20061277 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 5_20140121

66-!47
BROCK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Monitoring Year 5 (2013)
Jones County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 92333
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
rl �
�icIDS stem ;
I11�11 (.'I11CIi(
{'40CIUM
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Final Monitoring Report
December 2013
RECEIVED
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
' l
L IU
JENR - WAIER 01JALITY
LA / ..I1. -_�_ e

Prepared by:
� ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
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 1.2 (11116106)

. T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT ............................................ ............................... 1
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 .......................................... ...............................
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 ...................... ...............................
........................... 2
. ..............................2
. ..............................2
. ..............................4
. ..............................4
. ..............................6
... ............................... 7
........ ..............................7
........ ..............................7
........ ..............................7
........ ..............................8
........ ..............................8
....... .............................10
....... .............................10
SECTIONIV. 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
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 recommendations with regard to the Year 5 (2013) 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) 5 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 5
findings, all three vegetation plots met the vegetation success criteria for stream mitigation credit and three
of four vegetation plots met the success criteria for BMU or Nutrient Offset Buffer Restoration mitigation
credit. Planted stem count averages for SMU and BMU calculations across the Site were 768 and 637
stems /acre, respectively. These averages exceeded the required mitigation thresholds.
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 five years of monitoring, thus exceeding the minimum
success criteria established for hydrology.

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 Resources (NCDWR).
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 a Priority III approach which qualifies for
Stream Enhancement Level II mitigation credit. 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
major channels. High quality tributaries with vegetated buffers filter contaminants, maintain moderate water
temperatures, provide high quality aquatic and terrestrial habitat and regulate flows downstream. Big
Chinquapin Branch is a major tributary to the Trent River, and both water bodies are nutrient sensitive
(NCDWQ, 1998). In addition, Big Chinquapin Branch is managed by a Drainage District. Agricultural land use
practices have narrowed or removed many natural, vegetated buffers along streams within the Trent River
watershed as well as draining and converting non - riverine wet hardwood forests to cropland (EEP, 2006).
According to EEP (2006), this restoration will enhance functional elements of the unnamed tributary. The
Brock Restoration Plan outlines the restoration of the UT to Chinquapin Branch and the reforestation of the
associated riparian buffer. This involves the creation of a stable channel, riverine floodplain, and associated
riparian buffer. Priority 3 stream restoration was implemented on the unnamed tributary. This involved
reconnecting the stream channel to its floodplain, allowing for periodic overbank flooding. To reduce
construction costs and avoid disturbing the cemetery, a bankfull bench was excavated along east side of the
existing channel. Water quality functions will be improved due to the creation of more storage for
floodwaters and increased filtering of pollutants. Wetlands are expected to form within portions of the newly
created bankfull bench, especially in the downstream section of the project where backwater from
Chinquapin Branch will affect the stream. Barring water quality issues outside of the Brock Site, the
restoration should improve aquatic species diversity and abundance in the stream channel. The restoration
of riparian buffers along the restored stream channel will improve water quality. The reestablishment of the
riparian buffers with hardwood species will also improve wildlife habitat on the property. These measures
will improve the physical, chemical, and biological components of the unnamed tributary and the Brock
property, as well as Big Chinquapin Branch and other downstream waters (EEP, 2006).

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 an unnamed tributary 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 INC 58 approximately 12 miles.
• Turn left onto the 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 the 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 fifth year of post- construction 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 K = Kestoratim F wi ny cvci ni
Nutrient Offset calculations are per NCDWR recommendation.
Exhibit Table I,
Project Restoration Components
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
•
Cc CD
Comment
Reach ID
Mn
LU
CL
CD
Reach 1 - UT to Big
1,850
Ell P3
1.5:1 1,233 0+00
- 28+50.16
Chinquapin Branch
Nutrient Offset Nitrogen
149.27
Calculated by 77.57N
Reduction Credit ( >50'
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Ibslyear
n/a
Ibslaclyr x 1.97 acres
from Top of Bank
Neuse Buffer ( <50' from
n/a
R
n/a
1:1
4.23
n/a
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
Riparian
Stream
,.
Buffer (ac)
Offset Nitrogen
Credit
(1f)
Wetland
1,233
(ac)
Wetland (ac)
(ac)
6.20'
—..A
149.27 Ibs /yr for 30 years
rrn nn�n
Ell = Enhancement II K = Kestoratim F wi ny cvci ni
Nutrient Offset calculations are per NCDWR recommendation.

IF- Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Actual Completion or
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete 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
Miti ation 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 onitoring
July 2010
January 2011
Year 3 Monitoring
August 2011
September 2011
Year 4 Monitoring
Au ust 2012
December 2012
Year 5 Monitoring
November 2013
December 2013
Exhibit Table III, Project Contact Table
7
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Designer
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prima Pro' Desi n 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
Supplemental (2013) - HARP
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
301 McCullough Drive, 4th floor
Charlotte, NC 28273
Charlotte, NC 28262
Planting Contractor POC
704 527 -1177
704 841 -2841
Seeding Contractor
Seal Brothers Contracting
P.0 Box 86
Dobson, NC 27017
Planting Contractor POC
Mari Seal 336 786 -2263
Seed Mix Source
Unknown
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Natives
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 527 -1177
Monitoring Performer
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Ca , NC 27518
Stream Monitoring POC
Lane Sauls 919 557 -0929
Veetation Monitoring POC
Lane Sauls 919 557 0929

Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Proj ect Coun
c
Jones Count
Drainage Area
315 acres 0.5 s . miles — Unnamed Tributary
Impervious Cover Estimate
Less than 5%
Stream Order
1 — Unnamed Tributary
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecor ion Griffith and Omernik
Carolina Flatwoods
Ros en Classification of As -built
E5
Cowardin Classification
n/a
Dominant Soil Types
Goldsboro loamy sand, Grifton fine sandy loam, Lynchburg
fine sandy loam, Muckalee loam and Norfolk loamy sand
Reference Site ID
Unknown/ Not Applicable
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03020204010060
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03 -04 -11
Any Portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any promect segment upstream of a 303d listed segment.
No
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
Not Applicable
Percent of project easement fenced
0%
Source: rcr, wiU
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 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 decreased from 2012 to 2013. Based on our data, the approximate mean for
planted stems per acre in 2013 was 404 versus 465 in 2012 and 505 in 2011. Reasons for mortality were not
obvious. The chart below provides a summary of the MY 5 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 1,295 688 688
2 364 364 364
3 nla 242 242
4 647 323 323
Vegetation Plots #1, #2 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 Plot #3 failed to meet
the criteria for buffer mitigation or Nutrient Offset Nitrogen credit. A complete breakdown of this
information is provided in Appendix A along with photographs of each vegetation plot taken during the
assessment.
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, MY 4 and MY 5.

During the early summers of 2012 and 2013, 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. Easement encroachment was also
noted along the western side of the Project Site. 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 previous reports, a supplemental planting was conducted during February 2010 as part of
the contractor's vegetation warranty. A second supplemental planting occurred on March 18, 2013 to
augment trees in areas exhibiting low planted stem densities. Little to no increase in planted stem counts
was discovered however, during MY 5 vegetation assessments. Vegetation Plot #2 was the only plot
exhibiting an increase in planted stems. As per the MY 5 assessment, Vegetation Plot #3 remains below the
required mitigation threshold.
Invasive plant species were observed along the western side of the Project Site in the vicinity of the historical
cemetery, as well as near the downstream end within the riparian corridor associated with Big Chinquapin
Branch. Chinaberry tree (Melia azedaroch), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) were observed within the cemetery while mainly Chinese privet was noted near the downstream
end of the Project Site. A contract is currently in place with HARP for four consecutive invasive treatments
within these areas.
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 5.4
square feet; a decrease 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.

Exhibit Table V. Cross Section Comparison
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Cross Section #1 Cross Section #2 Cross Section #3
Attribute Station I 1 +00 Station 15+00 Station 23+00
Monitoring Year 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Bankfull area (sq. feet)
7.2
4.6
5.7
6.4
6.2
6.9
6.4
7.7
7.5
6.7
7.2
4.6
3.7
3.7
3.3
Bankfull width (feet)
8.7
7.8
7.8
8.2
7.7
8.3
8.0
8.8
9.6
7.5
29.0
9.3
7.9
7.9
7.9
Bankfull mean depth
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
feet
assumed
Bankfull max depth
1.4
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
feet
Width-depth ratio
10.5
13.2
10.8
10.5
9.5
9.9
10.0
1 10.0
12.3
8.4
82.3
1 18.6
17.0
1 16.7
19.3
Flood prone area width
52.4
44.3
48.0
49.9
48.3
49.9
49.2
49.8
50.0
49.5
51.0
52.1
50.6
49.7
49.3
feet
Entrenchment ratio
6.0
5.7
6.1
6.1
6.3
6.0
6.2
5.6
5.2
6.6
1.8
5.6
6.4
6.3
6.2
Low bank height ratio
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.0
1 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Hydrologic Criteria
Bankfull events during the monitoring period are being documented via a crest gage located in the vicinity of
Station No. 18 +65. In order to meet hydrologic success criteria, a minimum of two events must occur during
the five -year monitoring period. In addition, the events must occur in separate monitoring years. The gage is
being visited approximately three times per year. Based on our findings, at least one bankfull event has
occurred in 2013. Approximately 4.13 inches of rain were associated with a storm event in July 2013, 3.52
inches of rain between August 2 and 4, 2013 and an additional 3.84 inches of rain between August 11 and 18,
2013. 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.
Exhibit I able vl. veritication or banKrun tvents
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Date of Data Calculated Measured High Photo #
Collection D. Occurrence Method Bankfull Water Elevation
Elevation
10/24/2009 Unknown Crest gage 14 inches 35 inches Not available
11/13/2010
7/4/10, 9/27/10 thru 10/1/10
Crest gage
14 inches
40 inches
Not available
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
7/9/13 thru 7/14/13
11/22/2013
8/2/13 through 8/4/13
Crest gage
14 inches
18 inches
Not available
8/11/13 through 8/18/13
assumed

2. Stream Problem Areas
No significant changes to the dimension were observed during MY 5 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 i i i
Bank Condition 100% 100% 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.

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),
2012. Brock Stream Restoration Site Monitoring Year 4 Report, dated December 2012. 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 Resources. 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/ CoastaIPlainSTreamMitigationFinaIDraftPolicyNov
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.

Kinston
i£
r
Rd
M
pme
Brock Project Site
i
9
. T's
I
,yt 1�a 1
I%nce
� D
1
Trenton '
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 '� M
turn right on NC 58 and travel approximately 12 miles.
The site is located on the left approximately three miles M, '
past the beginning of the Pine Street loop (SR 1301).
VICINITY MAP
Brock Stream Restoration Site, Jones County, NC FIGURE 1
J Ai)s StelIl EEP Project No. 92333
November 19, 2013
As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Plan
J�
April 201
Local Roads
®
/ \/ Major Roads
Railroads
_ Site Boundary
County Boundary
ver
Streams
Municipality
c�
✓o�esc �e
MAP COURTESY OF STANTEC
°411iy
CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., 2010
I
,yt 1�a 1
I%nce
� D
1
Trenton '
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 '� M
turn right on NC 58 and travel approximately 12 miles.
The site is located on the left approximately three miles M, '
past the beginning of the Pine Street loop (SR 1301).
VICINITY MAP
Brock Stream Restoration Site, Jones County, NC FIGURE 1
J Ai)s StelIl EEP Project No. 92333
November 19, 2013

Figure 2A PROJECT ASSET MAP
STREAM ENHANCEMENT 0 - 1850 LINEAR FEET 7
NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION (SC BUFFER) = 473 ACRES
NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION (BEYOND 60) ='1.91 ACRES
TOTAL NEUSE BUFFER RESTORATION =6.20 ACRES
/ CL LTIVATE9 FIELD
© —: CONC SLAB CONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS \ d
w
j W CFMET�ERY j
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT REACH' a
STA. 10+00.00
-CULFIVATF.D FIE'_D
CDrTWTED I�EEE\D y /
NOTE'
r� PROJECT ASSET MAP
Brock Stream Restoration Site, Jones County, NC FIGURE 2
j',n ]flr 'enitlil� EEP Project No. 92333
°°^� November 19, 2013

7
RECORD DRAWING
- VEGATATION
PLOT M3
usM- ORIGIN
�CGNG 5! !Ji - CONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS
i N
JT
a
s.' ice` LU
W
LU
CREST GAUGE
X-SEC P55
.11+00
STA. 11+00 PLOT ii
ORIGIN
LEGEND XSE . - - VEGATATION
STREAMBANK PLANTING STA.15+00 PLOT X2
ORIGIN
E]
FLOODPLAIN BUFFER PLANTING
-
UPLAND BUFFER PLANTING
SPECIMEN BOUNDARY TREE
PHOTOSTATION
■ - RECORD DRAWING
8� �
JCONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS i I
4u --
�
2
2
ekU VEGATATION
F PLOT l4
ORIGIN
LEGEND —I
STREAMBANK PLANTING
FLOODPLAIN BUFFER PLANTING
- UPLAND BUFFER PLANTING
SPECIMEN BOUNDARY TREE
Pill PHOTOSTATION
r� MONITORING PLAN VIEW
Brock Stream Restoration Site, Jones County, NC FIGURE 3
,"Il"-
L;cos� s';;tem mcn EEP Project No. 92333
November 19, 2013

r o
ti
' E-�'��Fi
t ; x,��
�i. Y ��e�rr� N � � � SIC a m
`nua`qy� 5$gg11 w 4-
alI \,----------------
F
� �; t • 1';;'11 += ^I , ` �- ,,, \;, ;
' <
)-.0
a
\� \a
cy"�11 1�`A
Y ' ,` Yn 1 5 Renaae £i T• .\`.t `1 �, "``, `l
lass
g •2 A
' Vegetation Plot #2 Vegetation Plot #4
if4r
364 planted stems/ac 323 planted stems/ac
364 total stems/ac 647 total stems/ac
Vegetation Plot #1
688 planted stems/ac LEGEND
1,295 total stems/ac
Vegetation Plot meets or exceeds minimum SMU
threshold of 260 planted stems/ac \ \;
Vegetation Plot does not meet minimum BMU \ y
threshold of 320 planted stems/ac
Vegetation Plot #3
242 planted stems /ac
7 9r !'i���t. ; o000" Stream cross section \'; s
��
At
`1
Invasive plant species
ti• \ ��`• a �!,1;, \ \: \,`jr Easement encroachment via mowing i � \�. • \� \.
Damaged or missing signage��
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
Brock Stream Restoration Site, Jones County, NC FIGURE 4
F�cosstem EEP Project No. 92333
1'.n lat_,cmc��t �
•° November 19, 2013

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.

APPENDIX A. Table 1. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Report Prepared By
Lane Sauls
Date Prepared
8/15/201313:28
database name
cvs -eep -entry tool- v2.3.1.mdb
database location
P:150000 StatelEEP 50512150512 -004 EEP Brock SitelBrock 2013 Year 5 MonibhnglCVS Information
computer name
LANE
file size 137494784
DESCRIPTION OF ••
D•
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Mefadafa
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total sterns
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted
stems, and all natiiral/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 distribution of v igor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by ty pe for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLAN TED living sterns of each species for each plot dead and missing stems are
excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
PROJECT
A matrix of the count of W living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each
plot dead and missing stems are excluded.
92333
Project Code
project Name
Brock Stream Restoration
Description
EEP Brock Steam Restoration, Jones County, NC
River Basin
Neuse
Sampled Plots
4
APPENDIX A. Table 2. CVS Vigor by Species
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Species Common Name 4 3 2 1 r Missing Unknown
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 10 6
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
2
1
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
2
Quercus pagoda
cherry bark oak
2
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Salix nigra
black willow
Driodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
2
S11'5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
2
TOTALS:
8
8
16

Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 12 4 1 3
1 1 6
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
1
1
1
5 2
92333 -A LC - 0003 -y ear: 5 5 4
4 1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
11
1
TOTALS:
9
32 24 1
19 1 2 2 8
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
4
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
0
2
Quercus pagoda
cherry bark oak
2
3
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
3
9
2
A28
Salix nigra
black willow
2
2
TOTALS:
8
8
32
24
1
19
APPENDIX A. Table 4. CVS Damage by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
92333-A LC - 0001- year:5 13 11 1
4 7
92333 -A LC - 0002 -y ear: 5 7 2
5 2
92333 -A LC - 0003 -y ear: 5 5 4
4 1
92333 -A LC - 0004 -y ear: 5
7 7
6 1
TOTALS:
4
32 24 1
19 1 2 2 8

APPENDIX A. Table 5. CVS Planted Stems by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree green ash 16
2
8 14
2
Linodendron tulipifera
Linodendron tulipifera
Tree
tuliptree
2
1
2
2
2
Morellacenfera
wax myrtle
Platanus occidentalis
Tree
American sycamore
12
4
3
3
4
1
4
American sycamore
12
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
3
2
1.5
1
2
3
2
Quercus pagoda
Tree
cherry bark oak
2
1
2
Quercus pagoda
2
2
1
2
Quercus phellos
Tree
willow oak
4
2
2
Quercus phellos
3
4
1
2
Salix nigra
Tree
black willow
2
1
2
black willow
20
2
2
TOTALS:
0
r 7
7
7
41
7
American elm
17
9
6
9
APPENDIX A. Table 6. CVS All Stems by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 16 2
8
14 2
r
Linodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
2
1
2
2
Morellacenfera
wax myrtle
2
1
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
12
4
3
3
4
1
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
3
2
1.5
1
2
Quercus pagoda
cherry bark oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
4
2
2
3
1
Salix nigra
black willow
20
2
10
13
7
Ulmus amen cana
American elm
2
1
2
2
TOTALS:
0
9
9
63
9
32
9
6
16
h h
cp

APPENDIX A - Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Stream Criteria
Tract Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? Tract Mean
APPENDIX A. Table 7. Vegetative Problem Areas
VP 1
Yes
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
UT
Featurellssue
Station #/ Range Probable
Photo
Bare Bank
n/a n/a
n/a
Bare Bench
Yes
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bare Floodplain
UT
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bare Buffer
Yes
n/a
n/a
n/a
Existing cemetery
Invasive /Exotic Populations
area and
downstream end of
Wind and /or animal dispersion
n/a
Project Site
APPENDIX A - Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Stream Criteria
Tract Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? Tract Mean
UT
VP 1
Yes
75%
Tract Mean
UT
VP 2
Yes
UT
Tract
VP 4
Vegetation Plot ID
Yes
Buffer Criteria
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
UT
VP 1
Yes
100%
UT
VP 2
Yes
UT
VP 3
No
UT
VP 4
Yes

APPENDIX A. Table 9. CVS Plot Summary Data
EEP Project Code 92333. Project Name: Brock Stream Restoration
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, butby less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet remore than 10%
92333- ALC-0001
92333ALC-0002
92333-ALC -M
92333-ALC•0004
W5 (2013)
W4 ( 2012)
MY3 (2011) MY2 (MO)
MY1 MM)
WORM
PnoLS
Pall
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
1
PnoLS
Pall
T
1
PnoLS
Pall
T
1
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
Pall
T
A cer negundo
box elder
Tree
Baccharis halimifolia
easem baccharis
Shrub
1
Clethra alrNfolia
coastal sweeVeppertwsh
Shrub
2
2
2
Co"', foemina
stiff dogwood
Shrub Tree
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
14
14
14
2
2
2
16
16
16
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Linodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Morellacenfera
wax myrtle
shrub
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
9
9
9
14
14
14
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Quercusn4ra
walleroak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherry bark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
10
10
8
9
9
6
7
7
6
7
7
9
10
10
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
13
1
2
7
1
2
20
1
2
48
1
2
26
1
2
20
4
Ulmus
elm
Tree
1
Ulmus amen .cana
American elm
Tree
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
3
3
Stem count
size (Ares
size (ACRES
Species cou
Stems per AC
17
17
32
9
9
9
6
6
6
8
9
16
40
41
63
46
48
95
50
52
78
48
50
70
45
46
50
55
63
63
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
2
2
4
3
3
3
4 4
4
4 4
5
7
7
9
8
8
9
8
8
10
8
8
10
8
8
9
9
11
11
687.966
1294.99
364.2171364
217
242.811
242.811
364.217
647.497
414.803
637.38
485.623
961.128
526.091
789.137
505.857
708.2
465.388
505.857
637.38
637.38
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, butby less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet remore than 10%

Monitoring Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot #1
Photostation 2.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #1.
Taken August 2013,
Vegetation Plot #2
Photostation 3.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #1.
Taken August 2013.
Photostation 5.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #2.
Taken August 2013.
Photostation 6.
Facing northwest across Vegetation Plot #2.
Taken August 2013.

Vegetation Plot #3
Photostation 8.
Facing southwest across Vegetation Plot #3.
Taken August 2013.
Vegetation Plot #4
Photostation 9.
Facing southeast across Vegetation Plot #3.
Taken August 2013.
Photostation 11.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #4.
Taken August 2013,
Photostation 12.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #4.
Taken August 2013.

APPENDIX B
Geomorphic Raw Data

42
41
40
39
38
c
c
37
w
36
35
34
33
32
0
XSC #1 -Brock Site Sta. 11 +00
10 20 30 40 bu ou
Distance (ft)
- t - As- Built - -f- 2009 --- 2010 -2011 ----2012 - 2013
90
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO. 1
STATION 11 +00
As-built Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
0 37.33 0 37.33 0 37.33 1 0 37.33 1 0 37.33 1 0 37.34
2.58
35.48
2
36.15
2
36.47
3
35.62
4
35.23
3
35.6
6.9
33.25
4
35.1
5
34.87
5.6
34.55
6.6
34.01
5.5
�
7.09
I
6
34.07
6
34.38
6.4
33.82
7.4
33.14
6.5
33.8
8.55
32.78
7
33.31
7.5
33.17
7
33.25
,i
Bankfu112013
7
32.9
10
32.43
8
32.99
11
t.
u
8.3 1
32.86
10.5
32.96
8.2
32.9
10.14
32.92
9
32.45
14.5
33.83
10.7
32.82
12.4
33.2
10.8
32.8
10.57
33
10
32.47
21
34.26
rA
33.24
14
33.63
12.5
33.25
12.16
33.47
10 20 30 40 bu ou
Distance (ft)
- t - As- Built - -f- 2009 --- 2010 -2011 ----2012 - 2013
90
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO. 1
STATION 11 +00
As-built Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
0 37.33 0 37.33 0 37.33 1 0 37.33 1 0 37.33 1 0 37.34
2.58
35.48
2
36.15
2
36.47
3
35.62
4
35.23
3
35.6
6.9
33.25
4
35.1
5
34.87
5.6
34.55
6.6
34.01
5.5
34.4
7.09
33.13
6
34.07
6
34.38
6.4
33.82
7.4
33.14
6.5
33.8
8.55
32.78
7
33.31
7.5
33.17
7
33.25
8.5
32.93
7
32.9
10
32.43
8
32.99
11
32.91
8.3 1
32.86
10.5
32.96
8.2
32.9
10.14
32.92
9
32.45
14.5
33.83
10.7
32.82
12.4
33.2
10.8
32.8
10.57
33
10
32.47
21
34.26
12.6
33.24
14
33.63
12.5
33.25
12.16
33.47
12
33
33
34.31
14.2
33.85
15.5
34.33
14
33.9
13.75
33.94
14
33.29
45
34.44
15
34.24
18
34.07
18
34.22
31.93
34.28
15
33.83
54
35.05
20
34.21
24
34.08
20
34.2
50.11
34.63
20
34.14
61
37.06
30
34.29
35
34.4
30
34.3
71.44
40.73
26
34.07
1 68
39.26
43
34.37
48
34.53
45
34.4
86.69
40.73
34
34.18
75
40.98
51
34.39
52
34.4
50
34.38
41
34.23
57
36
55
35.35
57.2
36.1
49
34.3
64
3722
61
36.96
64
37.8
54
33.98
71
40.51
72
40.52
71
40.5
58
36.26
743
40.72
75
40.74
75
40.7
64
37.63
69
39.56
75
40.6
HI
HI
45.73
H I
45.24
H 1
4529
H 1
45.61
H I
45.3

40
39
38
37
36
+C
c
W 35
m
W
34
33
32
31
30
- -
34.62
•
35.51
1
36.56
1
,
`!
35.58
0 10
XSC #2 - Brock Site Sta.15 +00
20 30 40 5U ou
Distance (ft)
- + - As -Built -t - 2009 -- - 2010 --- *- 2011 - +-2012 -e-2013
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO. 2
STATION NO. 15+00 Year 5
As-built Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
StMon Elevabon rab .i• n Stalion Elevabon .io .ion Stabon Elevalion r.io .io
0.9 37.23 0 36.93 0 37.55 0 37.03 0 37.03 0 37.1
4.31
34.62
3
35.51
1
36.56
2
36.09
3
35.58
2
36.11
7.79
31.99
5
33.17
3.5
34.55
5
33.48
6
33.12
5
33.48
9.39
31.6
7
32.08
7
32.17
7
32.13
8
32.11
8
32.12
10.96
31.22
9
31.88
9
31.88
9.3
31.87
9
31.93
9
31.91
11
31.22
11
31.53
11
31.44
10.2
31.54
10
31.55
10
31.54
11.01
31.22
12
31.83
14
32.83
11.5
31.38
11.3
31.29
11.4
31.3
11.06
31.74
14
32.99
27
32.96
12.8
31.91
13
31.95
13
31.88
11.19
31.9
19
32.74
32
32 .58
13.2
32.26
14
32.71
14
32.8
12.2
32.26
25
32.88
40
32.47
14.7
32.88
15
32.99
19
32.9
14.04
32.9
30
32.82
49
33.08
23
32.9
18
33.22
24
32.89
48.44
32.97
35
32.48
54
34.44
33
32.53
26
33.1
27
32.9
68.13
38.01
38
32.44
62
36.52
43
32.37
32
32.91
33
32.5
43
32.39
69
38.02
48
32.83
39
32.72
44
32.51
48
32.71
58
35.53
45
32.67
50
33.34
52
33.68
65
37.39
51
33.61
58
35.5
57
35.05
69
38.01
57
35.22
66
37.6
62
36.49
67
38
69
38.1
66
37.66
69.2
38.13
69
38.01
T=HI
HI
HI
43.12
42.37
HI
43.13
HI
43.23
HI
43.21

35
34
33
E' 32
C
O
W
Y
LU 31
30
29
28
0
XSC #3 . Brock Site Sta. 23 +00
10 20
30 40
Distance (ft)
50 t,u
/V
- +- A"uilt E -2009 -r -2010 - 2011 -o -2012 2013
80
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO. 3
STATION NO. 23+00
As-built Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Stabon Elevation Station Elevation Stabon Elevabon Stalion Elevabon Station Elevation Stabon Elevation
0.63 33.99 0 34.01 0 34 0 1 34 0 34 0 34
4.94
31.98
3
33.4
3
33.26
6
\
,
3
33.37
6
31.6
9.13
29.95
5
,
1
6
31.7
9.6
30.01
7
31.26
7
31.3
11.08
Bankfu112013
7
31.19
7
31.22
12
\
10
29.86
11
29.5
12.15
29.16
9
30.11
9
-- - -- - --
-------------------
29.08
12
29.22
14
29
12.49
29.13
11
29.57
12
29.28
15.2
10 20
30 40
Distance (ft)
50 t,u
/V
- +- A"uilt E -2009 -r -2010 - 2011 -o -2012 2013
80
BROCK SITE CROSS SECTION NO. 3
STATION NO. 23+00
As-built Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Stabon Elevation Station Elevation Stabon Elevabon Stalion Elevabon Station Elevation Stabon Elevation
0.63 33.99 0 34.01 0 34 0 1 34 0 34 0 34
4.94
31.98
3
33.4
3
33.26
6
31.64
3
33.37
6
31.6
9.13
29.95
5
32
6
31.7
9.6
30.01
7
31.26
7
31.3
11.08
29.21
7
31.19
7
31.22
12
29.39
10
29.86
11
29.5
12.15
29.16
9
30.11
9
30.08
14
29.08
12
29.22
14
29
12.49
29.13
11
29.57
12
29.28
15.2
29
111
28.96
15
29.05
13.13
29.11
12
29.39
15
29.03
17.1
29.38
14.6
28.92
17
29.39
15
29.1
15
29.12
17
29.43
18.4
29.79
17.1
29.26
18.5
29.7
15.72
29.47
17
29.46
19
29.88
24
29.77
18.5
29.66
24
29.8
1777
29.95
19
29.85
30
29.66
31
29.6
24
29.81
31
29.6
47.62
29.93
27
29.79
38
29.61
43
29.52
33
29.58
33
29.59
50.74
30.2
34
29.59
47
29.56
51
29.57
42
29.58
38
29.6
70.09
33.14
41
29.39
55
29.75
56
29.95
55
29.64
42
29.57
72.56
33.7
48
29.56
63
31.31
61
31.02
64
31.58
56
29.95
54
29.71
72
33.24
69
32.6
70
32.9
63
31.3
59
30.55
72.7
33.16
72
33.26
69
32.61
63
31.36
72
3322
67
32.2
70
33.02
72
33.24
HI
HI
38.37
HI
37.88
HI
38.2
HI
1 37.98
HI
38.1

APPENDIX C
Rainfall Data Summary

c
January
Precipitation Total (in)
s o
February
March
April
o
w
n
May
0
_
v
-
Ja
June
or
s
°
o
c
to
July
o
August,.
—
c
w
September -
October
I
K
�C v
November
it
December
O
1- Jan -13
11- Jan -13
21- Jan -13
31- Jan -13
10- Feb -13
20 -Feb -13
2- Mar -13
12- Mar -13
22- Mar -13
1- Apr -13
11- Apr -13
21- Apr -13
1 -May -13
11- May -13
21- May -13
N
w 31- May -13
10- Jun -13
20- Jun -13
30- Jun -13
10- Jul -13
20- Jul -13
30- Jul -13
■ 9- Aug -13
N
O
w 19 -Aug -13
v
29-Aug-11
d 8- Sep -13
18-Sep-11
O
v 28 -Sep -1?
8- Oct -1:
18- Oct -1:
28- Oct -1:
Precipbdon Amount On)
N A
D
d
"O
m
n
V
Si
0
v
or
0
x
m
0
m
0
0
7
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 Year 5 - Taken August 2013
Location

16 1
APPENDIX D: MONITORING PHOTOGRAPH SUMMARY CONTINUED

,.
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 Year 5 - Taken August 2013
Location
#11 Facing
northeast along
the eastern axis
of Vegetation
Plot #4
r
#12 Facing
p�
northwest
across
Vegetation Plot
#4
#13 Facing
I
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
Year 5 - Taken August 2013