20170537 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20201002

ID#* 20170537 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 10/02/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/2/2020
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 IDr
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Johnston
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Hannah Bridge Year 2 Monitoring Report_DWR.pdf 14.39MB
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jamey McEachran
Signature:*

3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
res Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
October 2, 2020
Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Hannah Bridge Year 2 Monitoring Report (SAW-2015-01799)
Ms. Dailey,
Please find attached the Hannah Bridge Year 2 Monitoring Report. In Year 2, 19 of the 20
vegetation plots met the 320 stems per acre success criteria. The area (- 0.35 acres) in and
around the VP16 will be supplemental planted in early 2020. Bankfull events were recorded on
all three stage recorders and the flow gauge documented 200 consecutive flow days in Year 2.
Three of the 11 groundwater wells and one of the two reference groundwater wells met the 12
percent hydroperiod success criteria. Six of the eight wells that did not meet success improved
from the previous year. RES expects the groundwater data to continue improving in following
years. RES performed supplemental planting and Chinese privet treatments in Year 2. There
were two additional areas of re -sprouted Chinse privet reported that will be treated with herbicide
in Year 3.
RES is requesting a 10% stream credit release (446.600 SMUs) and a 10% wetland credit
release (1.00 WMU).
On December 19, 2019, the IRT provided comments on the Hannah Bridge Year 1 Monitoring
Report. Please find those comments below with RES' responses in blue.
1. We would consider both TH3 with zero flow and wetlands with 1-3% hydroperiods to
be "at -risk" areas in need of close monitoring/evaluation next year.
TH3 recorded 200 consecutive flow days in Year 2. RES believes this increase is due
to a flow path forming through the downstream riffle at a lower elevation. Also, RES
understands and agrees that the 1-3% hydroperiod wetland areas are considered "at -
risk" and will continue to monitor the wetland hydroperiods.
2. Include planned maintenance actions noted in the cover letter (supplemental planting
and invasive treatment) within the actual monitoring report.
Next years planned maintenance activities were included in the monitoring report.
3. Include stream and vegetation survey dates in Table 2.
The dates of the monitoring activities are included in Table 2.
4. Include photo location points on Figure 2.
As RES does Up, Down, Left and Right photos at every cross section and photos at
every vegetation plot, we have determined over time that these are much more likely
to show changes then photo stations, we do not have photo points on Figure 2 as they
are the same points as those cross sections and vegetation plots.
res.us

5. Include a visual assessment statement regarding easement boundary condition.
Ideally, also add photos of crossings.
A statement of the visual assessment was added to monitoring report.
6. Page 9 second paragraph states 12 automatic pressure transducer gauges but should
be 13.
This has been corrected.
7. GW6 graph legend is labelled "GW1 ".
This has been corrected.
Thank you,
6W-4�116�
Ryan Medric I Ecologist

HANNAH BRIDGE STREAM
AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SA W-2015-01799
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1056
September 2020

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. 1
1.2
Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... 2
1.3
Project Success Criteria............................................................................................................. 2
StreamSuccess Criteria................................................................................................................... 2
WetlandSuccess Criteria................................................................................................................. 3
VegetationSuccess Criteria............................................................................................................. 3
1.4
Project Components.................................................................................................................. 3
1.5
Design/Approach.......................................................................................................................4
Stream.............................................................................................................................................. 4
Wetland............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.6
Construction and As -Built Conditions...................................................................................... 6
1.7
Year 2 Monitoring Performance(MY2).................................................................................... 6
Vegetation........................................................................................................................................ 6
StreamGeomorphology................................................................................................................... 7
StreamHydrology............................................................................................................................ 7
WetlandHydrology.......................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 Methods.................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.0 References............................................................................................................................................... 9
ADnendix 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
Appendix E: Hydrolou Data
Table 10. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
MY2 Stream Flow Hydrograph
Table 12. 2020 Max Hydroperiod
Table 13. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
MY2 Groundwater Well Hydrographs
Hannah Bridge Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

1.0 Proiect 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 bankfu11 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 1 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

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 2 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

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 (MRCS) 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 3 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

Mitigation Plan Stream Credits
MitigationMitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Existing
Reach
Plan(Length
SMUs
Type
(Mitigation
Plan)
Length (LF)
Ratio
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 t
0+63
to
7+79
716
716
1:1
716
Total
6,522 6,658
4,643
t 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. S Design/Approach
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 4 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

Restoration was used for Reach BB 1 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 BB 1 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 BB 1
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 5 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

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 2 Monitoring Performance (MY2)
The Hannah Bridge Year 2 Monitoring activities were performed in July and September 2020. All Year 2
Monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. Most of 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 September 2020. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and
plot locations are in Appendix B. MY2 monitoring data indicates that 19 of 20 plots are exceeding the
interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 283 to 1,133
planted stems per acre with a mean of 660 planted stems per acre across all plots. A total of 20 species were
documented within the plots. Volunteer species were reported in seven plots. The average planted stem
height was 4.9 feet. VP 16 did not meet the interim success criteria in MY2. The 0.35-acre area that this
plot is located in will be replanted in the spring of 2021.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. RES performed supplemental planting in April 2020.
This planting was overall successful with exception to the 0.35-acre area in and around VP16. RES plans
Hannah Bridge 6 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

to perform a follow-up planting in this area in the spring of 2021. Chinese privet re -sprouts that were
observed along the old BB channel and along the easement edge south of HB2 during MY were treated
this year and will continue to have follow-up treatments in 2021 and as necessary throughout the monitoring
period. Two new areas of Chinese privet re -sprouts were reported in MY2 totaling about 0.93 acres. These
areas will be treated in 2021. RES did not observe any easement encroachment and all fencing was in good
condition. Problem area photos are in Appendix B.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY2 was collected during July 2020. Summary tables and cross section plots are
in Appendix D. Overall the MY2 cross sections relatively match the MY0 cross sections. The MY2
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. RES performed a supplemental livestake
planting in March 2020. Additionally, RES treated the channel vegetation with aquatic safe herbicide in
May 2020. The treatment should help with channel maintenance as the livestakes continue to grow and
shade out the stream.
Stream Hydrology
During MY2, bankfull events were recorded on all three stage recorders. Stage Recorder BB 1 recorded five
with a maximum event of 1.30 feet, Stage Recorder HB3 recorded eight with a maximum event of 1.67 feet
and Stage Recorder HB4 recorded 12 with a maximum event of 3.53 feet. The flow gauge on T 13 recorded
200 consecutive flow days and 250 cumulative flow days. This was a major increase from the zero flow
days recorded in MY I. RES believes the increase is due to a flow path forming through the downstream
riffle at a lower elevation. Gauge locations are on Figure 2 and the associated data is in Appendix E.
Wetland Hydrology
During MY2, three of 11 groundwater wells (GW) and one of the two reference groundwater wells (RGW)
met the 12 percent hydroperiod success criteria. Hydroperiods of the 11 groundwater wells ranged from
one to 81 percent and the two reference groundwater wells ranged from nine to 26 percent. Six of the eight
wells that did not meet success in MY2, showed improvement compared to last year. RES expects the
groundwater wells to continue to improve. 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
Hannah Bridge 7 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

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.
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 13 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 8 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

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. 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.
Hannah Bridge 9 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site September 2020

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site - Mitigation Assets and Components
Project
Component
(reach ID, etc.)'
Wetland
Position and
HydroType2
Existing
Footage
or
Acreage
Stationing
Mitigation
Plan
Footage or
Acreage
Restoration
Level
Approach
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Credits
As -Built
Footage or
Acreage
Notes/Comments
HB1
99
0+15- 1+31
117
R
PI
1
117
1401
Full Channel Restoration, Channel Relocation, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Conservation Easement
HB1
1385
1+63-14+45
1284
R
PI
1
1284
Full Channel Restoration, Channel Relocation, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Conservation Easement
HB2
392
14+45- 18+37
392
Ell
2.5
157
392
Bank Stabilization, Invasive Treatment, Permanent Conservation Easement
HB3
1588
18+37-36+44
1807
R
PI
1
1807
1807
Full Channel Restoration, Channel Relocation, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Conservation Easement
HB4
579
36+84- 42+63
579
El
1.5
386
579
Structure Installation, Floodplain Benching, Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
HB4
228
42+63- 44+91
228
P
10
23
228
Cattle Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement
HF1
1,386
2+18-16+04
1,386
P
10
139
1,386
Permanent Conservation Easement
HF2
149
6+40- 7+89
149
P
10
15
149
Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
TH3
716
0+63-7+79
716
El
1
716
716
Structure Installation, Floodplain Benching, Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement,
1: 1 Credit for Headwater Plant in/Protection
W1
RR
5.76
5.76
E (High)
2
2.88
5.76
Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
W2
RR
0.81
0.81
0.81
Wetland Planting, Permanent Conservation Easement, No Credit
W3
RR
4.51
4.51
P
10
0.45
4.51
Permanent Conservation Easement
W4
RR
1.67
1.67
E (Low)
3
0.56
1.72
Livestock Exclusion, Wetland Planting, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
M
RR
0.97
0.97
E (High)
2
0.49
0.97
Plugged Ditch, Wetland Planting, Permanent Conservation Easement
W6
RR
3.78
3.78
E (High)
2
1.89
3.78
Plugged Ditch, Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation
Easement
W7
RR
0.38
0.38
E (High)
2
0.19
0.38
Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
W8
RR
0.07
0.07
P
10
0.01
0.07
Permanent Conservation Easement
M
RR
2.08
2.08
P
10
0.21
2.04
Permanent Conservation Easement
W10
RR
1.36
1.36
E (High)
2
0.68
1.35
Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
W11
RR
0.62
0.62
P
10
0.06
0.62
Permanent Conservation Easement
W12
RR
0.11
0.11
E (High)
2
0.06
0.11
Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
W13
RNR
1.74
1.74
1.74
Permanent Conservation Easement, No Credit
W14
RR
3.27
3.27
R
1
3.27
3.28
Plugged Ditch, Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation
Easement
Project Credits
Restoration Level
Stream
(SMU)
Riparian Wetland
(MU)
on -riparian
Wetland
(WMU)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
3,924
3.27
Enhancement
6.74
Enhancement
386
Enhancement ll
157
Enhancement III
Creation
Preservation
176
0.73
Overall Assets Summary
Overall
Asset Category
Credits
Stream
4,643
RP Wetland
10.73
NR Wetland
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 d istinction and appropriate symbology in the asset map.
1- Wetland Groups represent pooled wetland po lygons in the map with the same wetland type and
restoration level. If some of the wetland polygonswithin a group are in meaningfully d'Eferent
landscape positions, soil types or have d ifferent community targets(as examples), then further
segmentation in the table may be warranted. Wet land features impacted by cred it mod ifierssuch as
of iIitiesshaII be listed as d istinct record with the impacted acreage tallied as d iscreet 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 seethe DIAS buffer mitigation plan template for the required asset table
information.
4-Adjusted Mitigation Credits are based on the non-standard buffer widths

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 1 year 5 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 1 year 5 months
Number of reporting Years : 2
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
NA
Jun-18
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Jul-18
Stream Construction
NA
Apr-19
Site Planting
NA
Apr-19
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
May-19
May-19
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov-19
Dec-19
Supplemental Planting
NA
Apr-20
Year 2 Monitoring
XS: Jul (14/15)-2020
VP: Sep 22 - 2020
Sep-20
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
= The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
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 / 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Stream Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC
JRyan Medric [phone]

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
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
3020201150020
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-02
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
894 ac (1.39 sgmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Agriculture (54%) Forest (39%) Residential (5%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
H131
H132
HB3
HB4
HF1
HF2
TH3
Length of reach (linear feet)
1400
392
1807
807
1386
149
716
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
UC
UC
MC
MC
MC
UC
MC
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
667
752
816
894
78
13
24
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
P
P
P
P
I
I
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
Stream Classification (existing)
E4/5
E4/5
E5
E5
E5
G6c
F5/G5c
Stream Classification (proposed)
E4/5
WA
E4/5
WA
WA
WA
WA
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
FEMA classification
WA
I WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
SAW-2015-
01799
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
DWR # 17-
0537v2
Endangered Species Act
Yes
USFWS
(Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
SHPO (Corr.
Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A

Webb Mill
Blackmon Rd
Legend
bb
Conservation Easement
CCPV Index Sheet
Charlie Rd Charlie Rd <
y
a
a o
=V 3
0
A
a
Gree
Blackmon pds�rrr
Crossroads eA
c
Lo'
W ilkl
/ / a
/ � c
J
Stricklands Cros
a
S tricklantls Crossroads Rd �
O
3
N �^
9, Moot F
eC
-4
'py y
Pam,
P�
a
965 Gv
Oak Forest w
3
S
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Oak Fares Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC,
Fares,
contributors, and the.GIS `U'ser Community
N
Date: 9/28/2020
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
w E ryes
Hannah Bridge Site Drawn by: RTM
s Checked by: BPB
0 500 1,000
Johnston County, North Carolina
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Hannah Bridge MY2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos (9/22/2020)
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 6

Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 11
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 12

Vegetation Plot 13
Vegetation Plot 15
Vegetation Plot 17
Vegetation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 16

Random Plot 1
Random Plot 3
Random Plot 2

Stream Problem Areas
Hannah Bridge
Feature Issue / Location Photo
N/A N/A
Vegetation Problem Areas
Hannah Bridge
Feature Category / Location / Size
Photo
F7- 5 . + f '`.
Low Stem Density / Reach TH3 / 0.35 acres'`
Invasive Species / HF1 / 0.71 acres
Ar_
VPA4 / Invasive Species / HB3 / 0.22 acres
fi'..;' :f . =' y •":

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5. Planted Species 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
Tuhptree
Liriodendron tulipifera
2,000
River Birch
Betula ni ra
1,600
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
1,500
Cherrybark Oak
Quercus pagoda
1,100
Blackgum
Nyssa sylvatica
600
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
500
Total
31,400
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Stem
Height (ft)
1
890
202
1093
Yes
4.6
2
890
202
1093
Yes
5.2
3
647
202
850
Yes
3.6
4
1133
0
1133
Yes
5.5
5
890
3440
4330
Yes
3.0
6
688
0
688
Yes
7.0
7
809
0
809
Yes
5.4
8
405
202
607
Yes
4.5
9
809
0
809
Yes
7.0
10
647
1214
1862
Yes
4.4
11
364
0
364
Yes
3.6
12
688
40
728
Yes
5.4
13
931
0
931
Yes
5.9
14
567
0
567
Yes
4.1
15
567
0
567
Yes
2.5
16
283
0
283
No
2.7
17
445
0
445
Yes
6.5
R1
647
0
647
Yes
5.0
R2
486
0
486
Yes
4.6
R3
405
0
405
Yes
5.5
Project Avg
660
275
935
Yes
4.9

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Current Plot Data (MY2 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
05082019-01-0001
05082019-01-0002
05082019-01-0003
05082019-01-0004
05082019-01-0005
05082019-01-0006
05082019-01-0007
05082019-01-0008
05082019-01-0009
05082019-01-0010
Pnol-S[Pall
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Betulanigra
river birch
Tree
21
2
2
4
4
4
7
7
7
3
3
3
5
5
5
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
2
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentals
common buttonbusl
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
21
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 5
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
4
3
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
6
6
6
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
6
6
6
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
6
6
6
9
9
9
4
4
4
6
6
6
8
8
8
5
5
5
6
6
6
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus nigra
wateroak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
shrub
3
Salixnigra
blackwillow
Tree
85
2
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
13
13
13
1
1
1
1
1
1Ulmusalata
winged elm
Tree
g44
30
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)i
Species countl
Stems per ACREI
22
22
27
22
22
27
16
16
21
2
28
22
22
107
17
17
17
20
20
20
10
10
15
20
20
20
16
16
46
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
81
81
91
71
71
91
61
61
71
61
61
61
51
51
61
51
51
51
71
71
7
41
41
61
81
8
8
5
5
6
8901
8901
10931
8901
8901
10931
6471
6471
8501
11331
11331
11331
8901
8901
43301
6881
6881
6881
8091
8091
8091
4051
4051
6071
8091
809
809
6471
6471
1862
Current Plot Data (MY2 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
05082019-01-0011
05082019-01-0012
05082019-01-0013
05082019-01-0014
05082019-01-0015
05082019-01-0016
05082019-01-0017
MY2(2020)
MY1(2019)
MYO(2019)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
24
24
24
24
24
24
30
30
30
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
2
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentals
common buttonbusl
Shrub
5
5
5
1
1
1
11
11
11
5
5
5
5
5
5
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
31
3
31
1
1
11
1
1
11
20
20
20
22
22
22
33
33
33
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
12
18
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
7
7
8
7
7
7
26
26
26
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
8
8
8
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
52
52
52
44
44
44
65
65
65
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
13
13
13
122
122
122
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
49
49
49
45
45
45
11
11
11
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
8
8
8
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
32
32
32
29
29
29
7
7
7
Quercus nigra
wateroak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
6
6
6
5
5
5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
13
13
13
13
13
13
9
9
9
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
33
33
34
31
31
31
24
24
24
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
shrub
3
Salixnigra
blackwillow
Tree
87
89
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
32
32
32
21
21
21
28
28
28
Ulmusalata
winged elm
Tree
30
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
9
9
17
17
18
23
23
23
14
14
14
14
14
14
7
7
7
ill
11
11
288
288
424
261
261
368
366
366
366
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
17
17
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.42
0.42
0.42
7
7
7
7
7
8
6
6
6
4
4
4
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
14 14
19
13 13
15
13
13
13
364
364
364
688
688
7281
9311
9311
9311
5671
5671
5671
56
5671
5671
2831
2831
2831
4451
4451
445
6861
1009
6211
8761
8711
8711
871

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
Random Plot 1
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Platanus occidentalis
240
2
Platanus occidentalis
300
3
Cephalnthus occidentalis
180
4
Cephalnthus occidentalis
160
5
Quercus lyrata
165
6
Quercus lyrata
125
7
Quercus lyrata
170
8
Cephalnthus occidentalis
100
9
Cephalnthus occidentalis
155
10
Quercus pagoda
115
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
88
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
70
13
Quercus lyrata
175
14
Platanus occidentalis
125
15
Quercus lyrata
175
16
Quercus lyrata
118
Stems/Acre
647
Average Height (cm)
154
Average Height (ft)
5.0
Plot Size (m)
25 x 4
Random Plot 2
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Platanus occidentalis
205
2
Quercus alba
107
3
Quercus alba
105
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
110
5
Quercus michauxii
103
6
Quercus michauxii
100
7
Quercus michauxii
63
8
Platanus occidentalis
105
9
Platanus occidentalis
93
10
Platanus occidentalis
270
11
Betula nigra
205
12
Platanus occidentalis
210
Stems/Acre
486
Average Height (cm)
140
Average Height (ft)
4.6
Plot Size (m)
25 x 4
Random Plot 3
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Platanus occidentalis
180
2
Platanus occidentalis
160
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
75
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
80
5
Betula nigra
300
6
Betula nigra
210
7
Betula nigra
250
8
Cephalanthus occidentalis
70
9
Betula nigra
275
10
Quercus michauxii
90
Stems/Acre
405
Average Height (cm)
169
Average Height (ft)
5.5
Plot Size (m)
25 x 4

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Upstream
Downstream
129
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 1 - Pool
128
127
c
°
m
a�
w
126
125
.....
— —
.....
— —
...
—
.....
— —
.....
— —
. ....
— —
................
— —
— —
— —
..................
— — —
—
— —
— —
......
— —
.....
— —
124
123
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020
— — —Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Banktull Elevation t - Based on -
125.87
125.7
125.8
Bankfull Width ft'
9.3
9.4
9.6
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>50.7
>49.9
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.1
1.1
-
Banktull Max Depth (ft)2
1.8
2.0
2.2
Low Bank Elevation ft
N/A
N/A
125.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
10.0
10.0
11.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
8.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A

Upstream Downstream
Cross Section 2 (Shallow)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
125.82
125.9
126.0
Bankfull Width ftl
10.4
12.1
12.7
Floodprone Width LftL1
>50.1
>50.2
>50.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
12.1
-
BanlfullMaxDe th (ft)2
1.7
1.7
1.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
1.7
1.7
126.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
11.8
11.8
11.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.2
12.4
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.8
>4.2
>3.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 3 - Shallow
128
127
126
125
c
0
w
123
122
121
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 3 Shallow
6M=Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSA1
124.23
124.2
124.3
Bankfull Width (ft)1
10.9
12.3
12.7
Floodprone Width (ft)1
>50
>50
>50.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.1
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.0
1.9
2.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
2.0
1.8
124.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
13.9
13.9
13.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.6
10.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio i
>4.6
>4.1
>4.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
0.9
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 4 - Pool
127
126
125
c
°
124
a�
w
123
122
121
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020
— — —Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 4 Pool
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
124.02
123.9
124.0
Bankfull Width (ft)1
11.1
13.6
11.6
Floodprone Width (ft)1
>50
>50
>50
Banld'ull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.1
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.5
2.5
2.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
N/A
N/A
124.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
14.8
14.8
15.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.3
12.6
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio i
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 5 - Pool
125
124
123
c
122
ram•
AA•
!'�A
T�!'�
�T�!\
!'�.�
�A
•T. !'�
•!\!'�
•�
A•
a)
w
10
PPI
121
120
119
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
122.11
122.0
122.1
Bankfull Width (ft)1
11.3
12.1
15.1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
>50
>50
>50
Banldull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
-
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)2
2.1
2.2
2.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
N/A
N/A
122.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)2
11.4
11.4
10.8
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
11.3
12.8
-
Banldull Entrenchment Ratio i
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio i
N/A
N/A
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
125
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 6 - Shallow
124
123
c
°
122
(p
1
N
w
121
JT•T
r% R •
• r% ev
T• 11 09.r.v%
•
A •T•
f7 JT•
r%
•T• T1
•T•
Peer.
!7 •T
v% ra
•T• f1
•T
120
119
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 6 (Shallow)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
121.72
121.8
121.8
Bankfull Width (ft)i
12.4
15.2
14.1
Floodprone Width (ft)i
>50
>50
>50.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.9
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.7
1.7
1.8
Low Bank Elevation ft
1.7
1.4
121.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2)2
13.0
13.0
12.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
17.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios
>4
>3.3
>3.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios
1.0
0.8
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
121
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 7 - Pool
120
119
118
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
....
....................
0
117
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
-
- _
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
w
116
115
114
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 7 Pool
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
118.31
117.9
117.8
Bankfull Width (ft)1
11.2
10.1
10.0
Floodprone Width (ft)1
>50
>50
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.9
-
Banldull Max Depth (ft)2
2.4
2.7
3.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
N/A
N/A
118.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)2
18.9
18.9
24.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.6
5.4
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio i
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
N/A
I N/A
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
121
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 8- Shallow
120
119
c
°
a�
w
118
117
116
115
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 8 Shallow
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
118.04
118.1
118.2
Bankfull Width (ft)1
11.6
12.6
21.2
Floodprone Width (ft)1
>49.8
>50
>49.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.2
-
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)2
1.8
1.8
1.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
1.8
1.8
118.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional AreaLa
15.7
15.7
15.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.5
10.1
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio i
>4.3
>4.0
>2.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio i
1.0
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
119
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 9 - Shallow
118
117
c
°
116
a�
Lu
115
114
113
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 9 Shallow
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
115.93
116.0
116.1
Bankfull Width (ft)'
12.1
13.4
14.5
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>49.9
>50
>49.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
-
Banld'ull Max Depth (ft)2
1.8
1.9
1.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
1.8
1.9
116.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
15.5
15.5
14.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.4
11.6
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.1
>3.7
>3.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
118
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 10 - Pool
117
116
115
i•J.
LJ •1•
• LJ Li
J.• LJ
•J.• JJ 1
A J.•
L • •
L1 i•
• LJ
•i• WI
L.P L •.L
L• W •
•J.• LJ
•J.
c
0
114
w
113
112
111
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020
— — —Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 10 (Pool)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
115.82
115.6
115.6
Bankfull Width (ft)'
12.0
10.9
10.4
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>50
>50
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.7
-
BankfullMaxDepth (ft)2
3.3
3.5
3.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
N/A
N/A
115.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
19.1
19.1
20.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.5
6.2
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 12 - Shallow
118
117
116
c
0 115
w 114
.....
...
-r
—.-
—
......
.-.
-..
...—
—
113
112
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 12 (Shallow)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSA'
114.24
114.2
114.5
Bankfull Width (ft)'
11.8
11.8
14.1
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>50.7
>50.7
>50.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
-
Banld'ullMaxDepth (ft)2
1.5
1.5
1.6
L.ow Bank Elevation (ft)
1.5
1.6
114.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
13.3
13.3
12.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.5
10.5
-
Banld'ull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.3
>4.3
>3.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
118
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 11 - Pool
117
116
c
°
115
>
w
114
— —
...
...
...
1
...
—
..
—
—
..........
— —
—
— —
..
....
....
....
...
...
...
113
N;�,
j
112
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020
— — —Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 11 (Pool)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
114.52
114.5
114.6
Bankfull Width ft i
12.0
12.7
19.3
Floodprone Width ft 1
>50
>50
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
-
Bankfull MaxDe th (11)2
1.8
1.9
1.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
N/A
N/A
114.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
13.0
13.0
9.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.1
12.3
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio i
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio i
N/A
N/A
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
117
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 13 - Shallow
116
115
c
0
114
w
113
-.---
. .
. .
...
. .
.
----
...
-- ..
.-. ..
-.- ..
.—
.
.. .
...
. .
. ...
112
111
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 13 (Shallow)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
113.48
113.5
113.7
Bankfull Width (ft)'
12.5
22.9
18.0
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>52.3
>52.6
>52.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.5
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.4
1.5
1.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
1.4
1.4
113.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
12.0
12.0
10.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
43.6
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.2
>2.3
>2.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll
1.0
1.0
10.9

Upstream
Right Bank
117
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 14 - Pool
116
115
114
c
0
-
113
s•s
ssv•
.&j
.Li.
w
112
111
110
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020
— — —Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 14
(Pool)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
113.41
113.4
113.4
Bankfull Width (ft)'
11.1
11.8
13.2
Floodprone Width ft '
>50
>50
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.2
2.1
2.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
N/A
N/A
113.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
14.0
14.0
15.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
9.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
115
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB4 - Cross Section 15 - Shallow - Enhancement 1
114
113
c
°
112
1
N
w
111
Y•Ao
LI Y•
•YY
i-Y
-i-Y
i•
Y
YY•
•iY
iY
Yi
Yi•
110
109
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 15 Shallow
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
111.72
111.7
111.6
Bankfull Width (ft)1
15.4
15.3
15.4
Floodprone Width (ft)1
>49.9
>49.9
>49.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
-
BankfullMaxDepth (ft)2
1.4
1.4
1.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
1.4
1.4
111.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft 2)2
11.4
11.4
12.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
20.8
20.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 1
>3.2
>3.2
>3.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
115
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB4 - Cross Section 16 - Shallow - Enhancement 1
114
113
c
°
a�
w
112
111
•-,---,
,---.-.
.—.-
..—.--.—...--...-
....
----
........................
--
----
.....
. .
...
110
109
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 16 Shallow
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
111.30
111.3
111.2
Bankfull Width (ft)'
18.8
19.3
19.0
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>37
>37
>50.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
0.9
0.8
0.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
0.9
0.8
111.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional AreaLL
10.6
10.6
8.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
33.3
35.4
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
1 >2
>1.9
>2.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
0.8

Upstream
Downstream
127
Hannah Bridge - Reach HN - Cross Section 17 - Shallow
126
125
c
°
124
a�
E—
123
—
— —
—
— —
122
.....
- ...
.....
T. -
.......
. ....
-
...
..
.....
.....
.
121
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 17 Shallow
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
123.08
123.1
123.1
Bankfull Width (ft)1
5.6
5.7
7.9
Floodprone Width (11)1
>50.2
>50.1
>50.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
5.0
-
Bankfull Max Depth (11)2
0.9
0.9
0.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
0.9
0.7
122.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
2.9
2.9
2.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.6
I 11.5
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios
>9
1
>8.7
>6.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios
1.0
0.8
0.8

Upstream
Downstream
127
Hannah Bridge - Reach HF1 - Cross Section 18 - Pool
126
125
c
°
124
a�
w
123
122
121
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020
— — —Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 18
Pool
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
123.05
123.1
123.1
Bankfull Width (ft)i
5.8
5.9
9.6
Floodprone Width (ft)i
>50
>50
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
-
Bankfull Max Depth (11)2
1.1
1.2
1.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
N/A
N/A
123.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
3.3
3.3
3.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
10.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment RatiosI
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios
I N/A
N/A
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
123
Hannah Bridge - Reach TH3 - Cross Section 19 - Shallow
122
121
c
°
120
a�
w
119
118
117
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 19 (Shallow)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSAi
118.89
118.9
118.9
Bankfull Width (ft)i
7.0
7.3
7.9
Floodprone Width (ft)i
>42.2
>41.8
>50.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
-
Bankfull Max Depth (11)2
0.9
0.9
1.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
0.9
1.0
119.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
4.3
4.3
6.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.3
12.5
1 -
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios
>6
>5.7
>6.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios
1.0
1.1
1.2

Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach TH3 - Cross Section 20 - Shallow
119
118
117
c
°
116
--
--
—
--
w
115
114
113
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
MY2-2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 20 (Shallow)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSAi
115.43
115.3
115.4
Bankfull Width (ft)i
12.7
12.1
12.3
Floodprone Width (ft)i
>49.4
>49.8
>49.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
-
Bankfull Max Depth (11)2
1.6
1.6
1.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
1.6
1.7
115.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
10.9
10.9
13.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
13.4
1 -
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios
>3.9
>4.1
>4.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios
1.0
1.1
1.1

Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow Only
Bankfull Width (fl
Floodprone Width (fl
Bankfull Mean Depth (fl
'Bankfull Max Depth fl
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft`
Width/Depth Ratii
Entrenchment Rati,
'Bank Height Rati
Profile
Shallow Length (fl
Shallow Slope (ft/fl
Pool Length (fl
Pool Max depth (fl
Pool Spacing (fl
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (fl
Radius of Curvature (fl
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/fl
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Ratii
ransport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/i
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfu
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatioi
Bankfull Velocity (fp:
Bankfull Discharge (cfE
Valley length (fl
Channel Thalweg length (fl
Sinuosity (fl
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
Channel slope (ft/fl
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acre:
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
e
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach HB1
Pre -Existing Condition*
Reference Reach(es) Data
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
---
---
12.1
---
---
---
10.8
11.5
11.5
12.2
---
---
---
>50
---
---
---
>50
---
---
>40
---
---
---
1.0
---
---
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
---
---
---
2.3
---
---
---
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
---
---
---
12.2
14.7
15.3
1 15.3
15.8
---
---
12.1
7.9
8.7
8.7
9.4
---
---
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
---
--
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
2
---
22
---
---
5
---
---
23
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.006
---
---
0.03
---
3
---
9.7
---
---
11.6
---
---
45.6
---
--
46.8
---
---
37.2
---
---
55.7
---
19
---
---
45
---
---
19
---
---
57
---
9
---
22
---
---
10
---
---
28
---
--
147
---
---
49
---
---
170
---
1 F
---
---
3 7
---
---
1 R
---
---
5 3
Shaded 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 -rue).
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
Design
Monitoring Baseline
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
2.0
---
12.2
---
10.4
11.2
10.9
12.4
1.0
3
2.0
---
>50
---
>50
>50
>50
>50.1
0.1
3
2.0
---
1.3
---
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.1
3
2.0
---
1.6
---
1.7
1.8
1.7
2.0
0.2
3
2.0
---
15.4
11.8
1 12.9
1 13.0
1 13.9
1 1.1
1 3
2.0
---
9.7
8.6
9.9
9.2
11.8
1.7
3
2.0
>2.2
>4
>4.5
>4.6
>4.8
0.4
3
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
---
10
---
34
2.0
16.0
15.2
32.2
8.2
20
---
0.006
---
0.03
0.0001
0.005
0.0027
0.0205
0.006
20
---
13
---
29
12.5
25.1
27.7
35.7
8.0
22
---
39
---
85
34.2
62.2
56.5
132.8
25.6
22
---
34
---
70
34
---
---
70
---
---
---
23
---
42
23
---
---
42
---
---
---
90
---
151
90
---
---
151
---
---
---
2.8
---
5.7
2.8
---
---
5.7
---
---

Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow Only
Bankfull Width (f
Floodprone Width (f
Bankfull Mean Depth (f
'Bankfull Max Depth f
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft'
Width/Depth Rati
Entrenchment Rati
'Bank Height Rati
Profile
Shallow Length (f
Shallow Slope (ft/f
Pool Length (f
Pool Max depth (f
Pool Spacing (f
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (f
Radius of Curvature (f
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/f
Meander Wavelength (f
Meander Width Rati
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfu
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
al Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatioi
Bankfull Velocity (fp:
Bankfull Discharge (cfE
Valley length (fl
Channel Thalweg length (fl
Sinuosity (fl
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
Channel slope (ft/fl
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acre:
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
e
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach HB3
Pre -Existing Condition*
Reference Reach(es) Data
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
11.3
14.9
14.9
18.4
---
2
10.8
11.5
11.5
12.2
---
>50
---
---
>50
---
2
>50
---
---
>40
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.2
---
2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
---
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.3
---
2
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
---
13.1
14.9
1 14.9
1 16.6
1
2
14.7
15.3
1 15.3
15.8
9.7
15.0
15.0
20.3
2
7.9
8.7
8.7
9.4
>2.2
---
---
>2.2
2
>2.2
>2.2
---
1.2
---
---
1.3
2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
5
---
---
23
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.006
---
---
0.03
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
11.6
---
---
45.6
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
37.2
---
---
55.7
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
19
---
---
57
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
10
---
---
28
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
49
---
---
170
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1 F,
---
ri 4
003
0.0C
Shaded 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 -rue).
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
Design
Monitoring Baseline
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
2.0
---
12.2
---
11.6
12.0
12.0
12.5
0.4
4
2.0
---
>50
---
>49.8
>50.7
>50.3
>52.3
1.2
4
2.0
---
1.3
---
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.2
4
2.0
---
1.6
---
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
0.2
4
2.0
---
15.4
12.0
1 14.1
1 14.4
1 15.7
1 1.8
1 4
2.0
---
9.7
8.5
10.4
10.0
13.0
1.9
4
2.0
---
>2.2
>4.1
>4.2
>4.3
>4.3
0.1
4
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4
---
10
---
34
4.7
18.7
16.4
80.8
14.0
30
---
0.006
---
0.03
0.0001
0.0121
0.0098
0.0397
0.0097
30
---
13
---
29
7.4
23.8
21.2
50.5
11.6
33
---
39
---
85
13.3
52.7
54.8
99.1
18.6
33
---
34
---
70
34
---
---
70
---
---
---
23
---
42
23
---
---
42
---
---
---
90
---
151
90
---
---
151
---
2.8
---
5.7
2.8
---
---
5.7
---
---

Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Hannah Bridge
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Cross Section 2 (Shallow)
Cross Section 3 (Shallow)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
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
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
125.9
125.7
125.8
125.8
125.9
126.0
124.2
124.2
124.3
124.0
123.9
124.0
122.1
122.0
122.1
Bankfull Width ft'
9.3
9.4
9.6
10.4
12.1
12.7
10.9
12.3
12.7
11.1
13.6
11.6
11.3
12.1
15.1
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>50.7
>49.9
>50
>50.1
>50.2
>50.2
>50
>50
>50.1
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
1.1
1.1
-
1.1
12.1
-
1.3
1.1
-
1.3
1.1
-
1.0
0.9
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.8
2.0
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.0
.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.1
2.2
2.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
N/A
N/A
125.9
1.7
1.7
126.0
2.0
4.2
N/A
N/A
124.0
N/A
N/A
122.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)2
10.0
10.0
11.3
11.8
11.8
11.4
13.9
3.8
14.8
14.8
15.3
11.4
11.4
10.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
8.7
-
9.2
12.4
-
8.6
14.0
-
8.3
12.6
-
11.3
12.8
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
>4.8
>4.2
>3.9
>4.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cross Section 6 (Shallow)
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
Cross Section 8 (Shallow)
Cross Section 9 (Shallow)
Cross Section 10 (Pool)
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
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
121.7
121.8
121.8
118.3
117.9
117.8
118.0
118.1
118.2
115.9
116.0
116.1
115.8
115.6
115.6
Bankfull Width (ft)'
12.4
15.2
14.1
11.2
10.1
10.0
11.6
12.6
21.2
12.1
13.4
14.5
12.0
10.9
10.4
Floodprone Width ft'
>50
>50
>50.1
>50
>50
>50
>49.8
>50
>49.9
>49.9
>50
>49.9
>50
>50
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.9
-
1.7
1.9
-
1.4
1.2
-
1.3
1.2
-
1.6
1.7
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.4
2.7
3.4
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
3.3
3.5
3.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
1.7
1.4
121.7
N/A
N/A
118.3
1.8
1.8
118.2
1.8
1.9
116.0
N/A
N/A
115.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft) z
13.0
13.0
12.3
18.9
18.9
24.7
15.7
15.7
15.8
15.5
15.5
14.6
19.1
19.1
20.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
17.9
-
6.6
5.4
-
8.5
10.1
-
9.4
11.6
-
7.5
6.2
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4
>3.3
>3.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
>4.3
44.0
>2.4
>4.1
>3.7
>3.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
0.8
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cross Section
11 (Pool)
Cross Section 12 (Shallow)
Cross Section 13 (Shallow)
Cross Section 14 (Pool)
Cross Section 15 (Shallow)
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
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
114.5
114.5
114.6
114.2
114.2
114.5
113.5
113.5
113.7
113.4
113.4
113.4
111.7
111.7
111.6
Bankfull Width (ft)'
12.0
12.7
19.3
11.8
11.8
14.1
12.5
22.9
18.0
11.1
11.8
13.2
15.4
15.3
15.4
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>50
>50
>50
>50.7
>50.7
>50.6
>52.3
>52.6
>52.5
>50
>50
>50
>49.9
>49.9
>49.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
-
1.1
1.1
-
1.0
0.5
-
1.3
1.2
-
0.7
0.7
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.1
2.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
N/A
N/A
114.4
1.5
1.6
114.4
1.4
1.4
113.5
N/A
N/A
113.5
1.4
1.4
111.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)2
13.0
13.0
9.8
13.3
13.3
12.2
12.0
12.0
10.4
14.0
14.0
15.3
11.4
11.4
12.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.1
12.3
-
10.5
10.5
-
13.0
43.6
-
8.7
9.9
-
20.8
20.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
>4.3
>4.3
>3.6
>4.2
2.3
>2.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
>3.2
>3.2
>3.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 16 (Shallow)
Cross Section 17 (Shallow)
Cross Section 18 (Pool)
Cross Section 19 (Shallow)
Cross Section 20 (Shallow)
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
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
111.3
111.3
111.2
123.1
123.1
123.1
123.1
123.1
123.1
118.9
118.9
118.9
115.4
115.3
115.4
Bankfull Width (ft)'
18.8
19.3
19.0
5.6
5.7
7.9
5.8
5.9
9.6
7.0
7.3
7.9
12.7
12.1
12.3
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>37
>37
>50.4
>50.2
>50.1
>50.1
>50
>50
>50
>42.2
>41.8
>50.1
>49.4
>49.8
>49.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
-
0.5
5.0
-
0.6
0.5
-
0.6
0.6
-
0.9
0.9
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
0.9
0.8
111.1
0.9
0.7
122.9
N/A
N/A
123.0
0.9
1.0
119.0
1.6
1.7
115.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)2
10.6
10.6
8.1
2.9
2.9
2.1
3.3
3.3
3.1
4.3
4.3
6.0
10.9
10.9
13.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
33.3
35.4
-
10.6
11.5
-
10.2
10.9
-
11.3
12.5
-
14.9
13.4
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>2
>1.9
>2.7
>9
>8.7
>6.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
>6
>5.7
>6.4
>3.9
>4.1
>4.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.1
1 1.2
1.0
1.1
1 1.1
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current year low top of bank as the bankfull.

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 10. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Four Oaks Station
Precipitation
30 Percent
70 Percent
January
4.24
3.24
4.93
4.01
February
3.64
2.51
4.34
6.61
March
4.57
3.44
5.33
2.27
April
3.24
1.99
3.92
3.13
May
4.17
2.91
4.96
3.93
June
4.14
2.70
4.97
3.00
July
5.43
3.48
6.53
4.90
August
4.58
3.05
5.49
9.87
September
4.54
2.26
5.55
5.72
October
3.16
1.89
3.81
---
November
2.95
1.86
3.55
---
December
3.05
2.02
3.65
---
Total
47.71
31.35
57.03
43.44
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Year
Number of Bankfull
Events
Maximum Bankfull
Height (ft)
Date of Maximum Bankfull
Event
Photo Number
Stage Recorder HBI
MYl 2019
2
0.50
9/5/2019
MYl
MY2 2020
5
1.30
8/15/2020
N/A
Stage Recorder HB3
MYl 2019
3
0.99
9/6/2019
MYl
MY2 2020
8
1.67
2/7/2020
N/A
Stage Recorder HB4
MY12019 1
1.75
9/6/2019
N/A
MY2 2020 12
3.53
2/7/2020
N/A
Year mM
Number of Consecutive Flow Days
Total Number of Flow Days
Flow Gauge TH3
MYl 2019
0
0
MY2 2020
200
250

MY2 Hannah Bridge Flow Gauge TH3 Stream Flow Hydrograph
25 9
20
7
6
�
Y
5 �
`m
SR
7
4
rL
1❑
'WIF 1101'11� 1W
i[plir ,ri
s
2
1
o- o
J F M A M J J A S
Months
Ranrai — TM Bed — — — oS wme Bleva�m

Table 12.
2020 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 18-Mar through 6-Nov, 233 days)
Success Criterion 12%
Well ID
Consecutive
Cumulative
Occurrences
Days
Y
Hydroperiod
(%)
Days
Y
Hydroperiod
(%)
GW1
7
3
38
16
24
GW2
19
8
75
32
15
GW3
31
13
107
46
13
GW4
82
35
177
76
8
GW5
189
81
189
81
1
GW6
3
1
13
6
12
GW7
8
3
41
17
13
GW8
7
3
45
19
19
GW9
10
4
60
26
21
GW10
13
5
68
29
18
GW11
21
9
97
42
16
RGW1
21
9
74
32
14
RGW2
60
188
81
6
Table 13.
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Hannah Bridge
Well ID
H dro eriod i
% ; Success Criteron 12%
Year 1
2019
Year 2
2020
Year 3
2021
Year 4
2022
Year 5
2023
Year 6
2024
Year 7
2025
GW1
2
3
GW2
9
8
GW3
18
13
GW4
30
35
GW5
100
81
GW6
2
1
GW7
1
3
GW8
1
3
GW9
1
4
GW10
3
5
GWl1
1 2
9
RGWl
17
9
RGW2
27
26
<5% 1 5-11% 1 >12%

2020 Hannah Bridge GW1
10 12.0
Grow
ng Seaso
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
7.0 v
O
�i
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
++
�
W
5.0
4.0 a
-30
O
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
-Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW1

2020 Hannah Bridge GW2
10 12.0
Growing Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
t�
v
W
i
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
W
'++
�
5.0 ,=
0
4.0 a
-30
O
,L^
V
3.0
2.0
-40
LA1.0
III-50
0.0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW2

2020 Hannah Bridge GW3
10 12.0
Growing Seaso
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
t�
.-.
�►
W
i
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
'++
�
5.0
4.0 a
-30
O
3.0
2.0
-40
LA
1.0
L
L
dj
I
i
i
i
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW3

2020 Hannah Bridge GW4
10 12.0
Growing Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
-10
t�
8.0
�►
W
i
7.0 v
C
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
W
'++
�
5.0
0
4.0 a
-30
O
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW4

2020 Hannah Bridge GW5
10 12.0
Growing
Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
t�
�►
W
i
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
W
'++
�
5.0
0
4.0 a
-30
O
3.0
2.0
-40
L
1.0
0.0
-50J
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW5

2020 Hannah Bridge GW6
10 12.0
Growing Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
t�
�►
as
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
'++
�
5.0
4.0 a
-30
O
,L^
V
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
L L
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW6

2020 Hannah Bridge GW7
10 12.0
Growing Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
t�
�►
as
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
W
'++
�
5.0
0
4.0 a
-30
O
,L^
V
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW7

2020 Hannah Bridge GW8
10 12.0
Growing Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
t�
�►
as
i
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
'++
�
5.0 SOL
4.0 a
-30
O
,L^
V
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW8

2020 Hannah Bridge GW9
10 12.0
Growing Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
t�
�►
as
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
W
'++
�
5.0
0
4.0 a
-30
O
,L^
V
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
LL
AJ
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW9

2020 Hannah Bridge GW10
10 12.0
Growing Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10r
t�
�►
as
i
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
W
'++
�
5.0
4.0 a
-30
O
,L^
V
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -GW10

2020 Hannah Bridge GW11
10 12.0
Growing
Season
11.0
0
10.0
RM
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
C—
�►
— —
— — —
—
— —
as
0
7.0 v
O
E
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
W
'++
�
5.0
0
4.0 a
-30
O
,L^
V
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall —GW11

2020 Hannah Bridge REF GW1
10 12.0
Growing Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
t�
�►
as
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
W
'++
�
5.0
0
4.0 a
-30
O-001-4
,L^
V
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Four Oaks Daily Rainfall -REF GW1

2020 Hannah Bridge REF GW2
10 12.0
Growing Season
11.0
0
10.0
9.0
N
d
8.0
-10
t�
�►
W
7.0 v
O
d
6.0 p
-20
W
L
W
'++
�
5.0
0
4.0 a
-30
O
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll'our Oaks Daily Rainfall -REF GW2