20061334 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20110531

06- 1��
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Monitoring Report — MY03
Edgecombe County, NC
i14; IY
,I
5 a Y
►�1. Ca rr' � C`�
Submitted to:
I
Ecosystem
PkOGRAM
NCEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
December 2010

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Project Manager: Gary M. Mryncza, P.H., P.E.
Email: gary.mryncza @kci.com
KCI Project No: 12054239_MO10
Harrell Siream and Welland KCl Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - AIY03

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................... ..............................1
1 1
Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach ....... . . . ..................1
Project Activity and Reporting History .. ...... ............
12
Location and Setting . .
1
1.3
Project History and Background ..
4
2.0
PROJECT CONDITIONS AND MONITORING RESULTS .... .............................14
Hydrological (Bankfull) Verifications ......... .......
2.1
Vegetation Assessment.. . . ............... . ......... . ............... . .....14
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary .......... ........
22
Stream Assessment ... ... . ...... . ....... ....14
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary..
22.1
Bankfull Events
15
2.2.2
Quantitative Measures Summary Tables ....... . ............ ..........
16
23
Wetland Assessment...... ... .......... ... ........... ............. . . ... .......
23
2.3.1
Wetland Criteria Attainment Tables ... .............
......... ........
23
3.0
SUCCESS CRITERIA .................................................................... .............................23
LIST OF TABLES
Table I.
Project Restoration Components ............ ....... ............
. ......... .. 4
Table 11
Project Activity and Reporting History .. ...... ............
........... 4
Table 111.
Project Contact Table ..... ...... ........
. ........ .5
Table IV.
Project Background Table..
.6
Table V
Hydrological (Bankfull) Verifications ......... .......
.....15
Table VI.
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary .......... ........
... ..... ....... 16
Table VII
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary..
.......... 20
Table VIII
Wetland Criteria Attainment . . .......
23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .. ...... ....... ........ .2
Figure2 Project Reaches ............. . ............ ............ . ........ . .............. ...........3
Figure 3. Current Condition Plan View . ........... .......... . ............. . ........ . . .........7
Han ell Sit eam and Welland KCI Associates of Not th Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

APPENDIX A — VEGETATION DATA
Al. Vegetation Data Tables and Monitoring Data Sheets ... ...26
APPENDIX B — STREAM AND WETLAND PHOTOS
B 1 Stream and Wetland Photo Stations 91
B2. Representative Stream Problem Area Photos .. . .................. ...109
APPENDIX C — GEOMORPHOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC DATA
CI Stream Cross - Sections ....... . 111
C2. Stream Longitudinal Profiles ................ ........126
C3. Stream Pebble Counts ..................... . .............. . 131
C4 Stream and Wetland Hydrographs ..... .. ...... ......... .146
C5 Precipitation 30 -70 Percentile Graph .......... ......... . . ............. .153
Harrell Stb eam and Wetland KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration Site is a full - delivery project that was developed for the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Construction was completed in September 2007 on an
Unnamed Tributary to Swift Creek and 15 0 acres of Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp wetland community
The 441 -acre watershed at the downstream limits of the project stream and the 57 -acre watershed draining into
the protect wetland are located within the USGS 14 -digit HUC 03020101130090 and the NCDWQ Sub -basin
03 -03 -02 in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin The project restored 6,808 linear feet of channel using a combination
of Priority 2 and 3 approaches, and 15 0 acres of Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp wetland community,
generating 6,808 stream mitigation units and 15 0 wetland mitigation units The stream design addressed
vertical instability problems and a lack of bed variability by stabilizing stream banks, installing in- stream
structures, adjusting stream planform, and replanting the riparian areas with native vegetation The wetland was
restored by filling ditches, creating microtopography, and planting native trees and shrubs This report describes
the results from the findings of the third year of monitoring that took place in 2010
The riparian buffer was planted with twelve different species of bare root trees and shrubs and three different
species of live stakes The restored wetland was planted with eleven different species of bare root trees and
shrubs Vegetation monitoring plots were established during the as -built survey and included 18 monitoring
plots placed throughout the stream buffer and 12 monitoring plots installed in the restored wetland Vegetation
must meet a minimum survival success rate of 320 stems /acre after five years Between the second and third
monitoring years supplemental planting was conducted on isolated sections of the stream restoration The third -
year monitoring counted an average of 598 stems /acre in the stream plots and 533 stems /acre in the wetland
plots The third -year monitoring found the vegetation component of the protect to be on track to meeting the
success criteria
The stream assessment completed during third -year monitoring found the stream to be stable and functioning
properly Channel dimensions have not changed significantly from the first -year monitoring The small portions
of localized bed erosion, aggradation, and degradation that were noted during previous monitoring years have
not become problematic or caused any instability in the stream Any problem areas noted during the third -year
monitoring have been documented in the Current Condition Plan View The on -site stream gauges have
recorded multiple bankfull events since the project was constructed in September 2007
During the 2010 monitoring year, wetland hydrology was achieved at all four wells in the restoration area In
2010 groundwater was within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 18 consecutive days (8% of the growing
season) at each well, which exceeds the 5% success criteria
The daily rainfall data depicted on the gauge data graphs were obtained from the on -site precipitation gauge
The precipitation gauge was installed on the site prior to project implementation The daily rainfall data
obtained from a local weather station shows that the area had average rainfall during the 2010 growing season
and correlated to the precipitation data recorded on -site
Hai rell Stream and Wetland KCI Associates of North Cai olma
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of the restoration project are as follows
Restoration Goals
Protect aquatic resources from excess nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants
coming from the agricultural watershed
Reestablish terrestrial and aquatic habitat and connect the site to the existing
floodplain corridor along Swift Creek
Restoration Objectives
• Restore 6,808 linear feet of stable stream channel with the appropriate pattern,
profile, and dimension that can support a sand transport system
• Connect the stream to a functioning floodplain
• Fill and plug ditches in the drained hydric soils to restore saturated hydrologic
conditions for 5% of the growing season
• Plant tree species typical of a Coastal Plain Small Swamp Stream along the
stream riparian corridor and floodplam as well as in the restored wetland
1.1 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
Prior to restoration, UT to Swift Creek had been channelized and straightened since at
least 1948 The entire site, including where the wetland was restored, was under
agricultural production There were fields adjacent to the stream and the wetland that had
been drained by a network of ditches There were no remaining vegetated buffers or in-
stream features in the channel and the banks were nearly vertical The channel was
characterized as having poor streambed variability and habitat diversity Restoration of
6,808 linear feet of channel was accomplished utilizing a combination of Priority Levels
2 and 3 (Table 1) Reach 1 (Station 10 +00 to 22 +26) was restored using a Priority Level
3 approach The restoration of a B5c channel with a sinuosity of 1 06 was accomplished
by building a bankfull channel with a higher width /depth ratio than the existing stream,
creating distinct bed features by adding pools and riffles to the profile, and grading back
the upper slopes to create an appropriate valley for the stream Reaches 2, 3, and 4
(Stations 22 +26 to 36 +91, 36 +91 to 51 +82, and 51 +82 to 78 +80, respectively) were
restored to a C5 channel with a Priority Level 2 restoration The restoration established a
bankfull channel with a new floodplain where the designed bankfull stage equals the new
floodplain elevation (bank height ratio=] 0) Reaches 2, 3, and 4 have sinuosity values of
1 07, 1 23, and 1 10, respectively The four different reaches are shown in Figure 2
1.2 Location and Setting
The Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration Site is located approximately six miles
northeast of Rocky Mount, North Carolina in Edgecombe County (Figure 1) The
latitude and longitude of the project site are 36 0201 North and 77 6807 West
(WGS1984) To reach the site from Raleigh, proceed east on U S Route 264- East/64-
East (US 264E/64E) for approximately 17 miles Continue on US 64E for another 30
miles Take the U S Route 301 Bypass and then U S Route 301 (US 301) north into
Battleboro Make a right onto Battleboro- Leggett Road and then turn left onto Morning
Star Church Road ,lust outside of town Proceed through Cherry Crossroads and continue
for 2 25 miles The protect site is on the left side of Morning Star Church Road and is
directly opposite the function with Benson Farm Road
Hart ell Stt eam and Wetland KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restotation Site December 2010 - MY03

Edgecombe County, North Carolina
BU,
a'
�m
I m/
97
K C I
AS<OCIAIT:S CF NC
C
�x
W
F
IHillc_oss
HALIFAX
BERTIE
NASH
EDGECOMBE
a
PC
a .}
W WILSON PITT
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Project Site Location
Major Streams and Rivers
Municipalities
Roads
MARTIN
rY
N
W-�- E
1:63.360 f ,1111c�] 1�`(,.����L)�l
PR06RAM
I inch equals I miles
I 0.5 0 I
Miles

1.3 Project History and Background
Table I. Project Restoration Components
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Data Collection
Complete
C vi
a+ L
Final Design - Wetland
V
L
O
Construction - Wetland
N/A
Oct 06
Planting - Wetland
N/A
R
o eo
2005-2006
Stream or Wetland
Protect Segment /
°
a
o.
Ao c
Sep 07
Mitigation Units
Reach ID
L
0.
Oct 07 / Jan 08*
�° "
Stationing
(SMU/WMU)*
Reach 1
1,224 if
R
P3
1,226 If,
10 +00 - 22 +26
1,226 SMU
Reach 2
1,389 If
R
P2
1,465 If
22 +59 - 36 +91
1432 SMU
Reach 3
1,231 If
R
P2
1,491 If
36 +91 - 51 +82
1.491 SMU
Reach 4
2,494 If
R
P2
2,698 If
52 +12 - 78 +80
2,659 SMU
Wetland
15 0 ac
R
-
15 0 ac
-
15 WMU
R = Restoration P2 = Pnoi ity 2
113 = Priority 3
* Two 30' farm ciossmgs and one 10' irrigation crossing are excluded from the
mitigation unit calculations
Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Final Design - Wetland
2005-2006
Aug 06
Construction - Wetland
N/A
Oct 06
Planting - Wetland
N/A
Feb 07
Restoration Plan
2005-2006
Apr 07
Final Design - Stream
2005-2006
Apr 07
Construction - Stream
N/A
Sep 07
Planting - Stream
N/A
Jan 08
Mitigation Plan / As -Built Year 0 Monitoring - Baseline
Oct 07 / Jan 08*
Feb 08
Year 1 Monitoring
Oct 08
Nov 08
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov 09
Dec 09
Year 3 Monitorina
Nov 10
Dec 10
*The wetland restoration was constructed one year prior to the stream restoration and as -built
Hai rell Stream and Wetland
Restoration Site
4
KCl Associates of Noi th Carolina
December 2010 - MY03

Table III. Project Contact Table
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Design Firm
KCI Technologies, Inc
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
Contact Mr Gary Mryncza
Phone [phone]
Fax (919 ) 783 -9266
Construction Contractor
Environmental Technologies and Construction
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
Contact Mr Ryan McDavitt
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Planting Contractor
H & J Forest Services
PO Box 458
Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Phone [phone]
Monitoring Performers
MY -00 - MY -05
KCI Technologies, Inc
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
Contact Mr Adam Spiller
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Hari ell Sit eam and Welland KC1 Associates of North Cai ohna
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Table IV. Project Background Table
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Project County
Ed ecombe County
Ph sio ra hic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecore ion
Southeastern Flood lams and Low Terraces
Project River Basin
Tar - Pamlico
USGS HUC for Protect and Reference
03020101130090 UT to Swift Creek
03040101080010 Mitchell River
03030002060140 (North Prong Creek
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03 -03 -02 (UT to Swift Creek
03 -07 -02 (Mitchell River
03 -06 -05 (North Prong Creek)
Drainage Area Wetland
Stream
0 09 sq mi
0 60 sq mi
Stream Order
Second Order
Watershed Type Rural, Urban, Developing, etc
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution Urban
Ag -Row Crop
Ag- Livestock
Forested
Water /Wetlands
<1%
95%
1%
4%
<1%
Watershed impervious cover %
<1%
Ros en Classification of As -built (Stream)
135c / C5
Cowardin Classification (Wetland)
Palustrine - forested wetland
NCDWQ Classification for Project
NSW, Class C
Within EEP Watershed Plan?
No
Any portion of the project segment upstream of a 303d
listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor
N/A
Total project acreage of easement
44 5 Acres
Total planted acreage
43 0 Acres
WRC Class Warm, Cool, Cold
warm
Species of concern, endangered etc
none
Pre - construction Beaver activity?
Historically, according to landowner
Dominant Soil Types Wetland
Stream
Roanoke loam series
Roanoke loam and Wa ram loamy sand series
% of Project Easement Fenced
0%
Harrell Stream and Wetland KCI Associates of Noi th Cai ohna
Restoiation Site December 2010 - MY03

uaoa 60912 VMINV3 HIM* 1031VU
p•au•• aw •w�i1 L ju � 010M SW10! %Ktl19V Z p W
VNIIOUVO HIUON ' 00 38W0030(13 Lu
L S15i1ND�S • Stl3NNtld • Stl33NMJ113 N N a z
NOIl` UOlS3b aNVl13M (INV IMV3us o g
1 i.J Il ON 311S ll3UHVH
\
\\ \\ \ \ \
I
1 \
I
I
1\
1
1
\
I
\
I
\
I
\
I
\`
I
I W \ 1 •�
I
`\
I
\\ \\ \ \ \
I
1 \
I
I
1\
/
/
f
I
I
I
p
m
\
\
\ ^ \ Ila I ,
\ \ I 1 1 1 I I
111 I
I \ � 11 I II •
I � i 1_\ tIl 1 \•�
1 1
`1
LU
\ \
\ it •M / \ \
I /
zw o / / 11 I ` •`.off // i //
�gU a O \• 1 ��y�'s / I 1
5 of
\I
wZ�
z Q
g 0
�
lm. I I
a ••�.
z
/
/
f
I
I
I
p
m
\
\
\ ^ \ Ila I ,
\ \ I 1 1 1 I I
111 I
I \ � 11 I II •
I � i 1_\ tIl 1 \•�
1 1
`1
LU
\ \
\ it •M / \ \
I /
zw o / / 11 I ` •`.off // i //
�gU a O \• 1 ��y�'s / I 1
5 of
\I
� a �•./
�
lm. I I
a ••�.
•
1 J 1
I
'
I
\ >
I W \ 1 •�
I 1 1
a.
11 ,
o--'
1
>
\ 1
LU
1\
\
1
w
I--
-- - - --
-- -_ ------ - - - - --
I
I
ZW
g?
�
I
ooll
•�.
•00
. -'
• -•
at
a
0
N
W
JQ
o U
10 v
N
_U
0
o �
IL
0

SNO>SAM
lI tai tici,"_IJCi'�
QIaI�
60911 VMVUVD NIWM 1031VU
ovon sxnoA xis ro9r
S1L1N3t3S Stl3NNtlld Stl33NMJN3
n
1 �.JIl
6Z +LZ N011H1S 0100 +01 NOIIV.LS
o
Z o W
i Z Z
0 g
a
�rarw
aw
ro��ms
VNIIOUVO H1aON ' 00 38W0030(13
NOIl`d2>>OlS3b aNtfll3M aNt/ W`d32ilS
31lS 1132JM 'H
6133HS 33S - 3NIIHDiVW
1 \ 1 !
oodie� //
I 1 !I
1 I
\
\ III 1
1 > 000
1
l
I
I
1 OO +f
I
I
1
\ 00 +gI
I
wl px
1I /
00 [phone] I I I/ / i
1 1111 \111 I
/ 111 111 1 j
I 11 \ \ \1 \ \\ \1
� 11111 11 /
1 � X1111 IIII
/ 1 X1111 IIII
I IIII! ! /ll
11 !n
/u
/ -00f3( /111
1 \` i IIq ii /i
1 I� llill i �
1 l a Ill/ lr l
1 1 >.
/ I •�. III ///
mO +F
1 CL
1 \I

O
w
O Q
� N
U
CL
O
O �
N
O
0
cc>oe
w0
zz
Qom=
°oaam°
o�Ww
LU 0 Q�
ytnULL t4
W= WY
��aLUz C/) cnzco
0
0
a
N
a
(L
..00.d
L�
60912 VMVHY3 NIUM I031YU
ovu smos x151o9a
SISILN313S • SU3NNVld • SU33MM3
a1 n s3uam
I3xama
7133HS 33S - 3NIlH31VW
1 \I / U)
CL
IL / II
:00+g� / I \ II
I I II \ I I 1
Ir 1
1 II I 1
I I`
I
I /11
� /�`•/ lip 1
a.
C9
> 1
I �
Iti I � I
11 I
1 11 \
11 \
�xOS'
0 \\
I
1 \
1 t
I I
� I
�� II 00 +6Z
1
1;1 J/
1 II 1
I
1 Ln 100 "8 `
t /
O 1 �, 1
1 a
Y-
>11
♦,
1 IlU) I
•/ / I I I at f l
� III a I I
r'I I I
I
00� LZ III
tl
wl I I 1
UO*ie / 1
II 1 II
III I
I t \\
O�Arr, \t
004, be
r
� I
• I I //
II /` ill
1
I
t II
I II
10 11
n
z
O i
w i
!� �
Q? �
1
I�<
I \
III \ \1 1
II I I
I
II II , I
I j1 1
I !
I !
I j
/ j
/ /1t
/ 11
! I I i
I
ll 111 1
III c\
III �
III �
III wl
V
I wl
I W1
I ��
I
I I
c+) I
Z I
O I .
~ I �
X I I I
I '
I I
�w
c�
ID j
IJ 0
I`
\I<
/I
11 Ilt~n I
j11 1
I �
IIIIt'
I • /n
I' 0 1
I ( j
1 II >
I II /I
1
II
Z 133HS 33S - 3NIlHJ1VW
U)
awa
0�
�U
J �
U)
�m
a
Qa
=)Z
Oz
W
wn
LU
uai
as
3�
Oz
aw
w�
3m
F-
as
�z
OZ
W
LU
�a
a
b9 +££ NOUV1S 016Z +1Z NOIlV1S
VNI10UVO H.18ON ' 00 381/4003003
NOIIVd JO1SMI ONVU3M ONV 1MV3US
31[S 113ZIHVH
Fz
z
E: >
Z z
v0a

SNOMA30
n.....
,000\11 /
l£ +S4 NOIlV1S Ol 49 +££ NOUVIS
•
�~
.a.�
\ O
luauS IS1BI I`l
\\ >
60912 rPOIOtl�� N1tlON'1M,N3l�tl
� SMOA ps 09v
-IOUV0 '
JI
� o �
Z
�
`
VNI H1bON 00 39A003J43
-
z
�1
51511N�,15 Stl$Nlld Stl33�OJN3
N
a Z
°
L
NOIl`d�101S321 oNM13M dNd Wtl3b1S
a
z
`_' o g
1 ►JIl ON
31lS 1132JMVH
0
ao
W
J
o-
0
N
0
cn
aW
OW
WD
o~
U
J F-
oJ�b
b�
I = =_>
I OR
- - --
0
W
U
OW
LLm
Z
w
r
• I+ I I /
1 III I I 1
1 �1 r111
Illi /
IIII !r
1 IIII I I
I I �
IIII r
IIII \\
I IIII
IIII
�I IIII
NA 111
X11
.I 111
it 1;11
: 1 .I
I I,
• � l \ I I I
1 +`\ I
\r 111���\ \
n
u
\ II
� 1 n
.' ,
,000\11 /
\ O
O
I
\\ >
WI
III l
� 1 n
.' ,
,000\11 /
\ O
O
I
\\ >
WI
III l
JI
l\ I
\
\
o I /!/
1 1 \ \ I4
h I
\ III
I 1 � 1111
/ \\ 1111 Opx
/
/Jill
it ll
I I
-- 'I(2Ox r
I
�co
I 1 1 I
1 l�ja I/j
0
- - r �� ��'''' 1 �••
/�••
1111111 ! 1
111111 I I
/III�I'4
/ 111111 1
\\ \ II III I
\\ \ 11111 C
\ Illlll
\ IIII
W
CO X
o-
r
I1/1� 1
I
0
w
U
Om
2
W
x
JQ
=)Z
W
W�
0
w
U
Om
2
W
x
JQ
=)Z
W
W�

WATER QUALITY
TREATMENT AREA
_ ,�..�.. ..�••� iii'
PP# S12
VEG PLOT 511
`___' �� // ' �i�• 00�\ X- SECTIONS
X- SECTION 8
m
00+.9 /J`\�\ � VEG PLOT §12
FARM ROAD
I
I
• ` .�_�'
�' �Ea ENE
II VEG PLOT S13 1
0 ECTION 10 •• ♦.
/ t f REAM GAUGE 2 \\\� — \ \
vw
.
`
•' �~M 1 • '�'•�E..q.SEMEN =l1NE \ \ \� \ \ \\ \\ \\ �\\ ���W r
� „T y
. ♦:\ \ \ \ �\ \ ��r F
—40 —20 0 40 80 7N�
Mil �y $u
GRAPHIC SCALE
4 W V•
V
W
Z
O
F-
W Z
O m
1.— O
C/) ly
W UJ U
H � S
H
J Z O
Jg Z
IX w
Q
co
o
Z
aW
aW
w
F-
U)
CURRENT
CONDITION
PLAN VIEW

-40 -20 0 40 SO
GRAPHIC SCALE
Or`�A
bJ
�.. �..�.. �.. �.,•� :� fA•SEME�TLINE
, -
PP#S14 LN�� \\ \ � VEG PLOT S150
`. — -- VEGPLOTSI4 -- - -- ii�� I— ``�� i`� �`` ^12
—r / �� �. O O ` �_ •� O_ —� f
WATER QUALITY
TREATMENT AREA
EROSION FROM
OVEFLOW OF
DETENTION AREA
X10 `OO
NX-SECTION 11 — \
- ^\
-- - -- - - - `\- - - --/\ - -- _ -- n - -- -
~a x
U La
W
Z
O
F-
0
H
U)
wW
Vo
J Z
-i g
W�
�w
Q�
=o
Z
Q
Q
w
rr
F-
U)
v
�d
ON
N
�s
C
CURRENT
CONDITION
PLAN VIEW
ab
Lo
iii
I I
ID
WATER QUALITY
TREATMENT AREA
EROSION FROM
OVEFLOW OF
DETENTION AREA
X10 `OO
NX-SECTION 11 — \
- ^\
-- - -- - - - `\- - - --/\ - -- _ -- n - -- -
~a x
U La
W
Z
O
F-
0
H
U)
wW
Vo
J Z
-i g
W�
�w
Q�
=o
Z
Q
Q
w
rr
F-
U)
v
�d
ON
N
�s
C
CURRENT
CONDITION
PLAN VIEW

9 133H 33S 3NnHD1VV4
I I \\ \ \ I I \
1 X
I; I m
o 1# /
I I�I p
I
If — ✓/1 / I / 1
00 I
I IIN / ///
I
< I `\
I i.l / / •� 1 m I \
rO // I
I
III' 1 1 6900
IIIl I I
if
III. 1 1 / 1 11 I
I 1
1 I4 \ 1 II r 1
t LI \\ l 1 \ \
I
I 1 I I I li OD m
III I I I/ 1 11 I I� O�
-oz
mo
111
VIII I / 11 I I I'
I I•
I, \Il
0 1 I
IJ� /� 11 01 I G
(v II I I
Ii� \I 1 II 1 i rl P
I1 1 \
bq 1 \
1 \ x• I 1 \:
171 \ \ II 1 1
11 I \
II \ 11 1
I •11 /� 111 1
< I 11 It 0 I I 111 1 1 1
m I •111 I I \ \
1 jlllw 1 1 X11 I \ IN
� I •I11 I II I 1 •s
11 ! a1 111 \ I I 1 I 7411+100 I\ 11 �z
V \\ •♦
\ \l \\ \�
1 I� III \ \ \\ \ \\ ♦
too
\ \•� \\ III \ \ \ \ \ �
1 ♦. \ \�\\�\ `\ \ 1 111 ��.
N
2 � 1 ;rt•
O 11
ota� m
00
O
v c) , o HARRELL SITE KC I
z °z A STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION Oulu V 5 -4 m o EWMERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
EDGECOMBE CO, NORTH CAROLINA FWptem
j�t7n�tT
Z -i 460.OR CRS ROAD a '.�1 ebt m+a Mt wA.n
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 2T609 noaau.
STATION 66 +94 TO STATION 78 +80 REVISIONS

2.0 PROJECT CONDITIONS AND MONITORING RESULTS
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
The planted vegetation on the site is growing well There are a few spots of sparse vegetation
throughout the stream site due to poor soil being exposed in the floodplam during the Priority 2
restoration Also, due to backwater from Swift Creek, the downstream portion of the stream
buffer can become flooded, drowning out trees planted in this area Some supplemental planting
was conducted in the winter of 2009/2010 with trees more tolerant of saturated conditions and
additional supplemental planting will take place during the upcoming 2010/2011 winter
The low stream flow throughout the summer allows vegetation to become established in the
stream channel This vegetation includes grasses, rushes, cattails, and Asian dayflower
(Murdannia ketsak) During the past three years of monitoring, the vegetation in the channel has
not caused any problems such as redirecting flows into streambanks and causing erosion Overall
the channel vegetation has increased the stability of the system and is typical of small stream
swamp vegetative communities, which is the target vegetative community for the site
The wetland continues to show high survivability and vigorous growth of the planted trees
Some scattered populations of invasive species have been identified in the floodplain area, which
include Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) and tropical soda apple (Solanum viarium)
Asian dayflower was present within the channel in isolated areas Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) was observed on the outer edges of the project Although they are not a
problem at this time, these populations will continue to be monitored to determine if invasive
control is required in the future
The monitored vegetation plots within the stream buffer and wetland revealed that the planted
vegetation is growing well with 598 and 533 stems /acre, respectively Only a few monitoring
plots have low stem counts The overall vegetation assessment found the site to be on track to
meeting the vegetative success criteria
The vegetative monitoring results are displayed in Appendix A and in the Current Condition Plan
View
2.2 Stream Assessment
During the 2010 growing season, the stream experienced low flows, which is typical of the
summer months The on -site stream gauge recorded three bankfull events on January 25, March
29, and September 30, 2010
The stream assessment found the stream to be generally stable, with no significant changes from
the previous monitoring year Periodic storm events caused isolated bed degradation in reaches 1
and 2 Some of these areas are visible on the longitudinal profile and cross - section plots These
patterns are typical for a stream like UT to Swift Creek Its sand bed system is much more mobile
than a gravel stream Because of this, it is expected that patterns of aggradation and degradation
are more dynamic within these systems These dune /anti -dune streams will experience bed
variation over time The stream banks and floodplam experienced little to no erosion throughout
the project Piping is occurring at one in- stream structure, but the rest of the structures are
performing as designed The water quality treatment areas are stable and retaining water All of
these stream features will continue to be monitored to make sure that any observed changes are
within the range of variability found in stable stream systems
Hai rell Stream and Wetland KC/ Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03
14

The stream assessment monitoring is described in Appendix B and the Current Conditions Plan
View
2.2.1 Bankfull Events
Table V. Hydrological (Bankfull) Verifications
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo Number
10/10/2007
10/10/2007
Stream Gauge
N/A
10/27/2007
10/27/2007
Stream Gauge
N/A
7/6/2008
7/6/2008
Stream Gauge
N/A
6/9/2009
6/9/2009
Stream Gauge
N/A
1/25/2010
1/25/2010
Stream Gauge
N/A
3/29/2010
3/29/2010
Stream Gauge
N/A
9/30/2010
9/30/2010
Stream Gauge
N/A
Hatt ell Stream and Wetland
Restoration Site
15
KCI Associates of North Cat ohna
December 2010 - MY03

2.2.2 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
Table VI a Reach 1 Baseline Stream Summary
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Dimension - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Mm
Max
Min
Mean
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
54
1
292
350
100
102
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>70
1
44
64
>18
22
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 3
1
20
2 1
09
1 2
1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
20
1
27
28
14
2 1
1
Banktull Cross - Sectional Area ft'-
73
1
625
688
91
126
1
Width/Depth Ratio
41
1
139
175
11 1
83
1
Entrenchment Ratio
13
1
1 3
22
>1 8
27
1
Bank Height Ratio
1 8
1
1 0
1 0
1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
100
400
45
65
47
66
85
5
Radius of Curvature (ft)
70
220
30
80
31
55
65
8
Re Bankfull width (ft/ft)
22
125
30
80
30
54
64
Meander Wavelength (ft)
140
500
50
200
166
260
420
7
Meander Width Ratio
3
14
4
10
46
65
83
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
0 007
0 027
Pool Length (ft)
-
PoolSpacing ft
115
400
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
100 % /- /- / - / -/-
-
/11 %/89 % / - / -/-
7% 85%/8%/-/-/ -
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 (mm)
0062/0062/01/01 /01
26/57/71/ -/150
015/036/054/11/60
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
1,224
1,265
1,226
Drainage Area (SM)
020
600
020
020
Rosgen Classification
E5
134c
135c
135c
Sinuosity
1 00
1 10
1 03
1 06
Water Surface Slope ( ft/ft)
00067
00084
00067
00067
BF slope ft/ft
00067
00068
Harrell Stream and Welland
Restoration Site
16
KCI Associates of North Carolina
December 2010 - MY03

Table VI b. Reach 2 Baseline Stream Summary
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reterence Reach(es) Data
Design
As -Built
-
~n
a
-Med
T~Min
FMin
Dimension - Riffle
Min
Mean
I Max
Min
Mean
Max
n
Max
Mean
Max
n
Banktull Width (ft)
57
6 1
65
2
136
157
a=
178
2
100
92
102
11 5
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
>65
=
>70
2
325
463
ffin
600
2
>30
MIN=
56
>59
>67
3
Bankfill Mean Depth (ft)
1 2
1 25
1 3
2
1 5
16
In
l 7
2
1 1
Now=
l 0
1 1
1 1
3
Banktull Max Depth (ft)
19
19
1 9
2
26
28
30
2
14
1 6
1 7
1 9
3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area ftZ
75
775
.,,
8
2
226
244
262
2
11 2
88
105
125
3
Width/Depth Ratio
43
48
5 3
2
82
10 1
11 9
2
9 1
93
98
106
3
Entrenchment Ratio
108
1 1 1
114
2
23 8
288
33 7
2
>3 0
48
59
68
3
Bank Height Ratio
14
1 6
18
2
10
10
9=1
1 0
2
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
I
n
Eq!��'
W
" ,;;M ;.
158
ISM
45
60
24
32
41
8
Radius of Curvature (ft)o-
°'
4
37
158
40
30
50
30
36
43
14
Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2 1
2 3
3 0
50
29
35
42
Meander Wavelength (ft)
i n
94
?
143
100
200
125
157
186
8
Meander Width Ratio
1�
�`
8 9
r" o`
4 0
10 0
2 4
3 1
4 0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
�
Rrt31e Slope ft/ft
P ( )
C �t;
r'r�
�
�=. �£"ia
ter
�">�
,. -_
� i.su_�y
s�n'�
rw+r-
!it"*ar .�1'
p�_ ,�
i�s;!�_3
:mot
�
�.� �.
€ *��
�- -r`x�'
2 �
+•�` -�
��,
�
��t�
r���~
Pool Length (11)
5",
PON
Em
mom
mom
i
INN-Mm
NO
Pool Spacing (ft)
2'M
rA`
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
88 %/12 % /- / - / -/-
11 %/89 % /- / - / -/-
3%/81%/16%/-/-/ -
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95 (mm)
0062/0062/01/ -/-
0075/014/02/04/06
03/07/09/35/98
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
1,400R'zti
-",-
1,465
1,465
Drainage Area (SM)
023
304
023
023
Rosgen Classification
E5
C5
C5
C5
Sinuosity
100
1 28
1 05
107
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00023
00024
00023 1
00021
BF sloe tuft)
dill
00023
00022
Harrell Strewn and Wetland
Restoration Site
17
KCl Associates of North Carolina
December 2010 - MY03

Table VI c. Reach 3 Baseline Stream Summary
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Parameter Pre - Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As -built
Dimension - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Mean
Max
n
Banktull Width (ft)
64
76
77
86
4
136
157
178
2
120
�;? " `, °:,
11 8
128
14 1
4
Flood prone Width (ft)
>65
>80
4
325
463;
600
2
>30V
"s
>50
>57
>61
4
Banktull Mean Depth (ft)
14
1 6
1 5
1 9
4
1 5
1 6
1 7
2
1 4
#?t;
1 2
1 3
14
4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
24
27
27
28
4
26
28
+n}
30
2
20
"ARA 1K
19
21
25
4
Banktull Cross - Sectional Area ft'
104
116
120
121
4
226
244
; +x
262
2
168
144
162
19 1
4
Width/Depth Ratio
3 3
50
5 3
62
4
82
10 1
=. +t '
11 9
2
8 6
89
101
108
4
Entrenchment Ratio
76
95
98
109
4
238
288
=
33 7
2
>2 5
,r_�
38
45
50
4
Bank Height Ratio
1 5
1 6
1 6
1 7
4
1 0
1 0
f� Vii'
1 0
2
1 0
1 0
1 0
10
4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
< „;.=
4-11-1 Ir 1�
3 ' �
158
=
,�
n
60
100
41
70
107
11
Radius of Curvature (ft)
' „�
��
;�.,
Z
�;;
Lam`”
37
158
"'
,�- ,�
40
�y
40
60
21
35
46
13
Re Banktull width ft/ft)
�jjm
MAN
4,,6i
4�j
2 1
e
� L
23
30
50
1 6
27
36
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
knlVe. M
EM
=
4%;Uj';"
94
j, �A
143
;;;
120
240
158
183
225
11
Meander Width Ratio
'k
MA
6M
. j��j
�V
J�.�
89
Ga
i'
40
100
3 2
5 5
84
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
grN �
tsV]
-
+�',n. « «d i�ri
G�• `��
d'—
�
i:��.w.t35:+d
n.,, aJi�r
�'��so.�4. ?fax
.�-'
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
;` N-
"
Pool Length (ft)
�
J
yP .
Pool Spacing (ft)
n F
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
65 %/35 % /- / - / -/-
11 %/89 %
7 %/81 %/ 12 % / - / -/-
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
0062/0062/0.1/ -/-
0075/014/02/04/06
02/05/08/19/59
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
1 225
1,560
1,491
Drainage Area (SM )
042
3 04
042
042
Ros en Classification
E5
C5
C5
C5
Sinuosity
1 00
1 28
1 27
1 23
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00023
00024
00023
00042
BF slope ft/ft
` "'" 1
00023
00042
Harrell Stream and Metland
Restoration Site
18
KCl Associates of North Car alma
December 20/0 - MY03

Table VI d Reach 4 Baseline Stream Summary
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Y
_ a
4
Dimension - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Mean
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
84
95
96
104
3
136
15 7
a=
17 8
2
134
13 1
142
165
5
Floodprone Width (ft)
>65
,rV, -Trk
>70
3
325
463
VW.
600
2
>30
; ��;�
>57
>61
>67
5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 1
1 5
1 2
22
3
1 5
1 6
1 7
2
1 6
0
l 3
1 4
1 7
5
Bankfull Max Depth (tt)
17
25
27
30
3
26
28
'
30
2
23
a
20
22
25
5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area W
114
127
184
3
226
244
x�
262
2
21 6
k; r
179
205
282
5
Width /Depth Ratio
38
E72
8 5
8 8
3
8 2
101
11 9
2
84
88
99
108
5
Entrenchment Ratio
71
7 2
7 3
3
23 8
28 8
33 7
2
>2 2
3 6
4 4
5 0
5
Bank Hei ht Ratio
0 9
10
1 2
3
10
1 0
1 0
2
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
�±� L �y
�i��h�.arctii
`"�
"`
�- =, t
"�'
' .
:�.�
158
F=
V',_�
�•
50
90
32
59
101
18
Radius of Curvature (ft)
,�
;Y�;
37
158
LW,
40
40
70
30
50
63
17
Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2 1
23
30
50
2 1
3 5
40
9Zt
Meander Wavelength (ft)
94
F
143
t#
130
260
196
233
300
18
Meander Width Ratio
'°,,�'
",ka'
ke
&,
�� ;
8 9
§t„„j�_;
4 0
10 0
2 3
4 2
7 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
d' ,
i =' .3
r,F,•�.,
r�=
w�
=
-
,4�
,, +,'y
;t�
- r
u,,
3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
rte`
W41
WI
Q W11-a
„yam �IA.
WN
Pool S acm /ft
l )
Per
4
- P+�ae©��i.
£
�i��?
�t °�°t�
.�
60.1F,0114%
ry -1 �
?c 1*`_ k;
�
°f �'�
• ,<'-_ _
� 44'; aL
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
50 %/16 %/34 % / - / -/-
11% /89 %
78 %/772 % /15 % / -/-
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
0062/0062/0062/3 1 /43
0075/014/02/04/06
4
06/11/13/24/50
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft
2,500
� _ " ' 'f IAIMV;�_,
2,697
2 696
Drainage Area (SM)
061
304
0 605
0 605
Rosgen Classification
E5
C5
C5
C5
Sinuosity
100
1 28
1 08
110
Water Surface Slope (fdft)
00023
00024
00023 1
00025
BF slope tt/ft).P
- ��tu,f�,�auF�x ;.,z+w
�,z� rr �x�u,
t
0 0023
00021
Harrell Strewn and Wetland
Restoration Site
19
KCI Associates of North Carolina
December 2010 - MY03

Table VII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Parameter
Cross - Section 1
Reach 1
Cross - Section 2
Reach 1
Cross - Section 3
Reach 2
Dimension
MYO
MY 1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY]
MY21
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Bankfull Width (ft)
102
104
105
108
'
�_` '=
124
127
134
134
' f�
�,ti " „�`
115
131
124
128
Floodprone Width (ft)
22
27
30
31
” �
VIV11
25
25
24
20
>55
>55
>55
>55
N
Banktull Cross - Sectional Area ftZ
( )
12 6
13 4
14 3
14 0
. r
,�;
F4'
17 1
12 9
14 3
12 3
' `''
� � Fri
.� ,�'_�-
125
1 1 9
jar -.� °t
, :: •_
Banktull Mean Depth (ft)
12
1 1 3
1 1 4
1 3
1 'T
14
10
1 1
09
- s,ai
,'
1 1
1 0
10
10
a-
Banktull Maximum Depth (ft)
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
22
1 7
1 8
1 3'F
;_`;r
1 9
1 9
1 9
1 9
``
sA
Width/Depth Ratio
83
8 1
77
83
%
,,,
90
125
126
145
�;
;`M - �;
10 6
13 7
12 9
13 5
,
Entrenchment Ratio
27
26
29
29
'�:
k j
28
20
1 9
1 5'
r
^,
>4 4
>4 3
>4 6
>4 3
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
] 0
„�"c.�
LTA
1 0
1 0
1 0
10
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
112
11 5
11 6
119
;`z�
13 3
13 6
142
139
it
122
139
130
13 5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1 1
1 2
1 2
1 2
- ng
�' ,.
1 3
09
10
09
az y
1 0
09
1 09
1 09
Substrate
d50 (mm)j
0 5
1 1 8
1 0 1
08
;�➢
=
1 1
1 1 8
1 0 1
1 1 4
r„
, _
06
23
04
1 08
h
; y °= z
d84 (mm)j
1 1
1 140
1 1 8
1 64
1 �,
„`
1 1 8
1 5 3
1 09
1 1 8
_
14
1 43
1 13
1 13
,-
Table VII cont. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Parameter
Cross- Section 4
Reach 2
Cross- Section 5
Reach 2
Cross - Section 6
Reach 3
Dimension
MYO
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Bankfull Width ft
()
9 8
11 5
8 8
9 3�
m.1i
92
99
82
92
' f�
.�
141
150
134
129
FloodproneWidth(ft)
>67
>67
>67
>67='',�
56
56
57
60_
>56
>56
>56
>56
Banktul I Cross - Sectional Area (ft')
103
108
8 1
88
8 8
102
8 8
107
9
� ` ,
1 9 1
208
1 8 6
195
€
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 1
09
09
09
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 4
1 4
1 4
15
Banktull Maximum Depth (ft)
1 7
1 7
1 5
16
1 6
20
1 8
1 2 1
€'jf
25
27
26
27
v M
,�-"`�+
Width /Depth Ratio
93
122
96
99
%
,,,
96
78
,"FJ:: d
r ;
104
108
97
85
,
Entrenchment Ratio
>7 0
>7 0
>7 0
>7 0
'�:
6 1
6 6
'`1
>4 0
>3 7
>4 2
>4 3Bank
Height Ratio
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0]
0
E77
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
]07
122
94
99
;`z�
100
103Y
I�
152
163
147
144Hydraulic
Radius (ft)
1 0
0 9
0 9
0 9
F;;
0 9
1 0,
az y
1 3
1 3
Substrate
d50 (mm)l
1 3
1 34
0 1
0 1
09
1 08
1
0 1'"
0
�k,
06
02
01
0 I
h
d84 (mm)
44
1 62
1 12
1 02
,;,4�`�
„`
1 46
1 38
1 03
1 01
20
77
10
01
Harrell Stream and Welland
Restoration Site
20
KCI Associates of North Cat ohna
December 2010 - AM03

Table VII cont. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Parameter
Cross - Section 7
Reach 3
Cross - Section 8
Reach 3
Cross - Section 9
Reach 3
Dimension
MYO
MY I
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY 1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY 1
MY2
MY31
MY4
MY5
Bankfull Width (ft)
121
120
1 3 0
124
'M1 y:;,
1 3 0
1 1 9
1 1 0
1 1 2
-
'x
118
124
1 1 9
1 1 6
Floodprone Width (ft)
>61
>61
>61
>61
_
>50
>50
>50
>50
`
>58
>58
>58
>58
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
144
162
185
182
��
�x -�
156
15 8
132
11 2
156
152
143
144
On
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
12
1 4
14
1 5
1 2
1 3
1 2
1
x°
Y'
1 3
1 2
1 2
1 2
Bankfull Maximum Depth (ft)
1 9
26
28
2 8
ION
�
1 9
20
1 8
1 5
20
20
1 9
1 9
4
Width /Depth Ratio
102
8 8
9 1
84
108
89
92
104
1
89
101
99
93
AM
w
Entrenchment Ratio
>5 0
>5 0
>5 U
>4 9
_ W'
>4 0
>5 0
>5 0
>4 6
��
,
>5 0
>5 0
>5 0
>5 0
-�
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
1 0
10
1 0
l 0
1 0
10
l 0.
_ "M
97
1 0
1 0
1 0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
128
132
143
140
KO
140
128
1 1 1 9
11 5
12 8
13 2
12 7
124
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1 1
1 2
13
13
1 1
1 2
1 l
1 0
W-&t�
1 2
1 2
l 1
l 2
Substrate
d50 mm
08
1 07
1 01
01
y::
1 4
16
0 1
0 3
09
08
06
01
RJ.j �
d84 (mm)
20 1
73
1 07
01
:',i'
19
55
32
01
17
17
10
01�;,'^
Table VII. cont. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Parameter
Cross - Section 10
Reach 4
Cross - Section 11
Reach 4
Cross - Section 12
Reach 4
Dimension
MYO
MY I
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
I MY 1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY 1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Bankfull Width ft
O��
13 5
13 9
12 7
13 1
'M1 y:;,
14 0
13 3
12 8
l2 7
'x
168
176
16 1
169
Floodprone Width (ft)
>67
>67
>67
>67
_
>57
>57
>57
>57
`
>61
>61
>61
>61
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
179
169
142
140
��
�x -�
182
187
180
171
282
272
234
247
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 1
1 3
1 4
1 4
1 13
Y'
1 7
15
1 5
1 5
Bankfull Maximum Depth (ft)
20
20
1 8
l 7
2 1
2 3
22
2 1
25
25
22
23
Width /Depth Ratio
102
115
114
123
108
95
91
94
100
114
1 1 1
11 6
='
Entrenchment Ratio
>5 0
>5 0
>5 0
>5 0
r`
>4 0
>4 0
>4 0
>4 0
��
,
>4 0
>4 0
>4 0
>4 0
-�
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
1 0
10
10
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
_ "M
97
1 0
1 0
1 0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
143
147
133
137"''
150
144
139
l36„+��
178
_10
187
171
180
Hydraulic Radius (ft)j
1 2
12
1 1
1 0
1 2
13
13
1 3
W-&t�
j 1 6
15
1 4
1 4
Substrate
d50 (mm)l
1 0 1
20
1 0 1
1 0 1
1 4
16
0 1
0 3
4
09
1 3
0 1
IOR
d84 (mm)
26 1
42
1 30 1
01
20
59
16
06
30
27
28
0
Harrell Stream and Wetland
Restoration Site
21
KCI Associates of North Carolina
December 2010 - 44Y03

Harrell Strewn and Wetland
Restoration Site
Table VII, cont Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Parameter
Cross - Section 13
Reach 4
Cross - Section 14
Reach 4
Dimension
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYO
MY
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Bankfull Width (ft)
13 1
134
13 3
13 3
A `r °1'
sr
136
140
13 8
142
k' P;
LIMi -:
Flood tune Width (ft)
>60
>60
>60
>60
,`',
I >62
>62
>62
>62
-
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
194
200
184
18 5
r_..
19 0
20 5
19 1
20 3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 5
1 5
14
1 1 4
K
=',
14
1 5
1 1 4
1 4
?
?;
Bankfull Maximum Depth (ft)
24
23
23
2 1
2 1
23
22
22
; s;
Width /Depth Ratio
88
89
96
96
. a, �.
'
�' '
, �,,,
9 7
9 6
10 0
9 9
Entrenchment Ratio
>4 0
>4 0
>4 0
>4 0
= "rs,=
-
>4 0
>4 0
>4 0
>4 0
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
10
1 0
1 0
m
, 'ti,
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)l
14 1
143
1 144
143
145
15 1
156
152
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1 4
1 4
1 3
13
1 3
141
1 2
13
Substrate
d50 (mm)l
1 5
1 1 6
1 1 1
1 07
1 3
1 0 1
1 01
1 06
d84 (mm)l
26
1 47
1 1 8
1 09
_
1 8
1 04
1 01
1 09
-'
22
KCI Associates of North Carolina
December 2010 - MY03

2.3 Wetland Assessment
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within 12 inches of the surface was
determined for each groundwater gauge This number was converted into a percentage of the 223 -day
growing season Table 5 presents the hydrological monitoring results for 2010 The wetland wells used to
monitor site hydrology were installed in the spring of 2007 During the third year of monitoring wetland
hydrology was achieved at all of the wells on the site (Table 5) Based on these data, the site has exceeded
the minimum duration of 12 consecutive days with the water table within 12 inches of the soil surface for
the 2010 growing season (Appendix B) Climatic data for the 2010 growing season were analyzed in
comparison to historical data to determine whether 2010 was a normal year in terms of climatic
conditions. The historical data were collected from the NRCS, Water and Climate Center, "Climate
Analysis for Wetlands by County" website This evaluation concluded that 2010 was a normal year for
rainfall during the growing season Rainfall was within the 30`h to 701h percentiles for the months of
January, February, March, July, August, September, and October Rainfall was less than the 30`h
percentile threshold in April, June and November, and was greater than the 701h percentile threshold in
May (Appendix B)
2.3.1 Wetland Criteria Attainment Tables
Table VHla. Hydrologic Monitoring Results
Project Name: Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Well #
H dro eriod
Dates Meeting Success
<5%
5%-8%
8%-12.5%
>12.5%
Actual %
Max. No. of
Consecutive
Days
1
98%
81%
X
81%
18
3/20/10- 4/6/10
2
94%
X
3
94%
21
3/20/10- 4/10/10
3
X
<5%
85%
19
3/20/10 - 4/7/10
4
X
85%
19
3/20/10 - 4/8/10
Table VHlb. Hydroperiod History
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Well #
Pre - Restoration
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
1
<5%
68%
98%
81%
2
<5%
165%
124%
94%
3
<5%
68%
98%
85%
4
<5%
137%
120%
85%
3.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The stream is functioning as designed and has not developed any significant problems The changes that
are visible in the monitored cross - sections and profiles indicate adjustment of the stream due to its sand
bed Any feature changes will be tracked to see if the stream is moving beyond its expected variability
With multiple bankkfull events since construction, the stream is on track to meeting the success criterion
of at least two bankfull events occurring in separate years over the course of the monitoring period
The hydrology data in Section 2 3 indicates that the wetland is on track to meeting the success criterion of
having the groundwater continuously within 12" of the ground surface for 5% of the growing season
The planted vegetation has been doing well, with some plots experiencing more mortality than others
This mortality can be attributed to normal losses after the initial planting as well as to the effects of a
drought soon after planting The low planted stem density areas on the stream floodplain are mostly
Harrell Stream and Wetland KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site 23 December 2010 - AIY03

caused by the poor soil quality in these areas With more organic material accumulating in the soil since
construction, the supplemental planting of the stream area this winter should have better survival rates
than the originally planted trees Some invasive species have been identified on the site, which include
Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), tropical soda apple
(Solanum viarlum) and Asian dayflower (Murdannla keisak) The exotic vegetation is not widespread
across the project, but these populations will continue to be monitored to determine if control measures
will be required in the future The vegetation is on track to meeting the success criteria in the steam and
wetland for the third year of monitoring
Harrell Stream and Wetland KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restotatton Site 24 December 2010 - MY03

Appendix A
Vegetation Data
Hai i ell Sb eam and Wetland 25 KC1 Associates of North Cat ohna
Resiotation Site December 2010 - MY03

Table Al. Riparian Buffer Stem Density and Species Count by Plot
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
v
y
S
v v
°
.� lu
Q
Ij
y
_O
m=
0 o
a
o
Q
o
a
o
>
E
o
o m
o
y
°
i
O
o
a+
L
==
U
O
�—°
"O O
r
a
oc m
Q U
,a
v
v
v� U
aLr
a a
c7
a,
v, a
o
o�
3`_
va oa
3 0�
_
m �,
w �.,
ao
a
U (d
o
F■
A
SI
6
3
2
11
440
S2
4
3
1
1
9
360
S3
2
1
5
6
1
5
1
21
840
S4
1
2
4
3
3
13
520
S5
4
1
8
4
2
l
20
800
S6
1
2
4
7
280
S7
7
3
7
1
3
4
2
27
1,080
S8
5
1
6
240
S9
4
1
4
5
2
4
2
22
880
Slo
1
1
1
4
2
9
360
Sll
4
2
6
2
1
2
1
1
1
20
800
S12
5
1
1
2
9
360
S13
4
6
2
1
1
4
18
720
S14
2
2
7
2
13
520
S15
4
4
3
9
3
1
24
960
S16
1
4
1
1
5
12
480
S17
1
1
3
j
3
2
10
400
S18
4
4
8
2
18
720
I MUM
Vr.,
_'� =� i °� "i Y P"
,a
Average
L
Densi
598
Harrell Stream and Wetland 26 KCI Associates of North Car ohna
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

a
0
3
C
S
N
J
PIZa
ti
y
O
� a
� y
R OZ
N �
o g..
o n
y A
y O_
O 3
to A
�+ • =s
N
w„
G
1
00
-4
as
tA
A
W
Plot Number
trH;
Green Ash
—
N
w
N
A
N
A
Fraxtnus
pennsylvanica
K
American Beautyberry
9 m
.r
Calltcarpa amertcana
a
-.
k
.�
Water Hickory
� v
Carya aquattca
a =
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occtdentalts
° o
.
Cherrybark Oak
.r .o
o
N?
r
.r
A
to
N
)+ ,�
Quercus pagoda
�
Swamp Chestnut Oak
H
n
Nye ,�
L'"
.r
Quercus mtehauxtt
Willow Oak
Quet cus phellos
e
r�
Laurel Oak
sir
Quercus lour folta
LK�s`i
Bald Cypress
Taxodtum dtsttchum
a
v�
y m
,o
c
Total (Year 3)
A
V1
w
�1
c.
V1
rn
V1
tT
l./1
N
O�
A
W
N
tT
o
to
N
tT
A
W
o\
W
orn
A
o
Density -Year 3 (Stems /Acre)
w
00
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Table A3. Riparian Buffer Vegetation History (stems /acre)
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Plot Number
MY -00
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
S1
1,120
640
560
440
S2
720
360
400*
360
S3
1,120
880
880
840
S4
480
560*
560
520
S5
1,200
840
800
800
S6
480
280
280
280
S7
1,120
1,120
1,120
1,080
S8
480
320
240
240
S9
1,240
920
920
880
S10
600
360
360
360
S11
880
760
800*
800
S12
600
440
360
360
S13
1,160
840
800
720
S14
640
520
520
520
S15
1,120
1,000
960
960
S16
600
480
480
480
S17
880
200
200
400 **
S18
680
320
280
720 **
*Uncounted plants during baseline and MY01 were added to total
** Includes plants from supplemental planting
Table A4. Wetland Vegetation History (stems /acre)
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Plot Number
MY -00
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
W1
520
400
400
400
W2
640
360
360
360
W3
600
400
400
360
W4
800
640
640
640
W5
600
560
560
520
W6
720
600
600
600
W7
680
240
240
320
W8
760
680
680
640
W9
640
560
560
520
W10
600
600
600
560
Wll
680
560
560
W12
1,080
[_1560
800
800
760
Harrell Stream and Welland 28 KCl Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Vegetation Monitoring Data Sheets
Hai rell Sit earn and Wetland 29 KCl Associates of North Car ohna
Restotatnon Site December 20/0 - MY03

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: W1 Date:
Plot Map
7/26/2010
4
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
•5
ss', _ « ara ;`- 3
•10
Dead
2
Swam Chestnut Oak ( uercut niichaian )
IV '
; "' "y° l '
Dead
3
Green Ash (1- raxmut enns lvanica)
9
4
Deer browse
*3
Swamp Chesmut Oak uercu+ inichauxii
-
^,k _
Dead
5
8
1 18
4
6
Green Ash (Fruxinus pennsylvanica )
065
11
Deer browse, main stem died back
7
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentahs)
8
2
Deer browse
X
Green Ash ((7armus enns lvunica)
085
3
Deer browse
2
Laurel Oak uercus lauri oha)
1 59
4
12
10
07
075
4
11
Laurel Oak ( uercus laun olio
1 22
4
13
1
American Beau be (Calhcar u americana)
-
1
•
O�L�
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Bald Cypress (1 uxodtum disuchuiii)
ss', _ « ara ;`- 3
= <',' ` " ;1 `;
Dead
2
Swam Chestnut Oak ( uercut niichaian )
IV '
; "' "y° l '
Dead
3
Green Ash (1- raxmut enns lvanica)
100
4
Deer browse
4
Swamp Chesmut Oak uercu+ inichauxii
-
^,k _
Dead
5
Swam Chestnut Oak ( )uercuti inichauxu)
1 18
4
6
Green Ash (Fruxinus pennsylvanica )
065
3
Deer browse, main stem died back
7
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentahs)
041
2
Deer browse
8
Green Ash ((7armus enns lvunica)
085
3
Deer browse
9
Laurel Oak uercus lauri oha)
1 59
4
10
Cherrybark Oak ( )uercu+ pagoda )
075
4
11
Laurel Oak ( uercus laun olio
1 22
4
12
American Beau be (Calhcar u americana)
-
1
Stem dead, check for res rout
13
Green Ash (Praximis enns lvanica)
077
3
Main stem died back
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Swamp Chestnut Oak uercus michaurii
10.0%
Green Ash Froxinus pennsylvanica
40.0%
Buttonbush (Ce halanihus occidenialis)
10.0%
Laurel Oak ( uercus lauri olia )
10.0%
-Chcrrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
20.0%
American Beautyberry (Callicarpa americana)
10.0%
Densl '
Total Number of Trees
10
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees
] 0
0.025 acres = 400
13 trees X 100 = %%
trees/ acre
% survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot:
Photo
Point
W2
Plot Map
Date: 7/26/2010
PVC
Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
16
•4
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
061
3
2
•5
106
4
3
Unknown
• 9
10 •
15
4
Willow Oak ( )uercus hello+)
230
4
X
5
lChe bark Oak ( )uercus pagoda)
066
4
14
6
Cher bark Oak uercin pagoda)
062
x
7
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus a oda )
-
Dead
8
Cher bark Oak uercus pagoda )
•8
4
•2
Cherrybark. Oak ( uercus pagoda )
065
4
Deer browse
10
6
a
Dead
•1
Unknown
}(7
•12
Dead
PVC
Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
061
3
2
Laurel Oak ( uercus lour oha)
106
4
3
Unknown
Dead
4
Willow Oak ( )uercus hello+)
230
4
5
lChe bark Oak ( )uercus pagoda)
066
4
6
Cher bark Oak uercin pagoda)
062
3
7
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus a oda )
-
Dead
8
Cher bark Oak uercus pagoda )
201
4
9
Cherrybark. Oak ( uercus pagoda )
065
4
Deer browse
10
Unknown
a
Dead
11
Unknown
n
Dead
12
lButtonbush (Ce halanthut occidenrali
1 22
4
13
Unknown
it '
Dead
14
Unknown
a '
Dead
15
Cherrybark Oak )uercus pagoda )
043
3
16
Unknown
Dead
Vigor 4= excellent 3 =good 2 =weak 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of -1
Willow Oak ( uercus phellay
22.2%
Cherrybark Oak uercus pagoda )
55.6%
Butionbush (Ce halmuhus occidenmlts)
11.1%
Laurel Oak ( ucrcus lauri olio)
Density:
Total Number of l7ees 9
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 9
11.025 acres = 360
16 trees X 100 = 56
trees / acre
sun'icability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: W3 Date:
Plot Map
7/26/2010
•
4
5
Height (m)
11
X 2
1
•
6
1 10
4
3
•
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidenlahs)
158
•10
•13
3
Bald Cypress (raxodium disnchum )
• 7
4
x14
•
2
X
095
•9
5
8
t,,, ;
� y;. -Dead
6
Bald Cypress l axodimn thsnchuni
225
4
A5
1
•
Bald Cypress (raxodium dislichum )
2 15
4
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Bald Cypress (Taxodnun disnchuin
1 10
4
2
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidenlahs)
158
4
Died back in middle
3
Bald Cypress (raxodium disnchum )
2 12
4
4
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
095
4
5
uercus sp
t,,, ;
� y;. -Dead
6
Bald Cypress l axodimn thsnchuni
225
4
7
Bald Cypress (raxodium dislichum )
2 15
4
8
Buttonbush (Ce halmuhus occidentahs)
- ' tN ;
w ,,..:. ;;
Dead
9
Bald Cypress (7axodiuni dislichum)
172
4
10
Bald Cypress Taxodium dislichum)
2 17
4
11
lUnknown
":
r- :
Dead
12
Unknown
F���` ° Slh
�1`,
Dead
13
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michauxu)
207
4
14
Buttonbush (Ce halmahus occidentahs
Ir
Dead
15
Bald Cypress (laxodimn dwichian)
s`;= ' iJ
Dead
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Bald Cypress 7cu(xhwn dwichum
66.7%
Swamp Chestnut Oak uercuc michawn
Buttonbush Ce halanrhus occidentahs
Chcrrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda
Density:
Total Number of "1"recs 9 / 0.025 acres
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 9 15 trees X ] 00
360
60
trees/ acre
% sur% inability
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: W4 Date- 7/26/2010
Plot Map
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
5
•
13
•14
•
20
4
Green Ash (Fraaintus enns lvanica)
160
4
Fungus
2
6
12
15
•
3
Unknown
d1 °.SY°
i` 'Dead
19
3
Unknown
Dead
5
7
11
16
18
6
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
1 45
4
7
•8
10
•
4
•17
1
09
1 88
4
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
I
Green Ash (Fraaintus enns lvanica)
160
4
Fungus
2
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagodu )
M.i� ;
r ; ' ,' s T
Dead
3
Unknown
d1 °.SY°
i` 'Dead
4
Unknown
Dead
5
Bunonbush (Ce halanlhus occldenlalls)
1 89
4
6
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
1 45
4
7
Buttonbush Ce halanlhus occidenlaht)
1 61
4
Fungus
8
Cher bark Oak uercus pagoda )
1 88
4
9
Buttonbush Ce halanlhus occtdenlahti
163
4
10
Laurel Oak ( )uercus launfoha)
171
4
II
Unknown
r
Dead
12
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus mlchauxn)
280
4
13
Laurel Oak ( uercus laurnjoha)
240
4
14
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
280
4
15
Cherrybark Oak uercus pagoda )
191
4
16
Buttonbush Ce halanlhus occidenlahc)
2 17
4
17
Che bark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
270
4
18
Green Ash (rraxintm enns lvalnca)
182
4
19
American Beau be (Calhcur a anterlcana)
-
I
Stem dead, check for res rout
20
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
188
4
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good 2 =weak 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Green Ash Froxinus pennsylvanica )
12.5%
Chenybark Oak uerc•us pagoda)
25.00%
Buttonbush Ce halanuhus occidentalis)
25.0%
Laurel Oak (Quercus• laurt olia )
12.5%
jSwamp Chestnut Oak uercus michauzii
6.3%
Willow Oak (Quercus hellos)
American Beautyberry (Callicarpa americana)
6.3%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 16
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 16
J
0.025 acres
20 trees X 100
640 trees/ acre
80 % survivability
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: w5 Date
Plot Map
7/29/2010
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
9
Vigor
•14
1
Beaut be (Calhcar a americanu)
; 'a" `r z
ff, ' «ter ^ ` <
Dead
2
• 4
1 31
4
15
3
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchaaxu
•10
•
4
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus inichatcrn)
•6
4
•13
3
Swam Chesmut Oak ( uercus nuehauan)
1 70
4
6
•5
1 14
4
7
Green Ash (1- raxnuu pennsylvanica )
1 73
•11
•2
Bald Cypress Taxodium disnchma )
1 39
4
9
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauxii )
•7
4
10
•6
196
4
11
Bald Cypress (7axadnim disuclnun )
160
4
•12
X1
Green Ash (1- raxinus enns lvanica)
078
3
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Beaut be (Calhcar a americanu)
; 'a" `r z
ff, ' «ter ^ ` <
Dead
2
Bald Cypress (7axodnan dishchum)
1 31
4
3
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchaaxu
Dead
4
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus inichatcrn)
1 53
4
5
Swam Chesmut Oak ( uercus nuehauan)
1 70
4
6
Green Ash (I raxinus petinvylvanica )
1 14
4
7
Green Ash (1- raxnuu pennsylvanica )
1 73
4
8
Bald Cypress Taxodium disnchma )
1 39
4
9
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauxii )
1 33
4
10
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus niichauxii )
196
4
11
Bald Cypress (7axadnim disuclnun )
160
4
12
Green Ash (1- raxinus enns lvanica)
078
3
13
Cher bark Oak uercus pagoda
1 15
4
14
Bald Cypress (7axodnmt distichum)
1 25
3
15
Green Ash (hraxuaa penmylvanica )
1 37
4
Vigor 4= excellent 3 =good, 2 =weak 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of 'I otal
Bald Cypress Taxodium disiichum )
30.8%
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
30.8%
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
7.7%
Swamp Chestnut Oak uercus michaurh
30.8%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 13
Survivability:
Total Number of "Trees 13
0.025 acres
=
520
trees/ acre
15 trees R
100 =
87
% sun kabihtN
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: W6 Date: 7/29/2010
Plot Map
d: -
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
5
•
Vigor
•
1
Buttonbush (Ce halanlhus occidLmahs)
10
3
18
2
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
1 20
17 •
3
Bald Cypress (/axodnan disuchum
200
• 11
16 •
4
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum)
•9
Dead
403
Bald Cypress (7axodnan disuchmn
1 26
12 •
•2
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
190
3
7
• 6
127
3
15
8
Buttonbush (Ce halanrhius occidenlalis)
102
•13
Deer browse
•1
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
8
3
10
7 •
1 54
3
14
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Buttonbush (Ce halanlhus occidLmahs)
1 35
3
Deer browse
2
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
1 20
3
3
Bald Cypress (/axodnan disuchum
200
4
4
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum)
I
Dead
5
Bald Cypress (7axodnan disuchmn
1 26
3
6
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
190
3
7
Buttonbush (Ce halanlhus occidenlalis)
127
3
8
Buttonbush (Ce halanrhius occidenlalis)
102
3
Deer browse
9
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
225
3
10
Bald Cypress (7ar6dium disnchunu
1 54
3
11
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occulenlaht)
174
4
12
Laurel Oak ( uercus laurufoha)
142
3
13
Buttonbush (Ce halanihus occidenrahs)
141
3
Deer browse, fungus
14
Laurel Oak ( uercus /Gorr oha)
Dead
15
Swamp Chestnut Oak uercus michauru)
rs ." "'Y
Dead
16
Laurel Oak ( uercus laurvfoha)
1 70
4
17
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
235
4
18
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
051
3
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2= veak, 1= unhkely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Bald Cypress Z1 aodium di.slichum
20.0%
Willow Oak uercus hellos
33.3%
Laurel Oak ( uercus lauri olia)
13.3%
Buttonbush (Ce halanrhus ocadentalis)
33.3%
Density
Total Number of'I reel 15
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 15
0.025 acres = 600
I8 trees x 100 = 83
trees / acre
% survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot:
W7
Plot Map
Date: 7/29/2010
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
vA
17
1
5•
250
4
Deer browse
2
•
4
X9
}�11
•16
3
6
Dead
4
3
X
X12
5
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
S
4
6
>(�/
2
' ` �}
•
15
7
Unknown
7)<
•13
Dead
•1
Unknown
n;+ti:�� %�Rn
i +
Dead
9
Unknown
r, 53 ^,5,�
14
10
Unknown
�`r` `,'
V f``
Dead
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( ueruu uuchauxu)
250
4
Deer browse
2
Water Hickory (Ca rya u uanca )
Dead
3
Unknown
Dead
4
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
244
4
5
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
1 28
4
6
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidenlahs)
' ` �}
Dead
7
Unknown
"�v;',i -y+
3w' +'
Dead
8
Unknown
n;+ti:�� %�Rn
i +
Dead
9
Unknown
r, 53 ^,5,�
i "_r " ", nrDead
10
Unknown
�`r` `,'
V f``
Dead
11
Unknown
Dead
12
Unknown
�'X x ">
Dead
13
Willow Oak ( uercus johellos )
130
4
14
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
061
3
15
Swanip Chestnut Oak ( uercin nuehatim )
1 82
4
16
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus tmchaura )
189
4
17
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
047
2
Top broke off
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Willow Oak uercus hellos)
50.0%
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michauxii)
37.5%
Chenybark Oak )uercus pagoda
12.5%
Density:
Total Number of Frees
8
Survivability:
Total Number of'l reel
8
0.025 acres = 320
17 trees x 100 = 47
trees/ acre
% survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: W8 Date: 7/29/2010
Plot Map
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
X
I
Buttonbush (Ce halunthus occidentahs)
038
2
16
2
Water Hickory (Ca rya ac ualicu )
094
10
Deer browse
• 3
X 5
1 39
11
•
4
•6
•
12
•
5
Unknown
• 9
15
•
2
Water Hickory (Caryu a uaticG
096
4
7
Bald Cypress 7axodiuni disuchum)
1 50
14
17 •
8
•7
093
•
9
Bald Cypress (7axodium dwichunl)
1 35
• 20
•
18
• 1
8•
094
13
19V
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
I
Buttonbush (Ce halunthus occidentahs)
038
2
2
Water Hickory (Ca rya ac ualicu )
094
3
Deer browse
3
Water Hickory (Ca rya u uauca )
1 39
4
4
Unknown
Dead
5
Unknown
"
Dead
6
Water Hickory (Caryu a uaticG
096
4
7
Bald Cypress 7axodiuni disuchum)
1 50
4
8
Water Hickory (Cu rya G uauca )
093
4
9
Bald Cypress (7axodium dwichunl)
1 35
4
10
I Water Hickory (Ca rya G ualicG )
094
4
11
Water Hickory (Ca rya u ualica )
1 18
4
12
Buttonbush (Ce halunthus occideulahs)
147
4
13
Bald Cypress (luxodnun dnuchum
1 53
4
14
Water Hickory (Ca rya a( ualica )
1 13
4
15
Buttonbush (Ce halunlhus occidenialis)
145
4
16
American Beau be (Calhcar u americana)
Dead
17
Water Hickory (Curyu u uuuca )
085
3
Insect damage
18
Buttonbush (Ce halmtlhus occidenlahs)
195
4
19
Bald Cypress (l axodium disochum
t I' °'
Dead
20
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
1 72
4
Vigor 4= excellent 3 =good, 2 =weak, I= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Water Hickory (Ca rya u uaiica
50.0%
Bald Cypress Tazadium disiichum)
18.8%
Buttonbush Ce halanthus occidentalis)
25.0%
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda)
6.3%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 16 0.025 acres
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 16 20 trees X 100
640 trees/ acre
80 % survivability
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: W9 Date: 7/29/2010
Plot Map
J��k !
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
9
Vigor
Comment
I
Buttonbush (Ce halamhus occidenlahs)
9
•10
2
•4
ire , JA"
',
Dead
3
Cherrybark Oak ( uet cm pagoda
•$
4
0
4
American Beau be Galhcar a aniericana)
055
2
15
•3
[Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
280
4
6
Swam Chestnut Oak ( nerciis nuchaicxn)
203
4
•14
7
5 0
Dead
8
Chenybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
4111
4
9
American Beau be (Callicar u amerrcana)
16 •
2
Cherrybark Oak ( uercir+ pagoda )
1 45
4
11
•6
096
3
12
Laurel Oak (Quercus lauri cilia )
x7
4
•13
13
Laurel Oak ( uercus laurjoha )
1 44
12
•1
Green Ash (Fraxuius ennsylvanica)
200
0
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
I
Buttonbush (Ce halamhus occidenlahs)
225
4
2
Bald Cypress (7axodium disnchum
ire , JA"
',
Dead
3
Cherrybark Oak ( uet cm pagoda
2 12
4
4
American Beau be Galhcar a aniericana)
055
2
Stems died back
5
[Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
280
4
6
Swam Chestnut Oak ( nerciis nuchaicxn)
203
4
7
Unknown
Dead
8
Chenybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
260
4
9
American Beau be (Callicar u amerrcana)
Missing
to
Cherrybark Oak ( uercir+ pagoda )
1 45
4
11
Green Ash Froxinus enns lvanica)
096
3
12
Laurel Oak (Quercus lauri cilia )
109
4
13
Laurel Oak ( uercus laurjoha )
1 44
4
14
Green Ash (Fraxuius ennsylvanica)
200
4
1 5
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
2 1 1
4
16
Laurel Oak ( uercus lawn cilia)
1 54
4
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Green Ash Fraxinuc pennsylvanica
15.4%
Laurel Oak uercus lauri olia)
23.1%
Willow Oak uercus phellos
7.7%
Cherrybark Oak uercus pagoda
30.8%
Swamp Chestnut Oak uercus michuurn
7.7%
Buttonbush Ce halanrhus occidenmhs
7.7%
American Beau be (Callicarpa americana)
7.7%
Density:
Total Number of Trecs 13
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 13
0.025 acres = 520 trees / acre
16 trees X 100 =
81 % survivabilily
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring

Site:
Photo
Point
Harrell
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Plot: W10 Date: 7/26/2010
Plot Map
PVC
Marker
ID
Species
•11
Vigor
Comment
I
•4
1 80
•12
•3
Chenybark Oak ( uercits pagoda)
X
3
3
Green Ash (l raxnus enns lvanica)
097
•13
Fungus
4
•
140
3
Fungus
5
5
038
3
Res rout
2
Bald Cypress (I axoduan distichuiu)
144
4
•
Laurel Oak ( uercus lauri oha )
088
4
8
Laurel Oak uercus laurifoha)
•
4
9
Laurel Oak uercus lanri olia )
g g
•14
10
•7
Dead
•1
Green Ash (Hraxinus pennsylvanica )
1 12
•15
5
Fungus
12
Buttonbush (Ce halmuhus occidentahs )
•g
4
Fungus
PVC
Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
I
Laurel Oak ( uercus lauri oha)
1 80
4
2
Chenybark Oak ( uercits pagoda)
053
3
3
Green Ash (l raxnus enns lvanica)
097
3
Fungus
4
Green Ash (1'raxinus penn ylvanica)
140
3
Fungus
5
Che bark Oak ( uercus pagoda)
038
3
Res rout
6
Bald Cypress (I axoduan distichuiu)
144
4
7
Laurel Oak ( uercus lauri oha )
088
4
8
Laurel Oak uercus laurifoha)
131
4
9
Laurel Oak uercus lanri olia )
070
3
10
Laurel Oak ( uercus /aunt olia )
Dead
11
Green Ash (Hraxinus pennsylvanica )
1 12
3
Fungus
12
Buttonbush (Ce halmuhus occidentahs )
1 64
4
Fungus
13
Buttonbush Ce halanthus occidentalis)
206
4
Fungus
14
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentalis )
125
4
15
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentalis )
135
4
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Laurel Oak (Quercus laurt olio )
28.6%
Bald Cypress Taxodium dishchum
7.1%
Green Ash (Fraxinmvpennsylvani ca)
21.4%
Chenybark Oak ( uercus pagoda)
14.3%
Buttonbush (Ce halamhus occidentalis )
28.6%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 14
Survivability
Total Number or Trees 14
2nd Year
Monitoring
0.025 acres
15 trees X 100
560 trees / acre
93 %survivability
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: W I l
Plot Map
12�No
PVC
Marker
Photo
Point
Date: 7/26/2010
•
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
6
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentahs )
100
3
2
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentahs )
043
•14
3
•
205
4
4
5
1 05
A3
5
IButto nbush Ce halanthus occidentahs
•7
3
6
•
4
198
•12
7
American Beau be (Callicar a americana)
070
3
X5
8
Water Hickory (Ca rya G uatica)
•8
4
9
3
120
4
10
Bald Cypress (lcuodium dwichuni )
•11
Dead
11
Water Hickory (Ca rya a uatica )
107
3
•16
2•
Bald Cypress (laxodnun distichum )
120
4
13
9
0
Dead
1
Bald Cypress (laxodnan disuchum
094
3
•17
15
Bald Cypress (laxodiuni distichmn)
Dead
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentahs )
100
3
2
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentahs )
043
3
3
Bald Cypress (7axodnan distichum )
205
4
4
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidenialis )
1 05
3
5
IButto nbush Ce halanthus occidentahs
102
3
6
Water Hickory (Ca rya G uatica
198
4
7
American Beau be (Callicar a americana)
070
3
8
Water Hickory (Ca rya G uatica)
149
4
9
Bald Cypress (laxoditan distichuni )
120
4
10
Bald Cypress (lcuodium dwichuni )
Dead
11
Water Hickory (Ca rya a uatica )
107
3
12
Bald Cypress (laxodnun distichum )
120
4
13
Unknown
Dead
14
Bald Cypress (laxodnan disuchum
094
3
15
Bald Cypress (laxodiuni distichmn)
Dead
16
Bald Cypress laxodaim ihstichuni
049
3
17
Bald Cypress (laxodnan di hchum )
081
3
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak 1= unlikely to survive year
to

Species
Percent of Total
Bald Cypress 7axodium distichum)
42.9%
Water Hickory (Ca rya u uatica )
21.4%
Buttonbush (Ce ha7anthus occidentalis
28.6%
American Beau be rry (Cufficarpa americana)
7.1%
Density:
Total Number of Trees
14
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees
14
0.025 acres = 560
17 trees X 100 = 82
trees/ acre
%, sui�ivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: W12 Date: 7/26/2010
d�-�
11
PVC
Marker
Plot Map
Photo
Point
ID
Species
•
Vigor
Comment
I
7
16
17
27 •
2
Bald Cypress (faxodium dnnchuni
1 66
18
6
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus uccideniahti
093
•
4
Bald Cypress (Taxodium dntichwn )
15
4
5
Bald Cypress (7axodium dnuchuni )
14
19
5•
Bald Cypress (7axoduan dttiuchum )
09
4
26•
7
American Beau be (Calhcar a americana)
13
Dead
4 •
Buttonbush (Ce halanlh+n occtdetnahs)
010
25 •
9
•3
077
•
Deer browse
10
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( ucrcuti nuchauxii
094
20
11
Buttonbush Ce 3halanihu+ occidenlah% )
•11 12
21 40
Missing
• 2
Buttonbush (Ce halmtthm occtdentahs)
`g av "': '
- �"
24 •
13
Unknown
3` °4 ^"z,�''_"
22 •
Dead
• 1
1
1
1
23 •
Photo
Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
I
Water Hickory (Ca rya G uanca
240
4
2
Bald Cypress (faxodium dnnchuni
1 66
4
3
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus uccideniahti
093
4
4
Bald Cypress (Taxodium dntichwn )
1 22
4
5
Bald Cypress (7axodium dnuchuni )
1 50
4
6
Bald Cypress (7axoduan dttiuchum )
1 82
4
7
American Beau be (Calhcar a americana)
,i
Dead
8
Buttonbush (Ce halanlh+n occtdetnahs)
w
Dead
9
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus oecidenialis )
077
3
Deer browse
10
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( ucrcuti nuchauxii
094
1 4
11
Buttonbush Ce 3halanihu+ occidenlah% )
- v
Missing
12
Buttonbush (Ce halmtthm occtdentahs)
`g av "': '
- �"
Dead
13
Unknown
3` °4 ^"z,�''_"
°
Dead
14
Buttonbush (Cehalanthu%occidenmlis)
Dead
15
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occidentalis )
m ° 1 ' `
Dead
16
Water Hickory (Ca rya a uanca)
1 11
4
17
Water Hickory (Ca rya G uatica)
120
4
18
Water Hickory (Ca ga ar uanca )
121
4
19
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occtdentahs
Dead
20
Water Hickory (Ca rya G uanca
1 34
4
21
113ald Cypress (l axoditim distichum)
205
4
22
Bald Cypress (7axodnnn di tichitnt)
200
4
23
Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)
144
4
24
Buttonbush (Ce halanthm occtdentahs)
-
I
Stem dead, check for res rout
25
Buttonbush (Ce halanthus occtdentahs)
1 27
3
Insect damage
26
Bald Cypress (Taxodium di+nchunt
2 19
4
27
Bald Cypress (laxodium dnnchmn )
1 60
4
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Water Hickory (Carya G ualica
26.3%
Bald Cypress 7axodium dislichum
47.4%
Buttonbush Ce halanlhus• occidenlahs
21.1%
Swamp Chestnut Oak uercus michauxii
5.3%
Density:
I otal Number of Trees 19
Survivability:
I "otal Number of Trees 19
0.025 acres = 760 trees / acre
27 R 100 = 70 % sun inability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S l Date:
Plot Map
7/23/2010
28 7 26
• •
25 24 23
•
22 21
• •
20 19
• • •
18 17 16
13
X
)uercu, s
14
Mqy_`
15 X
X12
11
S „Mt:r ki',53
10
•
9
•
5
6
7
x
8
X
4
Southem Red Oak ( uercu, falcaia
091
4
4
3
055
v
1
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
I
)uercu, s
y r �n':�J
Mqy_`
Dead
2
Unknown
S „Mt:r ki',53
a° a
Dead
3
Southern Red Oak ( uercu, ulculu )
'Dead
4
Southem Red Oak ( uercu, falcaia
091
4
5
Southern Red Oak ( uercus alcaia)
055
3
6
Persimmon (Diospyros wr iinana )
Missing
7
Unknown
t ' A
',Dead
8
Unknown
Dead
9
Willow Oak ( uercu, phellm )
148
4
10
Willow Oak ( uercus hd1m, )
1 50
4
Rodent damage
1
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos )
r ., -to' r
Dead
12
Unknown
; r,p4 "i' %
` °}si',t ". '
Dead
13
Southern Red Oak ( uercu, ulcala
'' 'R ”
Dead
14
Southern Red Oak ( uercus jalcala
051
3
15
Southern Red Oak ( uercus falcura )
Dead
16
Silky Dogwood (Conan cananum)
039
3
Live Stake, deer browse
17
Silky Dogwood (Conies aniomum)
7°
Live Stake, Missing
18
ISilky Dogwood (Cornus antonnun)
065
3
Live stake, deer browse
19
Silky Do wood (Cornus aniontuni )
051
3
Live stake, deer browse
20
Silky Dogwood (Cornus anionnan
5 f„ xsYr,�'
_
Live slake, Missing
21
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis )
Dead
22
Silky Dogwood (Cormn mnoniuin )
053
3
Live stake, deer browse
23
Silky Dogwood ( Cornus amomtan)
033
3
Live stake, deer browse
24
Silky Dogwood (Cornus aniomum )
028
2
Live stake, deer browse
25
Elderberry (Sambucm canadensis )
Live stake, dead
26
Elderberry (Sanibucrns canadeims)
e"' $ p %sp
Live stake, dead
27
Elderberry (Sambucu, canadetim)
Live stake, dead
28
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
x,, ";" a
Live stake, dead
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good 2 =weak ]--unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum )
54.5%
Southern Red Oak uercus alcata
27.3%
Willow Oak uercus hellos
18.2%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 11
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 11
0.029 acres
=
440
trees/ acre
28 trees x
100 =
39
%sur%ivabilit}
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot:
S2
Plot Map
Date: 7/23/2010
1
Species
X
3
Comment
4
American Beau be (Callicar u anericana
5
x
6
Res rout
10
American Beau be (Callicar a aniericana )
v
Dead
8
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda
y
11
•
Res rout
12
Southern Red Oak ( uercus alcara)
13
3
Res rout
1
4
American Beau be (Calhcar a americanu)
Dead
6
American Beau ber (Calhcar a amerlcanG)
'
Dead
7
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
%_ ` r n ; "`
Dead
16
y
_; �' `j ti'
.Y'
Dead
9
L17
Dead
10
jAmencan Beaut ber Calhcar a aniericana)
1 00
4
1 I
Sha bark Hickory (Ca rya ovala)
0 14
2
Res rout
12
Shagbark Hickory (Ca rya ovala)
034
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
American Beau be (Callicar u anericana
040
3
Res rout
2
American Beau be (Callicar a aniericana )
Dead
3
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda
019
1
Res rout
4
Southern Red Oak ( uercus alcara)
019
3
Res rout
5
American Beau be (Calhcar a americanu)
Dead
6
American Beau ber (Calhcar a amerlcanG)
'
Dead
7
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
%_ ` r n ; "`
Dead
8
AmencanBeautyberry (Calhcar a umericana)
_; �' `j ti'
.Y'
Dead
9
Quercus sp
Dead
10
jAmencan Beaut ber Calhcar a aniericana)
1 00
4
1 I
Sha bark Hickory (Ca rya ovala)
0 14
2
Res rout
12
Shagbark Hickory (Ca rya ovala)
034
2
13
Shagbark Hickory (Ca rya ovum)
007
1
Res rout
14
Southern Red Oak ( uercus alcara )
Dead
15
Quei eus s p
Dead
16
Willow Oak uercus hellos)
Dead
17
lArnericart Beau be (Callicar a americana)
134
4
18
American Beau be (Callicar u umencana)
1 27
4
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unilkely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Southern Red Oak ( uercto ulcata
11.1%
Shagbark Hickory (Ca rya ovuta)
33.3%
American Beau be rry (Calficarpa americmw
44.4%
Cherrybark Oak ( uercus pagoda )
Density:
Total Number of Trees 9 0.025 acres
Survivability:
'total \umber of "Frees 9 18 trees X ] 00
360 trees/ acre
50 % sun icabilit%
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Site: Harrell
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Plot: S3 Date: 7/23/2010
Plot Map
28 27
26 25
24 23 22
21 20
19 18
•
14
•
15
•
16
•
• 17
13
American Beautyberry (Calhcarpa americana)
1 89
4
Insect
•
12
x
11
10
3
x
9
X
American Beautyberry (Callicarpa ameiicana)
103
4
Insect
5
>
6
•
7
8
Dead
4
3
= °rr.b`� '
•2
1v
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Willow Oak (Quercus hellos)
T i ; �,"
Dead
2
American Beautyberry (Calhcarpa americana)
1 89
4
Insect
3
Persimmon (Dios yros virgimana)
160
3
Insect, Deer Scraping
4
American Beautyberry (Callicarpa ameiicana)
103
4
Insect
5
Persimmon Dios ros vii imam
( Y g )
" ' 't
� >t{_,��»
"� : r
Dead
6
Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovaia)
= °rr.b`� '
F:�Q'`'
Dead
7
Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovaia)
028
3
Insect
8
Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovaia)
'1 it
_ ,
Dead
9
Unknown
'���
'" `'�� `
Dead
10
Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
1 75
4
11
Unknown
Dead
12
Persimmon (Dios yros virgimana)
227
4
13
Persimmon (Dios yros virgimana)
1 58
4
14
Persimmon (Diospyios virgimana)
029
2
Res rout
15
Persimmon (Dios yros virgimana)
1 62
4
16
Persimmon (Diospyros virgimana)
171
4
Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda )
1 10
4
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis )
1 85
3
Live stake
V20
Elderberry (Sambucus canadenm )
122
4
Live stake
Silky Dogwood (Corpus amomum)
1 67
3
Live stake, deer browse
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis )
:
Live stake, dead
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis )
1 47
3
Live stake
23
ISilky Dogwood ( Coinus amomum)
1 16
3
Live stake, deer browse
24
Elder be (Sambucus canadensis )
1 43
3
1 Live stake
25
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis )
2 16
4
1 Live stake
26
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
169
3
Live stake, leaf wilt
27
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
088
3
ILive stake, deer browse, insect
28
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
077
3
1 Live stake, deer browse, insect
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis• )
23.8%
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
23.8%
American Beau be (Callicarpa americans)
9.5%
Willow Oak uercus hellos)
4.8%
Persimmon (Djospyros vir iniana)
28.6%
Cher bark Oak uercus pagoda)
4.8%
Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata)
4.8%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 21
Survivability:
Total Number of "Drees 21
0.025 acres
840
28 trees X 100 = 75
trees/ acre
% survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Site: Harrell
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Plot: S4 Date: 7/23/2010
Plot Map
•
Species
�
Vigor
•
1
4
.
2
x
Insect
2
3
065
14
3
Willow Oak (Oueicits hellos)
056
4
•
5
6
1 45
7 •
8 •
5
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michaiaii)
250
4
•
6
Su arber (Celtis laevtgata)
1 31
3
13
7
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michauxu)
091
3
Insect
12
11
10
1
•
9
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauxii)
1 63
4
9
10
Su arber (Celtrs laevi ata)
026
2
Res rout
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
American Beaut be (Callicai aanieticana)
036
3
Insect
2
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
065
4
3
Willow Oak (Oueicits hellos)
056
4
4
Willow Oak (Ouetcus hellos)
1 45
4
5
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michaiaii)
250
4
6
Su arber (Celtis laevtgata)
1 31
3
Insect
7
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michauxu)
091
3
Insect
8
River Birch (Betula m ra)
-
1
Stem dead, check for res rout
9
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauxii)
1 63
4
10
Su arber (Celtrs laevi ata)
026
2
Res rout
I 1
Su arbe (Celtrs laevi ata )
023
1
Deer, Main stem died back
12
American Beau be (Calhcar a aniencatta)
058
3
13
Sugarberry (Celtrs laevtgata)
075
3
Not counted during baseline monitoring,
Insect
14
Su arbe (Celtrs laevt ata)
Not counted during baseline monitoring,
Dead
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2= weal., 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent ofTotal
River Birch (Belula ni ra)
7.7%
American Beaut be (Callicarpa americans)
15.4%
Willow Oak ( uereus hellos)
23.1%
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus micharaii)
23.1%
Su arbe (Celris laevi ara)
30.8%
Density:
Total Number of "frees 13
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 13 /
0.025 acres —
14 trees X 100 =
'520 trees / acre
93 % survivability*
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S5 Date:
Plot Map
7/23/2010
•
•
• •
• • •
• •
15 16 17
18 19 0
21 22 23
24 2 26 27
28 29 30
04 1:
River Birch (Berula ni ra)
12 •
3
11 •
31
Quercus sp
8
10
4
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
049
3
7
Quercus s
` ` "!
o
Dead
6
6
ik #c 'rr
. <� I ° "° '
Dead
7
)uercus s
5
4
Dead
8
Swanip Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchamn )
X
•C
Top died back
1
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauxn )
2
3
ITop died back, insect
•
ISwamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus mchatern )
034
2
----------
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
River Birch (Benda nr ra)
075
3
2
River Birch (Berula ni ra)
1 26
3
3
Quercus sp
Dead
4
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
049
3
5
Quercus s
` ` "!
o
Dead
6
Su arbe (Celus laevr ara)
ik #c 'rr
. <� I ° "° '
Dead
7
)uercus s
CW
r`' * ,'. r'
Dead
8
Swanip Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchamn )
089
4
Top died back
9
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauxn )
071
3
ITop died back, insect
10
ISwamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus mchatern )
034
2
11
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
085
3
12
River Birch (Berula nr ra)
1 64
3
13
River Birch (Benda ni gra)
1 50
3
14
Sugarber (Cellrslaevr ara)
085
4
15
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensrs)
r.0 °_
S't
Live stake, dead
16
Elderberry (Sunibucm canadensrs)
i ? 1',`:`t'
uai
Live stake, dead
17
ISilky Dogwood (Cornus annum
022
2
Live stake, Deer browse
18
Silky Do wood (Cornus uni2mum )
038
3
Live stake, Deer browse
19
Black Willow (Sahx m ra)
'a art' _
'z r _. ' -
Live stake, dead
20
Elderberry (Sunibacus canadensrs)
�h °r « k`�
"ra `'
Live stake, dead
21
Silky Dogwood Cornus anronmmm )
060
3
Live stake, Deer browse
22
Silky Dogwood (Cornus anioniunr
0 17
2
Live stake
23
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensrs )
Live stake, dead
24
Silk Do woad Cornus amomum )
027
2
Live stake
25
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensrs )
', :� °.
=
Live stake, dead
26
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomuun )
060
3
Live stake
27
Silky Dogwood (Cornus annomuan
056
3
Live stake, Deer browse
28
Elderberry (Sambucas canadensrs )
Live stake, dead
29
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum )
062
3
Live stake
30
IElderberry (Sambucus conademis )
048
3
Live stake, Deer browse
31
1 Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus nuchataii)
028
2
Resprout, insect
Vigor 4= excellent 3 =good 2 =weak 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of "total
Silky Dogwood Cornus mnomum
40.0%
Elderberry (Sainhucus canadensts)
5.0%
River Birch (Benda ni ru
30.0%
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos )
10.0%
Su arbe (Celiis laevi ata)
5.0%
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( ucrcus michauxii)
20.0%
Density:
Total Number of Trees
20
0.025 acres
= 800 trees / acre
Survivability:
Total Number of "1 reel
20
31 trees x 100 =
65 % survivability
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot:
S6
Plot Map
Date: 7/23/2010
3
Species
13
2
1
4
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Qtrercus nirchaian )
iii
5
X
6
X
7
12
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quetcus inichatati )
078
3
Insect damage
�
11
14
9
V
g
4
American Beaut be (Callicar a americana)
062
3
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Qtrercus nirchaian )
068
4
Deer browse, main top died back
2
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quetcus inichatati )
078
3
Insect damage
3
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nnchatau )
106
4
4
American Beaut be (Callicar a americana)
062
3
5
Amencan Beaut be (Callicar a amet icana)
060
3
6
Swam Chestnut Oak (Quetcus michatmi)
„,, �+
Dead
7
River Birch (Betula m ra)
; -
i,' "; s
Dead
8
Su artier (Celns laevi ata)
Dead
9
Su arbe (Celus laevt aia)
m' "" (
Dead
10
Quetcus s
v "''
Dead
l
Quercus sp
Dead
12
River Birch (Betula nr ia)
295
4
13
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( Quercus michauxii)
1 01
3
Insect damage
P
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, tweak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
River Birch (Benda ni ra)
14.3%
American Beau be (Calficarpa americana)
28.6%
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercns michauxii)
57.1%
Density:
Total Number of "Trees 7
Survivability:
Total Number of'Frecs 7
0.025 acres
12 trees X 100
280 trees/ acre
58 % survivability
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S7 Date: 7/23/2010
Plot Map
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21 20
19 18
14
15
•
1i
2
• 17
•
Su arbe (Cellls laevl gala)
079
4
Deer browse
3
13
•
29 12
11
•
10
•
4
Su Barber (Celus laevi ala)
090
4
Wasp nest
5
6
7
8
9
6
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauxii)
1 25
4
7
4
085
3
8
•
3
•
2
1
9
American Beau ber (Calhcar o antericana)
124
3
•
�Q
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (in)
Vigor
Comment
1
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus rmchaum
008
2
Res rout
2
Su arbe (Cellls laevl gala)
079
4
Deer browse
3
Sugarbe (Celusluevl am)
079
4
4
Su Barber (Celus laevi ala)
090
4
Wasp nest
5
Southern Red Oak ( )uercus ulcula
081
4
6
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauxii)
1 25
4
7
American Beau be (Calhcar a americana)
085
3
8
American Beau ber (Calllcal a americana )
085
3
9
American Beau ber (Calhcar o antericana)
124
3
Insect damage
10
Willow Oak ( uercm phellos )
1 05
4
11
lWillow Oak ( uercus hellos )
069
3
12
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
038
3
13
Willow Oak ( uer(us phellos )
063
3
14
American Beau be (Calhcar u amencana)
147
4
15
American Beauty be (CaUlcar a umencanu
1 18
4
16
American Beau be (CuMcur u anterlcana )
121
3
17
American Beau be (Culhcur u americana )
1 08
3
18
Silky Do >wood (Cornus ainomtan)
078
3
Live stake, deer browse
19
Silky Dogwood (Cornus ammnum)
101
4
Live stake
20
Silky Dogwood (Cornus aniontion
Dead
21
Silky Dogwood (Corints umollnlln)
075
3
Live stake, deer browse
22
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum
071
4
Live stake, deer browse
23
Silky Dogwood (Cornus antollu in )
080
3
Live stake, deer browse
24
Silky Do wood (Cornus amonuun )
07 4
3
Live stake, deer browse
25
Silky Dogwood (Cornus umomum )
075
3
Live stake, deer browse
26
Elderberry (Smnbucus canadensts )
1 31
2
Live stake, insect damage
27
Elderberry (Sumbucus canudensls )
1 10
2
Live stake, insect damage
28
Elderberry (Sumbucus canadenus )
�'
Live stake, Missing
29
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus nuchatarn)
021
3
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good 2 =weak 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum
25.9%
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
7.4%
American Beau be rry (C.'afficarpa americana)
25.9%
Su arbe Celtis•laevi ata
11.1%
Swamp Chestnut Oak uercus michauxii
11.1%
Southem Red Oak ( uercuc akwa )
3.7%
Willow Oak ( uercu.c Itcllos )
14.8%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 27
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 27
0.025 acres = 1 oso trees / acre
29 Trees
x 100 = 93 % sun ivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S8 Date:
Plot May
7/23/2010
1
2
x
x
5
10
x
9
6
•
7
6
2
Unknown
=``:
otv'L'3L{ ny
Dead
3
x•
sz'rR
)_+; .r «' ' *'
Dead
4
11
12
� 1 ' '
Dead
5
Willow Oak ( uer cus hellos)
045
2
Deer browse
Photo PVC
Point Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
Unknown
h :�:
n'. w�,�
Dead
2
Unknown
=``:
otv'L'3L{ ny
Dead
3
Unknown
sz'rR
)_+; .r «' ' *'
Dead
4
Su arber (Cellis laevr ata)
71''+11» ",Ile
� 1 ' '
Dead
5
Willow Oak ( uer cus hellos)
045
2
Deer browse
6
American Beaut berry (Calhcar aniencana)
025
2
Res rout
7
American Beaut be (Calhcar a amerrcana)
0 12
2
Res rout
8
American Beaut be (Calhcar a amerrcana)
025
3
9
American Beau be (Calhcar a amer rcana)
Dead
10
American Beaut ber (Calhcar a amer rcana)
039
3
Il
Unknown
Missing
12
American Beaut ber (Callicatpa amer rcana)
051
3
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
American Bcau be rry (Callicarpa americana)
83.3%
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
16.7%
Density:
Total Number of Trees ( / 0.025 acres
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees ( / 12 trees X 100
= 240 trees/ acre
50 % survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S9 Date: 7/23/2010
Plot Map
f- \ 0
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Su arbe Cellis laevi ala)
030
1
2
Persimmon (Dios yros vii iruana)
035
2
31 0
29
28
27
6
25
24
23
22
21
20-
19
18
17
3
6
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
Missing
7
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michauxs)
0 15
2
Res rout
•
River Birch (Belula ni ra)
090
3
Fungus
9
River Birch ( Belulu m ra)
171
4
Deer browse
10
Persimmon (Diospyrov wr uuana )
050
2
16
11
•
014
2
•
12
Persinmon (Dios yro+ vir msana)
058
•
13
Swanip Chestnut Oak ( )uercus nuchauxn)
0 19
2
Res rout
13
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos
043
14
15
River Birch (Belula ni ra)
15
3
16
River Birch (Belula ni ra)
148
4
17
Silky Dogwood (Corms+ amoumni)
096
4
Deer browse
18
lSilkv Dogwood (Corms anioinuin
055
3
Deer browse
•
Silky Do wood (Corns mnomuni)
0 19
2
Deer browse
20
Elderberry Sambucus canaden +n)
?e. 'tip a;`
w" i ,.
Dead, live stake
21
•
070
3
Live stake, fungus
22
Silky Dogwood ( Corpus amomum
Dead, live stake
0
Silky Dogwood Cornu+ amomum)
r ^vr3
. s ' ; `
Dead, live stake
24
Silky Dogwood (Corpus amoinsni
0 18
10
Live stake, res rout
25
ISilky Dogwood (Corpus amomum)
x°')+ir "! ;?
fb
Dead, live stake
26
Sit Do wood (Corms amomum)
I i i
s , ;;K �i
11
27
Silky Dogwood (Cornu+ amommni)
Dead, live stake
28
Black Willow (Salix ni ra)•��'f
"- `_ ,;
Dead, live stake
29
Black Willow (Salix ni ra )
240
4
Live stake
30
Black Willow Salix ni ru
i. �tje'� { ,
s � ;e t
Dead, live stake
31
•
078
3
1 Live stake
•
6
•
5
•
•
8
9
7
3
•
4
2
•
1
f- \ 0
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Su arbe Cellis laevi ala)
030
1
2
Persimmon (Dios yros vii iruana)
035
2
Main stem broke off
3
Persimmon (Diospyros vir muanu
045
2
Main stem broke off
4
Persimmon (Dios yros vii imam )
085
4
5
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
050
3
6
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
Missing
7
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michauxs)
0 15
2
Res rout
8
River Birch (Belula ni ra)
090
3
Fungus
9
River Birch ( Belulu m ra)
171
4
Deer browse
10
Persimmon (Diospyrov wr uuana )
050
2
11
lWillow Oak ( uercus phellos )
014
2
1 Res rout
12
Persinmon (Dios yro+ vir msana)
058
2
13
Swanip Chestnut Oak ( )uercus nuchauxn)
0 19
2
Res rout
14
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos
043
2
15
River Birch (Belula ni ra)
064
3
16
River Birch (Belula ni ra)
148
4
17
Silky Dogwood (Corms+ amoumni)
096
4
Deer browse
18
lSilkv Dogwood (Corms anioinuin
055
3
Deer browse
19
Silky Do wood (Corns mnomuni)
0 19
2
Deer browse
20
Elderberry Sambucus canaden +n)
?e. 'tip a;`
w" i ,.
Dead, live stake
21
Black Willow (Salix ni ru)
070
3
Live stake, fungus
22
Silky Dogwood ( Corpus amomum
Dead, live stake
23
Silky Dogwood Cornu+ amomum)
r ^vr3
. s ' ; `
Dead, live stake
24
Silky Dogwood (Corpus amoinsni
0 18
2
Live stake, res rout
25
ISilky Dogwood (Corpus amomum)
x°')+ir "! ;?
fb
Dead, live stake
26
Sit Do wood (Corms amomum)
I i i
s , ;;K �i
Dead, live stake
27
Silky Dogwood (Cornu+ amommni)
Dead, live stake
28
Black Willow (Salix ni ra)•��'f
"- `_ ,;
Dead, live stake
29
Black Willow (Salix ni ra )
240
4
Live stake
30
Black Willow Salix ni ru
i. �tje'� { ,
s � ;e t
Dead, live stake
31
Black Willow (Salix nigra)
078
3
1 Live stake
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Silky Dogwood Cornus umomum
18.2%
Black Willow Salixni ru
9.1%
River Birch Belula ni ru
18.2%
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos
116%
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michalcxii)
9.1%
Persimmon (Diospyros vir iniunu)
22.7%
Su arbe (Celiis laevi alu)
4.5%
Density:
Dotal Number of Trees 22
Survivabilitv:
Total Number of Trees 22
0.025 acres = 880
31 trees g 100 = 71
trees/ acre
% survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot.
Photo
Point
SIO
Plot Map
Date: 7/23/2010
PVC
Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Sycamore (Platanus occidenialis)
1 74
4
2
Sycamore ( Plalanus occidentalis)
13•
3
3
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
034
2
Top died back
4
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
075
2
Insect damage
14
2ELC143 SP
1
5
Dead
6
Willow Oak (Quetcus hellos)
035
3
7
W Blow Oak ( uercus phellos )
019
2
Top died back
•
Sugarberry (Celtis laevi ata)
044
2
Top died back
9
Su arber (Celtis laevi aia)
Dead
111
Unknown
Dead
I 1
Persimmon (Dios vros wi imam)
1 70
4
12
American Beaut be (Callicar aameticana)
10
Dead
9
American Beauty ber (Callicar a amet ream)
0 13
2
Res rout
14
American Beaut be (Calhcar a ainei icana)
Dead
15
American Beaut ber (Callicar a aniericana)
8
Dead
•
5
g
•
7
4
3
2
1
PVC
Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Sycamore (Platanus occidenialis)
1 74
4
2
Sycamore ( Plalanus occidentalis)
092
3
3
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
034
2
Top died back
4
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
075
2
Insect damage
5
2ELC143 SP
Dead
6
Willow Oak (Quetcus hellos)
035
3
7
W Blow Oak ( uercus phellos )
019
2
Top died back
8
Sugarberry (Celtis laevi ata)
044
2
Top died back
9
Su arber (Celtis laevi aia)
Dead
10
Unknown
Dead
I 1
Persimmon (Dios vros wi imam)
1 70
4
12
American Beaut be (Callicar aameticana)
Dead
13
American Beauty ber (Callicar a amet ream)
0 13
2
Res rout
14
American Beaut be (Calhcar a ainei icana)
Dead
15
American Beaut ber (Callicar a aniericana)
-
Dead
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Sycamore (Platanas occidentahs)
44.4%
Willow Oak ( aercas hellos)
22.2%
Su arbe (Celtis laevi ata)
11.1%
Persimmon (Dios ros vir iniana)
11.1%
American Beaut be (CaMewpa americana)
1 1.1 %
Density:
Total Number of "frees 9
Survivability:
Total Number ofTrees 9
0.025 acres = 360
15 trees x 100 = 60
trees/ acre
% survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Site: Harrell
Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Plot: Slt
Plot Map
Date: 7/26/2010
X
14 22
21
20 19
'
18 17
0 15
I
11
• 24
I
Stem dead, check for resprout
2
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
T t"�� J'
12
13
•
10
•
23
•
9
0
8
4
•
5
x
068
4
%
3
JArnerican Beaut ber (CaAicai a americana)
X
Jq
�1
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (in)
Vigor
Comment
I
American Beaut be (Calhcar a amei icana)
I
Stem dead, check for resprout
2
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
T t"�� J'
^l' M`,k tea_' -
Dead
3
American Beaut ber (Calhcar aaniericana)
Dead
4
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
068
4
5
JArnerican Beaut ber (CaAicai a americana)
" `r`xlj #
Jq
Dead
6
Southem Red Oak ( uercus falcata)
029
3
7
American Beaut be (Callicar a americana)
0 11
2
Resprout
8
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus nuchauxn)
038
3
9
American Beau ber (Calhcar a americana)
023
2
10
Persimmon (Diospyros vir niana)
1 15
4
11
Persimmon (Diospyros vir imam)
085
4
12
American Beaut ber (Calhcar a americana)
046
3
13
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxa)
036
3
Deer browse
14
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
' ` ';' i
" -
Live stake, dead
15
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomuni)
050
3
Live stake, deer browse
16
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amonium)
051
3
Live stake, deer browse
17
Silky Dogwood (Cornus anionnim)
054
3
Live stake, deer browse
18
Silky Dogwood (Cornus antomum)
061
4
Live stake, deer browse
19
Silky Dogwood (Cornus antomuin )
068
4
Live stake, deer browse
20
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amonium )
058
3
Live stake, deer browse
21
Elderberry (Sambucus canadetsis)
042
3
Live stake
22
Black Willow (Salix ni ra)
1 50
4
Live stake
23
Su arbe (Celas laevi ata)
037
2
24
Su arbe (Celtis laevi ata)
023
2
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2= weal., 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
30.0%
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
5.0%
Black Willow (Salixni ra)
5.0%
American Beautybe (Callicarpa americana)
20.0%
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michauxii)
10.0%
Willow Oak ( uercus phellos )
5.0%
Persimmon (Dios ros vi iniana)
10.0%
Su arbe (Celris laevi ara)
10.0%
Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcara)
5.0%
Density:
"Total Number of Trees 20
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 20
0.025 acres = 800
23 trees x 100 = 87
trees/ acre
% survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S12 Date: 7/26/2010
Photo
Point
Plot Man
PVC
Marker
ID
13
14
Vigor
15
12
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
0 15
1
Main stem died back
2
11
•
10
•
9
6
Queicus s
X
•
7
�,/ g
4
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
1 14
3
•
River Birch (Betula ni ra)
1 64
x
4
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michatau)
3
Dead
7
•
1
091
3
V
I'�
8
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus nucha:au)
;
r
2
PVC
Marker
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
0 15
1
Main stem died back
2
American Beaut be (Callicarpa aniericana)
Dead
3
Queicus s
Dead
4
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
1 14
3
5
River Birch (Betula ni ra)
1 64
3
6
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michatau)
Dead
7
River Birch (Betula ni ra)
091
3
8
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus nucha:au)
;
r
Dead
9
River Birch (Benda nr ra)
086
3
10
Su arbe (Cehislaevi ata)
045
3
11
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
t
< N.
Dead
12
Unknown
-
"} +'
Dead
13
River Birch ( Betala ni ra)
2 14
4
14
American Beaut be (Callicar a ameivcana)
044
3
15
River Birch (Betula nr ra)
105
4
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2= weal., [=unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
River Birch (Betula ni ra )
55.6%
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
22.2%
American Beaut be (Callicarpa anrericana)
11.1
Su arbe (Celtis laevi ata)
Density:
Total Number of Trees 9
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 9
0.025 acres = 360 trees/ acre
15 x 100 = 60 % survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S13 Date
Plot Mau
7/26/2010
29
27
Height (m)
4
• •
28
Su arbe (Cefuslaevi afa)
25
1
23 22
2
Su garbe (Cetus laevt ala)
088
• 30
3
19
21
18
American Beau ber (CGUILar a uniet icana)
20
w
Dead
5
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauru)
100
•
•
17
•
1g
15
14 13
12 11
7
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchatuu)
056
•
•
•
•
7
4,
X
9
5
6
036
3
•
10
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus mtchatcru)
058
3
10
11
4
1
12
Possumhaw (Viburnum mtdum )
3
2
Dead
• Q
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
I
Su arbe (Cefuslaevi afa)
006
1
Res rout
2
Su garbe (Cetus laevt ala)
088
4
3
Unknown
Dead
4
American Beau ber (CGUILar a uniet icana)
w
Dead
5
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauru)
100
4
6
Sycamore (Plulanus occidenlahti
1 86
4
7
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchatuu)
056
4
8
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum )
I
Dead
9
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercu% ouchaumi
036
3
Main stein died back
10
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus mtchatcru)
058
3
11
Sugar e (Cetus laevi um )
Dead
12
Possumhaw (Viburnum mtdum )
Dead
13
Sugarbe (Cellis laevigula)
031
2
14
Sugarberry (Cetus laevigala)
028
2
15
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum )
I I
I
Dead
16
Su arber (Celts faevi ala)
026
2
17
ISugarberry (Ceps laewgara)
033
1 2
18
American Beau ber (Cafhcar a mnericana)
045
4
19
American Beau be (Cafhcar u amencana)
028
2
20
AniericanBeautybeny Caff cai u amencanu)
042
3
21
American Beau ber (Cafhcur u amencana)
038
3
22
Silky Dogwood (Conius mnonnun)
036
3
Live stake, deer browse
23
Silky Dogwood (Cotnus aniomum)
0 17
2
Live stake
24
ISilky Dogwood (Corms+ amomion)
z L
Live stake, dead
25
Elderberry (Sumbucw canadeims
,;,
Live stake, dead
26
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amoniuln
";t
Live stake, dead
27
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensls)
'a Ty
Live stake, dead
28
Silky Dogwood (Conan umomum)
Live stake, dead
29
Silky Dogwood (Corms mnonmtn)
""
Live stake, dead
30
Green Ash (1- raxims penmylvanica 1
052 1
3 INot
counted during baseline monitoring

Species
Percent of Total
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
11.1%
Sycamore Platanus occidentahs
5.6%
American Beau be rry (Callicarpa americans
22.2%
Su arbe (Celiis laevi afa)
33.3%
-Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michaurii)
22.2%
Green Ash Fraxinus nns Ivanica
5.6%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 18
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 18
0.025 acres = 720
30 x 100 = 60
trees/ acre
% survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S14 Date: 7/26/2010
Plot Man
13
•
14
Height (m)
•
15
•
16
1
American Beaut ber (CaArcar a amerrcana)
:^ `';'"
i ` °'
Dead
12
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus rmchauxit)
11
10
9
•
5
•
g
081
7
•
8
x•
Quercus
_
•
X
1
4
Persimmon (Diospytos wi rmana)
3
2
'� -►0
PVC
Marker
Photo
Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
American Beaut ber (CaArcar a amerrcana)
:^ `';'"
i ` °'
Dead
2
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus rmchauxit)
092
4
3
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus nuchauxir)
081
4
4
Quercus
_
Dead
5
Persimmon (Diospytos wi rmana)
098
4
6
River Birch (Benda m ia)
1 27
4
7
American Beaut be (Callrcar a amerrcana)
062
3
8
Persimmon (Diospyros virguuana)
1 73
4
Insect damage
9
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
Dead
10
Persimmon (Dios wos vrr rnrana)
087
3
11
Persimmon (Diospyros wi rmana)
075
3
Insect damage
12
Persimmon (Dios vros wi rnrana)
072
3
13
River Birch (Benda nr ra)
066
2
14
Persimmon (Dios vros wi rnrana)
027
2
Insect damage
15
Persimmon (Dios ros wi uaana)
022
2
Res rout, Insect damage
16
American Beaut ber (Calhcar a amen icana)
060
3
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =goad, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
River Birch (Betula ni ra)
15.4%
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michauxii)
15.4%
Persimmon (Dios ros vir iniana)
53.8%
American Beautybe (Callicarpa americans)
15.4%
Density:
Total Number of77ees 13
Survivability:
t otal Number of'Frees 13
0.025 acres = 520 trees/ acre
16 X 100 = 81 %survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S15 Date: 7/26/2010
Plot Man
28 27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18 17
•
13
•
14
147
y
15
•
16
•
12
River Birch (Berula mgra )
•
11
•
10
•
9
5
6
220
7
8
•
4
River Birch (Betida mgra)
3
2
1
�4 00
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
River Birch (Berula m ra)
147
4
2
River Birch (Berula mgra )
165
4
3
River Birch (Berula mgia)
220
4
4
River Birch (Betida mgra)
147
4
5
Sugarberry (Ccltis laevigala)
026
3
Browsed
6
Sugarberry (Cehis laevigata)
061
3
7
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxu)
032
3
8
Sugarberry (Cellis laeviguru)
031
2
9
American Beautyberry (Ccilhecirpa amet icana )
040
3
10
Sycamore (Platamis occidentalis )
088
4
11
Sycamore (Platamis orcideniahs )
060
4
Main stem died back
12
Sycamore (Plaranus occidenfahs )
067
3
Insect damage
13
American Beautyberry (Calhcarpa americana )
035
3
14
American Beautyberry (Calhcarpa americana )
025
2
15
American Beautyberry (Callicarpa americana )
Dead
16
American Beautyberry (Cullrcarpa americana )
021
2
17
Silky Dogwood (Corpus amomum)
,i1 }. rs
Live stake, dead
18
Silky Dogwood (Coinus amomum)
041
3
Live stake
19
Silky Dogwood (Coinus amomum)
042
3
Live stake
20
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
035
3
Live stake
21
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
1 75
3
Live stake
22
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
087
3
Live stake
23
ISilky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
098
3
Live stake
24
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
051
3
Live stake, Insect damage
25
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensts )
Y °-
Live stake, dead
26
Silky Dogwood (Coinus amomum)
044
3
Live stake, Deer browse
27
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
064
4
Live stake, Deer browse
28
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis
Live stake, dead
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2= weal., 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
37.5%
River Birch (Benda ni ra)
16.7%
Sycamore (Platanus occidenralis)
12.5%
Su arbe (Celis laevi aia)
12.5%
ISwarnp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michaucii)
4.2%
American Beautybe (Callicarpa americana)
16.7%
Density:
IbtalVumberof7l-ces 24
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 24
0.025 acres
960 trees/ acre
28 x 100 = 86 % survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Slate: Harrell Plot: S16
Plot Map
Date: 7/26/2010
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
x
•
•
Comment
I
4
3
2
1
2
Persimmon (Dios pos vu imam)
038
2
3
5
6
7
8
4
Willow Oak (Queicus hellos)
Dead
5
American Beaut be (Callicar a amei icana)
1
Stem dead, check for res rout
6
12
11
10
9
7
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michaian )
X
•
Stem dead, check for res rout
8
13
14
15
9
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
1 93
4
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
I
American Beaut ber (Callicar a amei icana)
055
3
2
Persimmon (Dios pos vu imam)
038
2
3
American Beaut be (Callicar a aniericana)
070
4
4
Willow Oak (Queicus hellos)
Dead
5
American Beaut be (Callicar a amei icana)
1
Stem dead, check for res rout
6
American Beaut ber (Callicar a amei icana)
I
Stem dead, check for res rout
7
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michaian )
I
Stem dead, check for res rout
8
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus nachauxn )
050
4
9
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
1 93
4
10
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michaian)
019
2
Res rout
I I
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michaian)
031
3
12
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michaian)
020
2
13
River Birch (Betala ni ra)
Dead
14
Unknown
Dead
15
River Birch (Betida ni ra)
1 70
4
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of "Total
American Beaut be (Callicar a americana)
33.3%
Sycamore (Platanas occidentalis)
8.3%
River Birch (Belula ni ra)
8.3%
Persimmon (Dios vros vi iniana)
8.3%
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercns michanxii)
41.7%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 12
Survivability:
Total Number of Trecs 12
0.025 acres
480 trees/ acre
15 x 100 = 80 % survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S17
Plot Man
Date: 7/26/2010
22 21
20 19
18
17 16
15 14
• 27
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus micharr n
`-k �
Dead
• 26
Su arber (Cetuslaevr ata)
Dead
x
Unknown
,
24
2
Dead
•
x 41
g 12
x
8
••
13 25
6 7
10
Su arber Cetus laevr ata
g ( )
s
,� T � r
= ; " ;=
—
Dead
6
x
`�� °f '�
x
28
3
Persimmon (Dios ros virginiana)
1 47
4
Fungus, insect damage
8
Persimmon (Dios ros wi inrana)
_, �'_{
1
Dead
PVC Photo
Marker Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
1
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus micharr n
`-k �
Dead
2
Su arber (Cetuslaevr ata)
Dead
3
Unknown
Dead
4
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
" ^ x
Dead
5
Su arber Cetus laevr ata
g ( )
s
,� T � r
= ; " ;=
—
Dead
6
Persimmon (Dios nos vir inrana)
`�� °f '�
',t
Dead
7
Persimmon (Dios ros virginiana)
1 47
4
Fungus, insect damage
8
Persimmon (Dios ros wi inrana)
_, �'_{
r z' „
Dead
9
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxn
Dead
10
1 Swamp Chestnut Odk (Quercus mrcharan)
1 34
4
11
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
' ", , ,
,
Dead
12
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus nacharan )
025
2
13
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus nuchauxu )
061
3
14
Silky Dogwood (Corms an:omunr)
3
Live stake, dead
15
Elderbe (Sambucus canadensrs)
,r,' ? =_' _
Live stake, dead
16
Black Willow (Sahxnrgra)
>?
Live stake, dead
17
Elder be (Sambucus canadensrs
Live stake, dead
18
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensrs)'
' + °mss'
i` '.�
N'-
Live stake, dead
19
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensrs)
;ii�'�`,'ri �P
i % : =" .'
Live stake, dead
20
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensrs)
�'�a 5 "
^r '
Live stake, dead
21
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensrs)
Live stake, dead
22
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum)
-: w �'', ir'i
i '' �,t
Live stake, dead
23
Green Ash (Fraxrnus enns Ivanica)
041
3
Recently planted, added, insect damage
24
Green Ash (Ft axutus pennsylyanica )
033
3
Recently planted, added
25
Bald Cypress (Taxodruni distichum)
060
3
Recently planted, added
26
Green Ash (Fraxinus ennsylvanica)
038
3
Recently planted, added
27
Su arbe (Celtis laevr ata)
019
2
Recently planted, added
28
Bald Cypress (Taxodium disttchmn)
065
2
1 Recently planted, added
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, 1= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of Total
Persimmon (Diospyros vir iniana
10.0%
Swamp Chestnut Oak ( uercus michauxii)
30.0%
Su arbe (Celtis laevi ata)
10.0%
Green Ash (Frarinus pennsylvanica )
30.0%
Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum )
20.0%
Density:
Total Number of Trees 10 / 0.025 acres = 400 trees/ acre
Survivability:
Total Number of Trees 10 / 28 x 100 = 45 % survivability
.a ti
2nd Year 3rd Year
Monitoring Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring Worksheet
Site: Harrell Plot: S18 Date:
Plot Mao
7/26/2010
PVC
Marker
Photo
Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
X
Comment
River Birch (Bendam ra)
� `ar' "`.'
�a_;
1
V
•
18
5
ve
Dead
3
Unknown
�' -" ' %k
X
Dead
4
uercuss
{�k� �_,y; 1
�� .!�'r�a'�'
3
5
American Beaut ber (Callicai a americans)
•
t q`' , "Oil
Dead
7
8
9
10
Dead
22
21 20
19
Dead
8
American Beau be (Calhcaraamericana)
;;t =s`' = ��" '
"�' ".` �
Dead
9
Green Ash (Fraxiniis penmylvanica )
053
x•
11
1723 16
15 14
13
12
Dead
•
River Birch (Betula ni ra)
081
2
12
River Birch (Betula ni ra)
tj " "'* ,
Dead
13
River Birch (Betula m ra)
ZU
2
Res rout
28
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
049
27
•
River Birch (Betula m ra)
092
3
PVC
Marker
Photo
Point
ID
Species
Height (m)
Vigor
Comment
River Birch (Bendam ra)
� `ar' "`.'
�a_;
Dead
2
River Birch (Betula m la)
Dead
3
Unknown
�' -" ' %k
' 3.` j° ^°
Dead
4
uercuss
{�k� �_,y; 1
�� .!�'r�a'�'
Dead
5
American Beaut ber (Callicai a americans)
� fi z '� i
t q`' , "Oil
Dead
6
Willow Oak (Quercus hellos)
^Z
1• :'- k'x ' ''
Dead
7
American Beaut ber (Calhcar a amerrcana)
Dead
8
American Beau be (Calhcaraamericana)
;;t =s`' = ��" '
"�' ".` �
Dead
9
Green Ash (Fraxiniis penmylvanica )
053
4
Main stem died back
10
American Beaut be (Calhcar a amerrcana)
=
Dead
11
River Birch (Betula ni ra)
081
2
12
River Birch (Betula ni ra)
tj " "'* ,
Dead
13
River Birch (Betula m ra)
080
2
Res rout
14
Willow Oak ( uercus hellos)
049
4
15
River Birch (Betula m ra)
092
3
16
River Birch (Betula nr ra)
089
2
17
Willow Oak (Quercus hellos)
040
3
Deer browse
18
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
0 11
2
Recently planted, added
19
Green Ash (Ftaxinus enns Ivamca)
029
3
Recently planted, added
20
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
053
3
Recently planted, added
21
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
034
3
Recently planted, added
22
Green Ash (Fraxinits ennsvlvanica )
036
3
Recently planted, added
23 lGreen
Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
019
2
Recently planted, added
24
Sugarberry ( Cehis laevigata)
059
3
Recently planted, added
25
Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata )
056
3
Recently planted, added
26
Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
058
3
Recently planted, added
27
Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata)
060
3
Recently planted, added
28
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
035
4
Recently planted, added
Vigor 4= excellent, 3 =good, 2 =weak, l= unlikely to survive year

Species
Percent of "Total
River Birch (Betula ni ra )
22.2%
Willow Oak ( uereus hellos)
11.1%
Green Ash (Fraxinus ennsvlvanica)
44.4%
Su arbe (Celtis laevi ata)
22.2%
Density:
Total Number of "frees 18
Survivability:
Total Number of "Frees 18
0.025 acres = 720 trees/ acre
28 x 100 = 64 % survivability
2nd Year
Monitoring
3rd Year
Monitoring

Appendix B
Stream and Wetland Photos
Hai rell Stream and Wetland 90 KCl Associates of Not th Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Appendix B1 — Stream and Wetland Photo Stations
Photo Point S1: View looking upstream near Station 12 +75. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S1: View looking downstream near Station 12 +75. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 91 KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - AfY03

Photo Point S2: View looking upstream from farm road near Station 21 +30. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S2: View looking downstream from farm road near Station 21 +30. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 92 KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 20/0 - MY03

Photo Point S3: View looking upstream near Station 27 +60. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S3: View looking downstream near Station 27 +60. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Welland 93 KC1 Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S4: View of water quality treatment structure near Station 32 +25. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S5: View looking at log drop structures, near Station 33 +35. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 94 KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S5: View looking downstream near Station 33 +35. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S6: View of incoming drainage ditch near Station 37 +25. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 95 KCl Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S7: View looking upstream near Station 39 +00. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S7: View looking downstream near Station 39 +00. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 96 KC/ Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S8: View of log drop structure near Station 39 +50. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S9: View of water quality treatment structure near Station 41 +75. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Welland 97 KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S10: View looking upstream near Station 46 +15. 12/6/10— MY -03
Photo Point S10: View looking downstream near Station 46 +15. 12/6/10—MY-03
Harrell Stream and Welland 98 KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S11: View of water quality treatment structure near Station 47 +00. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S12: View looking upstream near Station 52 +00. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 99 KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S12: View looking downstream near Station 52 +00. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S13: View looking upstream near Station 61 +50. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 100 KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S13: View of water quality treatment structure near Station 61 +50. 12/6/10—MY-03
Photo Point S13: View looking downstream near Station 61 +50. 12/6/10—MY-03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 101 KCl Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S14: View of stream with water quality treatment structure in the background near Station
62 +60. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S15: View looking upstream near Station 69 +00. 12/6/10—MY-03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 102 KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - HY03

Photo Point S15: View looking downstream near Station 69 +00. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point S16: View looking upstream near Station 76 +75. (Photo taken farther away from stream
due to water depth) 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 103 KCI Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point S16: View looking downstream toward project end before the stream joins Swift Creek
near Station 76 +75. (Photo taken farther away from stream due to water depth) 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point WI: View looking north from southwest corner of wetland. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 104 tiC! Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point W 1: View looking east from southwest corner of wetland. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point W2: View looking east from northwest corner of wetland. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 105 KC1 Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point W2: View looking southeast from northwest corner of wetland. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point W3: View looking east from middle corner of wetland. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Wetland 106 KC1 Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point W3: View looking west from middle corner of wetland. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point W3: View looking southwest from middle corner of wetland. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Weiland 107 KCl Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Photo Point W4: View looking north toward Wetland Gauge 1. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Photo Point W5: View looking west toward the downstream end of site. 12/6/10 — MY -03
Harrell Stream and Weiland 108 KCl Associates of North Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - AM

Appendix B2: Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
There were no problem area photos taken in 2010, the third year of monitoring.
Harr ell Stream and Wetland 109 KCl Associates of North Cat ohna
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Appendix C
Geomorphologic and Hydrologic Data
H a n ell Stream and Wetland ] ] Q KC1 Associates of Noi th Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

Appendix C1— Cross - Section Plots
Harrell Stream and Welland HI ] KCI Associates of Na th Carolina
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

C1 - Stream Cross - Sections
River Basin:
Tar - Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell. MY -03
XS ID
XS - I
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.20
Date:
6/28/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
87.91
0.7
87.82
5.9
87.98
11.5
87.76
15.3
87.24
19.2
86.59
23.2
85.73
24.9
85.41
27.2
84.87
28.0
84.62
29.0
83.96
30.1
83.27
31.0
82.81
32.2
82.78
33.2
82.77
34.0
82.88
35.1
83.46
37.0
84.46
38.3
85.08
39.5
85.28
41.9
86.07
45.4
86.90
52.6
87.36
58.8
87.52
59.6
87.60
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
84.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
14.0
Bankfull Width:
10.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
87.0
Flood Prone Width:
31
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
8.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
90
Stream Type I Bye
Tar- Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MY -03, XS - 1
88 - - -- -
I
o+
------------------ ------------------------------- -------------
86 - - -
o - -- - -- Bankfull
d
W ____---- _-- _______- ________ - -__
84 ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - Flood Prone Area
As -Built
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
8?
0 lU 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Tar - Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY-03
XS ID
XS - 2
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.20
Date:
6/28/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
86.34
0.7
86.17
7.2
86.14
11.2
85.98
13.9
85.51
19.0
84.75
22.8
83.92
24.8
83.39
'6.9
82.42
27.9
81.83
28.8
81.39
29.6
81.28
30.3
81.33
31.7
81.49
34.8
81.23
37.0
81.09
38.4
81.50
40.6
82.56
44.3
83.83
46.6
84.62
49.6
85.66
55.2
86.18
58.6
85.75
63.7
85.84
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfall Elevation:
82.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
12.6
BankfuB Width:
13.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
83.8
Flood Prone Width:
20
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
/ D Ratio:
14.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
88
86
v
`J
r
84
W
82
Stream Type I l7c
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MY -03, XS - 2
- - - -- - - - - Bankful l
r------------------- - - - - -- �------ - - - - --
80
0
- Flood Prone Area
As -Built
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Tar- Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY -03
XS ID
XS - 3
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.23
Date:
6/28/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
81.87
0.6
81.76
2.8
81.82
6.1
81.17
9.1
80.75
14.9
80.56
20.8
80.63
23.1
80.32
24.3
79.68
25.5
79.11
26.7
78.80
27.2
78.59
27.6
78.63
28.4
78.82
29.1
78.93
29.9
79.04
31.3
79.43
32.6
80.01
33.9
80.42
35.1
80.58
38.9
80.44
45.4
80.39
51.4
80.52
54.1
80.82
54.7
80.95
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
80.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
12.6
Bankfull Width:
12.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
82.4
Flood Prone Width:
>55
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
/ D Ratio:
13.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
>4.3
Bank Hei ht Ratio:
1.0
86
84
a
5
82
`o
80
78
0
Stream Type CS
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MY -03, XS - 3
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- --
- - -- -- - - -- Bankfull
- - -- Flood Prone Area
----------- - - - - -- -- ----- - - - - -- As -Built
- -- - -. MY -01
MY -02
�- MY -03
10
20 30 40
Station (feet)
50

River Basin:
Tar- Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY-03
XS ID
XS -4
Drainage Area mi :
0.23
Date:
6/28/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
6.5
79.35
18.2
79.45
28.8
79.50
30.3
79.00
30.8
78.56
31.6
78.26
32.4
78.01
33.2
77.91
34.0
77.93
34.8
78.10
35.6
78.28
36.4
78.73
37.2
79.02
38.2
79.38
39.4
79.83
41.3
79.74
44.5
79.49
48.8
79.54
52.7
79.59
59.5
79.56
64.1
79.68
65.9
79.69
66.5
79.93
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
79.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
8.8
Bankfull Width:
9.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
81.0
Flood Prone Width:
>67
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
9.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
>6.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
84
82
d
5
° 80
78
76
Stream Type 7
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MY -03, XS - 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - -- Bankfull
-- -Flood Prone Area
- As -Built
- -- MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Tar - Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY -03
XS ID
XS -5
Drainage Area (sq mi ):
0.23
Date:
6/29/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L- Lord
Station
Elevation
7.0
77.15
10.9
75.91
14.8
75.11
18.8
74.33
24.0
74.35
26.1
74.79
29.5
74.68
31.7
74.81
32.7
74.27
33.8
73.73
34.7
73.48
35.0
73.24
35.4
72.99
35.6
72.85
36.3
72.74
37.3
72.80
38.1
73.05
38.7
73.68
39.9
74.33
40.9
74.77
43.6
74.78
46.9
74.28
51.9
73.95
56.7
73.91
60.8
74.36
64.4
75.52
68.8
77.03
71.0
77.83
72.3
78.06
75.0
77.52
76.5
77.68
79.2
77.91
84.0
78.04
84.5
78.13
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfall Elevation:
74.8
BankfaB Crows-Sectional Area:
10.7
Bankfnll Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
76.9
Food Prone Width:
60
Max Depth at Bankfill-
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfi6:
1.2
/ D Ratio:
7.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
80
y
78
5
0
• 76
I, ?
74
72
Stream -Type CS
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MY-03, XS - 5
-\ ----------------------------- ---------- - - - - -- - - - --
- - - - Bankfull
J -Flood Prone Area
- - - - - - - / As -Built
1 MY -01
MY -02
i
MY -03
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Tar- Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY -03
XS ID
XS -6
Drainage Area (sq mi :
0.42
Date:
6/29/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
73.24
0.9
73.11
7.0
73.27
14.2
73.40
21.9
73.50
26.9
73.39
28.6
73.21
30.1
73.29
31.8
72.50
33.0
71.93
34.0
71.72
34.8
70.96
35.7
70.57
36.7
70.51
37.8
70.48
38.9
70.83
40.2
71.62
41.4
72.61
42.5
73.08
45.1
73.50
47.1
73.26
50.1
73.39
54.5
75.23
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
73.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
19.5
Bankfull Width:
12.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
75.9
Flood Prone Width:
>56
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
8.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
>4.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
78
76
d
5
z
° 74
I o
72
70 L
0
Stream Type C5
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MY-03, XS - 6
10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
- - -- Bankfull
-- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
50

River Basin:
Tar- Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY-03
XS 11)
XS - 7
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.42
Date:
6/29/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
72.13
0.7
72.00
8.9
72.14
16.3
72.01
22.8
72.15
25.6
71.98
26.8
71.97
29.4
70.84
30.3
70.39
31.6
70.07
32.1
69.87
32.3
69.50
32.9
69.28
33.7
69.16
34.4
69.18
34.5
69.38
35.3
69.75
35.6
70.29
37.1
70.97
38.6
71.74
39.9
72.28
41.1
72.38
44.1
72.22
49.0
72.18
54.2
72.09
60.4
71.96
60.9
72.13
SUMMARF DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
72.0
Bankfull Cross- Sectional Area:
18.2
BankfuB Width:
12.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
74.8
Flood Prone Width:
>61
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
/ D Ratio:
8.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
>4.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
76
y
74
of
0
72
W
70
Stream Type C5
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MV -03, XS - 7
F7 ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
68 L
0
- - �__- -- - - -
- -- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built
- - -- - - MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Tar- Pamlico
R'atershed:
Harrell, MY -03
tS ID
XS - 8
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.42
Date:
6/30/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
71.65
1.0
71.41
3.7
70.65
6.1
69.96
7.6
69.53
9.9
69.29
11.6
69.55
12.2
69.97
13.3
69.84
14.0
69.45
15.0
68.70
15.8
68.25
16.4
67.83
17.3
67.62
18.0
67.65
18.9
67.54
19.9
67.64
20.8
67.82
22.0
67.85
23.1
68.13
24.2
68.38
25.0
68.90
25.7
69.19
27.3
69.27
33.9
69.28
37.2
69.48
41.2
69.45
42.8
69.08
46.5
69.24
47.6
69.52
48.6
69.35
50.6
69.14
52.1
69.14
52.3
69.20
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
69.1
BankfuD Cross- Sectional Area:
11.2
Bankfull Width:
10.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
70.6
Flood Prone Width:
>50
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
/ D Ratio:
10.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
>4.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
74
72
d
0 70
ZZ
68
66 L
0
Stream Type I C>
Tar- Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, NIN43, XS - 8
-- -------------------
Bankfull
10
oo rone rea
- - - - As -Built
MY -02
MY -03
20 30
Station (feet)
40
50

River Basin:
Tar- Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY-03
XS ID
XS -9
Drainage Area mi :
0.42
Date:
6/30/2010
Field Crew:
1A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
68.42
0.9
68.31
3.5
68.29
5.2
68.01
8.3
68.09
10.9
68.59
12.5
68.98
14.4
68.55
15.9
68.61
17.0
69.03
17.9
68.82
20.3
68.92
22.4
68.77
25.6
68.74
27.2
68.73
28.5
68.18
29.5
67.60
30.6
67.05
31.1
66.85
31.8
66.75
32.7
66.76
33.7
66.75
34.6
66.83
35.3
67.01
36.2
67.35
37.8
67.96
39.0
68.66
42.1
68.52
46.3
68.49
50.7
68.38
54.4
68.36
57.8
68.34
58.2
68.47
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfo0 Elevation:
68.7
Baalduil Cross-Sectional Area:
14.4
Bankfull Width:
11.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
70.6
Flood Prone Width:
>58
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
/ D Ratio:
9.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
72
a 70
i
e
o
w 68
Stream Type CS
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MY -03, XS - 9
66 '
0
- Bankful I
j- -- -Flood Prone Area
- As -Built
MY -0 I
MY -02
MY -03
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Tar- Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY -03
XS ID; .
XS - 10
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.61
Date:
6/30/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
68.24
0.3
68.11
2.9
67.72
6.4
67.26
8.6
66.92
11.9
66.96
15.9
67.44
19.3
67.65
21.1
67.35
24.1
67.41
27.1
67.29
28.7
66.85
29.9
66.31
31.3
65.61
32.1
65.22
32.9
65.08
33.7
65.09
34.5
65.17
35.7
65.33
37.5
65.46
39.2
65.78
41.0
66.61
42.5
66.89
45.3
66.89
46.8
66.85
49.8
66.88
52.7
66.71
57.1
67.20
61.4
67.01
63.4
67.23
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
66.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
14.0
Bankfull Width:
13.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
68.5
Flood Prone Width:
>67
Max Depth of Bankfull:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
/ D Ratio:
12.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
>4.8
-Bank .Height Ratio:
1.0
72
70
v
5
° 68
i
66
64
Stream Type C5
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MV -03, XS - 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bankf ill
- ----- ---- ------ ----- --- --- --- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -Flood Prone Area
- - -- - As -Built
MY -0 I
MY -02
MY -03
�� 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
Tar- Pamlico
66.21
0.9
Watershed:
3.8
Harrell, MY-03
6.0
65.66
XS ID
nch, L. Lord
XS - 1 I
65.98
19.3
Drainage Area (s mi):
0.61
65.96
23.6
Date:
24.8
6/30/2010
25.9
64.35
Field Crew:
63.97
A. Fre
63.81
28.2
63.76
29.0
63.82
30.0
63.95
31.0
63.98
32.2
64.25
t
64.94
34.2
65.58
35.0
#.
36.9
65.92
40.7
66.11
43.9
66.17
47.2
66.06
52.4
3'
Stream Type C$
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MY -03, XS - 11
70
68 ---------------
_--------- -------- - - - - -- --- -------- ----------
- - - - -_
a
v
5
_ -
0
--
- - -
--
66 �..� -� - - - -
a
--
-- ������� �������- -��� ���
---.Bankfull
- -- -Flood Prone Area
- - As -Built
64
-- - __ -
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
62
-
0 10
20 30 40
50
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
66.21
0.9
66.22
3.8
65.85
6.0
65.66
9.4
nch, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
66.21
0.9
66.22
3.8
65.85
6.0
65.66
9.4
66.07
15.0
65.98
19.3
65.89
22.4
65.96
23.6
65.31
24.8
64.72
25.9
64.35
26.6
63.97
27.4
63.81
28.2
63.76
29.0
63.82
30.0
63.95
31.0
63.98
32.2
64.25
33.2
64.94
34.2
65.58
35.0
65.89
36.9
65.92
40.7
66.11
43.9
66.17
47.2
66.06
52.4
66.18
SUMMARY DATA
Baold'au Elevation:
65.9
Bankfull Cross- Sectional Area:
17.1
Bankfull width:
12.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
68.0
Flood Prone Width:
>57
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W' ! D Ratio:
9.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
>4.1
Bank Height Ratio:
I.0

River Basin:
Tar- Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY -03
XS ID
XS - 12
Draina a Area (sq mi):
0.61
Date:
6/30/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
65.49
0.9
65.19
4.8
64.95
11.4
65.03
16.8
65.11
20.3
64.95
21.3
64.47
22.0
63.96
23.0
63.38
24.0
62.83
24.9
62.77
26.4
62.94
27.5
63.18
28.1
62.87
28.4
62.65
29.0
62.91
30.2
62.98
32.2
63.08
32.8
63.45
34.4
63.94
35.8
64.54
37.6
65.10
41.2
65.02
45.5
64.69
51.4
64.56
56.8
64.69
60.1
64.72
60.5
64.85
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfnll Elevation:
65.0
Bankfsll Cross- Sectional Area:
24.7
Bankfnll Width:
16.9
Flood Prose Area Elevation:
67.2
Flood Prone Width:
>61
Max Depth at BankfnB•
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfsll:
1.5
/ D Ratio:
11.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
>3.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
70
68
v
5
e
°- 66
`e
W
64
62
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
Stream Tvpe I C5
Tar- Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, NIN43, XS - 12
- Bankfull
____ _____ _______ -__ ___ - -- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built
- MY -0 I
i MY -02
- - MY -03
50 60

River Basin:
Elevation
Tar- Pamlico
63.66
0.7
Watershed:
8.0
Harrell, MY-03
6/30/2010
XS ID
A. French, L. Lord
XS - 13
63.25
27.9
Drainage Area Oil mi►:
0.61
61.93
29.9
Date:
31.2
61.72
32.9
61.72
34.0
61.82
35.1
62.09
36.2
62.72
37.4
63.52
38.6
64.03
44.0
63.89
50.6
63.93
59.5
64.23
59.9
64.30
Stream T CS
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MV-03, XS - 13
68
66 -------------------
- -- - - -- = -- ------ -- - - -= = - - -
I 5
r
64
-
o - -�-
���������_����
----Bankfull
�
- -- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built
,
MY -01
M Y -02
MY -03
60
0 10
20 30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
63.66
0.7
63.62
8.0
63.80
6/30/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
63.66
0.7
63.62
8.0
63.80
17.;
63.84
24.6
63.84
26.1
63.25
27.9
62.56
29.0
61.93
29.9
61.72
31.2
61.72
32.9
61.72
34.0
61.82
35.1
62.09
36.2
62.72
37.4
63.52
38.6
64.03
44.0
63.89
50.6
63.93
59.5
64.23
59.9
64.30
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
63.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
18.5
Bankfull Width:
13.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
65.9
Flood Prone Width:
>60
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
VV / D Ratio:
9.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
>4.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Tar - Pamlico
Watershed:
Harrell, MY -03
XS ID
XS - 14
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.61
Date:
6/30/2010
Field Crew:
A. French. 1.. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
62.70
0.7
62.68
7.4
62.86
13.6
62.73
20.1
62.85
2'.8
62.87
24.7
61.99
26.3
61.12
27.2
60.73
28.5
60.68
29.8
60.66
31.3
60.69
32.8
60.96
34.4
61.56
35.5
62.42
37 -0
62.85
43.1
62.78
47.8
62.63
56.7
62.45
SUNINIARV DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
62.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
20.3
Bankfull Width:
14.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
65.0
Flood Prone Width:
>62
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
NV / D Ratio:
9.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
>3.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
68
Stream Type I CS
Tar - Pamlico River Basin, Harrell, MV -03, XS - 14
66 - - -
d
z
•O- 64 - --
`e ---- Bankf ill
- - - - Flood Prone Area
62 - - - _ - -- -- As -Built
MY-0 I
MY -02
MY -03
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

Appendix C2 — Longitudinal Profile
Hat rell Sit eam and Wetland 126 KC1 Associates of North Catohna
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

88
87
86
85
.. 84
w
e
0
83
W
82
81
80
79
78
■
■
®T &I'
C2 - Stream Longitudinal Profiles
Longitudinal Profile
Harrell Stream Restoration MY-03
Reach I - Station 16 +00 - 22 +35
■
S,,,=-0.0069x+97.49
■
■
1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Station (ft)
MY -00 - MY -01 MY -02 —*— MY -03 ■ Bankfull BKF Slope
*Due to no flowing water in the channel, water surface and water surface slope were not recorded.

M
O p
Cc'
� N
O O
� O
� � N
�a o
r
r
it it �
O w N
,5 U
x
M N O O, 00
0o ao 0o ao r-
(1j) uoi;Un313
O
O
O
M
0
0
a
N
O
0
00
N
N
0
0
N
O
O
M
N
r
r
w
C
0
d
a
0
w
C
cC
CO
■
M
4
N
i
'r
O
� ;
1� �
0"
O
O

M
4 O
�D
� � M
� � O
b ..
w
r+ w
O � 1
a � M
C�
x
(13) UOIjPAaI:,]
ono
e
0
-°r
Y
rl
Y
O
Y
�C
M
C
O
a
0
3
i
rn
Y
m
v
t
0
rn
L
w
'i
C
:C
■
w
L
0
w
v
7
L
e
C
EA
M
C
r
ItG
I
N
C
r
L
i
r
G
C
O
L
� I ,
00 �,
1'
k
N
O
■
OC
r!
I
Y.
r
0
3'
o
�
�
_
II
Al
:L
q
V
10
I
I�
I�
;1
,I
, I
, I
, I
, 1
, I
,
I
1
I '
I '
I '
11
A
11
`
r
n
1
'I
-
' I
i 1
f
■
,I
'
1
1 '
I ,
_
r
,
■
I
1
,
,
,
1�
i
;I
, I
�
,
■
I
(13) UOIjPAaI:,]
ono
e
0
-°r
Y
rl
Y
O
Y
�C
M
C
O
a
0
3
i
rn
Y
m
v
t
0
rn
L
w
'i
C
:C
■
w
L
0
w
v
7
L
e
C
EA
M
C
r
ItG
I
N
C
r
L
i
r
G
C
O
L

M
O p
1� rl
1� r
O �
C v C
C � R
app y C/1
a � �
� V
F16 yR
W W
Iz a G
(13) UOIIBAal3
If,
rl
f�
If.
r
O
tn
00
O
If.
If.
If,
4�r
C
O
i.+
G
c
v:
r.
r
a
fsl
CC
d
w
0
w
R
3
I
I
I
w
C
W
■
M
Q
N
C
t_
r
G
O
tn
V'i
00
00
f I
+
I
7
'
/
�
r
N
+
�
I
o
Y
o
N I
uo°
:C
1
3 '
II
I
,
r
I
i 1
\
I1
1
II
,
I,
,
,
■
I'
I'
,
I;
II %
I
I�
1
41
1
,
I 11
1
-
a
-
,
1
1
1'
1
-
1
1�
i
r
� I f
, J
I�
I'
I �
1�
i
,
I'
i
Ii I
I'
i
I,
I�
I'
■ 1
I
II �
,
,I
,I
-
�I
,I
J
1/
,
1
1
1
I
I
1I
51
51
1 11
11 fi1
1
1 1
1
'I
I
1
Iz a G
(13) UOIIBAal3
If,
rl
f�
If.
r
O
tn
00
O
If.
If.
If,
4�r
C
O
i.+
G
c
v:
r.
r
a
fsl
CC
d
w
0
w
R
3
I
I
I
w
C
W
■
M
Q
N
C
t_
r
G
O

Appendix C3 — Pebble Count Data
Hari ell St eam and Wetland 131 KCI Associates of Noi th Cai olma
Restoration Site December 2010 - MY03

C3 - Stream Pebble Counts
Cross
-Section
1 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
xs
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
IS
17
°%
54
loo °
;
r
16
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2-4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8-11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
E
80%
MY00
5
60%
;
40%
MY01
• my 02
7
3
2
U.
%
MY03
1
20%
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
ID95
Size (mm)
0.05
0.64
0.79
0.97
6.4
12 1
Size Distribution
mean 1.8
dispersion 4.8
skewness 0.34
Type
silt /clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
0%
83%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
IF 105
Note:

Cross
- Section
2 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
XS 2
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
100%
80 °i°
-
,l
1
100
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8-11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
E
v
c
~
a
60%
ao °i°
20 %
0%
0.01 0.1
t 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
- MYOO 1
MY01
�MY03
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D 65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.9
Size Distribution
mean 1.4
dispersion 1.3
skewness 0.00
Type
silt /clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
00/0
0%
00%
0%
Bedrock
>2048
Total
100
Note:

Cross
-Section
3 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
XS 3
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
15
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
60
100%
°%
Zi
25
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8-11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
;�
E
ao °
/
-
60%
;
40%
MY00
MY01
• MY02
c
LL
MY03
20%
0%
"
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048A
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
ID95
Size (mm)
0.51
0.63
0.75
0.9
1.3
1.7 1
Size Distribution
mean 0.8
dispersion 1.6
skewness 0.06
Type
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
15%
85%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bedrock
>2048 1
-B—DR—K--j
Total
100
Note:

Cross - Section 4 - M)
Particle
Millimeter
0.062
SilVCla
< 0.062
S/(
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
Medium
.25-.50
N
Coarse
.50-1
D
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
Very Fine
2 - 4
Fine
4-5.7
G
Fine
5.7-8
R
Medium
8-11.3
A
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
Small
90-128
O
Large
128-180
B
Lar a
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small
362-512
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Rpdmrk I
>gn4A
Rni;
15
10
100
100%
80%
E
60%
C
f0
L
40%
LL
20%
0%
0.01 0.1
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
xS 4
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 2.0
skewness 0.35
MY00
• MY01
MY02
• MY03
1000 10000
silt/clay
Size (mm)
D 16
0.062
D35
0.062
D50
0.062
D65
0.062
D84
0.19
D95
0.35
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
xS 4
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 2.0
skewness 0.35
MY00
• MY01
MY02
• MY03
1000 10000
silt/clay
75%
sand
25%
gravel
0%
cobble
0%
boulder
0%
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross
- Section
5 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
xS 5
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 1- 2
S
A
N
D
1 S
4
100%
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8-11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
2
E
80%
60%
40%
-
t MY00
MY01
MY02
LL
t MY03
20%
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
ID95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062 1
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness -
Type
silt /clay 100%
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
W/0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross
- Section
6 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
XS 6
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
1
oo�% o
80%
r
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8-11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
E
60%
- MY00
`
C
i`
o
40%
20%
0%
MYO,
MY02
MY03
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
ID95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062 1
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 110
skewness -
Type
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:
�1
1
r

Cross
- Section
7 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
XS 7
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
1 S
E
3
100%
80°x°
so °i°
f
.
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
` °
40 /o
Mvoo
Mvo,
MY02
r
t MY03
20%
0%
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
ID95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062 1
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness -
Type
sift/clay 100%
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
00ro
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross
- Section
8 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
XS 8
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
*4
E
100%
so °% °
60 °r°
-
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8-11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
1 45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
-
-
-
ao °i°
-
- 7MYO2
r
U.
_ %
_
- -MY03
20%
0%
-
-
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0.01 0.1
t 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness -
Type
silt/clav 100%
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross
-Section
9 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
xS 9
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
100%
80%
rA
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2-4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
E
60%
a0 °%
- MY00
MY01
• MY02
°
r
iz
t MY03
20%
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
ID95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062 1
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness -
Type
silt/clay 100%
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
00r6
Bedrock
>2048
BID
Total
100
Note:

Cross
- Section
10 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
xs 10
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
E
;
o
100%
80°i°
60%
40%
20%
0%
-
-
WOO,
MY01
MY02
MY03
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
— — -
,
-
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
1316
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness -
Type
silt/clav
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0 °a
0 0'0
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross
- Section
11 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
xS 11
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
30
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
45
°%
_
25
oo °
°%
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2-4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
T
E
80 °
so %
a0 °%
—
.
MY00
,— MY01
MY02
°
c
"
t MY03
20 %
°i°
-
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
o
0.01 0.1
t 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
ID95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.27
0.34
0.43
0.64
0.87 1
Size Distribution
mean 0.2
dispersion 3.7
skewness -0.23
Type
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
30%
70%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0' /0
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross
- Section
12 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
XS 12
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Cla
< 0.062
S/C
100
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
=
E
v
100%
80%
60 %
- Mvoo
`
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8-11.3
11.3-16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
- - - -
-
-
LL
o
40%
20%
0%
-
•MVO,
- -- --
MY02
�MYO3
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D 16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.062
Size Distribution
mean 0.1
dispersion 1.0
skewness -
Type
silt/clav
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRLJ
Total Ir
100
Note:

Cross
- Section
13 - MY03
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
XS 13
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
_
100
100%
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8-11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
E
80 °r°
60%
40%
•
MY00
MY01
. MY02
c
"
t MY03
20%
.
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
ID95
Size (mm)
0.560
0.64
0.71
0.78
0.9
0.97 1
Size Distribution
mean 0.7
dispersion 1.3
skewness 0.00
Type
silt /clay
sand 100%
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross -Section 14 - MY02
Particle Size Distribution
Harrell
XS 14
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Sift/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
25
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50-1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
;�
E
a-
c
too °% °
80%
60%
40%
20 °r°
0%
- MY00
—. MY01
. MY02
MY03
75
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8-11.3
11.3 - 16
16 - 22.6
22.6 - 32
32 - 45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
-
- —
jT
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Small
Small
Medium
Lr - Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.55
0.63
0.72
0.86
0.95
Size Distribution
mean 0.2
dispersion 5.8
skewness -0.41
Type
silt/clav
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
25%
75%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Appendix C4 — Stream and Wetland Hydromphs
146

Appendix C4 — Stream and Wetland Hydrographs
146

w
w
d
bD
R
4
3
2
0
1
_2
N
O
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Stream Gauge 1 Hydrograph
1 /1 /10 to 11/29/10
O
N
..r • ,'_ r a..:r� "E' „JV .a �. -y,N .<y ^1., .�t�,t `t,
^I,
A�;. `_s_
nlq ry _ _�. _� 1 ,lr.✓1t�!sy... ank? ,
- _ _ Y�M1.�v� -`�iS i- _ -�'r. _
_'� ��.�Fw r
V
l� ,i 1, ^J ^� c,`x,EGN e�� -�, � i V`, , _ '«��f ,�x_ ���F M?47 ♦ �- A �i ^' `
a Y<a
' �'°f � -G Y ,�1_.1'4.�?Sy..'8i
y.S
,x-�' 'F, 1 �,r `r:F'•'�t� y
- - �- t Y '�y -' F_ .b i•Y- . � .. -� {Fp'y„' t t ^ i '_J- ` ..,J`1 1111
3'�`
_
"�a
�=
-,a• s -��F ��P,M1 `��
�
g�i f �,�5 �,.1 4
i`�ir a. _ °•k 5r �r fix... �" `�T ' 2'`t_w-- "_;1/�'c`��� - i�=- Pi..mrf�,
W� , , :s,�'�r
JF. an,�. �. <F,'�l' ' icy -'�j -�-'y� ��'i'�� m r' z.y_'
�'� n
J'k:: -.:�y ;��,1T:.,
1 � I
F �' 7 L i'i
`����c��s..,. :* ' •��
� r % tt J' 1i�`•�' 'En1 i, U'
' � r 1 Y}�
}• N °= r� o] +'�' - ,y ry' I {^ '.rj" ti^ , JI _ `r
r
Fel�r.`�� x.4<,«e's'.y� ,a.s r� is ..�':3 �= �i..�.:�Hk arcY��...�� h_i;,+EJ`�,i xn�W -�.I� R - '�'1�7�'`�:w.n�r
""9k nr°.�.
.�„kr',t -z i�Yyr"F. �s S
���ii::.t-1�h1•i+T.�-
� m _.,,� -_�, �s�a..rr ^t'- i *J�, '"l ?'S�ar, •'�-'- -�T ^�"r, �'- <<r:z: j3� �.a<.{ �J
�i�',+.4i�-
_ , r ` - ^�
�
:�i �'"' ��Y t'
. R'�eyL�J� -Y�.
T'4�•�'�
iL.3: {ri° °PY'` ..�J1 e6a �s. - �jY'; �c:.i� -
e: -ii.J�
�/ . p- ^°i' °. 'd e,..(M'�kS9F J:1
�x"sbY'
7 h� .I .- 3 c'sr Z
=t ,#<<
+' � ', L_ t" aaX - ":� yii- ',. h. t °. ' i �
Q
�.I,�. .`_ ai• - '� `< r�"'
N
O N
N N
N O
N
N
N
wMalfu ctwn
�
�
ata t90StZ, I z j?
�..°�'R.
��.*,zJ . t¢K £� � �.,
, � � �_ ynF { - _
?',�'' 9 ^,
O_
_ ^�,_• �
J
N 9 '' E '� n`aiiA �
�.�'mn.., : n a"LT.�'F �-, Y�
t1 ' ,+- "➢ � 9 I�
� ��
�
� �.PYyt , b,'
9 T . ". -
°'� ' -,�
'•, �2:. r 1H r
ter. ��
�� � �, ^.:�...r,�
�'yµ� 4•� -, Y�-u
iT
.,d ,`�"F"!m a
F pk'� ,4...
��
��•�
.} '�' �'h�
� �
�•�,` °"9 '{il -� x' �'a i�3a' r
S
�
{� 7 `k' F,^ r �
i_,. � _ ` r'�i 3x"
` S
L
i Yc, ,i.'r- 4�c +y�'�✓i� � r•
1.lirr "IIO,.f�'F ^�.t I 4� �:.
.,J'.'A., �',> Y c r' «
� �
� "A �t�<i � °1 � +'.,Y'y h'ryd�
� n - "t i rr'i 'i i`�'
o' %� c a �r
��'�
y_1,,�
Is 9
-s Yr r� _ �'
1 ` � °v°v°v���
• r_.,:<•tk
�" _..e
" � '��
`� .`.fir• -�'-� � 7r
� } v , r � �:1� • r,.
�y� „M1,y.'�' �,f '� pp F ..�'�
O O
- u'-}
V
I`WX�
�l- i� .�,r �
i� . � }• `Eec i i
.. -
♦[N., -
� xR•i+� r ....ry-Y�
E14
.�� e N
Y �".v�t �
x I+ M'hi • YY1J- t f , �-�'
,,;f'�
1
_ •4rr ^F
V'�:
{,
;^ l�
Stage
a`k�riy"�'��1
S
�1>;
g <3
C'r,r,'
r'-
t? c __
��fl
`
- .. -
••
V
'fir
1' �
n E
`
�
-
�
�
B `,+(�,
`i �
xr �r
d s� 3
Y3� 1
y
P F
x , y_ Y.,6'IY
- . +`�s, J
-9
^�'-` ri -'' t _
Alai
El
O
N
W
W
A
(A to
O, O,
J 00
00
10
—'
--'
N O
N
N
-•
O O
O
IC
00
0
N N
Q
N
N
O N
N N
N O
N
N
N
O_ O_
O_ O
O_
O_
O
O O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
Date
Rainfall
Stage
Bankfull
40
35
30
25
20
a
15"
10
05
00

4
3
2
� 1
0
-1
-2 +
N
O
O
Harrell Stream and Wetland Restoration
Stream Gauge 2 Hydrograph
1 /1 /10 to 11/29/10
Malfunction
Data Lo
N
w
w
A to to
O� 01
-4
00
00
\0
N
N
N
y \ N
W
N
N
00
O 00
C
N
\0
O O
O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
Date
� Ramtall
Bankf ill
Stage
40
35
30
pa
7�7
m_
0
205'
0
15
10
05
00

76
75
74
w
C
O
y
7
6�
W 73
72
71
Harrell Farm Gauge 1 Wetland Hydrograph
1 /1 /10 to 11/17/10
Begin Growing Season
3/20/2010 End Growing Season
11/10/2010
Ground Surf
IV I I 18 Days
u 112" Below Surface
W IF
Sensor Elevation
4
3.5
3
2.5
m
2
IN
0.5
0
N
w
w
yr
cn
o�
o� v
00
00
10
N
y
N
N
—
N
—
W N
�O
N
O
O
t j \
O
N
N
--
N
\
O
O O
J
�
0000
00
N y
O tJ
N
N
N
O
N
N
N N
O
N
N
N
J
_O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
_O
O O
Date
Rainfall
GroundwaterFlevation
4
3.5
3
2.5
m
2
IN
0.5
0

Harrell Farm Gauge 2 Wetland Hydrograph
1 /1 /10 to 11/17/10
76 4
35
3
25
d
2
a
.7
15
1
05
0
75
74
w
73
0
R
6>
W
72
71
70
Begin Growing Season End Growing Season
3/20/2010 11/10/2010
Ground urf
N
W
21D
s
tr
t I I12" Below Surface
U
C�
9 Day
00
00
110
i
.-
Sensor Elevation
F
IN
O
O
N
IN
N
N
N
W
W
tr
C/i
C�
Os —i
00
00
110
,—•
.-
O
O
N
N
N
N
O
O O
N
00
N
y
00
J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
Date
Rainfall
Groundwater Elevation

Harrell Farm Gauge 3 Wetland Hydrograph
1 /1 /10to 11/17/10
76
75
74
y
73
e
0
w
R
i
W 72
71
Begin Growing Season
3/20/2010
End Growing Season
11/10/2010
Ground Surf e
r
w N
00
00
C>
O O O
--
--
'
u12" Below Surface
1
Da '
9 Days
t
O
O O O
0\0
Date
O
Sensor Elevation
N
O
N N
O_
O_
N
N
O
O
O_
O_
O
O
O
O O
O
O
70
r
w N
00
00
C>
O O O
--
--
O_
O_ O_ O_
O
O
O
O O O
0\0
Date
O
N
N
O
N N
O_
O_
N
N
O
O
O_
O_
O
O
O
O O
4
35
3
It
d
2
iv
0
1 5 ..
05
0
r
w N
00
00
C>
O O O
--
--
O_
O_ O_ O_
O
O
O
O O O
0\0
Date
IIIIIIIIIIIIIINRamfall
Groundwater Elevation
4
35
3
It
d
2
iv
0
1 5 ..
05
0
00
00
�D
--
--
�
O
00
0\0
O_
O_
N
N
O
_O
O_
O_
O
O
O
O
O

69
68
y
67
rr
0
w
u
66
65
64
N
O
Harrell Farm Gauge 4 Wetland Hydrograph
1 /1 /10 to 11/17/10
O
00 00
D
O
0000
N
N N
O
N N
O
O
O O
O
O O
00 00
D
0000
N
O
N
N N
O
O
O
O
O O O
Date
t Rainfall
Groundwater Elevation
00 00
D
0000
0000 N
N
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
4
3.5
3
2.5
z
o'
I.5
I
0.5
0
N
_O
O

Appendix C5 — Precipitation 30 -70 Percentile Graph
153

9
8
7
6
c
5
42
" 4
2
1
0
Harrell 30 -70 Percentile Graph 2009 -2010
Rocky Mount, NC Monthly Rainfall
C, rn rn rn o,
0 0 0 0 0
C, rn C,
0 0 0
rn C, rn rn o 0 0
0 0 0 0 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
— r- 7 r-
i O L L >
Ca CC O. m
C CA
'�
C. > U C -0 L
Q) O O U z m
L >> C 00 C. > U
O. 0 � � V N
¢
`' ¢
, Lv
z o
� O
¢ ¢ z o
Date
O 2009 Rainfall
O 2010 Rainfall 0 30% Less Than
--E— 30% Greater Than