20061277 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20111004

"F ••'' ;-lF.,-'�S •Y'�'i ~..:rte yiil -r. �.t,� �f,.,�,`t,: 111`= � ' ..
vt
.ii.�
1�-�' ..,.; �:::�� -'�. _. 14' (�'l -f. _ .zrr: •, i,�� �v.,t +.. ,.'I " .t�•; 1�" "a � �� \lir\
' 1 •;i i > . 171•:tn'?� (LI
�."4
1 1, , I "'�'�!; %��_ r ; � ` v:' _ _ - � :y�'r•- , �..��c �, ��. - f •
j',
;! /' 1.• -•,r.:�',''•ir-�:- .:�.���.?z,A 'fi -'' •,��.�!, J,..:Y?••,.�'�` -,,1 lam.: ,r,L. .���i, \�•�;: ��J,f..-

BROCK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 (2011)
Jones County, North Carolina
EEP Project No 92333
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
EVi t
ra4GUPUn
1652 Mad Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1652
Final Monitoring Report
September 2011

Prepared by
�
colo�ical
ineering�
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Spnngs NC 27540
919 557 0929
L�",.Iatl
G Lane Sauls, Jr , Ancipal
This report follows methodologies consistent with the Content Format and Data Requirements
/ for EEP Monitoring Reports Version 12 (11116106)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibit Table I
Page
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT
1
SECTION II
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 III
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 11
` TABLES
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
Exhibit Table VII
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
10
FIGURE
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
Chock Site Moritonng Peport (EEP P olect No 92333)
1 in-)I Ve son — Year 3 (2011)
rrep'ircd b/ Ecological Engineei i g LLP
Pa;ei

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 3 (2011) 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 1850 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 3 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 3
�✓� findings, two of three vegetation plots met the vegetation success criteria for stream mitigation credit and
three of four total vegetation plots met the success criteria for BMU or Nutrient Offset Buffer Restoration
mitigation credit EEP will oversee a supplemental planting of the areas exhibiting low stem densities during
the 2011 2012 dormant season This planting will consist of native species, consistent with those noted in the
original planting plan averaging 2 0 to 2 5 feet in height Species identification tags will be placed on each
stem
Stream Restoration Monitoring
Stream monitoring assessments were conducted using surveys and comparisons of three existing cross
sections along the UT No problems were noted 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
A bankfull event has been measured each of the past three years of monitoring thus exceeding the minimum
success criteria established for hydrology
Monitoring efforts will continue in 2012
Brock Site Monitoring Peport (EEP Project No 92333) Page 1
Final Version — Year 3 (2011)
Piepared h/ Ecological Ergineermg LLP

r }
SECTION II PROJECT BACKGROUND
r
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 197 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 LIT 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 surrounding vegetative communities, and
Mock Sipe Morrtoring Report (EEP Projea No 92333) P -ige 2
Final Version — Year J (2011)
Prep ,ired b/ Ecological Engineering LLP

C� 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 (USAGE, 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
mayor 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)
r�
/
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page 3
Final Version — Year 3 (2011)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering LLP

0 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
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 third 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 I Project Restoration Components
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
v
0
0
Project Segment or
c
>
°
m o
M
m c
Stationing
Comment
Reach ID
N
�
a
«_
X
W
Q
Reach 1— UT to Big
1 850
Ell
P3
1 5 1
1 233
0 +00 28 +50 16
0
Chinquapin Branch
Nutrient Offset
Nitrogen Reduction
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
14927
n/a
Calculated by 77 57N
Credit ( >50 from Top
Ibs /year
Ibs /ac /yr x 197 acres
of Bank)
Neuse Buffer ( <50
n/a
R
n/a
1 1
423
n/a
v '
from Top of Bank)
a M
Nutrient Offset Buffer
n/a
R
n/a
1 1
197
n/a
µ {
( >50 from Top of Bank)
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream (If)
Riparian
Non riparian
Total Wetland
Buffer (ac)
Nutrient Offset Nitrogen
Wetland (ac)
Wetland (ac)
(ac)
Reduction Credit
1 233
( J
- s
6 20'
149 27 Ibs /yr for 30 years
Ell = Enhancement II R = Restoration P3 = Priority Level III Source LLP 1U1U
Nutrient Offset calculations are per NCDWQ recommendation
arocl Site P ionitoring Report tEEP Ptoject No 92333)
F nal Jersion — Year 3 (2011)
Piepa ed by Fcological Engrneeni g LLP
Page 4

0
Exhibit Table II 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
Aril 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
August 2011
September 2011
Year 4 Monitoring
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Natives
Year 5 Monitoring
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
9
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
Seeding Contractor
Seal Brothers Contracting
P 0 Box 86
Dobson NC 27017
Planting Contractor POC
Mari Seal [phone]
Seed Mix Source
Unknown
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Natives
550 E Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte NC 28273
[phone]
Monitoring Performer
Ecological Engineering LLP
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs NC 27540
Stream Monitoring POC
G Lane Sauls Jr [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
G Lane Sauls Jr [phone]
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EFP Project No 92333)
Fi al Version — Year 3 (2011)
Prepared by Ecological Fngn Bering LLP
Source EEP 2010
Page 5

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 Sod 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
NCDWQ Sub 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
I No
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
L Not Applicable
Percent of project easement fenced
0%
Monitoring Plan View
Source ttN 2010
The Monitoring Plan View drawings associated with the project are provided as part of Figure 3
�l
Brock Site Mon tonng Repot (EFP Project No 92333) Page 6
Final Version — Year " (2011)
Prepared Ly Ecological Engineering LLP

C� 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 2011 as a result of a warranty planting completed by the contractor in
February 2010 and the observation of several additional planted stems that were not obvious during the Year
2 assessment The increase was most noticeable with respect to the annual mean which increased from 505
planted stems per acre in 2010 to 526 planted stems per acre in 2011 Actual stem per acre increases were
observed in Vegetation Plots #1 #3 and #4 Vegetation Plot #2 results were the same as last year and still
below the success criteria The chart below provides a summary of the Year 3 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
1 740
971
971
2
283
283
283
3
n/a
283
323
4
728
445
526
Vegetation Plots #1 #3 and #4 met the success criteria required for buffer mitigation or Nutrient Offset
Nitrogen credit and Vegetation Plots #1 and #4 met the success criteria for stream mitigation credit
Vegetation Plot #2 failed to meet the same criteria for both mitigation types A complete breakdown of this
information is provided in Appendix A along with photographs of each vegetation plot taken during the
assessment
Prock Srtc Moniiormg Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page 7
Final Version - Year 3 (2011)
Prcpared by Fcological Engi ieerm LAP

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 that were observed during 2009 filled in
with vegetation prior to the Year 2 assessment and have remained consistent through Year 3 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 Year 3 minimum success criteria in one of the four vegetation plots
The extent of the supplemental planting is also shown on Figure 4
EEP will oversee a supplemental planting during the 2011 2012 dormant season in the areas exhibiting low
stem densities This planting will consist of native species, consistent with those noted in the original planting
plan averaging 2 0 to 2 5 feet in height Species identification tags will be placed on each stem
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 7
square feet an increase in approximately 0 5 square feet from the previous year This can be attributed to
several possible situations (1) vegetation within the channel (2) variable flow rates and, (3) survey
differences Since this is a first order channel the dimension is expected to vary based on flow rates 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 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
Bt ock Sire Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92j33) Page 3
Final Wer,ion — Year 3 (2011)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering LLP

G
Exhibit Table V Cross Section Comparison
Brock Site (EEP Protect No 92333)
Attribute
Cross Section #1
Cross Section #2
Cross Section #3
Measured High
Station 11 +00
Station 15+00
Station 23 +00
Monitoring Year
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
1 3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Bankfull area (sci feet)
72
46
57
�,t
Not available
69
64
77
72
46
37
Crest gage
14 inches
Bankfull width (feet)
87
78
78
83
80
88
f
290
93
79
Bankfull mean depth
08
06
07
"
08
08
09
J
04
05
05
(feet)
r
Bankfull max depth
14
09
10
14
14
15
07
09
08
(feet)
$
�»
Width depth ratio
105
132
108
99
100
100
823
1 186
170
_
d
Flood prone area width
524
443
480
k
499
492
498
510
52 1
506
(feet)a
Entrenchment ratio
60
57
61
60
62
56
18
56
64
Low bank height ratio
10
10
14
*
11
10
10
10
10
10
�_
a
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 has
�1occurred during 2011 Approximately 2 61 Inches of rain were associated with a storm event in April 2011
J 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 the previous
years monitoring, 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)
Date of Data
Calculated
Measured High
Photo #
Collection
Date(s) of occurrence
Method
Bankfull
Water
( if available)
Elevation
Elevation
10/24/09
Unknown
Crest gage
14 inches
35 inches
Not available
11/13/10
7/4/10 9/27/10 thru
Crest gage
14 inches
40 inches
Not available
10 /1 /10
7/7/11
4/27/11 thru 4/29/11
Crest gage
14 inches
15 inches
Not available
(assumed)
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
�t
Brock Site Monitoring Repot (EEP Protect No 92333) P-,ge
F nal Ve sion — Year 3 (2011)
Prepared b/ Ecological Enginee ing LLP

� 2 Stream Problem Areas
No significant changes to the dimension were observed during Year 3 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
A visual inspection was completed during the monitoring assessment to locate and /or identify areas of
inadequate performance This inspection generally includes an assessment and mental judgment of physical
conditions, including structural features Bank condition was the only feature assessed at the Brock Site
Results of the assessment are depicted below in Exhibit Table VII
Exhibit Table VII Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
Segment /Reach Entire (1 850 linear feet)
Feature Initial MY 01 MY 02 MY 03 MY 04 MY 05
Bank Condition 100% 100% 100% 100%
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
01 Brock Site Monnonng Report (EEP Projcct No 92333) Page 10
Final Vers on — Year 3 (2011)
Prepaied by E,ological E%inecrrng i LP

�J 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/ CoastalPlainSTreamMitigationFina lDraftPolicyNov
28 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 Monrtonnp Report (EFP Proje.,i No 9333) Pape 11
Final Version — Year 3 (2011)
Prepared b/ Ecological Engineei ing t LP

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
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).
Fioure Courtesy of Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., 201
colo�ical VICINITY MAP r�
Brock Stream Restoration Site, Jones County, NC
LJ—hg ll 1%stem
EEP Project No. 92333 1',11 1111 enicht
August 18, 2010

STREAM ENHANCEMENT II = 1 850 LINEAR FEET
NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION (50 BUFFER) = 4 23 ACRES
NUTRIENT OFFSET BUFFER RESTORATION (BEYOND 50) = 197 ACRES
TOTAL BUFFER RESTORATION = 6 20 ACRES
PROJECT ASSET MAP _
9
�� W1rcf�
^..o �"�`� — —'' ` Sfmfeo ealmJrLlp se.vioae n,o.
SWS 70401 Ja F *,M ftw
- r� f ^ M/yt K i7i0i
° Ism
I ---- r-"l TIVATC MELD
fl
-- �CONC SLAB _ CONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS \
–A"
\ 1 f
STA 10+00 00
.i
111 TIVATED FIELD —�
NOTE
ENHANCEMENT STA 10+00 00 TO STA_20+64 22
N
m
i
r-I
~
c�
W
W
m
N
m
C
0
Q
ca
J
d
F
=
a
Q
H
H
H
Q
°
Z
u
a
1u
N
u
0
Z
i,
0
V
N
�'
m
�
c
^'
W
u
o
H CL
m
a
N
Lu
W
$0
w
W
1-4
O
0
m
N
0
A
m
Z
�
CL
QU
g
I
c:
U — F

f
STREAM ENHANCEMENT II = 1950 LINEAR FEET PROJECT ASSET MAP '
NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION 150 BUFFER) = 4 23 ACRES
NUTRIENT OFFSET BUFFER RESTORATION (BEYOND 50) = 197 ACRES
TOTAL BUFFER RESTORATION = 6 20 ACRES
.I
.ti
S+m+x CmeiHhp Servlese mm
Wt 7040) Join I—Mn R.W
i
Tqa feria
i
� � wa..euNmm
-eULTIVATED FIELD
NOTE
ENHANCEMENT STA 20+64 22 TO STA 28 +50 16
NW 2
1 pomwT Boom 1
%r
)r
Jr
/I
fj
I
t
I
II
iaa
3
Op
LL
N
H
W
W
M
cn
CL
Q
N
O
Z
g
C
Co
`
R
i
N
w
F-
LL,
cn
cl)
Q
a`
w
ar
O
Z
=
U
c
00
rn
a
E
E
N
d
m
W
o
�
O
m
m
a
m
c s,

0
0
PLANT LIST FOR TREES NO SHRIM BY ZONE
COBBION NAPE SCaRf rm mwm I WXMIEABT REGION OSa ATOR GM
STREAMBAM PLANTING
I FLOOOPLA61 BUFFER PLANTING- COMM PLAIN BOTTOMING HARDWOOD FORM I
UT+IAND UffER. RANTBK: i®® iIEWC KARDWOOO FORM CQWAL Rua SUBTYPE
l
,1 1
w
-::7� CONC SLAB
`(
0,
\_X-SEC
STA. 11 +00 1
r- -�X-SSE
STA.15+00 _
i Ll 1 IV � I rL r HELP -
RECORD DRAWING
Staltec Conauttkv S"%= bv.
Su1h 300.801 Jd F aA* Rmd
TY 91!18 Lf8f8
ra. 91385 L7M
VEGATATION
g` PLOT #3 —
r CONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS `� ORIGIN
�r7
'V
VEMTA
PLOT #1
ORIGI N�
-i
LEGEND
W
STREAMBANK PLANTING
FLOODPLAIN BUFFER PLANTING
difi ^. �IIdV
UPLAND BUFFER PLANTING
W
SPECIMEN BOUNDARY TREE
PSII
PHOTOSTATION
RECORD DRAWING
Staltec Conauttkv S"%= bv.
Su1h 300.801 Jd F aA* Rmd
TY 91!18 Lf8f8
ra. 91385 L7M
VEGATATION
g` PLOT #3 —
r CONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS `� ORIGIN
�r7
'V
VEMTA
PLOT #1
ORIGI N�
-i
CREST GAUGE
J
VEGATATION
PLOT #2
ORIGIN
W
difi ^. �IIdV
;7L�,iC��ti'�it7
➢EZ��SVe.1d.
i
�'adyK6. ^.:.l:�i�:
fi:^ I-': I: �L -:;.'..i�ii,fl'r.`•C%�"rite:�
/i�Ft�=lam -!:�
W_
J
�:= c #GGif <��
:'1r:7'1:.'7;:Sii!•Yi:-lr:
�,�c #:[•if5��.:!G...
•'T.' 71 "T�iiCY:.'T,a.-rr:�'.
CREST GAUGE
J
VEGATATION
PLOT #2
ORIGIN
�J
N
LL.
0
V-4
=IF
W
N
i
<;:eT'r.T��'T�L•:��
/i�Ft�=lam -!:�
W_
J
�:= c #GGif <��
:'1r:7'1:.'7;:Sii!•Yi:-lr:
i:':': ::�
�J
N
LL.
0
V-4
=IF
hD
M
m m
M C
N
o, o
Z o
� t O
d t N
O
;? 2 co
IL
IL tA
Ui C
No
3 7
u a
u O
O
CID
a�
�L9
dll �
C4 us
0 C i
0
a
0.
Lu
W
d
0
0
CL
ro
E
to
m
W
N
i
4
N
3
W_
J
IL
Z
W
g
N
a
L7
W
W
Z
N
R
W
Z
0 0
J
=
Z
hD
M
m m
M C
N
o, o
Z o
� t O
d t N
O
;? 2 co
IL
IL tA
Ui C
No
3 7
u a
u O
O
CID
a�
�L9
dll �
C4 us
0 C i
0
a
0.
Lu
W
d
0
0
CL
ro
E
to
m

o � c o cp
O
ME o 13
a Z c rn
z Cz m
Z I
T
< Z X
M Z
IT! O
n�
/ �A r/
i
4*4T�yLIIyFs�
i ESkF�p`�s
T �
�i 22
ZED
1
z
I �
Y'
i
0
1 \
ad I I z
�I +
An
I
` ( Z I !i Ire z
r �
\ t
\
4
O
r 1 -- P
= K- r f
A�,�
MONITORING PLAN VIEW - SHEET 2 OF 2
Iv-
6n"-Ineerfng� gic-al r-d�l Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
Figure 3
dAaMeri'l—iment Jones County, North Carolina �
August 18, 2010
PI n
Basemap Source EEP 2010

i�
rj
Cross Section #1
Station 11+00
Cross Section #2
Station 15 +00
____ - - -fir = - - - -- - - -- �T --
1
CEIETA
----i- Vegetation Plot #2
283 total stems /acre
283 planted hardwood stems /acre
Vegetation Plot #1
1,740 total stems /acre ` R\1 III` ` 411
-- — -
971 planted hardwood stems /acre Q M M _
T
Et
MONITORING LEGEND
�l Vegetation Plot meeting minimum
survival success criteria
Vegetation Plot net meetlnn
minimum succes.
Vegetation Plot #3
323 planted hardwood stems /acre
Vegetation Plot #4
728 total stems /acre
526 planted hardwood stems /acre
#R)M pffAL AM WERMAL CONTI OL TABLE
OQQ 1.OQ� M « sI•
iID•
•OY1! 1•!Ml! Q/ « A110
JI9Y
Cross Section #3
Station 23 +00
�e
• 1
I
1
1 1_
I
i I rt�i
CtJ
f ,j-
1
1
JZI
1 /
1
I
d 1
CERTIFY TINT THE TOPOOR W
CO, SUR n CO OH THIS RAM WERE PER HY
E AIFS L CbOUC1ED NOER T SUPER "Ot A Oft
THE MI lW IJ e V W" MOTES TK IS MOT A
RoTra A SOF WTrrzss W Iwo NO ".FJJ, TM
DA or � � xooe
bV
�a w
MTE 7/
L
-In. P.q.a wa.are..� u..wnem.mam m a m.
M00011 Em.'r.n EMWV�[P.o� IEfT.d..emnimb
nearer etwerf nU �� rs� 4.. p.i.al P� s b
r.mesa A ®r 4 a.+.zma a.aoM a a•esaea,d �a
nr s.«�W.•m+�.M.eene. eragrw a..�ad
srnbal. im•d re. a.�ea+. n.eRr.Q
era aarerwa r.. Ant rQ.a r..rrm u.erT
A.n n.m.�s a no TnWer� � a. ra.aw�
1 1
_ f 1
�' �T \ \J ' ' ALL GItEAIllfF3 A16MOI @OMfA/ONOUtDNmAREti,Y1lO ODOROIMTE
1 11 Wo111(IQIe >o.P'l1G0•Pt TtDAIWa R>OL
� � _�_A ' 1 aMETIMmE ARC MpTA•OI�IYTT/s YNIFY
t�' 1 aaa coas aF n/Iat/R161'MAx Q�t.uo pMfiTCws OnOeME
� 1 1 IDaW TI/IF t AM ORIYWAL �Oai� fWe OR fCAMI�ffAt A/ETI�
I , g1'OiOUf.T OP TIE/AlO al111•fOR
I 1 a Tlp aueKr IIMJPI�M ®rQR TraPwRrca.vonls�oxeim� -.aT®
hea.�on AWrmeaoM or TIQ uaa.ewTO Tk nwoa.a� ro
3 ; i b.t]1 AIm AOM1CIOR k1C�lIL fGVEO'M
t 11Y PAROHM GFi46ELTrorwramra OR RIGRi Of 01X/313 THAT
(I 11 II( c \I I , 1 xA�� wRe�au�ewloa
1 1
1 1
PI7�L IFr'T i! N r_ crn_n�na�nan,
r
� � o
W I-
CL
E wo N O
OaZ E
U • aN'g
L. O t0 m 1!
T T
ca
_ W E
• CO a
lC C m c
E C
-
mZo
�. W ° if
l0 N
CO
SIJ N
T G
U G
P- V a
$ C
CD V W
ax
0� E
r, E
W
;3
Cn
4
i
LU
Z M
M
Q 0)
J
a 0
0
~ a`
� a
Z u1
0 W
H N
Z C
m
v
v
a
00
Ii
�a
0
�o
U
L
0
z
C
7
O
U
N
C
0
7
0
N
00
N
7
al
M
WE
Oct
CO
O C X
1=
V
0
N
a
W
W
0
0
N
a
m
E
CO

01
STREAM ENHANCEMENT II = 1 850 LINEAR FEET
NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION (50 BUFFER) = 4 23 ACRES
NUTRIENT OFFSET BUFFER RESTORATION (BEYOND 50) = 197 ACRES
TOTAL BUFFER RESTORATION = 6 20 ACRES
PROJECT ASSET MAP �
R
f Y
Stmieo Con&M V So r%m Ina
w ]-W y bw F o�Rti bd
IN. 43mmuou
Fm 900[.W
1 \
4f
CUL7fIVATC9 CIELD
_
fl
CONC /SLAB r CONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS \ `
STA 10 +00 00
cw
C UI TIVATED FIELD —�
NOTE
ENHANCEMENT STA 10+00 00 TO STA-20+64 22
N
00
LL
-.-.
w
J-n P,
� e
t
W
W
eMrf
N
C
Q
V)
d
F
11J
W
H
a
Q
H
W
a+
Z
u
4J
O
a`
d
o
u
t
C
Z
ate+
N
m
N
W
q°n
m
to
Lu
W
W
H
W
0
In
Y
u
m c
y
o
m
Z
�
�
a
x
U
a
2
-.-.
w
J-n P,
� e
t

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data and Monitoring Plot Photographs
Appendix A provides a series of tables (Table 1, 2 3 4 5 6 and 9) 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) Tables 7 and 8 are based on visual observation during the monitoring assessment and comparison
with minimum success criteria numbers respectively
Bock Sitcc Monitoring Repoit (EEP Project No 92333) Page A 1
\ Final Version — Year 3 (2011)
JPrepared by Ecological Engineering LLP

0
Appendix A Table 1 CVS Vegetation Metadata
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
Report Prepared By
Lane SauIs
Date Prepared
8/8/201114 13
database name
EcoEng 2011 B mdb
database location
S \Projects \50000State \EEP50512 \50512004 EEP Brock Site \2011Year3 Monitoring
computer name
LANE
file sue 138313984
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT - - -
Metadata
Description of database file the report worksheets and a sum mary of project(s) and project data
Pro) planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre for each year This excludes live stakes
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre foreachyear This includes live stakes all
Prof tdalstems
planted stems and all natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems dead stems missing etc)
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency dl strobutoon of vigor classes listed by species
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems
Damage
impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Da mage values tallied by type for ea ch plot
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each speaes for each plot dead and missing stems
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
are excluded
A matrix of the count of total Irving stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
com boned) for each plat 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 Basi n
Neuse
length(ft)
stream to edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
0
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Pi oj-ct No 9213') Ppge A 2
Final VErsion - ti cai ' (2011)
�� Prepared by Ecolopical Engin-ei ing LLP

Appendix A Table 2 CVS Vigor by Species
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
°
v 6 Jc a
Species
Commord4ame
4
3
2
11101
1
Mis!ang
Unknown
tuliptree
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
green ash
it
3
Plata nus occidentalis
American sycamore
0
13
Quercus michauxn
swamp chestnut oak
1
3
1
4
1
Quercus nigra
Quercus nigra
water oak
3
3
1
Quercus pagoda
cherryba rk oak
3
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oa k
1
2
1
1
1
8
Quercus phellos
willow oak
0
1
1
8
TOT
1
8
14
Salix nigra
black wi How
1
2
Linodendron tuli fera
tuliptree
1
1
Platanus ocadentalis
American sycamore
2
9
2
TOT
8
8
16
2
11
1
1
3
Appendix A Table 3 CVS Damage by Species
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
Appendix A - Table 4 CVS Damage by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
92333 ALC 0001 year 3 71 181 61 1
92333 ALC 0002 year 3 3 7 3
92333 ALC 0003 -year 3 21 61 2
92333 ALC 0004 -vear 3 21 111 2
Qi ock Site Monitoring Repoit (EFP Project No 92133) Page A
Final Version — (e-)r 3 (2011)
P eparcd by Ecological Engineering LLP
°
v 6 Jc a
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
green ash
1
13
1
Linodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
0
2
Plata nus occidentalis
American sycamore
0
13
Quercus m ichauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
4
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
1
3
1
Quercus pagoda
cherryba rk oak
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
8
2
8
Salixrugra
blackwdlow
0
1
2
TOT
IS
8
14
421
131
1
Appendix A - Table 4 CVS Damage by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
92333 ALC 0001 year 3 71 181 61 1
92333 ALC 0002 year 3 3 7 3
92333 ALC 0003 -year 3 21 61 2
92333 ALC 0004 -vear 3 21 111 2
Qi ock Site Monitoring Repoit (EFP Project No 92133) Page A
Final Version — (e-)r 3 (2011)
P eparcd by Ecological Engineering LLP

Appencix A Table 5 CVSStems by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
A� X
h ~�y
�Q4& vQCJ
FF
k9 hQ
C9
A�°
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
14
11
14
14
Linodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
2
1
2
1
2
Plata nus occidentalis
American sycamore
11
3
367
3
4
4
Querais michauxn
swamp chestnut oak
5
3
1 67
1
1
3
Quercus rogra
water oak
4
1
4
4
Querais pagoda
ch errybark oak
51
1
5
5
Quercus phellos
willowoak
9
2
45
6
3
Sal ix nigra
black willow
21
11
2
1
2
8
8
521
81
1 241
7
8
13
AppendixA Table 6 CVSAII Stems by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
Ace rnegundo
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Linodendron tulipifera
Plata nus occidentalis
Quercus michauxu
Quercus nigra
Quercus pagoda
Quercus phellos
Salix nigra
Ulmus
10
boxelder
aree n a sl
American sycar
swamp chestnr
water oak
cherrybark oak
willow oak
black willow
elm
10
FF
a M)
RR
hw�y �Fy GQ GQ V V
1 1 1 1
141 11 14 14
2r Ir 2 2
3
45
13
Brocl Site Monitoring Reoort (EEP Piolect No 923'3) Page A 4
O Final Version — Year' (2011)
Prepared by Ecological Engrneei-mg LLP

0
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 Floodplarn
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bare Buffer
i n/a
n/a
n/a
Invasive /Exotic Populations
I 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 Mete
Tract Mean
UT
VP 1
Yes
75%
UT
VP 2
No
UT
VP 3
n/a
UT
I VP 4
Yes
Buffer Criteria
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Metz
Tract Mean
UT
VP 1
Yes
1009'0
UT
VP 2
No
UT
VP 3
Yes
UT
VP 4
Yes
Brock Srto Monitoring Repo t (EEP Project No 92333) Page A 5
Firal V-rsion — Year 3 (2011)
(� ) Prepared bV Ecological Fngmc c ring LLP

0
0
Appendix A Table 9 CVS Plot Summary Data
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Current Plot Data (MY3 2011)
Annual Means
E92333 ALC 0001
E92333 ALC 0002
E92333 ALC 0003
E92333 ALC 0004
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
MY1(2009)
MYO (2009)
PnoLS
P all
IT
PnoLS
P all
T
PnoLS
P all
T
PnoLS
P all
T
PnoLS
P all
T
PnoLS
IP all
T
PnoLS
P all
T
PnoLS
P all
T
Acer ne undo
boxelder
Tree
1
1
1
Bacchans halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub Tree
1
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush.
Shrub
1
2
2
2
Cornus foemina
stiff dogwood
Shrub Tree
4
4
Fraxmus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
141
14
141
1
14
141
14
14
14
14
14
141
14
141
14
14
Linodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
21
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
11
11
11
11
11
11
9
9
9
14
14
14
Quercus
oak
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxu
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
31
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
41
4
4
4
41
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
5
51
5
41
4
4
1
11
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
6
6
3
3
3
8
9
9
6
7
7
6
71
7
9
10
10
Salix ni ra
black willow
Tree
19
1
2
7
1
2
26
1
2
20
4
ulmus
elm
Tree
1
1
Unknown
unknown
1
3
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
23
24
43
7
7
7
81
81
10
12
131
18
50
52
78
48
50
70
45
46
50
551
631
63
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
002
002
002
002
010
010
010
010
4
4
5
2
2
2
3
3
5
4
4
4
8
8
10
8
8
10
8
8
9
9
11
11
930781
97125
1740 1
283 28
283 28
283 28
323 75
323751
40469
485 62
526 09
728 43
505 86
526091
78914
485 62
505 86
708 2
455 27
465 39
505 86
556441
637 381
637 38
Note Trees in bold are considered Planted Hardwood Species with regards to Riparian Buffer Restoration Criteria
l Brock Sttc Monitoring Report (ELP Project No 92333) page. q (,
Final Version — Year 3 (2011)
Prep,red by Ecological EnginPenng LLP

Monitoring Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot #1
Photostation 2.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #1
Taken Julv 2011
Vegetation Plot #2
Photostation I
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #1.
Taken Julv 2011
Photostation 5.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #2
Taken Julv 2011
Photostation 6.
Facing northwest across Vegetation Plot #2.
Taken Julv 2011

Vegetation Plot #3
Photostation 8.
Facing southwest across Vegetation Plot #3.
Taken July 2011
Vegetation Plot #4
Photostation 9.
Facing southeast across Vegetation Plot #3.
Taken Julv 2011
Photostation 11.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #4.
Taken July 2011
Photostation 12.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #4.
Taken July 2011

APPENDIX B
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
42
41
40
39
38
r
c
37
m
w 36
35
34
33
Note:
XSC #1 - Brock Site Sta. 11 +00
12011 --
- I
32
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (R)
BAs -Built -0- 2009 -* --2010 -+ -2011
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 3 (2011) Cross Section Photographs
Facing north along the west side of Cross Section #1. Facing west across Cross Section #1.
Taken July 2011 Taken July 2011

Cross Section #2 Comparison
Station 15 +00
40
39
38
37
36
x
c
4 35
m
W 34
33
32
31
XSC #2 - Brock Site Sta. 15 +00
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)
+As -Buin -12009 —0 2010 � -2011
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 3 (2011) Cross Section Photographs
Facing northeast along the west side of Cross Section #2.
Taken July 2011
Facing northwest along the west side of Cross Section #2.
Taken July 2010

Cross Section #3 Comparison
Station 23 +00
35
34
33
x 32
c
0
.q
w 31
30
29
28
0
Note:
XSC #3 - Brock Site Sta. 23 +00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (ft)
tAs -Built 12009 - +-2010 12011
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 3 (2011) Cross Section Photographs
Facing northeast along the west side of Cross Section #3.
Taken July 2011.
Facing northwest along the west side of Cross Section #3.
Taken July 2011.

0
Cross Section Data Summary
Bi ock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page B 5
Final Version — Yc-ir 3 (2011)
Pr wed by Eco ogical E-igtnec nn@ l LP
®mmmmmmmomom0
mommmm0mm0mmm�mv�v
mommmm�mmmmmm�m�mm
©mmm�oEWEMw
111111IM111111
1111111MIllill���������
IIIIIIMIIII�������������
Bi ock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page B 5
Final Version — Yc-ir 3 (2011)
Pr wed by Eco ogical E-igtnec nn@ l LP
mommmm0mm0mmm�mv�v
mommmm�mmmmmm�m�mm
©mmm�oEWEMw
111111IM111111
1111111MIllill���������
IIIIIIMIIII�������������
Bi ock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page B 5
Final Version — Yc-ir 3 (2011)
Pr wed by Eco ogical E-igtnec nn@ l LP
mommmm�mmmmmm�m�mm
©mmm�oEWEMw
111111IM111111
1111111MIllill���������
IIIIIIMIIII�������������
Bi ock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page B 5
Final Version — Yc-ir 3 (2011)
Pr wed by Eco ogical E-igtnec nn@ l LP

APPENDIX C
Rainfall Data Summary
Brock Site Momionng Report (EEP Project No 92333)
Final Ve sion — Yrar 3 (2011)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering t LP
Page C 1

:p _T T
a 7
0 O
G
Q m
6 O
m o
o_ -�
O N p
2
m N '
� o N
7 � o
N
� m
m
ao �
r 0
r
v �
z
0
N
w
uj
Oq
N
n
N
O
1 Jan
10 Jan
19 Jan
28 Jan
6 Feb
15 Feb
24 Feb
4 Mar
13 Mar
22 Mar
31 Mar
9 Apr
18 Apr
27 Apr
6 May
15 May
24 May
2 Jun
11 Jun
20 Jun
v
29 Jun
8 Jul
17 Jul
26 Jul
4 Aug
13 Aug
22 Aug
31 Aug
9 Sep
0 18 Sep
27 Sep
6 Oct
d 15 Oct
0
0
24 Oct
d
^, 2 Nov
11 Nov
20 Nov
29 Nov
8 Dec
17 Dec
Precipitation Total (in)
N
A
N
O
I.,
N
E2 I
'0
d
0
7
v
d
fU
0
0
s
µt
b
A
I ' w
T , YN 2'
+B') 7
z
* r
�
r
t ro ;�w� ter
rl €g
q `I 1 �^ °!
i 1b;
6 9 4,` Y e
fn.,
r
r
t
`
e
z
r
t
a
1
F �
..
w
p' 4. t 1
''
v�
r
S L
'4" tii"r s 1�
t y t
S
R �
1 h
f �
w
F
7
P �
y
�
t
11
N
O
I.,
N
E2 I
'0
d
0
7
v
d
fU
0
0

APPENDIX D: MONITORING PHOTOGRAPH SUMMARY
Photostation
Number and Year 0 Baseline - Taken July 2009 Year 1 - Taken November 2009 Year 2 - Taken July 2010 Year 3 - Taken July 2011
Location

APPENDIX D: MONITORING PHOTOGRAPH SUMMARY CONTINUED
Photostation
Number and Year 0 Baseline - Taken July 2009 Year 1 - Taken November 2009 Year 2 - Taken July 2010 Year 3 - Taken July 2011
Location
#6 Facing
northwest
across
Vegetation Plot
#2
Iri�,t
#7 Facing north -
northeast at
Crest Gage
situated near -'
Station 18 +6S
#8 Facing
southwest along
western axis of
Vegetation Plot
#3
#9 Facing
southeast across
Vegetation Plot
#3
I
#10 Facing
northeast along
tributary in the
vicinity of
Station 22 +50

APPENDIX D: MONITORING PHOTOGRAPH SUMMARY CONTINUED
Photostation
Number and Year 0 Baseline - Taken July 2009 Year 1- Taken November 2009 Year 2 - Taken July 2010 Year 3 - Taken July 2011
Location
#11 Facing -
northeast along
the eastern axis
of Vegetation
Plot #4
t
#12 Facing
northwest
across
Vegetation Plot
#4
#13 Facing
southwest
(upstream)
along the
tributary from
Station 28 +25
t.
#14 Facing
northeast along
buffer area
associated with
tributary from
Station 28 +25 1 ii

APPENDIX D: MONITORING PHOTOGRAPH SUMMARY CONTINUED
Photostation
Number and Year 0 Baseline - Taken July 2009 Year 1 - Taken November 2009
Location
#15 Facing
southwest from
Chinquapin
Branch
#16 Facing
southeast at
buffer area
along
Chinquapin
Branch
Year 2 - Taken July 2010
Year 3 - Taken July 2011