0 References

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function-
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.

Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). “Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009.” (September 2014).

Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274

Resource Environmental Solutions (2018). Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Final
Mitigation Plan.

Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W.
Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1.  Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site ‐ Mitigation Assets and ComponentsExisting MitigationProject Wetland Footage Plan Approach As-BuiltComponent Position and or Footage or Restoration Priority Mitigation Mitigation Footage or(reach ID, etc.)1HydroType2Acreage Stationing Acreage Level Level Ratio (X:1) Credits Acreage Notes/CommentsHB1 990+15 - 1+31117 R PI 1117Full Channel Restoration, Channel Relocation, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation EasementHB1 13851+63 - 14+451284 R PI 11284Full Channel Restoration, Channel Relocation, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation EasementHB2 392 14+45 - 18+37 392 EII 2.5157392Bank Stabilization, Invasive Treatment, Permanent Conservation Easement HB3 1588 18+37 - 36+44 1807 R PI 118071807Full Channel Restoration, Channel Relocation, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation EasementHB4 579 36+84 - 42+63 579 EI 1.5386579Structure Installation, Floodplain Benching, Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation EasementHB4 228 42+63 - 44+91 228 P 1023228Cattle Exclusion, Permanent Conservation EasementHF1 1,386 2+18 - 16+04 1,386 P 101391,386Permanent Conservation EasementHF2 149 6+40 - 7+89 149 P 1015149Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation EasementTH3 716 0+63 - 7+79 716 EI 1716716Structure Installation, Floodplain Benching, Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement, 1:1 Credit for Headwater Planting/ProtectionW1 RR 5.76 5.76 E (High) 22.885.76Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation EasementW2 RR 0.81 0.810.81Wetland Planting, Permanent Conservation Easement, No CreditW3 RR 4.51 4.51 P 100.454.51Permanent Conservation EasementW4 RR 1.67 1.67 E (Low) 30.561.72Livestock Exclusion, Wetland Planting, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation EasementW5 RR 0.97 0.97 E (High) 20.490.97Plugged Ditch, Wetland Planting, Permanent Conservation EasementW6 RR 3.78 3.78 E (High) 21.893.78Plugged Ditch, Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation EasementW7 RR 0.38 0.38 E (High) 20.190.38Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation EasementW8 RR 0.07 0.07 P 100.010.07Permanent Conservation EasementW9 RR 2.08 2.08 P 100.212.04Permanent Conservation EasementW10 RR 1.36 1.36 E (High) 20.681.35Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation EasementW11 RR 0.62 0.62 P 100.060.62Permanent Conservation EasementW12 RR 0.11 0.11 E (High) 20.060.11Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation EasementW13 RNR 1.74 1.741.74Permanent Conservation Easement, No CreditW14 RR 3.27 3.27 R 13.273.28Plugged Ditch, Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation EasementProject Credits Overall Assets SummaryStreamNon-riparian WetlandOverall(SMU) (WMU)CreditsRiverine Non-RiverineRestoration 3,924 3.274,643Enhancement 6.7410.73Enhancement I 386Enhancement II 157Enhancement IIICreationPreservation 176 0.731401NR WetlandAsset CategoryRestoration LevelRiparian Wetland(WMU)StreamRP WetlandGeneral Note ‐ The above component table is intended to be a close complement to the  asset map.  Each  entry in the above table should have clear distinction and  appropriate symbology in the asset map.    1 ‐Wetland Groupsrepresent pooled wetland polygons in the map with the  same  wetland type and restoration level.  If some of the wetland polygons within a  group  are in meaningfully different landscape positions,  soil types or have different community targets (as examples), then further segmentation in the table may be warranted.  Buffer groups represent  pooled buffer polygons with common restoration levels. 2 ‐Wetland Position and Hydro Type  ‐ Indicates Riparian  Riverine, (RR) , riparinan non‐riverine (RNR) or Non‐Riverine (NR)3‐RestoredFootage, Acreage or Square Feet (SF)4 ‐Creditible Footage, Acreage or Square feet ‐ creditible anounts after exclusion and reductions are accounted for, such as utility impacts, crossings, single sided easements etc.General Note ‐ The above component table is intended to be a close complement to the  asset map.  Each  entry in the above table should have clear distinction and  appropriate symbology in the asset map.    1 ‐Wetland Groupsrepresent pooled wetland polygons in the map with the  same  wetland type and restoration level.  If some of the wetland polygons within a  group  are in meaningfully different landscape positions,  soil types or have different community targets (as examples), then further segmentation in the table may be warranted.  Wetland features impacted by credit modifiers such as utilities shall be listed as a distinct record with the impacted acreage tallied as discreet records in the table (See Wetland 7 above)2 ‐Wetland Position and Hydro Type  ‐ Indicates Riparian  Riverine, (RR) , riparinan non‐riverine (RNR) or Non‐Riverine (NR)3‐Buffer Assets ‐ due to the complex nature of buffer and nutrient offset assets they are not included in this example table.  Please see the DMS buffer mitigation plan template for the required asset table information. 4 ‐ Adjusted Mitigation Credits are based on the non‐standard buffer widths.
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 7 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 7 months
Number of reporting Years1:1
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Restoration Plan NA Jun-18
Final Design – Construction Plans NA Jul-18
Stream Construction NA Apr-19
Containerized, bare root and B&B plantings for reach/segments 1&2 NA Apr-19
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring – baseline) May-19 May-19
Year 1 Monitoring Nov-19 Dec-19
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Designer WK Dickson and Co., Inc. / 720 Corporate Center Dr., Raleigh,
NC 27607
Primary project design POC Ben Carroll [phone]
Construction Contractor KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Construction contractor POC Kory Strader [phone]
Survey Contractor Matrix East, PLLC / 906 N. Queen St., Suite A, Kinston, NC
28501
Survey contractor POC James Watson, PLS
Planting Contractor H&J Forestry
Planting contractor POC Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Contractor point of contact Kory Strader [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers Arborgen [phone]
Monitoring Performers RES / 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC Ryan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Ryan Medric [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC Ryan Medric [phone]
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03020201
2+18 ‐ 16+04
Supporting
Docs?
SAW-2015-
01799
DWR # 17-
0537v2
USFWS
(Corr. Letter)
SHPO (Corr.
Letter)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes
Essential Fisheries Habitat No
Historic Preservation Act Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) No
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes
Endangered Species Act Yes
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
FEMA classification
Stream Classification (existing)
Stream Classification (proposed)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet)
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles) 894 ac (1.39 sqmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Agriculture (54%) Forest (39%) Residential (5%)
River Basin Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 3020201150020
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-02
Physiographic Province Coastal Plain
Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name Hannah Bridge
County Johnston
Project Area (acres) 46.2
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) Latitude: 35.4754 N Longitude: -78.3117 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 27.53
Project Watershed Summary Information
HB1 HB2 HB3 HB4 HF1 HF2 TH3
1400 392 1807 807 1386 149 716
UC UC MC MC MC UC MC
667 752 816 894 78 13 24
PPPPPI I
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
E4/5 E4/5 E5 E5 E5 G6c F5/G5c
E4/5 N/A E4/5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, IN CREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia,NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Site Location M ap
Hannah BridgeStream and Wetland Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Conservation Easement
©Date: 5/24/2019
Drawn by: RTM
Checked by: BPB
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Hannah Bridge\MXD\Monitoring\MY0\DWR Figures\Figure 1 Hannah Location Map.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

!?!?!?!?!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>VPA1
VPA2
VPA3
VPA4
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ©0 400200
Feet
Figure 2
Current ConditionsOverview
MY1 2019
Hannah BridgeMitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
LEGEND
Date: 11/27/2019 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Hannah Bridge\MXD\Monitoring\MY1\USACE Figures\Hannah MY1 CCPV Overview.mxdLat: 35.381042 Long: -78.420862
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Prese nt
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
TH3
HB4
HB2
HB3
HB1
HF1
HF2
Conservation Easement
Wetland Mitigation
Restoration
Enhancement-High
Enhancement-Low
Preservation
Protection
Vegetation Plot
>320 stems/acre
<320 stems/acre
Random Vegetation Plot
>320 stems/acre
<320 stems/acre
!>Rain Gauge
Reach Callouts Hannah
Index Sheets
Groundwater Well Success
!>>12%
!><12%
!?Stage Recorder
!?Flow Gauge
Cross Section
As-built Top of Bank
Mitigation Plan Centerline
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
!?!?!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!>HF2 HB2
HB1
HB3
HF1
GW1
RGW1
GW2
GW3
GW4
RGW2
GW6
GW5
GW7
GW8
GW11
18
17
1
2
3
4
6
5
7
9
8
104107817
91815326
12W6
W5
W1
W9
W7
W3
W2 W8
W14
W4
VPA2
VPA3
VPA4
1
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ©0 200100
Feet
Figure 2
Current ConditionsSheet
MY1 2019
Hannah BridgeMitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
LEGENDConservation EasementRandom Vegetation Plot>320 stems/acre<320 stems/acreVegetation Plot>320 stems/acre<320 stems/acreWetland MitigationRestoration
Enhancement-HighEnhancement-LowPreservation
ProtectionMitigation Plan CenterlineRestorationEnhancement I
Enhancement IIPreservationAs-built Top of BankCross SectionStructureGroundwater Well Success
!>>12%
!><12%
!?Stage Recorder
!?Flow Gauge
!>Rain Gauge
Date: 11/27/2019 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Hannah Bridge\MXD\Monitoring\MY1\USACE Figures\Hannah MY1 CCPV DDP.mxdLat: 35.381042 Long: -78.420862
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
1
!?
!?
!?
!?
!>
!>
!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
TH3
HB4
HB2
HB1
HB3
GW3
GW4
GW6
GW5
GW7
GW9
GW10
GW8 12
6
5
7 9
8
10
11
13
14
15
16
20
15
107
811918 519616121413W6
W5
W13
W10
W9
W7
W12
W3
W11
W8
W14
W4
VPA1
VPA2
VPA4
2
3
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
©
0 200100
Feet
Figure 2
Current ConditionsSheet
MY1 2019
Hannah BridgeMitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
LEGENDConservation EasementRandom Vegetation Plot>320 stems/acre<320 stems/acreVegetation Plot>320 stems/acre<320 stems/acreWetland MitigationRestoration
Enhancement-HighEnhancement-LowPreservation
ProtectionMitigation Plan CenterlineRestorationEnhancement I
Enhancement IIPreservationAs-built Top of BankCross SectionStructureGroundwater Well Success
!>>12%
!><12%
!?Stage Recorder
!?Flow Gauge
!>Rain Gauge
Date: 11/27/2019 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Hannah Bridge\MXD\Monitoring\MY1\USACE Figures\Hannah MY1 CCPV DDP.mxdLat: 35.381042 Long: -78.420862
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
2
Hannah Bridge MY1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

Vegetation Plot 1

Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4

Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 6

Vegetation Plot 7

Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9 Vegetation Plot 10

Vegetation Plot 11

Vegetation Plot 12

Vegetation Plot 13

Vegetation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 15 Vegetation Plot 16

Vegetation Plot 17

Random Plot 1 Random Plot 2

Random Plot 3

Hannah Bridge Monitoring Device Photos

Stage Recorder (HB-1)

Map Label / Feature Issue / Location
N/A
VPA4 / Invasive Species / HB2 / 0.78 acres N/A
VPA3 / Invasive Species / HB1 / 0.34 acres N/A
Stream Problem Areas
Hannah Bridge
Vegetation Problem Areas
VPA2 / Low Stem Density / HB3 / 0.84 acres
PhotoMap Label / Feature Category / Location / Size
VPA1 / Low Stem Density / Reach TH3 / 2.19 acres
Hannah Bridge
Photo
N/A

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

  Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data

Table 5. Planted Species Summary

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary 
Common Name Scientific Name Total Stems Planted
Water Oak Quercus nigra 5,500
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 4,000
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 3,500
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 3,500
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 3,000
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 2,400
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2,200
Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera 2,000
River Birch Betula nigra 1,600
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 1,500
Cherrybark Oak Quercus pagoda 1,100
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica 600
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 500
31,400Total
Plot #Planted 
Stems/Acre
Volunteer 
Stems/Acre
Total 
Stems/Acre
Success 
Criteria 
Met?
Average 
Stem Height 
(ft)
1 931 202 1133 Yes 2.7
2 1052 0 1052 Yes 2.6
3 607 0 607 Yes 2.0
4 1133 0 1133 Yes 2.8
5 445 3359 3804 Yes 1.9
6 728 0 728 Yes 3.0
7 809 0 809 Yes 2.2
8 405 0 405 Yes 2.4
9 809 0 809 Yes 2.8
10 567 0 567 Yes 1.9
11 202 0 202 No 1.2
12 728 0 728 Yes 2.6
13 931 0 931 Yes 3.4
14 405 0 405 Yes 1.9
15 283 0 283 No 1.6
16 81 0 81 No 1.6
17 445 607 1052 Yes 4.1
Project Avg 621 245 867 Yes 2.4
  Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data  Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all TBetula nigra river birch Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 7 7 7 3 3 3 5 5 5 1 1 1Cephalanthus occidentalicommon buttonbushShrub 111 222 222Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1Fraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash Tree 222111 111 555333111333Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 5Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree555111Nyssa sylvatica blackgum TreePlatanus occidentalisAmerican sycamoreTree 111333555111888222444111Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1222 222Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 888999444666 666555 555Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oakTree 333 111 555222 333222111Quercus nigra water oak Tree 222111222 111Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 111 444 111222 222Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 555666333 111 111 111333111Salix nigra black willow Tree83Taxodium distichumbald cypress Tree 111111333444111 111111 11123 23 28 26 26 26 15 15 15 28 28 28 11 11 94 18 18 18 20 20 20 10 10 10 20 20 20 14 14 14 5 5 5889999666666667555777444888555555931 931 1133 1052 1052 1052 607 607 607 1133 1133 1133 445 445 3804 728 728 728 809 809 809 405 405 405 809 809 809 567 567 567 202 202 202PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all TBetula nigra river birch Tree 2 2 224 24 24 30 30 30Cephalanthus occidentalicommon buttonbushShrub555555Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub111Fraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1222222333333Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree11 16Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 17 7 7262626Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree111Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 1 1 6 6 6 44 44 44 65 6565Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 13 13 13 122 122 122Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 2 2 245 45 45 11 11 11Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oakTree 888111222 111292929777Quercus nigra water oak Tree666555Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 13 13 13 9 9 9Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 31 31 31 24 24 24Salix nigra black willow Tree487Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 21 21 28 28 2818 18 18 23 23 23 10 10 10 7 7 7 2 2 2 11 11 26 261 261 364 366 366 366888555555444111446131315131313728 728 728 931 931 931 405 405 405 283 283 283 81 81 81 445 445 1052 621 621 867 871 871 8710.42170.420.0210.0210.020.0210.0210.0210.0210.0211170.0210.0210.0205082019‐01‐0009 05082019‐01‐0010 05082019‐01‐001105082019‐01‐0012Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRE10.0210.0210.02110.0205082019‐01‐0013 05082019‐01‐0014 05082019‐01‐001505082019‐01‐000205082019‐01‐0016 05082019‐01‐0017Annual MeansMY1 (2019) MY0 (2019)05082019‐01‐0003 05082019‐01‐0004 05082019‐01‐0005 05082019‐01‐0006 05082019‐01‐0007 05082019‐01‐00080.0210.021size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRECurrent Plot Data (MY1 2019)Current Plot Data (MY1 2019)Hannah BridgeHannah BridgeScientific Name Common Name Species TypeStem countsize (ares)Scientific Name Common Name Species Type05082019‐01‐0001
  Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data  Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data # Species Height (cm)1Taxodium distichum902Taxodium distichum1003Taxodium distichum704Quercus lyrata695Platanus occidentalis706Platanus occidentalis897Platanus occidentalis858Taxodium distichum1009Taxodium distichum9010Taxodium distichum6911Platanus occidentalis4512Quercus phellos7313Quercus phellos3114Quercus nigra8015Quercus phellos4916Quercus nigra4917Quercus pagoda 4918Quercus phellos7419Quercus lyrata60Stems/AcreAverage Height (cm)Average Height (ft)Plot Size (m)Random Plot 1717692.325 x 4# Species  Height (cm)1Platanus occidentalis1602Betula nigra1383Quercus phellos654Quercus lyrata1205Quercus michauxii 79Stems/AcreAverage Height (cm)Average Height (ft)Plot Size (m)112Random Plot 22023.725 x 4# Species Height (cm)1Quercus pagoda 952Quercus michauxii 553Quercus michauxii 654Betula nigra125Stems/AcreAverage Height (cm)Average Height (ft)Plot Size (m)2.885Random Plot 316225 x 4

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Upstream Downstream123124125126127128129036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 1 - PoolMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used125.87 125.7Bankfull Width (ft) 9.3 9.4Floodprone Width (ft) >50.7 >49.9Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 2.0Low Bank Height (ft) N/A N/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.0 10.0Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.7 8.7Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio N/A N/ACross Section 1 (Pool)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream DownstreamBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used125.82 125.9Bankfull Width (ft) 10.4 12.1Floodprone Width (ft) >50.1 >50.2Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 12.1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.7 1.7Low Bank Height (ft) 1.7 1.7Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11.8 11.8Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.2 12.4Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >4.8 >4.2Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0Cross Section 2 (Shallow)1231241251261271281290 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 2 - ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone Area3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream121122123124125126127128036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 3 - ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+Record elevation (datum) used124.23 124.2Bankfull Width (ft) 10.9 12.3Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.3 1.1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.0 1.9Low Bank Height (ft) 2.0 1.8Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)13.9 13.9Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.6 10.9Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >4.6 >4.1Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.9Cross Section 3 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream1211221231241251261270 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 4 - Pool MY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used124.02 123.9Bankfull Width (ft) 11.1 13.6Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.3 1.1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.5 2.5Low Bank Height (ft) N/A N/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)14.8 14.8Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.3 12.6Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio N/A N/ACross Section 4 (Pool)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream DownstreamBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used122.11 122.0Bankfull Width (ft) 11.3 12.1Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 0.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.1 2.2Low Bank Height (ft) N/A N/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11.4 11.4Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.3 12.8Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio N/A N/ACross Section 5 (Pool)1191201211221231241250 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 5 - PoolMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. Bankfull3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream119120121122123124125036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 6 - ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+Record elevation (datum) used121.72 121.8Bankfull Width (ft) 12.4 15.2Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 0.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.7 1.7Low Bank Height (ft) 1.7 1.4Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)13.0 13.0Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.8 17.9Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >4 >3.3Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.8Cross Section 6 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream1141151161171181191201210 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 7 - PoolMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used118.31 117.9Bankfull Width (ft) 11.2 10.1Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.7 1.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.4 2.7Low Bank Height (ft) N/A N/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)18.9 18.9Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 6.6 5.4Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio N/A N/ACross Section 7 (Pool)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream115116117118119120121036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 8- ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used118.04 118.1Bankfull Width (ft) 11.6 12.6Floodprone Width (ft) >49.8 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.4 1.2Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.8Low Bank Height (ft) 1.8 1.8Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)15.7 15.7Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.5 10.1Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >4.3 >4.0Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0Cross Section 8 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream113114115116117118119036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 9 - ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used115.93 116.0Bankfull Width (ft) 12.1 13.4Floodprone Width (ft) >49.9 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.3 1.2Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.9Low Bank Height (ft) 1.8 1.9Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)15.5 15.5Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.4 11.6Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >4.1 >3.7Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0Cross Section 9 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream111112113114115116117118036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 10 - PoolMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used115.82 115.6Bankfull Width (ft) 12.0 10.9Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.6 1.7Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.3 3.5Low Bank Height (ft) N/A N/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)19.1 19.1Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 7.5 6.2Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio N/A N/ACross Section 10 (Pool)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream112113114115116117118036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 11 - PoolMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used114.52 114.5Bankfull Width (ft) 12.0 12.7Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.0Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.9Low Bank Height (ft) N/A N/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)13.0 13.0Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.1 12.3Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio N/A N/ACross Section 11 (Pool)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream112113114115116117118036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 12 - ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+Record elevation (datum) used114.24 114.2Bankfull Width (ft) 11.8 11.8Floodprone Width (ft) >50.7 >50.7Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.5 1.5Low Bank Height (ft) 1.5 1.6Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)13.3 13.3Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 10.5 10.5Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >4.3 >4.3Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0Cross Section 12 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream111112113114115116117-1 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 13 - ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used113.48 113.5Bankfull Width (ft) 12.5 22.9Floodprone Width (ft) >52.3 >52.6Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 0.5Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.4 1.5Low Bank Height (ft) 1.4 1.4Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)12.0 12.0Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 43.6Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >4.2 >2.3Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0Cross Section 13 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Right Bank110111112113114115116117036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 14 - PoolMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used113.41 113.4Bankfull Width (ft) 11.1 11.8Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.3 1.2Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.2 2.1Low Bank Height (ft) N/A N/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)14.0 14.0Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.7 9.9Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio N/A N/ACross Section 14 (Pool)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream109110111112113114115036912151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB4 - Cross Section 15 - Shallow - Enhancement IMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline cross sectional areaBaseMY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+Record elevation (datum) used111.72 111.7Bankfull Width (ft) 15.4 15.3Floodprone Width (ft) >49.9 >49.9Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.4 1.4Low Bank Height (ft) 1.4 1.4Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11.4 11.4Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.8 20.7Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >3.2 >3.2Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0Cross Section 15 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream1091101111121131141150 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HB4 - Cross Section 16 - Shallow - Enhancement IMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used111.30 111.3Bankfull Width (ft) 18.8 19.3Floodprone Width (ft) >37 >37Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.5Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.9 0.8Low Bank Height (ft) 0.9 0.8Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.6 10.6Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 33.3 35.4Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >2 >1.9Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0Cross Section 16 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream1211221231241251261270 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HF1 - Cross Section 17 - ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used123.08 123.1Bankfull Width (ft) 5.6 5.7Floodprone Width (ft) >50.2 >50.1Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 5.0Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.9 0.9Low Bank Height (ft) 0.9 0.7Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.9 2.9Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 10.6 11.5Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >9 >8.7Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.8Cross Section 17 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream1211221231241251261270 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach HF1 - Cross Section 18 - PoolMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used123.05 123.1Bankfull Width (ft) 5.8 5.9Floodprone Width (ft) >50 >50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.5Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.1 1.2Low Bank Height (ft) N/A N/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.3 3.3Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 10.2 10.9Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio N/A N/ACross Section 18 (Pool)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream1171181191201211221230 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach TH3 - Cross Section 19 - ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used118.89 118.9Bankfull Width (ft) 7.0 7.3Floodprone Width (ft) >42.2 >41.8Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.9 0.9Low Bank Height (ft) 0.9 1.0Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.3 4.3Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.3 12.5Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >6 >5.7Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1Cross Section 19 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Upstream Downstream1131141151161171181190 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Hannah Bridge - Reach TH3 - Cross Section 20 - ShallowMY0-2019MY1-2019Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaBased on fixed baseline bankfull elevationBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used115.43 115.3Bankfull Width (ft) 12.7 12.1Floodprone Width (ft) >49.4 >49.8Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.6 1.6Low Bank Height (ft) 1.6 1.7Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.9 10.9Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.9 13.4Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >3.9 >4.1Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1Cross Section 20 (Shallow)3X Vertical Exaggeration
Parameter Gauge2Dimension and Substrate - Shallow OnlyLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5n Min Mean Med Max SD5n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5nBankfull Width (ft)--- --- ------ ---12.1--- --- ---10.8 11.5 11.5 12.2 --- 2.0 --- 12.2 --- 10.4 11.2 10.9 12.4 1.0 3Floodprone Width (ft)--- --->50--- --- --->50 --- --- >40 --- 2.0 --- >50 --- >50 >50 >50 >50.1 0.1 3Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)--- --- ------ ---1.0--- --- ---1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 --- 2.0 --- 1.3 --- 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 31Bankfull Max Depth (ft)--- ---2.3--- --- ---1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 --- 2.0 --- 1.6 --- 1.7 1.8 1.7 2.0 0.2 3Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)--- --- ------ ---12.2--- --- ---14.7 15.3 15.3 15.8 --- 2.0 --- 15.4 --- 11.8 12.9 13.0 13.9 1.1 3Width/Depth Ratio--- ---12.1--- --- ---7.9 8.7 8.7 9.4 --- 2.0 --- 9.7 --- 8.6 9.9 9.2 11.8 1.7 3Entrenchment Ratio--- --->2.2--- --- --->2.2 --- --- >2.2 --- 2.0 --- >2.2 --- >4 >4.5 >4.6 >4.8 0.4 31Bank Height Ratio--- ---1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 --- 2.0 --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3ProfileShallow Length (ft)2--- ---22 --- --- 5 --- --- 23 --- --- 10 --- 34 2.0 16.0 15.2 32.2 8.2 20Shallow Slope (ft/ft)--- --- --- ------ --- 0.006 --- --- 0.03 --- --- 0.006 --- 0.03 0.0001 0.005 0.0027 0.0205 0.006 20Pool Length (ft)3--- ---9.7 --- --- 11.6 --- --- 45.6 --- --- 13 --- 29 12.5 25.1 27.7 35.7 8.0 22Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Pool Spacing (ft)5.2--- ---46.8 --- --- 37.2 --- --- 55.7 --- --- 39 --- 85 34.2 62.2 56.5 132.8 25.6 22PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)19--- ---45 --- --- 19 --- --- 57 --- --- 34---70 34 ------70 --- ---Radius of Curvature (ft)9--- ---22 --- --- 10 --- --- 28 --- --- 23---42 23 ------42 --- ---Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --------- --- --- --------- ------ ---Meander Wavelength (ft)58--- ---147 --- --- 49 --- --- 170 --- --- 90---151 90 ------151 --- ---Meander Width Ratio1.6--- ---3.7 --- --- 1.6 --- --- 5.3 --- --- 2.8---5.7 2.8 ------5.7 --- ---Transport parametersReach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfullStream Power (transport capacity) W/m2Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)--- --- ---Bankfull Discharge (cfs)--- --- ---Valley length (ft)Channel Thalweg length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)Channel slope (ft/ft)3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)4% of Reach with Eroding BanksChannel Stability or Habitat MetricBiological or OtherShaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.* = Reach was split into 4 segments for the purpose of pre-existing data collection.1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope. 4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach HB1Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition* Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline------ --------- --------- ---E4/5 E4/5 E4/5 E4/5------------------1074 995------901 842------0.008 0.29 --- ---1.19 1.18 1.2 1.2--- ---------0.008 0.0030.003------ ------ ------ ---
Parameter Gauge2Dimension and Substrate - Shallow OnlyLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5n Min Mean Med Max SD5n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5nBankfull Width (ft)--- --- ---11.3 14.9 14.9 18.4---2 10.8 11.5 11.5 12.2 --- 2.0 --- 12.2 --- 11.6 12.0 12.0 12.5 0.4 4Floodprone Width (ft)>50 --- --- >50---2 >50 --- --- >40 --- 2.0 --- >50 --- >49.8 >50.7 >50.3 >52.3 1.2 4Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)--- --- ---0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2---2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 --- 2.0 --- 1.3 --- 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.2 41Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.7 2.0 2.0 2.3---2 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 --- 2.0 --- 1.6 --- 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 0.2 4Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)--- --- ---13.1 14.9 14.9 16.6---2 14.7 15.3 15.3 15.8 --- 2.0 --- 15.4 --- 12.0 14.1 14.4 15.7 1.8 4Width/Depth Ratio9.7 15.0 15.0 20.3---2 7.9 8.7 8.7 9.4 --- 2.0 --- 9.7 --- 8.5 10.4 10.0 13.0 1.9 4Entrenchment Ratio>2.2 --- --- >2.2---2 >2.2 --- --- >2.2 --- 2.0 --- >2.2 --- >4.1 >4.2 >4.3 >4.3 0.1 41Bank Height Ratio1.2 --- --- 1.3 --- 2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 --- 2.0 --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4ProfileShallow Length (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 5 --- --- 23 --- --- 10 --- 34 4.7 18.7 16.4 80.8 14.0 30Shallow Slope (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 0.006 --- --- 0.03 --- --- 0.006 --- 0.03 0.0001 0.01210.0098 0.0397 0.0097 30Pool Length (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 11.6 --- --- 45.6 --- --- 13 --- 29 7.4 23.8 21.2 50.5 11.633Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --------- --- --- --- --- ---Pool Spacing (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 37.2 --- --- 55.7 --- --- 39 --- 85 13.3 52.7 54.8 99.1 18.6 33PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 19 --- --- 57 --- --- 34---70 34 --- --- 70 --- ---Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- 28 --- --- 23---42 23 --- --- 42 --- ---Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --------- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ---Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 49 --- --- 170 --- --- 90---151 90 --- --- 151 --- ---Meander Width Ratio--- --- --- --- --- --- 1.6 --- --- 5.3 --- --- 2.8---5.7 2.8 --- --- 5.7 --- ---Transport parametersReach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfullStream Power (transport capacity) W/m2Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)--- --- ---Bankfull Discharge (cfs)--- --- ---Valley length (ft)Channel Thalweg length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)Channel slope (ft/ft)3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)4% of Reach with Eroding BanksChannel Stability or Habitat MetricBiological or OtherShaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.* = Reach was split into 4 segments for the purpose of pre-existing data collection.1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope. 4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach HB3Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition* Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline--- --------- ---E5---E4/5------ ---E4/5 E4/5--------- ---------1297 842------1.07 1.18 1.2 1.21388 995--------- ---0.003 0.0030.003------ 0.29--- ------------ ------ ------ ---
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area*Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used125.9125.7125.8125.9124.2124.2124.0123.9122.1122.0Bankfull Width (ft)9.39.410.412.110.912.311.113.611.312.1Floodprone Width (ft)>50.7>49.9>50.1>50.2>50>50>50>50>50>50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.11.11.112.11.31.11.31.11.00.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.82.01.71.72.01.92.52.52.12.2Low Bank Height (ft)N/AN/A1.71.72.01.8N/AN/AN/AN/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.010.011.811.813.913.914.814.811.411.4Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio8.78.79.212.48.610.98.312.611.312.8Bankfull Entrenchment RatioN/AN/A>4.8>4.2>4.6>4.1N/AN/AN/AN/ABankfull Bank Height RatioN/AN/A1.01.01.00.9N/AN/AN/AN/ABased on fixed baseline cross sectional area*Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used121.7121.8118.3117.9118.0118.1115.9116.0115.8115.6Bankfull Width (ft)12.415.211.210.111.612.612.113.412.010.9Floodprone Width (ft)>50>50>50>50>49.8>50>49.9>50>50>50Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.10.91.71.91.41.21.31.21.61.7Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.71.72.42.71.81.81.81.93.33.5Low Bank Height (ft)1.71.4N/AN/A1.81.81.81.9N/AN/ABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)13.013.018.918.915.715.715.515.519.119.1Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio11.817.96.65.48.510.19.411.67.56.2Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio>4>3.3N/AN/A>4.3>4.0>4.1>3.7N/AN/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio1.00.8N/AN/A1.01.01.01.0N/AN/ABased on fixed baseline cross sectional area*Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used114.5114.5114.2114.2113.5113.5113.4113.4111.7111.7Bankfull Width (ft)12.012.711.811.812.522.911.111.815.415.3Floodprone Width (ft)>50>50>50.7>50.7>52.3>52.6>50>50>49.9>49.9Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.11.01.11.11.00.51.31.20.70.7Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.81.91.51.51.41.52.22.11.41.4Low Bank Height (ft)N/AN/A1.51.61.41.4N/AN/A1.41.4Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)13.013.013.313.312.012.014.014.011.411.4Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio11.112.310.510.513.043.68.79.920.820.7Bankfull Entrenchment RatioN/AN/A>4.3>4.3>4.22.3N/AN/A>3.2>3.2Bankfull Bank Height RatioN/AN/A1.01.01.01.0N/AN/A1.01.0Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area*Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Record elevation (datum) used111.3111.3123.1123.1123.1123.1118.9118.9115.4115.3Bankfull Width (ft)18.819.35.65.75.85.97.07.312.712.1Floodprone Width (ft)>37>37>50.2>50.1>50>50>42.2>41.8>49.4>49.8Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.60.50.55.00.60.50.60.60.90.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.90.80.90.91.11.20.90.91.61.6Low Bank Height (ft)0.90.80.90.7N/AN/A0.91.01.61.7Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.610.62.92.93.33.34.34.310.910.9Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio33.335.410.611.510.210.911.312.514.913.4Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio>2>1.9>9>8.7N/AN/A>6>5.7>3.9>4.1Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1.01.01.00.8N/AN/A1.01.11.01.1* Annual measurements are based on fixed baseline cross sectional area.Cross Section 14 (Pool) Cross Section 15 (Shallow)Cross Section 16 (Shallow) Cross Section 17 (Shallow) Cross Section 18 (Pool) Cross Section 19 (Shallow) Cross Section 20 (Shallow)Cross Section 11 (Pool) Cross Section 12 (Shallow) Cross Section 13 (Shallow)Cross Section 9 (Shallow) Cross Section 10 (Pool)Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data TableHannah BridgeCross Section 1 (Pool) Cross Section 2 (Shallow) Cross Section 3 (Shallow) Cross Section 4 (Pool) Cross Section 5 (Pool)Cross Section 6 (Shallow) Cross Section 7 (Pool) Cross Section 8 (Shallow)
ParameterDimension and Substrate - Shallow onlyMin Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4nBankfull Width (ft)10.4 11.2 10.9 12.4 1.0 3 12.1 13.2 12.3 15.2 1.7 3Floodprone Width (ft)>50 >50 >50 >50.1 0.1 3 50.0 50.1 50.0 50.2 0.1 3Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 3 0.9 4.7 1.1 12.1 6.4 31Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.7 1.8 1.7 2.0 0.2 3 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.9 0.1 3Low Bank Height (ft)1.7 1.8 1.7 2.0 0.2 3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 0.2 3Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11.8 12.9 13.0 13.9 1.1 3 11.8 12.9 13.0 13.9 1.1 3Width/Depth Ratio8.6 9.9 9.2 11.8 1.7 3 10.9 13.7 12.4 17.9 3.7 3Entrenchment Ratio>4 >4.5 >4.6 >4.8 0.4 3 3.3 3.9 4.1 4.2 0.5 31Bank Height Ratio1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.1 3ProfileShallow Length (ft)1.99 16 15.2 32.2 8.15 20Shallow Slope (ft/ft)0 0.01 0 0.02 0.01 20Pool Length (ft)12.5 25.1 27.7 35.7 8.03 22Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Pool Spacing (ft)34.2 62.2 56.5 133 25.6 22PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)34 --- --- 70 --- ---Radius of Curvature (ft)23 --- --- 42 --- ---Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Meander Wavelength (ft)90 --- --- 151 --- ---Meander Width Ratio2.8 --- --- 5.7 --- ---Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)Channel slope (ft/ft)3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%--- --- --- --- ---3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /2% of Reach with Eroding BanksChannel Stability or Habitat MetricBiological or OtherShaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3 ---------1.2------E4 / E5--- Table 10. Stream Reach Data Summary Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach HB1Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 5 MY- 7
ParameterDimension and Substrate - Shallow onlyMin Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4nBankfull Width (ft)11.6 12.0 12.0 12.5 0.4 4 11.8 15.2 13.0 22.9 5.2 4Floodprone Width (ft)>49.8 >50.7 >50.3 >52.3 1.2 4 50.0 50.8 50.4 52.6 1.2 4Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.0 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.2 4 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.3 41Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 0.2 4 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.9 0.2 4Low Bank Height (ft)1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 0.2 4 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.9 0.2 4Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)12.0 14.1 14.4 15.7 1.8 4 12.0 14.1 14.4 15.7 1.8 4Width/Depth Ratio8.5 10.4 10.0 13.0 1.9 4 10.1 19.0 11.1 43.6 16.4 4Entrenchment Ratio>4.1 >4.2 >4.3 >4.3 0.1 4 2.3 3.6 3.9 4.3 0.9 41Bank Height Ratio1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4ProfileShallow Length (ft)4.72 18.7 16.4 80.8 14 30Shallow Slope (ft/ft)0 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 30Pool Length (ft)7.38 23.8 21.2 50.5 11.6 33Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Pool Spacing (ft)13.3 52.7 54.8 99.1 18.6 33PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)34 --- --- 70 --- ---Radius of Curvature (ft)23 --- --- 42 --- ---Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Meander Wavelength (ft)90 --- --- 151 --- ---Meander Width Ratio2.8 --- --- 5.7 --- ---Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)Channel slope (ft/ft)3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%--- --- --- --- ---3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /2% of Reach with Eroding BanksChannel Stability or Habitat MetricBiological or OtherShaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3 ---------1.2------E4 / E5--- Table 10. Stream Reach Data Summary Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach HB3Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 5 MY- 7
ParameterDimension and Substrate - Shallow onlyMin Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4n Min Mean Med Max SD4nBankfull Width (ft)--- --- 5.6 --- --- 1 - - 5.7 - - 1Floodprone Width (ft)--- --- >50.2 --- --- 1 - - 50.1 - - 1Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)--- --- 0.5 --- --- 1 - - 5 - - 11Bankfull Max Depth (ft)--- --- 0.9 --- --- 1 - - 0.9 - - 1Low Bank Height (ft)--- --- 0.9 --- --- 1 - - 0.7 - - 1Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)--- --- 2.9 --- --- 1 - - 2.9 - - 1Width/Depth Ratio--- --- 10.6 --- --- 1 - - 11.5 - - 1Entrenchment Ratio--- --- >9 --- --- 1 - - 8.7 - - 11Bank Height Ratio--- --- 1.0 --- --- 1 - - 0.8 - - 1ProfileShallow Length (ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Shallow Slope (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Pool Length (ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Pool Spacing (ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- --- ---Meander Width Ratio--- --- --- --- --- ---Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)Channel slope (ft/ft)3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%--- --- --- --- ---3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /2% of Reach with Eroding BanksChannel Stability or Habitat MetricBiological or OtherShaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3 ------------------------ Table 10. Stream Reach Data Summary Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach HF2Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 5 MY- 7
Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 11. 2019 Rainfall Summary

Table 12. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events

30 Percent 70 Percent
January 4.24 3.24 4.93 3.07
February 3.64 2.51 4.34 3.59
March 4.57 3.44 5.33 2.74
April 3.24 1.99 3.92 6.09
May 4.17 2.91 4.96 0.81
June 4.14 2.70 4.97 5.69
July 5.43 3.48 6.53 6.12
August 4.58 3.05 5.49 5.67
September 4.54 2.26 5.55 3.92
October 3.16 1.89 3.81 3.60
November 2.95 1.86 3.55 0.57
December 3.05 2.02 3.65 ---
Total 47.71 31.35 57.03 41.87
Average Normal Limits Four Oaks Station
PrecipitationMonth
MY1 2019 2 0.50 9/5/2019 1
MY1 2019 3 0.99 9/6/2019 2
MY1 20192 1 1.75 9/6/2019 N/A
Year
MY1 20191
1Installed on 9-May
2Installed on 31-July
Maximum Bankfull
Height (ft)
Date of Maximum Bankfull
EventYearNumber of Bankfull
Events Photo Number
Stage Recorder HBI
Stage Recorder HB3
Stage Recorder HB4
Flow Gauge TH3
00
Number of Consecutive Flow Days Total Number of Flow Days
Stage Recorder Manual Reading Photos

Stage Recorder HB1 – 0.50 feet

Stage Recorder HB3 – 0.99 feet

0123456789024681012141618MJJASRainfall (in)Water Depth (in)MonthsMY1 Hannah Bridge Flow Gauge TH3 Stream Flow HydrographRainfallTH3BedDS Riffle Elevation
Table 13.

Table 14.

Days Hydroperiod
(%)Days Hydroperiod
(%)
GW1 5 2 26 11 16
GW2 22 9 42 18 6
GW3 42 18 81 35 8
GW4 70 30 131 56 9
GW5 232 100 232 100 1
GW6 421359
GW7 1 31945
GW8 2 21424
GW9 1 21836
GW10 1 832088
GW11 3 52942
RGW1 39 17 64 27 6
RGW2 63 27 111 47 9
1Groundwater wells installed on 25-April
2Groundwater well installed on 9-May
3Groundwater well installed on 31-July
2019 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 18-Mar through 6-Nov, 233 days)
Success Criterion 12%
Well ID Occurrences
Consecutive Cumulative
Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Year 6
(2024)
Year 7
(2025)
GW1 2
GW2 9
GW3 18
GW4 30
GW5 100
GW6 2
GW7 1
GW8 1
GW9 1
GW10 3
GW11 2
RGW1 17
RGW2 27
<5% 5-11% ≥12%
Well ID
Hydroperiod (%); Success Criteron 12%
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Hannah Bridge
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW1Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW1Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW2Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW2Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW3Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW3Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW4Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW4Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW5Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW5Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW6Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW1Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW7Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW7Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW8Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW8Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW9Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW9Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW10Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW10Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge GW11Four Oaks Daily RainfallGW11Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge REF GW1Four Oaks Daily RainfallREF GW1Growing Season
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0-50-40-30-20-10010JFMAMJJASONDPrecipitation (inches)Groundwater Elevation (inches)Months2019 Hannah Bridge REF GW2Four Oaks Daily RainfallREF GW2Growing Season