20170537 Ver 1_DRAFT Baseline Monitoring Report_20190524

Strickland, Bev
From: Haupt, Mac
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 8:34 AM
To: Davis, Erin B
Subject: FW: [External] Hannah Bridge As-Builts
Attachments: Hannah Bridge As-Built-Preliminary-5-24-19.pdf; DRAFT -Hannah Bridge Baseline
Monitoring Report.pdf
From: Bradley Breslow [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 3:14 PM
To: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning <Kimberly. [e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ryan Medric <[e-mail]>; Matthew Deangelo <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Hannah Bridge As-Builts
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
on
Please see attached DRAFT Baseline monitoring report and preliminary As -Built drawings for the Hannah Bridge
Site. We just received the drawings from the surveyor today, so the profile morphological parameters have not yet been
calculated in Appendix D. I apologize for taking so long to get this information to you and for it not being totally
complete, but we wanted to at least get this out before the site visit. I will have hard copies of the report and the
drawings for everyone on-site. Looking forward to seeing everyone next week.
Thanks and have a great weekend,
Brad Breslow
Regulatory Manager
RES I res.us
Direct: 919.209.1062 1 Mobile: [phone]

DRAFT HANNAH BRIDGE STREAM
AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SAW -2015-01799
AS -BUILT BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX-EM, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056
May 2019

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary.................................................................................................................................
1.1 Project Location and Description..........................................................................................
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives................................................................................................
1.3 Project Success Criteria.........................................................................................................
StreamSuccess Criteria...............................................................................................................
WetlandSuccess Criteria.............................................................................................................
Vegetation Success Criteria.........................................................................................................
1.4 Project Components.....................................................................................................................
1.5 Design/Approach..........................................................................................................................
Stream..........................................................................................................................................
Wetland........................................................................................................................................
1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions.........................................................................................
1.7 Baseline Monitoring Performance(MYO)..................................................................................
Vegetation................................................................................................................................... .
StreamGeomorphology...............................................................................................................
StreamHydrology........................................................................................................................
WetlandHydrology......................................................................................................................
2.0 Methods..............................................................................................................................................
3.0 References...........................................................................................................................................
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
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
Anbendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorbholoi!v 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: As -Built Plan Sheets
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
Hannah Bridge 1 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 2019

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 designed
in concurrence with the Hannah Bridge Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201150020 (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 access their floodplain,
lack riparian buffers, allow 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 1, Enhancement Level 11, 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 will 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 2 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 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 3 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 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 1.4 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. Based on the
extensive management history of the Site and soil compaction, RES proposes a target hydroperiod of nine
percent for monitoring years 1 and 2, with the understanding that 12 percent will be the target hydroperiod
for the remainder of the monitoring period.
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, 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
Hannah Bridge 4 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 2019

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.
Mitigation Plan Stream Credits
1. S Design/Approach
Stream
The Site includes Priority I restoration, Enhancement Level 1, Enhancement Level 11, 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.
Hannah Bridge 5 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 2019
Mitigation
Stationing
Existing
MitigationMitigation
Reach
Type
(Mitigation
Plan)
Length (LF)
Plan Length
Ratio
SMUs
HBI
Restoration
0+15
to
1+31
99
117
1:1
11
HBI
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 1
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
13+58
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
Stream
The Site includes Priority I restoration, Enhancement Level 1, Enhancement Level 11, 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.
Hannah Bridge 5 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 2019

• Reach HBI — 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
Restoration was used for Reach HB 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 HB 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 HF 1. Minimal grading
and live stake planting was 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 proposed 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 HF 1 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.
Hannah Bridge 6 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 2019

Wetlnnd
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 11.00 WMUs through a combination of wetland
restoration, enhancement, and preservation treatments.
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 and Figure 2.
1.7 Baseline Monitoring Performance (MYO)
The Hannah Bridge Baseline Monitoring activities were performed in April and May 2019. All Baseline
Monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation and
stream interim success criteria.
Vegetation
Monitoring of the 17 permanent vegetation plots and three random vegetation plots was completed during
May 2019. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations
are in Appendix B. MYO monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success criteria
of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 405 to 1,255 planted stems per acre with
a mean of 859 planted stems per acre across the permanent plots. A total of 12 species were documented
within the plots. Volunteer species were not noted at baseline monitoring but are expected to establish in
upcoming years. Data from the two random vegetation plots showed 890 stems/acre in Random Plot 1, 931
Hannah Bridge 7 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 2019

stems/acre in Random Plot 2, and 890 stems/acre in Random Plot 3. The average height in the random
vegetation plots was 1.8 feet.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MYO was collected during March, April, and May 2019. Summary tables and
cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall the baseline cross sections and profile relatively match the
proposed design. The as -built conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all
restoration/enhancement reaches. All reaches were designed as gravel bed channels and remain classified
as gravel bed channels post -construction.
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
Two stage recorders and one flow gauge were installed in May 2019. One stage recorder on Reach HB -1
and one stage recorder on Reach HB -3. Also, one flow gauge was installed on Reach TH-3 to document at
least intermittent flow. Stream hydrology data will be included in the Monitoring Year 1 Report in this
section and in the appendices. Gauge locations can be found on Figure 2 and photos are in Appendix B.
Wetland Hydroloy
Twelve groundwater wells were installed in May 2019, including two reference wells, to monitoring
wetland hydrology. Groundwater well locations can be found on Figure 2 and the data will be included
subsequent monitoring reports.
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.
Vegetation success is being monitored at 17 permanent monitoring plots and four random monitoring plots.
Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2
(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 permanent
vegetation plots. Random plots will most likely be collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transects
Hannah Bridge 8 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 2019

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. Gauge installation followed current regulatory guidance. Visual
observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators are also recorded during quarterly site
visits.
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.
Hannah Bridge 9 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site May 2019

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
14.84
99
0+15 - 1+31
117
R
PI
1
117
Full Channel Restoration, Channel Relocation, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Conservation Easement
HB1
E
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
Bank Stabilization, Invasive Treatment, Permanent Conservation Easement
HB3
1588
18+37-36+44
1807
R
PI
1
1807
Full Channel Restoration, Channel Relocation, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
Conservation Easement
HB4
579
36+84 - 42+63
579
EI
1.5
386
Structure Installation, Floodplain Benching, Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
HB4
228
42+63 - 44+91
228
P
10
23
Cattle Exclusion, Permanent Conservation Easement
HF1
1,386
2+18-13+58
1,386
P
10
139
Permanent Conservation Easement
HF2
149
6+40-7+89
149
P
10
15
Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
TH3
716
0+63-7+79
716
EI
1
716
Structure Installation, Floodplain Benching, Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement,
Headwater Protection
W1
RR
5.7640.11
76
E (High)
2
2.88
Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
W2
RR
0.8181
Wetland Planting, Permanent Conservation Easement
W3
RR
4.5151
P
10
0.45
Permanent Conservation Easement
W4
RR
1.6767
E (Low)
3
0.56
Livestock Exclusion, Wetland Planting, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
W5
RR
0.9797
E (High)
2
0.49
Plugged Ditch, Wetland Planting, Permanent Conservation Easement
W6
RR
3.7878
E (High)
2
1.89
Plugged Ditch, Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation
Easement
W7
RR
0.3838
E (High)
2
0.19
Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
W8
RR
0.0707
P
10
0.01
Permanent Conservation Easement
W9
RR
2.0808
P
10
0.21
Permanent Conservation Easement
W10
RR
1.3636
2
0.68
Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
W11
RR
0.6262
10
0.06
Permanent Conservation Easement
W12
RR
0.11
4gh)
2
0.06
Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation Easement
W13
RNR
1.74
1.74
Permanent Conservation Easement
W14
RR
3.27
3.27
1
3.27
Plugged Ditch, Wetland Planting, Livestock Exclusion, Floodplain Reonnection, Permanent Conservation
Easement
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
on -
Riparian Wetland Wetland
(acres) (acres)
Overall
Asset Category
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
3,208
3.27
Enhancement
NR Wetland
14.84
Enhancement 1
716
392
E
1763
728
2.55
Overall Assets Summary
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 Groups represent 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 seethe DMS buffer mitigation plan template for the required asset table
information.
4 -Adjusted Mitigation Credits are based on the non-standard buffer widths.
Overall
Asset Category
Credits
Stream
RP Wetland
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 distinction and appropriate symbology in the asset map.
1- Wetland Groups represent 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 seethe DMS 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: 4 weeks
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 4 weeks
Number of reporting Years : 0
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
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
Year 2 Monitoring
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 / 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC TRyan
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 sqmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Agriculture (54%) Forest (39%) Residential (5%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
HB1 HB2
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
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stream Classification (existing)
E4/5 E4/5
E5
E5
E5
G6c
F5/G5c
Stream Classification (proposed)
E4/5 N/A
E4/5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA classification
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW -2015-
01799
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR # 17-
0537v2
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
USFWS
(Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
SHPO (Corr.
Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

Blackmon
Crossroads
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stricklands Crossroads Rd
0
3
9
O
7
6
ssroads Rd Strickl
ands Crossroatls Rd
Sources: Esri, HERE, Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), Mapmylndia,
NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
N Figure 1 - Site Location Map Date: 5/24/2019
WE Hannah Bridge Drawn by: RTM res
T—
s Stream and Wetland Site Checked by: BPB
0 500 1,000
Johnston County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

fires
N
m
0 200 400
Feet
Figure 2
Current Conditions
Overview
MYO 2019
Hannah Bridge
Mitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
Date: 5/24/2019 Drawn by: RTM
Let: 35.351042 Long: -75.420562
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
0 Vegetation Plot
D Random Vegetation Plot
As -built Top of Bank
Cross Section
® Stage Recorder
® Flow Gauge
ED Rain Gauge
® Wetland Gauge
Wetland Mitigation
Restoration
Enhancement -High
O Enhancement -Low
m Preservation
® Protection
Mitigation Plan Centerline
Stream Mitigation
— Restoration
— Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
— Preservation
Vegetation Condition Assessment
H Target Community
.v! Present Mar inal Absent
p, Absent No Fill
y
d
N
Present
A
_Ila1MSIS �

tN
T
ALL
HB1• +`
del
' R
HF1
k
r
+1
II �' � I"
1% S
fires
G
t rP 2
m
0 100 200
Feet
Figure 2
Current Conditions
Sheet 1
MYO 2019
Hannah Bridge
Mitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
Date: 5/24/2019 Drawn by: RTM
Let: 35.351042 Long: -75.420562
t LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
= Vegetation Plot
O Random Vegetation Plot
As -built Top of Bank
Cross Section
® Stage Recorder
® ® Flow Gauge
Rain Gauge
Wetland Gauge
�g Wetland Mitigation
4
Restoration
^o Enhancement -High
O Enhancement -Low
m Preservation
EM Protection
Mitigation Plan Centerline
Stream Mitigation
— Restoration
^ry — Enhancement 1
W8 W% Enhancement 11
Vegetation Condition Assessment
W H Target Community
m Present Mar inal Absent
.v
p, Absent No Fill
y
d
> Present
N
A
ofnrmatimm & Aroalusis 5

off
.t,
HB3
02J
fires
IV
1 5�1
0 100 200
Feet
Figure 2
Current Conditions
Sheet 2
MYO 2019
Hannah Bridge
Mitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
Date: 5/24/2019 Drawn by: RTM
Let: 35.381042 Long: -78.420862
g. LEGEND
C3 Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
Random Vegetation Plot
As -built Top of Bank
Cross Section
Stage Recorder
Flow Gauge
OJ 11 -Z (3 Rain Gauge
N I
Wetland Gauge
Wetland Mitigation
Restoration
Enhancement -High
O Enhancement -Low
=3 Preservation
EZI Protection
Mitigation Plan Centerline
HB4 Stream Mitigation
— Restoration
— Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
— Preservation
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Target Community
Present Marqinal Absent
Absent
No Fill
2 Present
i III n, ..... ..... Um i1n, & 0 IIV,

Hannah Bridge MYO Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
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
Vcgctation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 16

Random Plot 1
Random Plot 3
Random Plot 2

Hannah Bridge Monitoring Device Photos
Stage Recorder (HB -1)
Flow Gauge (TH-3)
Stage Recorder (HB -3)

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 nigra
1,600
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
1,500
Cherrybark Oak
Quercus pagoda
1,100
Blackgum
Nyssa sylvatica
600
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
500
0
Total
31,400
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
1
1093
0
1093
Yes
2
1214
0
1214
Yes
3
809
0
809
Yes
4
1255
0
1255
Yes
5
688
0
688
Yes
6
769
0
769
Yes
7
890
0
890
Yes
8
526
0
526
Yes
9
850
0
850
Yes
10
728
0
728
Yes
11
809
0
809
Yes
12
769
0
769
Yes
13
971
0
971
Yes
14
728
0
728
Yes
15
1174
0
1174
Yes
16
809
0
809
Yes
17
728
0
728
Yes
Project Avg
871
0
871
Yes

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Hannah Bride
Current Plot Data (MYO 2019)
Current Plot Data (MYO 2019)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
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
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
1
Betula nigra
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
7
7
7
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
30
5
5
5
Ce halanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
5
4
4
41
4
4
1
1
1
4
5
5
5
3
3
3
2
2
2
Liriodendron tuli ifera
tuli tree
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
1
11
1
1
1
11
11
6
6
6
31
3
3
3
3
3
26
26
26
N ssa s lvatica
N ssa s lvatica
blackgurn
Tree
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
3
3
3
9
9
9
3
3
3
6
6
6
65
65
Quercus
Quercus
oak
Tree
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
11
11
11
9
9
9
8
8
8
5
5
5
4
4
122
3
3
3
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
11
5
5
5
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
21
2
1
1
1
1
1
11
7
3
3
3
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
1
I 1
11
2
2
2
5
5
5
Quercus pagoda
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
11
3
31
3
2
2
2
9
1
1
1
Quercus pheRos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
ITree
1
1
1
1
1
1
31
31
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
271
271
27
30
30
30
201
201
20
31
31
31
17
17
17
19
191
19
22
221
22
131
131
13
21
211
21
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 0.42
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
61 61 61 91 91 91 81 81 8 5 51 51 51 51 5 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 13 13
61 61 6 71 7 7 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 7 7 7 4 4 4 8 8
8
1093 1093 1093 1214 1214 1214 8091 8091 809 12551 12551 12551 6881 688 6881 7691 7691 769 8901 8901 890 526 5261 526 8501 850
850
Hannah Bridge
Current Plot Data (MYO 2019)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
05082019-01-0010
05082019-01-0011
05082019-01-0012
05082019-01-0013
05082019-01-0014
05082019-01-0015
05082019-01-0016
05082019-01-0017
MYO (2019)
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
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
30
30
30
Ce halanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
1 4
4
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
33
33
33
Liriodendron tuli ifera
tuli tree
Tree
8
81
8
31
3
3
1
11
1
1
1
11
11
6
6
6
31
3
3
3
3
3
26
26
26
N ssa s lvatica
blackgurn
Tree
I
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
10
10
10
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
65
65
65
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
9
9
7
7
7
11
11
11
7
7
7
4
4
4
122
1221
122
Quercus l rata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
11
11
11
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
21
2
1
1
1
7
7
7
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
11
3
31
3
9
9
9
Quercus helloswillow
oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
24
24
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
ITree
4
41
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
28
28
28
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
181
181
18
20
201
20
191
24
24
24
181
18
18
29
29
29
20
20
20
18
18
18
3661
3661
366
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.42
61 61 61 91 91 91 81 81 8 5 51 51 51 51 5 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 13 13
13
728 728 728 809 809 809 769 769 769 971 971 971 728 728 728 1174 11741 11741 8091 8091 809 7281 7281 7281 8711 8711
871

Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Random Plot 1
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Taxodium distichum
59
2
Quercus spp.
59
3
Quercus spp.
30
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
48
5
Taxodium distichum
72
6
Quercus spp.
50
7
Quercus spp.
50
8
Quercus spp.
52
9
Quercus spp.
67
10
Quercus spp.
54
11
Quercus spp.
51
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
58
13
Quercus spp.
41
14
Quercus spp.
53
15
Quercus spp.
58
16
Quercus spp.
70
17
Quercus spp.
45
18
Quercus spp.
51
19
Platanus occidentalis
39
20
Quercus spp.
37
21
Quercus spp.
36
22
Quercus spp.
35
Stems/Acre
890
57
Average Height (cm)
51
Average Height (ft)
1.7
Plot Size (m)
25 x 4
Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Random Plot 2
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Quercus spp.
42
2
Platanus occidentalis
30
3
Platanus occidentalis
55
4
Platanus occidentalis
75
5
Platanus occidentalis
80
6
Platanus occidentalis
59
7
Cephalanthus occidentalis
43
8
Quercus spp.
33
9
Quercus spp.
29
10
Taxodium distichum
70
11
Cephalanthus occidentalis
42
12
Cephalanthus occidentalis
50
13
Platanus occidentalis
71
14
Platanus occidentalis
75
15
Quercus spp.
55
16
Platanus occidentalis
68
17
Platanus occidentalis
39
18
Quercus spp.
36
19
Quercus spp.
36
20
Quercus spp.
37
21
Taxodium distichum
63
22
Platanus occidentalis
78
23
Platanus occidentalis
57
Stems/Acre
931
Average Height (cm)
53
Average Height (ft)
1.7
Plot Size (m)
25 x 4
Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Random Plot 3
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Quercus lyrata
50
2
Taxodium distichum
63
3
Quercus phellos
78
4
Quercus phellos
68
5
Platanus occidentalis
84
6
Platanus occidentalis
76
7
Platanus occidentalis
80
8
Quercus spp.
50
9
Platanus occidentalis
60
10
Quercus pagoda
60
11
Quercus lyrata
51
12
Platanus occidentalis
54
13
Cephalanthus occidentalis
45
14
Quercus spp.
62
15
Fraxinus p en n sylva n ica
49
16
Platanus occidentalis
70
17
Platanus occidentalis
80
18
Taxodium distichum
70
19
Quercus phellos
51
20
Taxodium distichum
53
21
Quercus phellos
50
22
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
50
Stems/Acre
890
Average Height (cm)
62
Average Height (ft)
2.0
Plot Size (m)
50x 2

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Upstream
Downstream
129
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 1 - Pool
128
t
a•
Downstream
129
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 1 - Pool
128
127
c
° 126
m
LU 125
124
123
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 125.87
Bankfull Width ft
9.3
Flood rove Width ft
>50.7
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.8
Low Bank Height ft
N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A

Upstream Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 2 - Shallow
129
128
127
c
° 126
w --T--7N _
125
124
123
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — — Approx. Bankfull Flood prone Area 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 2 Shallow
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
125.82
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
11.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 3 - Shallow
128
Cross Section 3 Shallow
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
124.23
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
BankfullMaxDepth (ft)
2.0
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
13.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.6
127
>4.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
126
125
c
0
CO 124
—
—
—
—
—
— —
m
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 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 3 Shallow
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
124.23
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
BankfullMaxDepth (ft)
2.0
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
13.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
127
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 4 - Pool
126
125
c
°
124
_m
LU
123
122
121
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 4 Pool
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 124.02
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
14.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.3
Bankfull FnIrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 5 - Pool
125
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
122.11
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
124
2.1
Low Bank Height ft)
N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (112)
--77
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.3
Bankfull Fntrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A
123
-
c
2 122
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
—
—
— —
— —
—
a�
LU 121
120
119
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
122.11
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
Low Bank Height ft)
N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (112)
11.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.3
Bankfull Fntrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB1 - Cross Section 6 - Shallow
125
Cross Section 6 (Shallow)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
121.72
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.7
Bankfull Cro s s Sectional Area (ft 2 )
13.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
124
123
w
c
° 122
_m
LU 121
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
120
119
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 6 (Shallow)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
121.72
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.7
Bankfull Cro s s Sectional Area (ft 2 )
13.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0

i
Upstream Downstream
awl
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 7 - Pool
121
120
119
w
c — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
° 118
M
ami
LU 117
116
115
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — — Approx. Bankfull Flood prone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
118.31
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
Bankfull MaxDe th (ft)
2.4
Low Bank Height (ft)
N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
18.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
121
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 8- Shallow
120
119
w
c
°
118
_m
LU
117
116
115
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
F--MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 8 Shallow
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
118.04
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
>49.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
BankfullMaxDepth (ft)
1.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
15.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.5
Bankfull Fntrenchment Ratio
>4.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0

WAWAMLA ' ..
Cross Section 9 (Shallow)
Bas ed on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
115.93
`e ix
12.1
Foodprone Width (ft)
>49.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.8
tdt
t
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio I
NZ
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
119
118
117
w
c
° 116
M
_m
LU 115
114
113
0
Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 9 - Shallow
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull prone
FloodArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 9 (Shallow)
Bas ed on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
115.93
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.1
Foodprone Width (ft)
>49.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
15.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio I
>4.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
118
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 10 - Pool
117
w
c
°
116
115
—
—
—
—
--
M
ami
LU
114
113
112
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — — Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 10 Pool
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
115.82
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
N/A
Bankfull Coss Sectional Area (ft 2)
19.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
BankfuH Bank Height Ratio
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
118
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 11 - Pool
117
116
C:
°
LU
115
114
113
112
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 11 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
114.52
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
Low Bank Hcight (ft)
N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Arca (ft 2)
13.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 12 - Shallow
118
Cross Section 12 Shallow
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
114.24
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Bankfu11 Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
13.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
117
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
116
w
c
° 115
_m
LU114
— —
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
—
113
112
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 12 Shallow
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
114.24
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Bankfu11 Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
13.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
117
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 13 - Shallow
116
115
w
c
°
114
M
>
LU
113
112
111
-1 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — — Approx. Bankfull
29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 13 1 Shallow
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
113.48
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
>52.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
12.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0

Upstream
Right Bank
117
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB3 - Cross Section 14 - Pool
116
115
v
114
c
0
>
113
— —
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
— — —
—
— — —
—
— —
wm
112
111
110
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 14 Pool
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 113.41
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
BankfullMaxDepth (ft)
2.2
Low Bank Height (ft)
N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
14.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio I
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
VA , w
� V �-'?
s 4
i
y.
114
c
a�
LU
Upstream
Downstream
115
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB4 - Cross Section 15 - Shallow - Enhancement 1
114
c
a�
LU
113
112
77
111
110
109
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 15 (Shallow)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
111.72
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
>49.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
11.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
20.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio I
>3.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
115
Hannah Bridge - Reach HB4 - Cross Section 16 - Shallow - Enhancement 1
114
113
c
CU
—
w
112
111
— —
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
—
110
109
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 16 (Shallow)
Basedon fixedbaseline bankfull elevation
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
111.30
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>37
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)
0.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
10.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
33.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
127
Hannah Bridge - Reach HF1 - Cross Section 17 - Shallow
126
125
c
124
a�
w
123
_ _
_ _
_ _
_
_ _
_ _
_
122
121
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 17 Shallow
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
123.08
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.9
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area (ft 2)
2.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
127
Hannah Bridge - Reach HF1 - Cross Section 18 - Pool
126
125
c
a�
LU
124
123
122
121
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 18 Pool
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
123.05
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
N/A
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area (ft 2)
3.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
123
Hannah Bridge - Reach TH3 - Cross Section 19 - Shallow
122
121
c
120
>
a�
LU
119
118
—
—
117
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 18 Pool
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
123.05
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
N/A
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area (ft 2)
3.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
119
Hannah Bridge - Reach TH3 - Cross Section 20 - Shallow
118
c
117
116
w
115
NO
00—
—
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
114
113
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx. Bankfull
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
FloodproneArea
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 18 Pool
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
123.05
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
N/A
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area (ft 2)
3.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A

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 hankfult 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. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach HB1
Parameter Gauge' Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition*
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow Only
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull 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
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
--- >50
--- ---
---
>50
--- ---
>40 ---
2.0
---
>50
---
>50
>50
>50
>50.1
0.1
3
Bankfull 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
3
'Bankfull 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
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft'
-- --- --
--
-- 12.2 1
--- I ---
I ---
14.7 1
15.3 1 15.3
1
15.8 1 ---
1 2.0
---
1 15.4 1
---
11.8
12.9
1 13.0
13.9
1.1
3
Width/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
3
Ratio
EntrenHHh
---
--- >2.2
--- ---
---
>2.2
--- ---
>2.2 ---
2.0
---
>2.2
>4
>4.5
>4.6
>4.8
0.4
3
'Bank Rati
---
--- 1.0
1.0
1.1 1.1
1.1
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
2
--- ---
22 ---
---
5
--- ---
23 ---
---
10
---
34
---
---
---
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
---
--- ---
--- ---
---
0.006
--- ---
0.03 ---
---
0.006
---
0.03
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Length (ft)
3
--- ---
9.7 ---
---
11.6
--- ---
45.6 ---
---
13
---
29
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Max depth (ft)
---
--- ---
--- ---
---
---
--- ---
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
5.2
--- ---
46.8 ---
---
37.2
--- ---
55.7 ---
---
39
---
85
---
---
Pattern
Channel 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)
5
-----
147 ---
---
49
--- ---
170 ---
---
90
---
151
90
---
---
151
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
1.6
--- ---
3.7 ---
---
1.6
--- ---
5.3 ---
---
2.8
---
5.7
2.8
---
---
5.7
---
---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f'
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4/5
E4/5
E4/5
E4/5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
--- --- ---
Valley length (ft)
901
842
---
---
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1074
995
---
---
Sinuosity (ft)
1.19
1.18
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.008
0.29
---
---
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.008
0.003
0.003
---
3 Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
---
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
Biological or Other
- -
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 hankfult 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. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 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 hankfult 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. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach HB3
Parameter Gauge' Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition*
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow Only
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull 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
4
Floodprone Width ft
>50
---
---
>50 ---
2
>50
--- ---
>40 ---
2.0
---
>50
---
>49.8
>50.7
>50.3
>52.3
1.2
4
Bankfull 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
4
'Bankfull 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
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft'
-- --- --
13.1
1 14.9 1
14.9
1
16.6 1 ---
1 2
14.7 1
15.3 1 15.3
1
15.8 1 --
2.0
---
1 15.4 1
---
12.0
1 14.1
1 14.4
15.7
1.8
4
Width/Depth Ratio
9.7
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
4
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
---
---
>2.2
2
>2.2
---
>2.2
2.0
---
>2.2
---
>4.1
>4.2
>4.3
>4.3
0.1
4
Bank Height Rati
1.2
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
4
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
---
---
---
--- ---
---
5
--- ---
23 ---
---
10
---
34
---
---
---
---
---
---
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
--- ---
---
0.006
--- ---
0.03 ---
---
0.006
---
0.03
---
---
I ---
---
---
---
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
--- ---
---
11.6
--- ---
45.6 ---
---
13
---
29
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Max depth (ft)
---
---
---
--- ---
---
---
--- ---
--- ---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
--- ---
---
37.2
--- ---
55.7 ---
---
39
---
85
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pattern
Channel 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 parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f'
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5
E4/5
E4/5
E4/5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
--- --- ---
Valley length (ft)
1297
842
---
---
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1388
995
---
---
Sinuosity (ft)
1.07
1.18
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
---
0.29
---
---
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.003
0.003
---
3 Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4% of Reach with Eroding Banksl-
-
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
- -i
...
Biological or Other
- -I
---
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 hankfult 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. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3

* Annual measurements are based on fixed baseline cross sectional area.
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+
Record elevation (datum) used
125.9
125.8
124.2
124.0
122.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.3
10.4
10.9
11.1
11.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50.7
>50.1
>50
>50
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
2.0
2.5
2.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
N/A
1.7
2.0
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
10.0
11.8
13.9
14.8
11.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
9.2
8.6
8.3
11.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
>4.8
>4.6
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A
1.0
1.0
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+
Record elevation (datum) used
121.7
118.3
118.0
115.9
115.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.4
11.2
11.6
12.1
12.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
>50
>49.8
>49.9
>50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
2.4
1.8
1.8
3.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.7
N/A
1.8
1.8
N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 113.0
18.9
15.7
15.5
19.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.8
6.6
8.5
9.4
7.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4
N/A
>4.3
>4.1
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
N/A
1.0
1.0
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+
Record elevation (datum) used
114.5
114.2
113.5
113.4
111.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.0
11.8
12.5
11.1
15.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
>50.7
>52.3
>50
>49.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.3
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
1.5
1.4
2.2
1.4
Low Bank Height (ft)
N/A
1.5
1.4
N/A
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
13.0
13.3
12.0
14.0
11.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.1
10.5
13.0
8.7
20.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
>4.3
>4.2
N/A
>3.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
N/A
1.0
1.0
N/A
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+
Record elevation (datum) used
111.3
123.1
123.1
118.9
115.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.8
5.6
5.8
7.0
12.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
>37
>50.2
>50
>42.2
>49.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.6
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.9
0.9
N/A
0.9
1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10.6
2.9
3.3
4.3
10.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
33.3
10.6
10.2
11.3
14.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2
>9
N/A
j
>6
>3.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
1.0 1
1 1 1 11
1 1 1
1 N/A I
I I I I
I
11.0
1.0 1
ILI
* Annual measurements are based on fixed baseline cross sectional area.

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10. Stream Reach Data Summary
Hannah Bridge .. .
and Substrate - Shallow only
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratiommmmm=mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Shallow Length (ft)
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
------ ------ ------ ------
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
AdditionalRadius
Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
SlopeChannel
Water Surface
slopeChannel
of Reach Eroding Banks
StabilityChannel ..
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10. Stream Reach Data Summary
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site - Reach H133
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow only
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.6
12.0
12.0 12.5
0.4
4
Floodprone Width (ft) >49.8 >50.7 >50.3 >52.3
1.2
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.2
1.2 1.4
0.2
4
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.6
1.7 1.8
0.2
4
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.4
1.6
1.7 1.8
0.2
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
12.0
14.1
14.4 15.7
1.8
4
Width/Depth Ratio
8.5
10.4
10.0 13.0
1.9
4
Entrenchment Ratio
>4.1
1 >4.2 1
>4.3 1 >4.3 1
0.1 1
4
'Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
1 1.0 1
1.0 1 1.0 1
0.0 1
4
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
---
---
--- ---
---
---
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
--- ---
---
---
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
--- ---
---
---
Pool Max depth (ft)
---
---
--- ---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
L ---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
34
---
--- 70
---
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
23
---
--- 42
---
---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
---
---
--- ---
---
---
Meander Wavelength (ft)
90
---
--- 151
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
"N I
Additional Reach Parameters
2.8
- -
- 5.7
Rosgen Classification
E4 / E5
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
---
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
---
Channel slope (ft/ft)
---
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
------
--- ---
---
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Bank
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
---
Biological or Other
---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Appendix E
As -Built Plan Sheets