20061277 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20110315

o6-!d-�7
BROCK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 (2010)
Jones County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 92333
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Final Monitoring Report
March 2011

Prepared by:
6 cal
ineering
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
919.557.0929
G. Lane Sauls, Jr., Principal
This report follows methodologies consistent with the Content Format and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports,
Version 1.2 (11116106)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT
Page
... ..............................1
SECTIONII. PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................................... ..............................2
A. Project Objectives ................................................................................ ............................... 2
B. Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach ............................. ............................... 2
C. Location and Setting ............................................................................. ..............................4
D. History and Background ....................................................................... ............................... 4
E. Monitoring Plan View .......................................................................... ............................... 6
SECTION I11. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ............................. ..............................7
A. Vegetation Assessment ....................................................................... ............................... 7
1. Stem Counts ............................................................................ ............................... 7
2. Vegetative Problems Areas ..................................................... ............................... 8
B. Stream Assessment .............................................................................. ............................... 8
1. Procedural Items ...................................................................... ..............................8
2. Stream Problem Areas ............................................................ .............................10
3. Fixed Station Photographs ...................................................... .............................10
SECTION IV. METHODOLOGY SECTION
TABLES
FIGURE
................. .............................11
Exhibit Table I.
Project Restoration Components .................................... ..............................4
Exhibit Table II.
Project Activity and Reporting History ........................... ............................... 5
Exhibit Table III.
Project Contact Table ..................................................... ............................... 5
Exhibit Table IV.
Project Background Table .............................................. ............................... 6
Exhibit Table V.
Cross Section Comparison .............................................. ............................... 9
Exhibit Table VI.
Verification of Bankfull Events ....................................... ............................... 9
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Asset Map
Figure 3. Monitoring Plan View
Figure 4. Current Conditions Plan View
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Vegetation Raw Data and Monitoring Plot Photographs
Appendix B. Geomorphic Raw Data
Appendix C. Rainfall Data Summary
Appendix D. Photograph Comparison
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version —year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page i

i
i
SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT
Ecological Engineering, LLP (Ecological Engineering) entered into contract with the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in October 2009 to
conduct annual monitoring assessments at the Brock Site in Jones County, North Carolina. The following
document depicts our findings and recommendation with regard to the Year 2 (2010) monitoring
assessment.
The Brock Stream Restoration Project was implemented using methodologies consistent with Coastal
Plain headwater stream and buffer restoration. The stream, an unnamed tributary (UT) to Chinquapin
Branch, was restored using a modified Priority 3 level of restoration. Specifically, the project involved
the excavation of a floodplain along the entire 1,850 linear -foot stream reach. Excavation was limited to
the right side of the channel facing downstream due to a cemetery and other constraints occurring
along the left stream bank.
Vegetation Monitoring
Year 2 vegetation monitoring assessments were performed using Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level
II Assessment Protocols. Four permanent plot locations were established and located during the as -built
surveys. Each plot covers 100 square meters and is shaped in the form of a 10 -meter by 10 -meter
square. The number of plots was determined by CVS software and individual locations were randomly
selected based on the planned community types.
All planted areas at the Brock Site are associated with either the generation of Stream Mitigation Unit
(SMU), Buffer Mitigation Unit (BMU) or Nutrient Offset Nitrogen Reduction Buffer Restoration. Based on
the Year 2 findings, two of the three vegetation plots met the vegetation success criteria for both stream
and buffer mitigation credit. The fourth plot, established beyond the 50 -foot corridor associated with
the stream, did not meet the success criteria for BMU or Nutrient Offset Buffer Restoration mitigation
credit.
Stream Restoration Monitoring
Stream monitoring assessments were conducted using surveys and comparisons of three existing cross
sections along the UT. No problems were noted aside from the fact that possible settling had occurred
along all three cross sections. Bankfull dimensions differed from last year's results; however, no erosion,
entrenchment or incision was observed. Based on the data collected and visual observations, the Brock
Site is functioning similar to that of a Coastal Plain headwater stream system.
During late September 2010, the Site received approximately 14.5 inches of rainfall over a four -day
period. According to the existing crest gage, water elevations were nearly three times that of bankfull.
This denotes the second consecutive year that at least one bankfull event has been measured. The Site
has met the success criteria established for hydrology.
Monitoring efforts will continue in 2011.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 1
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

SECTION II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Project Objectives
According to EEP (2010), the project specific goals at the Brock Site needed to achieve desired ecological
function include:
• Improvement of water quality by limiting bank erosion;
• Creation of 1,850 linear feet of stable stream channel (Stream Enhancement category II);
• Restoration of 6.2 acres of riparian buffer along the project reach (4.23 acres associated
with the 50 -foot buffer and 1.97 acres associated with the buffer beyond 50 feet);
• Improvement of aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the UT to Big Chinquapin Branch; and,
• The 40 -foot wide floodplain bench will dissipate the flow and maintain channel stability
during moderate to high discharge events.
The Project Site is located in Jones County and surrounded by areas of intense agricultural land use
(Figure 1). As part of project implementation, the riparian buffer was reforested along the restored
floodplain. This buffer restoration reconnects existing forested buffers along Big Chinquapin Branch and
provides a wooded, although very narrow corridor for wildlife. The buffer also intercepts overland flow
from a Swale draining the agricultural fields on the Brock property (EEP, 2006). In addition, EEP (2006)
states that buffer reforestation at this site will reduce the input of nutrients from the fields to the waters
downstream of the unnamed tributary to Big Chinquapin Branch, designated as nutrient sensitive waters
by the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). A project asset map is depicted in Figure 2.
The project will provide an ecological uplift for the entire basin.
B. Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
The watershed encompassing the project site is located in the eastern portion of the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province. Slopes are generally less than four percent. Elevations on the Brock Site range
from approximately 39 to 52 feet above mean sea level. The soil survey for Jones County (Barnhill, 1981)
indicates that the area is underlain by Goldsboro loamy sand, Grifton fine sandy loam, Lynchburg fine
sandy loam, Muckalee loam, and Norfolk loamy sand (EEP, 2006).
The watershed is a mixture of forested lands, agricultural row crops, two -lane roadways, farm roads,
cemeteries, minor culverts, and a few single - family homes. Agricultural drainage features, including
ditches and drain tiles, have been constructed and maintained on the Brock and neighboring properties.
The Brock Site and adjacent properties are utilized primarily for agricultural purposes (EEP, 2006).
According to EEP (2010), the project reach was designed using Stream Enhancement Level II
methodologies. Prior to restoration, the UT to Big Chinquapin Branch was incised and could not easily
access its floodplain. Pre - restoration existing shear stress and stream power were compared with the
design in order to evaluate aggradation and degradation. The state of the channel before restoration
was shown to be capable of handling the system's flow and sediment supply. Buffer reforestation was
conducted along the restoration reaches extending beyond 50 feet on either side of the channel to the
limits of the conservation easement. The planting plan was based on the hydrology of the site, the
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 2
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

surrounding vegetative communities, and available supply of native species. The plan is modeled after
mature, unaltered systems as outlined in the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). The newly excavated floodplain was planted with a Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood
Forest community. Remaining areas outside the floodplain, excluding a small cemetery along the left
bank, were planted as a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Coastal Plain Subtype (EEP, 2010).
The US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality (USACE, 2005) released a draft
mitigation guidance document related to stream restoration in the outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina
in 2005. This guidance, developed in cooperation with NCDWQ, addresses mitigation credits for
headwater streams. Many natural headwater streams and wetlands in the Coastal Plain were historically
channelized for agricultural purposes. A number of these channels, including the UT associated with the
Brock Site, are eroding and lack functionality and habitat. While many of these areas would benefit from
restoration, traditional natural channel design with pattern and profile has been determined to be
inappropriate for all coastal headwater streams. The driving factor behind this guidance is that it is
difficult to discern the original condition of these first order channels: whether they were historically
intermittent streams or headwater wetlands. Emphasis is now being placed on restoring habitat and
floodplain functionality to these types of channels. The Brock Site is one of the pioneer EEP projects
utilizing these updated guidelines. As a result, traditional yearly monitoring activities have been revised
to better address this type of restoration.
The health of a watershed is dependent on the quality of the headwater system(s), individual tributaries,
and major channels. High quality tributaries with vegetated buffers filter contaminants, maintain
moderate water temperatures, provide high quality aquatic and terrestrial habitat and regulate flows
downstream. Big Chinquapin Branch is a major tributary to the Trent River, and both water bodies are
nutrient sensitive (NCDWQ, 1998). In addition, Big Chinquapin Branch is managed by a Drainage District.
Agricultural land use practices have narrowed or removed many natural, vegetated buffers along
streams within the Trent River watershed as well as draining and converting non - riverine wet hardwood
forests to cropland (EEP, 2006).
According to EEP (2006), this restoration will enhance functional elements of the unnamed tributary.
The Brock Restoration Plan outlines the restoration of the UT to Chinquapin Branch and the
reforestation of the associated riparian buffer. This involves the creation of a stable channel, riverine
floodplain, and associated riparian buffer. Priority 3 stream restoration was implemented on the
unnamed tributary. This involved reconnecting the stream channel to its floodplain, allowing for periodic
overbank flooding. To reduce construction costs and avoid disturbing the cemetery, a bankfull bench
was excavated along east side of the existing channel. Water quality functions will be improved due to
the creation of more storage for floodwaters and increased filtering of pollutants. Wetlands are
expected to form within portions of the newly created bankfull bench, especially in the downstream
section of the project where backwater from Chinquapin Branch will affect the stream. Barring water
quality issues outside of the Brock Site, the restoration should improve aquatic species diversity and
abundance in the stream channel. The restoration of riparian buffers along the restored stream channel
will improve water quality. The reestablishment of the riparian buffers with hardwood species will also
improve wildlife habitat on the property. These measures will improve the physical, chemical, and
biological components of the unnamed tributary and the Brock property, as well as Big Chinquapin
Branch and other downstream waters (EEP, 2006).
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page 3
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

C. Location and Setting
The Project Site is situated in Jones County, approximately 12 miles southeast of Kinston and eight miles
west - northwest of Trenton (Figure 1) along a UT to Big Chinquapin Branch. Its watershed is part of the
Coastal Plain physiographic province, covering approximately 315 acres. According to EEP (2006), broad,
flat interstream areas are the dominant topographic features of this province. Slopes are generally less
than four percent and elevations at the Project Site range from approximately 39 to 52 feet above mean
sea level (EEP, 2006).
The following directions are provided for accessing the Brock Project Site:
• From US 70 in Kinston, Proceed east on NC 58 approximately 12 miles.
• Turn left onto gravel farm road approximately one -third mile after passing the intersection
with the second loop of Pine Street on the left.
• Proceed approximately 800 feet along gravel farm road.
• Project Site is located to the immediate east (right side) of road.
D. History and Background
The project is undergoing its second formal year of monitoring. The following exhibit tables depict the
components for restoration, project activity and reporting, contact information for all individuals
responsible for implementation and project background information.
Exhibit Table 1. Project Restoration Components
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Z
C
C
Project Segment or
m
a
o
P
°
m
o
eo
Stationing
Comment
Reach ID
N
n
X
a
W
Reach 1— LIT to Big
1,850
Ell
P3
1.5:1
1,233
0 +00 - 28 +50.16
W
Chinquapin Branch
„., ..
Nutrient Offset
Calculated by
Nitrogen Reduction
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
149.27
n/a
77.57N Ibs /ac /yrx
Credit(>50'from Top
Ibs /year
1.97 acres
of Bank)
Neuse Buffer ( <50'
n/a
R
n/a
1:1
4.23
n/a
a�a
from Top of Bank)
Neuse Buffer ( >50'
n/a
R
n/a
1:1
1.97
n/a
from Top of Bank)
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream (ff)
Riparian
Non - riparian
Total Wetland
Buffer (ac)
Nutrient Offset Nitrogen
Wetland (ac)
Wetland (ac)
(ac)
Reduction Credit
1,233
6.20*
149.27 Ibs /yr for 30 years
Ell = Enhancement II R = Restoration P3 = Priority Level III Source: EEP, 2010
Nutrient Offset calculations are per NCDWQ recommendation.
* EEP will utilize either Neuse Buffer or Nutrient Offset Nitrogen Reduction Credit in the area beyond 50' from top of
bank. This will be determined prior to project closeout.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 4
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Exhibit Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Actual Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
May 2006
May 2006
Final Design (90 %)
n/a
April 2008
Construction
n/a
June 2009
Temporary S &E Mix Applied
n/a
June 2009
Permanent Seed Mix Applied
n/a
June 2009
Bare Root Seedling Installation
n/a
Unknown
Mitigation Plan/ As -Built (Year 0 Monitoring- baseline)
n/a
August 2010
Year 1 Monitoring
December 2009
January 2011
Supplemental Planting
n/a
February 2010
Year 2 Monitoring
July 2010
January 2011
Year 3 Monitoring
Mari Seal (336) 786 -2263
Seed Mix Source
Year 4 Monitoring
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Natives
Year 5 Monitoring
550 E, Westinghouse Blvd.
Source: EEP, 2010
Exhibit Table III. Project Contact Table
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Designer
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Primary Project Design POC
Nathan Jean (919) 865 -7387
Construction Contractor
Shamrock Environmental Corporation
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Browns Summit, NC 27214
Construction Contractor POC
Unknown
Planting Contractor
Natives
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Planting Contractor POC
Gregory Antemann (336) 375 -1989
Seeding Contractor
Seal Brothers Contracting
P.0 Box 86
Dobson, NC 27017
Planting Contractor POC
Mari Seal (336) 786 -2263
Seed Mix Source
Unknown
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Natives
550 E, Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
(704) 527 -1177
Monitoring Performer
Ecological Engineering, LLP
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Stream Monitoring POC
G. Lane Sauls Jr. (919) 557 -0929
Vegetation Monitoring POC
G. Lane Sauls Jr. (919) 557 -0929
Source: EEP, 2010
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page 5
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Project County
Jones County
Drainage Area
315 acres (0.5 sq. miles) — Unnamed Tributary
Impervious Cover Estimate
Less than 5%
Stream Order
1— Unnamed Tributary
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omernik)
Carolina Flatwoods
Rosgen Classification of As -built
E5
Cowardin Classification
n/a
Dominant Soil Types
Goldsboro loamy sand, Grifton fine sandy loam,
Lynchburg fine sandy loam, Muckalee loam and
Norfolk loamy sand
Reference Site ID
Unknown/ Not Applicable
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03020204010060
NCDWQSub -basin for Project and Reference
03 -04 -11
Any Portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed
segment.
No
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
Not Applicable
Percent of project easement fenced
0%
Source: EEP, 2010
D. Monitoring Plan View
The Monitoring Plan View drawings associated with the project are provided as part of Figure 3.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333)
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 6

SECTION III. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
As previously mentioned, monitoring activities at the Brock Site are tailored to assessing Coastal Plain
headwater stream systems and their corresponding buffers. Ecological Engineering conducted
vegetation assessments and stream assessments as part of yearly monitoring requirements.
A. Vegetation Assessment
Four 100 meter' vegetation plots were monitored using Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocol Level
II assessments. The remaining portions of the Project Site were visually assessed.
1. Stem Counts
Stem counts were conducted within four strategically placed 10 meter by 10 meter plots. The plots were
located based on a representative sample of the entire area of disturbance. They are scattered
throughout the Project Site in order to cover the majority of the habitat variations. Vegetation Plots #1,
#2 and #4 are related to stream and buffer mitigation credit and occur within the 50 -foot buffer of the
channel. Vegetation Plot #3 is outside of the 50 -foot zone and falls under either buffer mitigation credit
or Nutrient Offset Nitrogen Reduction credit. The success criteria for stream mitigation credit
(Vegetation Plots #1, #2 and #4) is a minimum of 320 stems per acre after three years and 260 stems per
acre after five years. The success criteria for buffer mitigation and Nutrient Offset Nitrogen Reduction
credits however, is a minimum of 320 planted, hardwood, native stems per acre after five years.
Planted stem counts increased during 2010 as a result of a warranty planting completed by the
contractor in February. The increase was most noticeable with respect to the annual mean, which
increased from 465 planted stems per acre in 2009 to 505 planted stems per acre in 2010. Actual stem
per acre increases were observed only in Vegetation Plots #1 and #4, which were already meeting
mitigation success criteria for both stream and buffer credits. Vegetation Plot #2 results were the same
as last year and Vegetation Plot #3 showed only a small increase in planted stems; however, it is still
below the success criteria. The chart below provides a summary of the Year 2 counts.
Vegetation
Total Stem Count/ Acre
Planted Stem
Planted, Hardwood Stem Count/ Acre
Plot No.
(SMU Credit)
Count/ Acre
(BMU or Nutrient Offset N Credit)
1
1,497
971
971
2
283
283
283
3
n/a
283
283
4
688
445
445
Vegetation Plots #1 and #4 met the success criteria required for both stream and buffer mitigation
credit. Vegetation Plot #2 failed to meet the same criteria for both mitigation types. Vegetation Plot #3
failed to meet the success criteria required for either buffer mitigation credit or Nutrient Offset Nitrogen
credit. A complete breakdown of this information is provided in Appendix A along with photographs of
each vegetation plot taken during the assessment.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 7
Final Version —Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

i
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
Vegetative problem areas are defined as those areas either lacking vegetation or containing exotic
vegetation and are generally categorized within the following categories: Bare Bank, Bare Bench, Bare
Floodplain or Invasive Population. Based on the monitoring site assessment, vegetation problem areas
currently exist within the Project Site from a stem count basis. Visual assessments however, did not
reveal any previous areas void of vegetation. The majority of the bare floodplain areas observed during
2009 filled in with vegetation prior to the Year 2 assessment. Vegetation problem areas are summarized
in Appendix A - Table 7 and are depicted on Figure 4.
As previously mentioned, a supplemental planting was conducted during February 2010 as part of the
contractor's vegetation warranty. This planting increased total stem counts throughout the project area
but failed to increase the counts above the minimum success criteria in two of the four vegetation plots.
The extent of the supplemental planting is also shown on Figure 4.
B. Stream Assessment
1. Procedural Items
Under normal circumstances, stream monitoring includes collection of morphometric criteria,
specifically dimension and profile measurements. The recommended procedures follow protocol
depicted within the USACE Draft Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003) document. The Brock Site
however, offers a method of mitigation that is not consistent with these guidelines. Therefore,
monitoring protocols have been updated to better address the monitoring issues at the Project Site.
Morphometric Criteria
Three cross sections were established along the unnamed tributary. These cross sections are situated at
Stations 11 +00, 15 +00 and 23 +00. Appendix B depicts the data, which provides a year -by -year
comparison. Exhibit Table V provides baseline data of cross section values with regard to bankfull and
dimensions. According to the data collected, the average bankfull area along the stream reach is
approximately 5.2 square feet; a decrease in approximately two square feet from the previous year. This
can be attributed to several possible situations: (1) increased vegetation within the channel; (2) flow
rates less than that of the previous year; and, (3) survey differences. Since this is a first order channel, it
is expected to change significantly based on flow rates and elevations. The data below denotes a
qualitative comparison of the channel characteristics. Based on visual observations, this channel appears
stable. No erosion is present. The numbers reveal significant differences in several of the attributes;
however, this data is only a snapshot and does not account for the ever - changing conditions of this type
of channel. These cross sections will be monitored throughout the following years to ensure that it
remains stable.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 8
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Exhibit Table V. Cross Section Comparison
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Attribute
Cross Section #1
Station 11 +00
Cross Section #2
Station 15 +00
Cross Section #3
Station 23 +00
Monitoring Year
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Bankfull area (sq. feet)
7.2
4.6
35 inches
Not available
11/13/10
6.9
6.4
14 inches
40 inches
Not available
J
7.2
4.6
1
1
1
Bankfull width (feet)
8.7
7.8
8.3
8.0
29.0
9.3
Bankfull mean depth
(feet)
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.5
Bankfull max depth
(feet)
1.4
0.9
1.4
1.4
0.7
0.9
Width -depth ratio
10.5
13.2
9.9
10.0
82.3
18.6
Flood prone area width
(feet)
52.4
44.3
49.9
49.2
51.0
52.1
Entrenchment ratio
6.0
5.7
6.0
6.2
1.8
5.6
Low bank height ratio
1.0
1.0
1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Hydrologic Criteria
Bankfull events during the monitoring period are being documented via a crest gage located in the
vicinity of Station No. 18 +65. In order to meet hydrologic success criteria, a minimum of two events
must occur during the five -year monitoring period. In addition, the events must occur in separate
monitoring years. The gage is being visited approximately three times per year. Based on our findings, at
least one bankfull event occurred during 2010. Approximately 2.44 inches of rain were associated with a
storm event in August 2010 and 14.75 inches of rain fell during an event at the end of September 2010.
This information is depicted in Exhibit Table VI below. In addition, actual precipitation data from a
nearby weather station is provided in Appendix C. Based on these results and the data captured during
2009, at least two bankfull events have been recorded during separate years at the Project Site.
Therefore, the hydrologic criteria associated with stream restoration have been satisfied for the project.
Rainfall monitoring will continue however, throughout the five -year monitoring period.
Exhibit Table VI. Verification of Bankfull Events
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Calculated
Measured High
Date of Data
Date(s) of
Method
Bankfull
Water
Photo #
Collection
Occurrence
Elevation
Elevation
(if available)
10/24/09
Unknown
Crest gage
14 inches
35 inches
Not available
11/13/10
7/4/10,9/27/10
Crest gage
14 inches
40 inches
Not available
J
thru 10/1/10
1
1
1
1
Bank Stability Assessments
EEP requires that detailed Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Shear Stress (NBS) be
performed in Year 5, post- construction which correlates to Year 2013. The purpose is to describe the
proportion of bank footage in the various hazard categories and to produce sediment export rates in
tonnage per annum. Due to the nature of this type of mitigation, EEP will determine the extent of
assessment required during Monitoring Year 5.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 9
Final Version - Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

2. Stream Problem Areas
No significant changes to the dimension were observed during Year 2 monitoring activities. A visual
assessment of the channel was conducted throughout its length and no problem areas were noted.
Although elevation changes were observed based on the data collected, the visual assessments did not
locate any obvious areas of instability and /or erosion.
3. Fixed Station Photographs
Photographic documentation was taken at 16 permanent photo stations, established during the as -built
survey. The documentation ranges between views of the channel and buffer, to vegetation plots and
cross sections. Appendix D provides an ongoing comparison of yearly photographs for each station.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 10

SECTION IV. Methodology Section
This document employs methodologies according to the post- construction monitoring plan and
standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents. References are provided below.
Barnhill, W.L., 1981. Soil Survey of Jones County, North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP), 2010. Brock Stream Enhancement, Draft As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Report, Draft
Version dated April 2010. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP), 2006. Brock Stream Restoration Plan, Final Version dated July 28, 2006. Prepared by
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Available via: http: / /www.nceep.net /.
NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1988. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts and T.R. Wentworth, 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.0. Available: http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm.
Rosgen, David L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Inc. Pagosa Springs, CO.
385 pp.
Shafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2005. Information
Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Wilmington, NC.
November 28, 2005. Available via:
http: / /h2o.enr. state. nc. us /ncwetlands /documents/ CoastaIPlainSTreamMitigationFinaIDraftPolic
yNov28.doc.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) and NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2003. Draft Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service and NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2002. Level III
and Level IV Ecoregions of North Carolina Map.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 11
Final Version —Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Plan
April 2010
Local Roads
Major Roads
Railroads
_ Site Boundary
County Boundary
Streams
Municipality
0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles
cological
n ineerhga-
Directions to the Brock Stream Restoration Site:
From Raleigh, take HWY 70 East to Kinston, NC.
The Brock Restoration Site is located approximately
12 miles southeast of Kinston, North Carolina and lies
in northern Jones County. From US 70 East in Kinston
turn right on NC 58 and travel approximately 12 miles.
The site is located on the left approximately three miles
past the beginning of the Pine Street loop (SR 1301).
of Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., 20101
VICINITY MAP r_�l
Brock Stream Restoration Site, Jones County, NC
�tem
EEP Project No. 92333 �� la IIICIIt
18, 2010

Z aing!j
OLOZ `d33 = aoanos dewasee
oLOZ `b Ajenuer
eu!!oae0 WON `Alunoo souor
(£££Z6 'ON loafoad d33) al!S )1ooa8
L 133HS - ddW 13SSV 133rOad
ZZ'Id9 +0Z'V1S V-1d 133HS 33S 3NIIHOlVW
Q
G
W
''U)
V♦
LU
Q
U
0
a.
54
N
Q)
rk�
\ 1
L
Lu
LU
V' w
z /
° i
�r X11 1 z 1 /
1�
1
U) N
W
a ¢ N
W w
N U
LL
W b N
LL O II
Z m O o
ao Z Z O
w
WO2 U
w co W LL
Ix 0:
O
W W W
=
W m m W
Z
w w p
to z z
z
Z
w
z
z
I
I
LL
m
:3
w
z
�
m je!L
1
I
t
�
I
i
1
LL %
Q
G
W
''U)
V♦
LU
Q
U
0
a.
54
N
Q)
rk�
\ 1
L
Lu
LU
V' w
z /
° i
�r X11 1 z 1 /
1�
1
U) N
W
a ¢ N
W w
N U
LL
W b N
LL O II
Z m O o
ao Z Z O
w
WO2 U
w co W LL
Ix 0:
O
W W W
=
W m m W
Z
w w p
to z z
z
Z
w
z
z
I
I
LL
m
:3
w
z
�
m je!L
1
I
�
I
!
LL %
LLJ
u`
Q
G
W
''U)
V♦
LU
Q
U
0
a.
54
N
Q)
rk�
\ 1
L
Lu
LU
V' w
z /
° i
�r X11 1 z 1 /
1�
1
U) N
W
a ¢ N
W w
N U
LL
W b N
LL O II
Z m O o
ao Z Z O
w
WO2 U
w co W LL
Ix 0:
O
W W W
=
W m m W
Z
w w p
to z z
11
I
1�
I
I
I
� I
I I
al
� I
1
/
I
I
J
1 w
IL
�w
Q
I—'
Iu
Q
w
1
X11 � .� - �••. �� � •\1'11 I z g
zo
Zo
MCC
1
r l
'Wui.JQQUIWU-h
�e�i�olo�
IT
CD
O
N
N
O
00
C
O
O
9
H
z
w
w
U
z
0z
z
E
LL
z
Z
w
z
z
I
I
LL
m
11
I
1�
I
I
I
� I
I I
al
� I
1
/
I
I
J
1 w
IL
�w
Q
I—'
Iu
Q
w
1
X11 � .� - �••. �� � •\1'11 I z g
zo
Zo
MCC
1
r l
'Wui.JQQUIWU-h
�e�i�olo�
IT
CD
O
N
N
O
00
C
O
O
9
H
z
w
w
U
z
0z
z
E
LL
z
Z
w
z
z
I
LL
m
:3
w
z
�
1
I
1�
!
11
I
1�
I
I
I
� I
I I
al
� I
1
/
I
I
J
1 w
IL
�w
Q
I—'
Iu
Q
w
1
X11 � .� - �••. �� � •\1'11 I z g
zo
Zo
MCC
1
r l
'Wui.JQQUIWU-h
�e�i�olo�
IT
CD
O
N
N
O
00
C
O
O
9
H
z
w
w
U
z
0z
z
E
LL
z
Z
w
z
z
LU
U' LL
m
LL
m
:3
w
z
:3
w
z
m—

OLOZ `d33 :eojnog dewase8
OLOZ `b Aenuer
}tibia S�O� I
Z ain$i j euiloae3 ytaoN `� tunoo sauor '° ..
�5uiaaaui.au
(EEEZ6 'ON 1381oad d33) al!S )I3oa8
Z 133HS - ddW 13SSV 133r0bld
el�
\ff_;
—_tr�
> \
cs
Lo
\ \ zao
w N
co
III � \ \ ��•� , I
Ilfj III 1 \1 \ C0 1\ \ a
II \ \ \ \lam \
K c
W ff J \ I I I I c
0
Q III \ 11 ! v I I \
/
I
n t
II \ \ C) \ _
II \ \ a \ \ m\ I
11 1 \ > \ \ \ I
rn
\ I I 1 Ste\
\ I I \ \
LU \ I \ \ \
w \ \ \ \ I
w o \ \ 1
w
LL o N I I \ \
Z m O p I \ \ I
z z
W 7 I
i
s- 1d1��HS��s /
�Iyj�H�l b
W
llll �
rl �
v/
l�ll� l
lily //
�o
o
N
OV
I
/
/
/
i
yf�
i
y4�
i
s- 1d1��HS��s /
�Iyj�H�l b
W
llll �
rl �
v/
l�ll� l
lily //
�o
o
N
OV
N
N
0
N
H
z
w
2
w
v
z
LLI
0z
z

010Z 'd33 :a3inoS dewaseq
0T0Z 'ST jsnSnV
E ajngij eu'IOJe:) WPON 'Ajuno:) souof
(EIEEZ6 *ON 138fOid d33) OMS M:)OJS
Z 30 T 133HS - M31A NVId 9NIU011NOVY
ZZ'K+OZ'ViS tP-Id 133HS 33S 3NIIHOIVV4
Z
< Z w
107
EL40 0
N IU z
0
Z
0;
are 0
os 0.0
I t ,
i <
Illattlo,A] ell'
r5ujj;);)Ul
1�4 " I zi 405, Lo:I
V)
F-
/Z
LLJ M
LU
LU cf)
U)
z
P <
z
z
*b
0
LU 0 �-- a
—
> Q. 0
-_j
Q)
ZI,
D
L)
W
L\
id I I I
p
0
Z
LU
z uj
z
5 a:
z CL
w z
z w 5
5 Lut IL
a. D Ix n z z
w
L- 2
Z Z z L-
LU M
o m z
CL a LU Co
z 0
W
w 0 g Lu 0
-i a. (0) CL m
(o LL D a.
C3 IFE
NNN�
11111
.111
LZLI
00
%
Iq tr)
Fb2
110
ooh
6
;k'
80
+
2s
z
8
0* 8
0
U.
088
8
z
0
E4
LL
to
z
Id
Jill
0
9
z
3
LT
0
alLLI
A
-_j
Q)
ZI,
D
L)
W
L\
id I I I
p
0
Z
LU
z uj
z
5 a:
z CL
w z
z w 5
5 Lut IL
a. D Ix n z z
w
L- 2
Z Z z L-
LU M
o m z
CL a LU Co
z 0
W
w 0 g Lu 0
-i a. (0) CL m
(o LL D a.
C3 IFE

OLOZ `d33 :aojnog dewaseg
OLOZ 19L;sn6nd
1113[tia'ILt
euiloae3 UPON `� lunoo souor IIIajS O
1-5uuaau! u
(£££Z6 'oN 13810M d33) 811S M30AS le zU-�
Z 30 Z 133HS ° M31A NVId ONIa011NOW
a —
Ell
� \ 1
\ \ \ F-
LU
W\ 1
Z tl h t 1 Z)
Z i
I J
t
f l y \ \ J\ l\ \ 1
ICI v� v
v A \
CD
y
Z
O_
H
Q Z
LUC7
>a- 0%
31 yj�N�1 b
W
r�r!li
rte o
rr,i�r r i.
r
riiir
R
�
�
z
y
Z
O_
H
Q Z
LUC7
>a- 0%
31 yj�N�1 b
W
r�r!li
rte o
rr,i�r r i.
r
riiir

OLOZ `d33 :aojnoS dewasee
LLOZ `6L Aaenuer , OKLLL WOW
4Yq 'buYdS NIGH
�ll�tli�' tut P4 ...S411•INS.
ti aangij eu11ae3 43JoN `� lunoo ssuor llta�SASOY'
(£££Z6 'ON loafad d33) al!S )Iooag le:7)jo5luoil
u
M31A NVId N0I114N031NMjuno
WOo AaA111Sj1A1OUBW9j8q 0)Uj - eugolep WON • unoo sauor
NY '•
°�;, °' »o�•u� , M9 -LL5 (M)'Xed 090L-LL9 (6W:9U04d Jeluawuonnu3 Ioaweys
_:� < ' Ob9LZ ON 's6uudg L110H 'jaa�jg uieW 4UoN OOZ nanS•11 e e A
<`� �09099090.00S'3W #13grOdd
yoa ,
,,,.yONy.••„ s�eF s19uueld • sJoAe/unS • s�aaw6u3 'N3i -
�(siunS oiydei6odol;lmgsy a cn
3d `Auedwoo � eAjnS �ini3 uewa�eg ;oafad uoilejolsad weailS Hoag �r
cc
1 s g8 fpF ° o
1 1 o,
0
1 �/ aOpjN '•.,y O,�'•^�••Q
RAI v�
Id z
o11Y rc� -� "'a �nv.,,,,of � o �a� &w ' o��� ���' u�n•°,
g C 5
1 L "'mow {j gffigjp I qqg
1 ~i3 X N
HIM
LU
I�
OF
11 m "I as r--------------------
1
/
1 1
1
-- --- --- ------ --- - -�
g6mj
1 u - 1
1 \ M N
1 O CA
1 2 1 r N O a as 3 \ n p F
1 i a
i
o /o 1 t 11
i 1 d O t - HIM � 1
c i5$
1 1 > N
t 1
1 Z 11♦ o u C sl Q 1
1 4 ¢ sac -ca y 0
IA
1 W, R p1 N 0 �1 a 3-
1 1 � -
1
u
/ / \
E
�I 1 N
O to = / F \ _0 N -O
�W/ /� H
u W/ 61 1 11 a E 0
r 0
V1 O
O ^Q� "T 4n�'� 1 1 1
IA Id // 1 11 Y f0
0 i+ q/ R \ F+ M L
V H
:•% o /�/�/ - 11 F 111 (1 co 61
> 00 c
IIIVVV s /� ` 0 Gl \ 1 a
1 ( m E , 11 In
1 1
1
y E 1
M\ , t /0 G/ iL ate+ 11 z E- N 1 in
1 E 11 O E -O
1 1
;) °o C7 a0i o u a °o i \;
c �, 3 E u r� c
xt O b 11 /0 r M (D O 4J u fY0 1
c _ a
�_ W -W Z C u C in
u 4P
in /0 e Z op OD e CL 1
CD N 1 a s
IX
M 1
Fill g c 1}
1

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data and Monitoring Plot Photographs
Appendix A provides a series of tables (Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8) automatically generated by the Data Entry
Tool designed in conjunction with the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0 (Lee et. al.,
2006). Table 7 is based on visual observation during the monitoring assessment.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page A- 1
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Appendix A - Table 1. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Report Prepared By
Lane Sauls
Date Prepared
11/9/2010 14:04
database name
EcoEng- 2010 -B.mdb
S: \Projects \50000 State \EEP 50512 \50512 -004 EEP Brock Site \2010 Year 2
database location
Monitoring
computer name
LANE
file size
137347328
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT-------
- - - --
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and
Metadata
project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes
Proj, planted
live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live
Proj, total stems
stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems,
Plots
missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total
Damage
stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural
All Stems by Plot and spp
volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY------------------------------------
Project Code
92333
project Name
Brock Stream Restoration
Description
EEP Brock Stream Restoration Jones County, NC
River Basin
Neuse
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
10
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page A- 2
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Appendix A - Table 2. CVS Vigor by Species
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Species
CommonName
4
3
1 2
1
01
Missing
Unknown
green ash
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush
Liriodendron tulipifera
2
2
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
14
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
6
8
1
5
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Quercus
51
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
2
4
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
2
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
2
5
willow oak
1
3
9
Salix nigra
black willow
Salix nigra
2
0
2
Quercus
oak
'I
I
1
1
TOTA
Ill
110 1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
1
11
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
8
3
1
2
Unknown
1
TOTALS:
11
10
+3811-
1
5
8
Appendix A - Table 3. CVS Damage by Species
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
c��� �O4o
C7 o o Fa h 3c
ccic J °w am ��. �co
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
0
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
2
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
6
8
1
5
Quercus
oak
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
2
5
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
0
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
9
2
9
Salix nigra
black willow
0
2
Unknown
I
'I
I
1
TOTA
Ill
110 1
251
38
1
24
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page A- 3

Appendix A - Table 4. CVS Damage by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
cv gym" y 3c
C, °Jr���m�cy��Jcco
92333 -ALC- 0001- year:2 7 191 1 6
92333 -ALC- 0002 -yea r:2 11 3 11
92333 -ALC- 0003- vear:2 3 4 3
92333 -ALC- 0004- year:2 1 41 121 1 4
TOTALS: 14 1 251 381 11 24
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page A- 4
Final Version — Year 2 (20 10)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Appendix A - Table 6. CVS All Stems by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Appendix A - Table 7. Vegetative Problem Areas
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Feature /Issue
Quercus
oak
11
11
1
n/a
1 11
Bare Bench
F
V V v
n/a
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
41,
41
1.75
1
11
21
3
n/a
n/a
Acer negundo
boxelder
1
11
4
1
VP 2
No
'1
1
No
Quercus pagoda
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
1
1
1
3
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
14
1
1
141
14
Salix nigra
black willow
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuli tree
3
2
1.5
TOTALS:
1
2
ill
75
11
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
12
3
17
41
3
5
4
Appendix A - Table 7. Vegetative Problem Areas
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Feature /Issue
Quercus
oak
11
11
1
n/a
1 11
Bare Bench
1
n/a
n/a
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
7
41
1.75
1
11
21
3
n/a
n/a
Quercus nigra
water oak
4
11
4
UT
VP 2
No
4
VP 3
No
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
4
2
2
1
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
8
2
4
7
1
Salix nigra
black willow
20
3
6.67
13
1
6
TOTALS:
0
ill
ill
75
11
38
11
9
17
Appendix A - Table 7. Vegetative Problem Areas
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Feature /Issue
Station #/ Range
Probable Cause
Photo #
Bare Bank
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bare Bench
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bare Floodplain
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bare Buffer
n/a
n/a
n/a
Invasive /Exotic
Populations
n/a
n/a
n/a
Appendix A -Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Stream Criteria
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
UT
VP 1
Yes
68%
UT
VP 2
No
UT
VP 3
n/a
UT
VP 4
Yes
Buffer Criteria
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
UT
VP 1
Yes
100%
UT
VP 2
No
UT
VP 3
No
UT
VP 4
Yes
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page A- 5

I
� J
a
f0
M
M
m
m
M
In
Q) a
i J
J
d �
a
W
v
v
o
o
Q o c
v N W
bD N V
c L
@ tlp
p v O
O
c � u
O C w
v s
N � v
u @ Q
O c N
m u= a
m
O
1
to
o0
tl1
1
00
O
O
01
F
�
�
a
M
T
N
I�
V
1�
lD
C
G1
O
Ol
8
—
m
a
O
v
ti
O
°
0
0
N
N
V
N
N
tD
I�
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
00
O
n
O
r
O
~
1p
O
ap
oo
W
O
�n
r-1
W
O
CI
O
�
O
d
C�
M
M
�
N
O
N
O
d
N
N
V
M
V
lD
N
0
N
Cl
a
000
a^o
g
1
N
lD
c-I
tD
N
N
C5
c5
oom
�
O
O
d
a
a
N
f0
N
M
M
to fn
O
O
IZ
N
N
m
M
N
E rn
CJ
U
ry
N
Ql
a
—
3
,-�
O
m
O
Q
O
o
O
o
Z
_O
a
J
d
oo
N
n
n
oo
N
°i a
m
O W
N
o0
W
fs0 dl
V
N
N
N
I�
V
00
n
n
00
N
N
~ N
Q V
d
O
N
O
N
AS O
_°
ry�M�
N
O
O
O
O
Mc,
m`
m
C
d
N
d
8
F
ti
ti
a
—
ti
O
ti
O
ti
O
O
m
Ne-I
-37
rl
'D
0l
o
O
d
a
a
°u � v
u
�
.10r
F
M
vl
vl
H
F
F
h
F
F
F
H
F
m
Pf
o
v
Q
c
v
$
I
ai
m
°
3
M
3
3
L
u
`m
O
O
v
c—
Y_
o
'°
�'
a°
e
v
a
r
2
3
v
o
E
Y
m
d=
y
s
v
o
°u
h
m'
a
m
3
3
u
•3
i
E
m
m
m
P
u
O
>
22-
m
X
O
>
7
m
m
o
u
c
g
g
g
g
g
m
c
c
z
E
z
8
u
m
ffi
o
L°
'c
m
>
>
>
>
>
c
m
U
U
LL
J
a
VI
m
a
f0
M
M
m
m
M
In
Q) a
i J
J
d �
a
W
v
v
o
o
Q o c
v N W
bD N V
c L
@ tlp
p v O
O
c � u
O C w
v s
N � v
u @ Q
O c N
m u= a

Monitoring Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot #1
Photostation 2.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #1
Taken Julv 2010
Vegetation Plot #2
Photostation 3.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #1.
Taken Julv 2010
Photostation 5.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #2
Taken Julv 2010
Photostation 6.
Facing northwest across Vegetation Plot #2.
Taken July 2010

Vegetation Plot #3
Photostation 8. Photostation 9.
Facing southwest across Vegetation Plot #3. Facing southeast across Vegetation Plot #3.
Taken Julv 2010 Taken Julv 2010
Vegetation Plot #4
Photostation 11. Photostation 12.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #4. Facing north across Vegetation Plot #4.
Taken Julv 2010 Taken July 2010

U_1Ja4 0111MI.]
Geomorphic Raw Data
This appendix is consistent with the USACE and NCDWQ draft mitigation guidance document ( USACE,
2005) related to stream restoration in outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Traditional natural channel
design monitoring protocols with pattern and profile has been determined to be inappropriate for
coastal headwater streams, such as the unnamed tributary at the Brock Site. Therefore, the geomorphic
raw data included within this appendix is restricted only to cross section comparisons.

Cross Section #1 Comparison
Station 11 +00
XSC #1 - Brock Site Sta. 11 +00
41
40
39
38
c
0
37
d
w
36
-
35
I�f
12010
--
34
-
33
�
32
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (ft)
0 As -Built ­11-2009 k -2010
Note: The as -built survey data was based on compilation of topographic contours and not an actual cross section survey. As
a result variability exists between the actual cross section survey (conducted as part of monitoring efforts) and as-
built data.
Year 2 (2010) Cross Section Photographs
Facing north along the west side of Cross Section #1. Facing west across Cross Section #1.
Taken July 2010 Taken July 2010

Cross Section #2 Comparison
Station 15 +00
XSC #2 - Brock Site Sta. 15 +00
40
39
38
37
36
I
r
e
35
m
w 34
U1120110
33
32
31
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)
—0 As -Built +2009 -* 2010
Note: The as -built survey data was based on compilation of topographic contours and not an actual cross section survey. As
a result variability exists between the actual cross section survey (conducted as part of monitoring efforts) and as-
built data.
Year 2 (2010) Cross Section Photographs
Facing northeast along the west side of Cross Section #2.
Taken July 2010
Facing northwest along the west side of Cross Section #2.
Taken July 2010

Cross Section #3 Comparison
Station 23 +00
Note: The as -built survey data was based on compilation of topographic contours and not an actual cross section survey. As
a result, variability exists between the actual cross section survey (conducted as part of monitoring efforts) and as-
built data.
Year 2 (2010) Cross Section Photographs
Facing northeast along the west side of Cross Section #3.
Taken July 2010.
Facing northwest along the west side of Cross Section #3.
Taken July 2010.
XSC #3 - Brock Site Sta. 23 +00
35
- — - - -- -
34
--
33
-
32
C
0
m
w
31
30
-
29
--
28
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (ft)
0 As -Built -it -2009 --A --2010
Note: The as -built survey data was based on compilation of topographic contours and not an actual cross section survey. As
a result, variability exists between the actual cross section survey (conducted as part of monitoring efforts) and as-
built data.
Year 2 (2010) Cross Section Photographs
Facing northeast along the west side of Cross Section #3.
Taken July 2010.
Facing northwest along the west side of Cross Section #3.
Taken July 2010.

Cross Section Data Summary
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO 2
STATION NO. 15.00
STATION NO 23.00
Brock Site Monitoring, Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 13- 4
Final Version -- Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
o
®moo
®moo
®����������
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO 2
STATION NO. 15.00
STATION NO 23.00
Brock Site Monitoring, Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 13- 4
Final Version -- Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
STATION NO 23.00
Brock Site Monitoring, Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 13- 4
Final Version -- Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Brock Site Monitoring, Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 13- 4
Final Version -- Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

' ' VIDIM
Rainfall Data Summary
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Protect No, 92333)
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page C- 1

m
m
0
O
m
Lo
'I"
(u!) jejol uo!lelldi:)OJd
N
AON-6Z
AON-OZ
A0N-TT
AON-Z
;30-t7z
Po -ST
430-9
daS-LZ
das-8T ON
O
daS-6
SnV-T£
SnV-ZZ
BnV-Ej
BnV-t7
lnf-9Z
Inf-LT
Inf-S
unf-6Z B
unf-OZ
unf-TT
unr-Z
Aen-t7Z
AeVy-ST
AeVy-9
jdV-LZ
i dV-ST
jdv-6
Jevy-T£
JEA-ZZ
levy-ET
Jevy-t,
qaj-4Z
qaj-ST
qaj-9
u er-8z
uef-61
Uer-ol
u ef-T
0
Cid
0j)
V
ui
o UO
C)
OZ r,
u
0
C
0 C w
0
>
2
%
t
%
Z
L
-7
'o
M
Lo
'I"
(u!) jejol uo!lelldi:)OJd
N
AON-6Z
AON-OZ
A0N-TT
AON-Z
;30-t7z
Po -ST
430-9
daS-LZ
das-8T ON
O
daS-6
SnV-T£
SnV-ZZ
BnV-Ej
BnV-t7
lnf-9Z
Inf-LT
Inf-S
unf-6Z B
unf-OZ
unf-TT
unr-Z
Aen-t7Z
AeVy-ST
AeVy-9
jdV-LZ
i dV-ST
jdv-6
Jevy-T£
JEA-ZZ
levy-ET
Jevy-t,
qaj-4Z
qaj-ST
qaj-9
u er-8z
uef-61
Uer-ol
u ef-T
0
Cid
0j)
V
ui
o UO
C)
OZ r,
u
0
C
0 C w
0
>
2

APPENDIX D
Photograph Comparisons
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 2 (2010)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page D- 1

O
O
O
r-I
C
O
V)
N
r-+
fD
u
U
v
O
L
Q
4�
O
w
C
C
E
O
O
C
uo
V
LL
LL
1"1
C
O
4-
6,
O
O
s
a
O
O
N
_T
7
C
Y
fD
N
L
m
}
O
O
N
L
cu
E
a
O
Z
C
v
Y
r-I
L
v
}
O
O
N
N
\
C
cu
Y
fu
F-
ai
Ln
m
cc
O
L
v
}
O
O
N
_T
C
v
Y
fD
N
L
}
O
O
N
L
E
0)
O
Z
C
Y
l0
L
(O
N
}
0)
O
N
N
\
n
C
Q)
Y
C
co
m
O
f0
GJ
Yl
r:
z
J
y
� J
2
2
W �
v
CD L
0 m
� C
N W
ry
v o
> o
u
p � w
� o >
v �
V � d
L � y
m ei d

O
O
N
_T
7
C
Y
fD
N
L
}
O
O
N
4!
E
N
O
Z
c
N
Y
l0
r-I
t0
4J
}
Ql
O
O
N
N
C
4!
Y
f�
v
C
m
O
Q)
}
O
O
N
_T
7
C
N
Y
N
L
}
Q�
O
O
N
L
QJ
E
UJ
O
Z
c
a�
Y
H
i-I
L
f0
N
}
m
O
O
N
N
C
v
Y
(6
N
C
m
O
}
m
m
�J
T
z
i
n C
w
w y
_ y
� J
[) W
L � T
f _
f. � 1

0
0
N
_T
_7
c
Q)
Y
H
N
L
f6
v
m
0
0
N
i
v
E
v
O
Z
c
Q)
Y
v
}
01
0
0
N
N
Y
(O
H
v
C
a)
LO
m
m
O
L
}
0
0
N
_T
7
C
4!
Y
l0
N
i
ra
v
rn
0
0
N
N
E
v
O
Z
c
v
Y
f0
a--I
(0
Qi
}
Ol
N
N
C
Y
fD
H
N
C
Ln
m
m
O
i
(D
v
}
s
J
� :YI
c
v
v
o
UO
c
o �
N w
N U
lG �
y O
p � w
c C >
G O w
v r�
cc LL 1

O
O
N
_T
7
C
N
Y
N
L
Q)
i
O
0
N
L
Q)
E
v
0
z
v
Y
L
m
v
T
m
O
O
N
N
C
v
Y
l6
Q1
C
N
m
O
v
O
O
N
_T
7
C
N
Y
t9
N
L
Q)
T
a)
0
O
N
v
E
v
0
z
v
Y
L
v
rn
0
O
N
N
n
C
U1
Y
N
C
fD
m
O
}
s
a
w
y
J ° au
.7 'f
� w
n �
>
n_

2
\
E
c
.g
}
%
\
(
\
/
/
/
.\
J
¢
§
§
k
$
a
\
%
�
_
/
5
/
�
w
§
x
\
�
\
E
\
z
_
2
2
\
§
x
\
�
r
c
2
J
�
/
\
2
/
?
>
\
3
�
_
/
2
2
�
�
}
»
\
�
\
E
\
z
_
3
2
\
)
»
\
�
�
c
2
2
}
$
\
2
/
?
»
CD
.\2
2 4 \
/%/

0
0
N
7
C
N
Y
m
N
m
G1
}
d1
O
O
N
GJ
E
G1
O
Z
c
N
Y
fC
fC
N
}
rn
0
O
N
N
n
C
O1
Y
(O
G1
C
.O
f0
m
O
cv
Q!
}
0
0
N
7
C
N
Y
f0
N
N
}
Q1
O
O
N
v
E
G1
O
Z
C
N
Y
m
r-I
fD
v
}
rn
0
0
N
N
n
C
41
Y
fp
N
C
.O
(0
CO
O
O
O
}

O
O
N
_T
7
C
Q)
Y
ro
N
L
co
Q)
}
Ql
O
O
N
L
Q)
E
cu
Q
Z
C
Y
l0
c-I
f9
v
}
0)
O
O
N
N
C
UJ
Y
v
C
CO
O
v
}
O
O
N
_T
7
C
v
Y
t9
N
L
m
N
}
al
O
O
N
L
cu
-C
C
a)
O
Z
C
Y
f9
r-1
(q
v
}
m
O
O
N
N
C
N
Y
H
v
C
CO
O
v
}
oL
C
c
n

O
O
N
_T
C
QJ
Y
F-
H
N
L
r0
v
T
0)
O
O
N
v
E
a,
O
Z
c
aJ
Y
H
L
O
O
N
N
C
Y
f9
a)
C
N
m
O
L
v
W
rl
U
C
0
Y
m
0
0
L
a
O
O
N
_T
_7
C
a)
Y
N
L
f9
v
i
m
O
O
N
L
v
E
a
O
Z
c
v
Y
cv
L
a]
i
m
O
O
N
N
N
C
C)
C
N
cc
m
O
L
a)
a
j J
d J
oD
v
N
� w
N
N U_
� W
O T
n .� i