20061277 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20130212

c6- P97
BROCK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Monitoring Year 4 (2012)
Jones County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 92333
--- [-�-R 6
;{ 1 `> X01
i
pENR - VVATI=K QUALITY
Wetlands 3 Sjct;Y�wat�f branch
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
4 osrteni
F'F: { }L: MJiM
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Final Monitoring Report
December 2012
\ECieQ �tD
DEC 1 % 2012
NC ECOSYS7 -EM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Prepared by:
r
ECOLOGICAL
ENGIN'EERING
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, North Carolina
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 12 (11116106)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT
SECTION II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Project Objectives ............................................. ...............................
B. Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach .........................
C. Location and Setting ......................................... ...............................
D. History and Background ................................... ...............................
E. Monitoring Plan View ....................................... ...............................
Page
_1
.....I ................... 2
........ ............................... 2
........ ............................... 2
........ ............................... 4
........ ............................... 4
........ ............................... 6
SECTION III. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ............... ...............................
A. Vegetation Assessment .......................................................... ...............................
1. Stem Counts ............................................................... ...............................
2. Vegetative Problems Areas ....................................... ...............................
B. Stream Assessment ................................................................ ...............................
1. Procedural Items ....................................................... ...............................
2. Stream Problem Areas ............................................... ...............................
3. Fixed Station Photographs ......................................... ...............................
SECTION IV. METHODOLOGY SECTION
.............. 7
.................... 7
.................... 7
.................... 8
.................... 8
.................... 8
..................10
..................10
....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
FIGURES
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

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 4 (2012) 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
Monitoring Year (MY) 4 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 MY 4
findings, two of three vegetation plots met the vegetation success criteria for stream mitigation credit and
two of four total vegetation plots met 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 unnamed tributary. No problems were noted. Bankfull dimensions differed only minimally
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 four years of monitoring, thus exceeding the minimum
success criteria established for hydrology.
Monitoring efforts will continue in 2013.

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;
• Enhance 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 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.
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 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
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 mayor 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
Year 4 (2012)
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.
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 Site is undergoing its fourth 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.
Ell = Enhancement II R = Restoration P3 = Priority Level III Source: EEP, 1010
Nutrient Offset calculations are per NCDWQ recommendation.
Exhibit Table I. Project Restoration Components
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Project Segment or
X - Z;
CL CC D
Reach 1— UT to Big
LU
1,850
Ell
P3 1.5:1 1,233 0 +00 28 +50.16
Chinquapin Branch
Nutrient Offset
Nitrogen Reduction
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
149.27
n/a
Calculated by 77.57N
Credit (>50' from Top
Ibs /year
Ibs /ac /yr x 1.97 acres
of Bank)
Neuse Buffer ( <50'
n/a
R
n/a
1:1
4.23
n/a
from Top of Bank)
Nutrient Offset Buffer
n/a
R
n/a
1:1
1.97
n/a
(>50' from Top of Bank)
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream (if) Riparian
Non-riparian
Total Wetland Buffer (ac)
Nutrient Offset Nitrogen
Wetiand
1,233 1
(ac)
Wetland
(ac) (ac)
6.20*
Reduction Credit
149.27 Ibs /yr for 30 years
Ell = Enhancement II R = Restoration P3 = Priority Level III Source: EEP, 1010
Nutrient Offset calculations are per NCDWQ recommendation.

Exhibit Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion
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
Planting required to meet original construction specification
n/a
February 2010
Year 2 Monitoring
July 2010
January 2011
Year 3 Monitoring
August 2011
September 2011
Year 4 Monitoring
August 2012
December 2012
Year 5 Monitoring
Mari Seal (336) 786 -2263
Seed Mix Source
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.O 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
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring POC
G. Lane Sauls Jr. (919) 557 -0929
Vegetation Monitoring POC
G. Lane Sauls Jr. (919) 557 -0929
Source: EEP, 2010

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, Griffon 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.
No
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
Not Applicable
1
Percent of project easement fenced
0%
Source: EEP. 2010
Monitoring Plan View
The Monitoring Plan View drawings associated with the project are provided as part of Figure 3.

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 count viability slightly decreased from 2011 to 2012. Based on our data, the approximate mean
for planted stems per acre in 2012 was 465 versus 505 in 2011. The decrease was most evident in Vegetation
Plots #1 and #2. Reasons for mortality were not obvious. The chart below provides a summary of the MY 4
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
2,347
890
890
2
242
242
242
3
n/a
283
283
4
971
445
526
Vegetation Plots #1 and #4 met the success criteria required for buffer mitigation or Nutrient Offset Nitrogen
credit, as well as the success criteria for stream mitigation credit. Vegetation Plots #2 and #3 failed to meet
the criteria for buffer mitigation or Nutrient Offset Nitrogen credit. Vegetation Plot #2 also failed to meet the
criteria for stream mitigation credit. A complete breakdown of this information is provided in Appendix A
along with photographs of each vegetation plot taken during the assessment.

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 MY 2 assessment and have remained consistent through MY 3 and MY 4.
During the early summer of 2012, both vegetation and boundary signage was partially destroyed along the
eastern portion of the easement adjacent to the agricultural field. This destruction was caused by the
mowing of an approximately 15 -foot corridor immediately inside the easement area adjacent to the reach.
Many of the trees throughout this area were severely impacted. Recent visits to the Project Site have not
revealed any additional mowing or maintenance activities. Vegetation problem areas are summarized in
Appendix A - Table 7 and are depicted on Figure 4.
As mentioned in last year's monitoring report, 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 has failed to increase the counts above the MY 5 minimum success criteria in two of the four
vegetation plots. The extent of the supplemental planting covered several areas along the eastern stream
bank and riparian zone.
EEP will oversee a supplemental planting during the 2012 -2013 dormancy 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 3.0 to 3.5 feet in height.
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 5.9
square feet; an increase in approximately 0.2 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 monitoring period to ensure that
the channel remains stable.
Attribute Cross Section #2 Cross Section #2 Cross Section #3
Station 11+00 Station 15 +00 Station 23 +00
Monitoring Year 2 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Bankfull area (sq. feet)
Date of Data
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Collection
10/24/2009
•. Occurrence
Unknown
Elevation Elevation
Crest gage 14 inches 3S inches
Not available
®
=®
®�
Not available
Bankfull width (feet)
10/1/10
7/7/2011
4/27/11 thru 4/29/11
Crest gage 14 inches 15 inches
Not available
(assumed)
8/16/2012
7/21/12 thru 7/25/12
Bankfull mean depth
(feet)®.
���■
(assumed)
����.
����■
(feet)
(feet) Bankfull max depth REE
®■
MEE
MEEM■
Width -depth ratio �®
•®.
�-
r r
®-
�����'
Flood prone area width ���■
(feet)
��
r r
■
®��■
Entrenchment ratio
Low bank height ratio
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
occurred during 2012. Approximately 8.31 inches of rain were associated with a storm event in July 2012.
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
Date of Data
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Collection
10/24/2009
•. Occurrence
Unknown
Elevation Elevation
Crest gage 14 inches 3S inches
Not available
11/13/2010
7/4/10, 9/27/10 thru
Crest gage 14 inches 40 inches
Not available
10/1/10
7/7/2011
4/27/11 thru 4/29/11
Crest gage 14 inches 15 inches
Not available
(assumed)
8/16/2012
7/21/12 thru 7/25/12
Crest gage 14 inches 30 inches
Not available
(assumed)

2. Stream Problem Areas
No significant changes to the dimension were observed during MY 4 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)
Bank Condition 1 100% 1 100% 100% I 100% I 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.

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),
2011. Brock Stream Restoration Site Monitoring Year 4 Report, dated September 2011. Prepared by
Ecological Engineering, LLP.
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 /Coastal PlainSTreamMitigationFinalDraftPolicyNov
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.

Snow Hill
11
boro Jason Gilftan
I-If) La Grange
Kinston
Woodington
Albertson
5 Ei
re
a.
411
nansville
Beulaville 2S8j
\•, wV 1
' ,--- Chinquapin `, I
Trentor
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 ]ones 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).
' _ 1 N
E
S
1 inch = '500'm
f 4&
4Z
Ak-
c, t ..,b,-
I SITE
\TA1
.. aranc ,�� !
{ 1 l
� .
Cem
Cerny
VICINITY MAP
Brock Stream Restoration Site
Jones County, NC FIGURE
OsySteill . EEP Project No. 1
� December 12, 2012 012
1`4'(l l:ItAM
Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps

Figure 2A PROJECT ASSET MAP
STREAM ENHANCEMENT II = 1850 LINEAR FEET
NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION (50' BUFFER) = 4.23 ACRES
NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION (BEYOND 5(r) =1.97 ACRES
'
d
eo
ii
TOTAL NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION = 6.20 ACRES �-� ��'
- �- -,�--
�y,
s +ontee Con&OWV ServIces ine
SWe 300.901 Jv FrWtWn RWW
Rawo%mc 276M
11L Smuti6s"
FM 9?M1.7GN
�
J
�
r
CULTIVATE[
FIELD — — - -
N
W
2
co)
cv
(n
ch
rn
\
\
0
CONC SLAB CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LIMITS
_
Q
r
\
\ r
:-
1
a
H
O
IL
Z
4
Lu
W
cn
IL
WVJ
CEMETERY
—
V
Y
z
O
m
a
STA. 10 +00.00
CULTIVATED FIELD
NOTE:
ENHANCEMENT STA. 10 +00.00 TO STA.20 +64.22
N
O
N
m
a
E
0
I,
r
ov
1-ZI
°z�
WW-
0
0
N
a
w
W
ei
0
N
CL
m
m

Ficiure 2D-
STREAM ENHANCEMENT II = 1850 LINEAR FEET PROJECT ASSET MAP
NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION (50' BUFFER) = 4.23 ACRES
NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION {BEYOND 501 = 1.97 ACRES
TOTAL NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION = 6.20 ACRES — °`_-
- -�_ stantec coneultkp serrtcm Inc.
r
r � —
- -CLJI TIVATFD F,1Fl D ^�
1
1`
NOTE:
ENHANCEMENT STA.20 +64.22 TO STA. 28 +50.16
SVt. 37e. AI J• IraMe'1 2eel
%l W w , IC 27M
766 f4alm"
F— 917J51.T@•
...s+mNCOO.
1 1
1 I �
l
1 t
1 �
r r
1 I
N
a
3
on
N
H
w
w
_
M
in
a
1CQ
N
z
r-
0
V
o
N
G
H
w
U
Q
H
N
0
a
a
w
+�
�
p
Z
Y
:
o
U
ayi
N
E
>
Z
W
in
H
m
U
Y
C
w
o
�
O
m
a
3
�Z
Ups^
OWE
z
ozIX
ww=

PLANT UST FOR TREES AND SHRUBS BY ZONE
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SOUTHEAST REGION INDICATOR SIZE
STREAMBRNK PLANTING
SMOOTH ALDER 1
AY6u 9wn&Me
+
-1. DIAMETER
SWAMPpOGWppp
77d 2 012&Vb
FACULTATIVE VIE- RAND-
O.S -1. UUVAeTEK
RGI N WILLOW
RT
FACULTATIVE +
-
VEO.P
.2
LTATIVE WETLAND •
0. -
FLOODPLAIN BUFFER PLANTING• COASTAL PLAIN BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST
EN ASH
i ponwhomto
WETIAND
8 TUBU
AMERICAN SYCAMORE
A Ddfiderlleb
FACULTATIVE WETLAND-
0.26' RGD TUBLNGS
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK
tyd&UW
D-
R D U
pAK
N`C
u
�
Z
c
o
U
U T
022 NGS
VNLLOW OAK
C
FACULTATIVE WETLAND-
D26'RCDTUBUNGS
UPLAND BUFFER PLANTING -WED MESIC HARDVMD FOREST COASTAL PLAIN SUBTYPE
77 7m 68.333766
VEG. PLOT it
35d D&n 50.168223
77d 28m 01.568M
SWEET E
354 06m 136046
FAcuLTATIvEvwnAND
VEG.FLOTIM
AMERICAN SY
Fvwwam ODD10emm"
FACULTATIVE WETLAND -
3wuambca3qrus
1 7m z7m =65=78
var asum
ACULTATIYE *
U
2
0.7E'R TUBLINGS
SPECIMEN BOUNDARY TREES
AM SYGA AORE I PYWWW oCdd lMU FAWLTATIVE ' DBII US
WHfiE OAK I qLartka ate FACULTATIVE UPLAND 1 1.51 DBH
�r
,s'= :.;vim s •
�r o
pJ
INS�V
mosr I63�1f7 N0. s>$r r
RECORD DRAWING
r
__ _ -- -- - " -- Stentec CmzWting Servlcea Inc.
- " SO -. 300. W .l— or.* R—d
-- ��- RWip66C 276%
Pon 916A61.7D2N
—atev-
CONSERVATION
4
1
O - �
X -SEC �
d� STA. 11 +00 7viu�TATiON
LOT #1
ORIGIN
STA.15 +00
— "In"
CV
VEGATATION
PLOT #.3 +
ORIGIN N
/ LLI
Lu
/ — co
Lu
Lu
_ Z
CREST GAUGE I
VEGATATION
PLOT #2
ORIGIN
PT. NAME
LEGEND
LONGRUDE
STREAMBANK PLANTING
LATITUDE
FLOODPLAIN BUFFER PLANTING
tUPLAND
BUFFER PLANTING
77d 2 012&Vb
SPECIMEN BOUNDARY TREE
�PS11
PHOTOSTATION
STA.15 +00
— "In"
CV
VEGATATION
PLOT #.3 +
ORIGIN N
/ LLI
Lu
/ — co
Lu
Lu
_ Z
CREST GAUGE I
VEGATATION
PLOT #2
ORIGIN
PT. NAME
LATITUDE
LONGRUDE
PT. NAME
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
T
35d osm 49.425536
77d 2 012&Vb
77.4 9Jb
RT
35dOSD1481.2508
77d29m0227370a
VEO.P
.2
1
nd 28M 00070686
35d 05m 53.329586
27m 7
15+00 KT
35d05M50.W5255
77d 27M 5P.400078
VEG. PLOT 42
35d 06m 63.033436
77d ZTM 38.105766
VEG. PLOT W GIN
.7
77d 2&n 01.60066a
N`C
u
�
Z
c
o
U
36d 54.
27M KSM26
VEG. PLOT i1
C
n 2 01.900336
VE . PLOT
35d O5m 64.977056
77 7m 68.333766
VEG. PLOT it
35d D&n 50.168223
77d 28m 01.568M
VEG. PLOT 03
354 06m 136046
776 27M Sfl6778W
VEG.FLOTIM
35d 05M 4 7746
77d 2&17 01.865WS
G. PLOT 93
3wuambca3qrus
1 7m z7m =65=78
�p a
,1
Ac
m
00
ii
N
LL
0
H
W 1vf
W m
N
�
�
L/1 rn
p
o
1 O
3 Z
W aui
p
o_
Q W
J �
a
N`C
u
�
Z
c
o
U
N
t;
a
I=
cu
>
Z
0
o
N
W
w
to
E
a
Z Y
C
u
F2 O
0 co
Z
2
L25
¢z
ore OC7
r ®-

p
F11,
''7
MgT�HCINE SEE
SySlep pt STA
1 �2
0
► O
Z
N
Z
M
Z;
r_
rn
r�
,
'► i' 70
rn
0
,
�I 0
II'I
f: fir'
n
MONITORING PLAN VIEW - SHEET 2 OF 2
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
ME COLOGICAL Jones County, North Carolina Figure 3 Con't GII�VEERING IAI ,1, �n,ent
November 7, 2012
Basemap Source: EEP, 2010
MEN
O n
Z
v �
00 0
W ° M
O 0
Z
0
<
_n Z Z
co v
C rD
Z
M
Z
O ?
z
L)
p
F11,
''7
MgT�HCINE SEE
SySlep pt STA
1 �2
0
► O
Z
N
Z
M
Z;
r_
rn
r�
,
'► i' 70
rn
0
,
�I 0
II'I
f: fir'
n
MONITORING PLAN VIEW - SHEET 2 OF 2
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
ME COLOGICAL Jones County, North Carolina Figure 3 Con't GII�VEERING IAI ,1, �n,ent
November 7, 2012
Basemap Source: EEP, 2010

Cross Section #1
Station 11 +00
l i
Vegetation Plot #1 Cross Section #2
1,740 total stems /acre Station 15 +00
971 planted hardwood stems /acre L-7 �—
ww a `�.\ \ fFl1ETARY
CONTROL W
Vegetation Problem Area -
Approximately 15 -foot mowed
area within easement boundary.
CONTwOLR
MONITORING LEGEND
® Vegetation Plot meeting minimum
survival success criteria
L-1 minimum Plot not meetine
minimum succes!
❑ Other Problem of
Vegetation Plot #3
283 planted hardwood stems /acre
lam
Vegetation Plot #2
242 total stems /acre
242 planted hardwood stems /acre
RURM r L AM WERTIGU coNMM TAUXE
r• rr afr Tlg31
Dre ISIWw
IaESIIIW
T'� wwll 1•Iltta/ nn
M ISUN
-, -.
- Tl.lw1
J
SURVEYS CONDUCTED UNDER L1Y SUPERVISION, ON
U ED UNDER W
mom"
a MIN." =I
•n1Lw Iw171/A1 OS)
p ttlrw
Islw/
n}!w
-"Wo
/ll/w.a awlleur Tw
4.2,
«WW Ifuru
.n:r11
1 �S) ]Ilwlw w!
MAUI ri13n
-n]w
Vegetation Plot #4
128 total stems /acre
nted hardwood stems /acre
G,
,a
Cross Section #3
Station 23 +00
' u
CONTROL SS � �� j
WOOD LINE
1
1
1
j1 NoTEs
1 r f. ALL ONITAAVZS ARF 1N)IBZINlrAL OROIAVU ANO AREAS ARf BY COOaOINATE
CONTROL M 1 I ) �Tignc EM SURVEY COMPLETED APg6 It NOY.
1 1 SURVE
S. NETIAAYJOA— NOT AOORFSSF)IY INS Y.
Vegetation Problem Area - I 1 ..OlLLY ODPIES OP TNS 9URVEY WTnr nlEUaB 3uaVErxs oafclNAL
Approximately 15 -foot mowed ' 1 SNiNAIMI A•N OR RWV EIfBO35FD,M Da SCAAIIEU 3EA IRETK
1 , Paoleer or rxE uro SINrvEroa
s. rlxs sfaTVeY was vaEPAaEB PDa T1fE PARrfES ANO PIaPPDSE 1NOYOA TED
1 NEPEOM ANY FYTEMSION OF 1N61TSF •EYOND TNFPWPOSE AGREED TO
area within easement boundary. � .�F� GLIENTAND 3IMIYEYOII EKCEEDS THE SCOPE Oi IQ
1 � a. 1N1s PARf6. NArBE SNTxcTTDrTSENENrs oR wnrrrs aE DrNERS )NAT
, 1 wvE NO)eEEN p3cLOem oN Dfa NAP.
, 1 ). NORQONTAI ANDYE IIGL ARE NADO AMD AUVDw.
1 1
1
1 1
- - - - --- von ICPT o u /� Crn_nSnCtncn�
U
a
C
Cc m °o
c �
E M N O
0 a Z r
• NNE Ij
t >, n
(D oli'
Z x 2
:n m w - E W
d
cc c °'
E O W —
� 2 0
W $ a
fn
O
m
U O
Cl 5 W
o
E
U �
U)
a
I
LLI
Q
J
CL
z
0
O
r
W
li
M
U
M
M
M
N
rn
O
Z
U
m
'o
a`
CL
W
W
Y
0
M
a
a
m
LL
C
.O 0
lC N N
U r
L C' W
o rl
Z d i
T
4) a
O 0 mU
N N
W
m
0
-4.—_
I ^—
�v m
�z
K.
IOW
OW
I� a
�z
ww-
1
♦ 1
L. aAT6HA�
1, iTOUR.S P:-GA— CERTIFY THAT THE
1
CONTOURS SHOWN O THIS OBTAINED
S OBTAINED BT
J
SURVEYS CONDUCTED UNDER L1Y SUPERVISION, ON
U ED UNDER W
THE DANES UNDER NOT MS. THIS R NOT
THE
1 ,
1 �
OOU� DARY SURVURV EY, w1TNC.u^ FIY AND SEK TICS
DAY OF J =.�! __. 2009009 .
�
PROIT:SSp SW
DATE 11&
• f /
'T1Wwe13ttpNNCl rSUf"eNw«"Wnw �(E-) rame
Nf.DENR EmSYYWn EMInoSNWGP ISIIWn(EEP)AfauWmMgAYeN
M.— mnvrvMnn — .r n nnMnM ry bM i.xMr pm.i.
I (
/Cf'
� Aomm"ym.em lnNI INAN.N a..N�*.w.re.. �W. «q ro
/
Imw,e.ry aronWNb.Amm ey "s aW,elW Plnllc d
'
q«wIN1 AwSnpwWaae3 PttfamN OINM •glNaerY llparma
heYY.o�a.MaNr 1^'t vrvWaO �nIM OMbpr+�n. vwrtl9lM Arq
/ �
/.7
er..wwaw ".Home .wrPemWWa YOrnwIN«W Wq
/ ^.
/�,/
NN1F.Nraawa...e lol., AN,ur�3.a �le.•.ArNa «swr
N'.w fA.,«, mB.a wtlw ol..oN.M w.Aw�ed 2ti s,0 cMNef
, �
iapNN33 ryial m«dilM,m � EEP'
CONTROL SS � �� j
WOOD LINE
1
1
1
j1 NoTEs
1 r f. ALL ONITAAVZS ARF 1N)IBZINlrAL OROIAVU ANO AREAS ARf BY COOaOINATE
CONTROL M 1 I ) �Tignc EM SURVEY COMPLETED APg6 It NOY.
1 1 SURVE
S. NETIAAYJOA— NOT AOORFSSF)IY INS Y.
Vegetation Problem Area - I 1 ..OlLLY ODPIES OP TNS 9URVEY WTnr nlEUaB 3uaVErxs oafclNAL
Approximately 15 -foot mowed ' 1 SNiNAIMI A•N OR RWV EIfBO35FD,M Da SCAAIIEU 3EA IRETK
1 , Paoleer or rxE uro SINrvEroa
s. rlxs sfaTVeY was vaEPAaEB PDa T1fE PARrfES ANO PIaPPDSE 1NOYOA TED
1 NEPEOM ANY FYTEMSION OF 1N61TSF •EYOND TNFPWPOSE AGREED TO
area within easement boundary. � .�F� GLIENTAND 3IMIYEYOII EKCEEDS THE SCOPE Oi IQ
1 � a. 1N1s PARf6. NArBE SNTxcTTDrTSENENrs oR wnrrrs aE DrNERS )NAT
, 1 wvE NO)eEEN p3cLOem oN Dfa NAP.
, 1 ). NORQONTAI ANDYE IIGL ARE NADO AMD AUVDw.
1 1
1
1 1
- - - - --- von ICPT o u /� Crn_nSnCtncn�
U
a
C
Cc m °o
c �
E M N O
0 a Z r
• NNE Ij
t >, n
(D oli'
Z x 2
:n m w - E W
d
cc c °'
E O W —
� 2 0
W $ a
fn
O
m
U O
Cl 5 W
o
E
U �
U)
a
I
LLI
Q
J
CL
z
0
O
r
W
li
M
U
M
M
M
N
rn
O
Z
U
m
'o
a`
CL
W
W
Y
0
M
a
a
m
LL
C
.O 0
lC N N
U r
L C' W
o rl
Z d i
T
4) a
O 0 mU
N N
W
m
0
-4.—_
I ^—
�v m
�z
K.
IOW
OW
I� a
�z
ww-

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data and Monitoring Plot Photographs
Appendix A provides a series of tables (Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) 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. Table 9 provides year -end stem counts.

Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page A- 2
Year 4 (2012)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Appendix A - Table 1. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Re Pre redB
LaneSauls
Date Pre red
10/30/2012 10 46
d. atabase name
EcoEn - 2012 -Brock Site -A mdb
database location
S \Pro ects \50000 State \EEP 50512 \50512 -004 EEP Brock Site \Brock 2012 Year4 Monitoring
can r ame
LANE
__
file size
38313984
DESCRIPTION OF WORKS EETS IN T' LS DClCUMENT----------
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summa ry of project(s) and
Metadata
roe ct data
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, foreach year This excludes live
Proj, plarKed
s to ke s
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live
Prol,totalStemS
stakes, all pla nted stems, and all natural /volunteerstems
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing,
etc
Vigor
Fre ue ncy distribution of vi gor classes for stems for all pl ots
Fre ue ncy di stnbution of vi gor classes listed by s peci es
Li st of most freque nt da ma ge classes with n u mbe r of occurre nces and pe rce nt of tota I
Damage
stems impacted by each
Damage bySpp IDamage
values tallied bytype foreach species
DamagebYP.loF
Damage values tallied bytype foreach plot
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species foreach plot, dead and
Pla ed Stems tsy Piot and Spp
missin stems are excluded
Amatnxofthe countof total living stems of each species (planted and natural
!ALL4Stems by P.Iotandspp
volunteers combined) foreach plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
PRClJEGT SUMMARY------------- -__--
M_____-�_ ---
Pro
192333
_ ectName
Brock Stream Restoration
EEP Brock Stream Restoration
escription
Jones County, NC
River Basin
N e u s e
Mini
stream_to-e a w_f ft
areas m
Re _'red Plots sale ated
-Sam led Plats
0
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page A- 2
Year 4 (2012)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Appendix A - Table 2. CVS Vigor by Species
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Species
CommonName
4
3
2
1101
Missing
Unknown
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
4
101
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnutoak
1
3
1
1
Quercus nigra
wateroak
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
2
1
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
6
2
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
2
briodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
2
Platanus occidentahs
American sycamore
1
8
3
1
TOTALS:
8
8
5
31
10
2
1 7
Appendix A - Table 3. CVS Damage by Species
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
/ Oy
h
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Linodendron tulipifera
Platanus occidentalis
Quercus michauxii
Quercus nigra
Quercus pagoda
Salixni
TOT
F�
green ash
to I i ptre e
American sycamore
swamp chestnut oak
wateroak
cherrybark oak
willow oak
black willow
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333)
Year 4 (2012)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
c
J° Sc
Page A- 3

Appendix A - Table 4. CVS Damage by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Proiect No.
ray'
v c
)1-ye a r 4 7 17 1 4 2
)2-ye a r 4 3 51 3
)3 -ve a r 4 21 71 11 1
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No 92333) Page A- 4
Year 4 (2012)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Appendix A - Table 7. Vegetative Problem Areas
Brock Site (EEP Project No 92333)
Feature /Issue
Station #/ Range
3
"Probable Cause
Photo k
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
I n/a
n/a
n/a
Appendix A - Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Stream Criterio
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
UT
VP 1
Yes
75%
UT
VP 2
No
UT
VP 3
n/a
UT
VP 4
Yes
Buffer Crf ?!yq
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) Page A- 5
Yeai 4 (2012)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

ro c� O
� A F
(D /
Q N
� O �
< N
m O
n =1
O
O O
W
n 3
v uq
m X
3 N
C2
a
O
7
fD
� m
m
3 v
va �
rO
r
(D
n
N
W
W
W
'O
N
(D
D
rn

Monitoring Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot #1
Photostation 2.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #1
Taken August 2012.
Vegetation Plot #2
Photostation 5.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #2.
Taken August 2012.
Photostation 3.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #1.
Taken August 2012.
Photostation 6.
Facing northwest across Vegetation Plot #2.
Taken August 2012.

Vegetation Plot #3
Photostation 8.
Facing southwest across Vegetation Plot #3
Taken August 2012.
Vegetation Plot #4
Photostation 9.
Facing southeast across Vegetation Plot #3.
Taken August 2012.
Photostation 11.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #4
Taken August 2012.
Photostation 12.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #4.
Taken August 2012.

APPENDIX B
Geomorphic Raw Data

42
41
4C
39
38
c
37
v
w 36
35
34
33
32
0
XSC #1 - Brock Site Sta. 11 +00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)
- *-AsBuilt 12009 -a- -2010 12011 -2012
80 90
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO. 1
STATION 11 +00
As -buift
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
0
37.33
0
37.33
0
37.33
0
37.33
0
37.33
2.58
35.48
2
36.15
2
36.47
3
35.62
4
35.23
6.9
33.25
4
35.1
5
34.87
5.6
34.55
6.6
34.01
7.09
33.13
6
34.07
6
34.38
6.4
33.82
7.4
33.14
8.55
32.78
7
33.31
7.5
33.17
7
33.25
8.5
32.93
10
32.43
8
32.99
11
32.91
8.3
32.86
10.5
32.96
10.14
32.92
9
32.45
14.5
33.83
10.7
32.82
12.4
33.2
10.57
33
10
32.47
21
34.26
12.6
33.24
14
33.63
12.16
33.47
12
33
33
34.31
14.2
33.85
15.5
34.33
13.75
33.94
14
33.29
45
34.44
15
34.24
18
34.07
31.93
34.28
15
33.83
54
35.05
20
34.21
24
34.08
50.11
34.63
20
34.14
61
37.06
30
34.29
35
34.4
71.44
40.73
26
34.07
68
39.26
43
34.37
48
34.53
86.69
40.73
34
34.18
75
40.98
51
34.39
52
34.4
41
34.23
57
36
55
35.35
49
34.3
64
37.82
61
36.96
54
33.98
71
40.51
72
40.52
58
36.26
74.7
40.72
75
40.74
64
37.63
69
39.56
75
40.6
HI
HI
45.73
HI
45.24
HI
45.29
HI
45.61
HI

40
39
38
37
36
k
c
0 35
47 34
33
32
31
30
XSC #2 - Brock Site Sta. 15+00
2012
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (it)
-+-Ac -Built --is-2009 -k --2010 --*- 2011 • -*-2012
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO.2
STATION NO. 15+00
AS-buift
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
0.9
37.23
0
36.93
0
37.55
0
37.03
0
37.03
4.31
34.62
3
35.51
1
36.56
2
36.09
3
35.58
7.79
31.99
5
33.17
3.5
34.55
5
33.48
6
33.12
9.39
31.6
7
32.08
7
32.17
7
32.13
8
32.11
10.96
31.22
9
31.88
9
31.88
9.3
31.87
9
31.93
11
31.22
11
31.53
11
31.44
10.2
31.54
10
31.55
11.01
31.22
12
31.83
14
32.83
11.5
31.38
11.3
31.29
11.06
31.74
14
32.99
27
32.96
12.8
31.91
13
31.95
11.19
31.9
19
32.74
32
32.58
13.2
32.26
14
32.71
12.2
32.26
25
32.88
40
32.47
14.7
32.88
15
32.99
14.04
32.9
30
32.82
49
33.08
23
32.9
18
33.22
48.44
32.97
35
32.48
54
34.44
33
32.53
26
33.1
68.13
38.01
38
32.44
62
36.52
43
32.37
32
32.91
43
32.39
69
38.02
48
32.83
39
32.72
48
32.71
58
35.53
45
32.67
52
33.68
65
37.39
51
33.61
57
35.05
69
38.01
57
35.22
62
36.49
67
38
66
37.66
69.2
38.13
69
38.01
HI
HI
43.12
HI
42.37
HI
43.13
HI
43.23
HI

35
34
33
g 32
e
s
u 31
W
30
29
XSC #3 - Brock Site Sta. 23 +00
28 1 I i I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (R)
-+-As-Built 12009 - *2010 12011 -4-2012
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO.3
STATION NO. 23+00
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
0.63
33.99
0
34.01
0
34
0
34
0
34
4.94
31.98
3
33.4
3
33.26
6
31.64
3
33.37
9.13
29.95
5
32
6
31.7
9.6
30.01
7
31.26
11.08
29.21
7
31.19
7
31.22
12
29.39
10
29.86
12.15
29.16
9
30.11
9
30.08
14
29.08
12
29.22
12.49
29.13
11
29.57
12
29.28
15.2
29
13.1
28.96
13.13
29.11
12
29.39
15
29.03
17.1
29.38
14.6
28.92
15
29.1
15
29.12
17
29.43
18.4
29.79
17.1
29.26
15.72
29.47
17
29.46
19
29.88
24
29.77
18.5
29.66
17.77
29.95
19
29.85
30
29.66
31
29.6
24
29.81
47.62
29.93
27
29.79
38
29.61
43
29.52
33
29.58
50.74
30.2
34
29.59
47
29.56
51
29.57
42
29.58
70.09
33.14
41
29.39
55
29.75
56
29.95
55
29.64
72.56
33.7
48
29.56
63
31.31
61
31.02
64
31.58
54
29.71
72
33.24
69
32.6
70
32.9
59
30.55
72.7
33.16
72
33.26
63
31.36
67
32.2
70
33.02
72
33.24
HI
HI
38.37
HI
37.88
HI
38.2
HI
37.98
HI

APPENDIX C
Rainfall Data Summary

O
1- Jan -12
11 Jan -12
21 Jan 12
31- Jan 12
10- Feb -12
20- Feb -12
1- Mar -12
11- Mar -12
21- Mar -12
31- Mar -12
10- Apr -12
20- Apr -12
30-Apr -12
10- May -12
No 20- May -12
r+
30- May -12
9- Jun -12
19- Jun -12
29- Jun -12
9 -J u 1 -12
19 Jul -12
29- Jul -12
■ 8- Aug -12
n 18- Aug -12
8'
h
2 8-Aug -12
0
0 7- Sep -12
a
rt
17- Sep -12
27-Sep-12
7 -Oct -12
17 -Oct -1 i
27-Oct-11-
Precipitation Amount (in)
N A
n
C
m
m
n
m
o'
v
d
rA
O
n
rD
0
rD
a
n
0
C
Z
n

APPENDIX D
Photograph Comparison

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 Year 4 - Taken July 2012
Location
t z.
r
y

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 Year 4 - Taken July 2012
Location
#6 Facing
northwest
across
Vegetation Plot
#2
Ft•
#7 Facing north -
northeast at
Crest Gage
situated near ,4i ; S :Y9,nr
Station 18 +65
try
t.1
n
#8 Facing
southwest along
western axis of
Vegetation Plot
#3
R
#9 Facing
southeast across
Vegetation Plot
#3
i
#10 Facing
northeast along
tributary in the
vicinity of
Station 22 +50

' .. f
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 Year 4 - Taken July 2012
Location
#11 Facing
northeast along
the eastern axis
of Vegetation
Plot #4
'i
#12 Facing
northwest
across
Vegetation Plot
#4
i
#13 Facing
southwest
(upstream)
along the
tributary from
Station 28 +25
#14 Facing
northeast along
buffer area
associated with
tributary from
Station 28 +25

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
Year 4 - Taken July 2012

.. sk