20061277 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20110106

h�� �� �r� ��r r c �i i \ \ . k ! � i'j
, a ro 1r�ro `�'�. r f � sf�j � , u

Prepared by:
�cological
n�ineern� J
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
919.557.0929
G. Lane Sauls, Jr., Principal
This document is based on the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Monitoring Report Submission Template, Version
1.2 (dated 11116106) in the Project Implementation Manual.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT ........................................ ..............................1
SECTION II. PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................................... ..............................2
A. Project Objectives ................................................................................ ............................... 2
B. Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach ............................. ............................... 2
C. Location and Setting ............................................................................ ............................... 4
D. History and Background ....................................................................... ............................... 4
E. Monitoring Plan View .......................................................................... ............................... 6
SECTION III. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ............................. ..............................7
A. Vegetation Assessment ....................................................................... ............................... 7
1. Stem Counts ............................................................................ ............................... 7
2. Vegetative Problems Areas ..................................................... ............................... 7
B. Stream Assessment .............................................................................. ............................... 8
1. Procedural Items ...................................................................... ..............................8
2. Stream Problem Areas ............................................................ ............................... 9
3. Fixed Station Photographs ...................................................... ............................... 9
SECTION IV. METHODOLOGY SECTION ................................................................. .............................10
If_I114i
Exhibit Table I.
Exhibit Table II.
Exhibit Table III
Exhibit Table IV
Exhibit Table V.
Exhibit Table VI
Restoration Components ................................................ ..............................4
Project Activity and Reporting History ........................... ............................... 5
ProjectContact Table ..................................................... ............................... 5
Project Background Table ............................................... ..............................6
Cross Section Comparison .............................................. ............................... 8
Verification of Bankfull Events ........................................ ..............................9
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Asset Map
Figure 3. Monitoring Plan View
Figure 4. Vegetation Problem Areas 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 1 (2009) 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 assessments were conducted using four predetermined vegetation plots and stream
assessments were conducted using three predetermined cross sections.
Vegetation Monitoring
Year 1 vegetation monitoring assessments were performed using Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level
II Assessment Protocols. Four plot locations were established and located during the as -built surveys.
These plots will remain stationary throughout the anticipated five -year monitoring period. 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 Buffer Restoration mitigation credit. Two of the
three vegetation plots met the vegetation success criteria for the stream mitigation areas, which is
based on a minimum survival of 320 stems per acre through Year 3 and 260 stems per acre at the end of
Year 5. The buffer mitigation plot however, did not meet the success criteria for the buffer mitigation
credit or Nutrient Offset Buffer Restoration. This criteria depicts a minimum of 320 native hardwood
planted stems /acre at the end of Monitoring Year 5.
Supplemental planting during the dormancy season between Year 1 and Year 2 was recommended and
completed prior to the finalization of this report.
Stream Restoration Monitoring
Stream monitoring assessments were conducted using surveys and comparisons of three existing cross
sections along the UT. No problems were noted aside from the fact that possible settling had occurred
along all three cross sections. Bankfull and floodplain dimensions remained consistent and no erosion,
entrenchment or incision was observed. A bankfull event was noted in November 2009.
Based on the data collected and visual observations, the Brock Site is functioning similar to that of a
Coastal Plain headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts will continue in 2010.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 1
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

SECTION II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Project Objectives
According to EEP (2010), the project specific goals at the Brock Site needed to achieve desired ecological
function include:
• improvement of water quality by limiting bank erosion;
• creation of 1,850 linear feet of stable stream channel (stream enhancement 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' 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 Chinquapin Branch and
provides a wooded, although very narrow corridor for wildlife. The buffer also intercepts overland flow
from a Swale draining the agricultural fields on the Brock property (EEP, 2006). In addition, EEP (2006)
states that buffer reforestation at this site will reduce the input of nutrients from the fields to the waters
downstream of the unnamed tributary to Big Chinquapin Branch, designated as nutrient sensitive waters
by the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). A project asset map is depicted in Figure 2.
The project will provide an ecological uplift for the entire basin.
B. Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
The watershed encompassing the project site is located in the eastern portion of the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province. Slopes are generally less than four percent. Elevations on the Brock Site range
from approximately 39 to 52 feet above mean sea level. The soil survey for Jones County (Barnhill, 1981)
indicates that the area is underlain by Goldsboro loamy sand, Grifton fine sandy loam, Lynchburg fine
sandy loam, Muckalee loam, and Norfolk loamy sand (EEP, 2006).
The watershed is a mixture of forested lands, agricultural row crops, two -lane roadways, farm roads,
cemeteries, minor culverts, and a few single - family homes. Agricultural drainage features, including
ditches and drain tiles, have been constructed and maintained on the Brock and neighboring properties.
The Brock Site and adjacent properties are utilized primarily for agricultural purposes (EEP, 2006).
According to EEP (2010), the project reach was designed using Stream Enhancement Level II
methodologies. 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
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 2
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

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 nonriverine wet hardwood
forests to cropland (EEP, 2006).
According to EEP (2006), this restoration will enhance functional elements of the unnamed tributary.
The Brock Restoration Plan outlines the restoration of the UT to Chinquapin Branch and the
reforestation of the associated riparian buffer. This involves the creation of a stable channel, riverine
floodplain, and associated riparian buffer. Priority 3 stream restoration was implemented on the
unnamed tributary. This involved reconnecting the stream channel to its floodplain, allowing for periodic
overbank flooding. To reduce construction costs and avoid disturbing the cemetery, a bankfull bench
was excavated along east side of the existing channel. Water quality functions will be improved due to
the creation of more storage for floodwaters and increased filtering of pollutants. Wetlands are
expected to form within portions of the newly created bankfull bench, especially in the downstream
section of the project where backwater from Chinquapin Branch will affect the stream. Barring water
quality issues outside of the Brock Site, the restoration should improve aquatic species diversity and
abundance in the stream channel. The restoration of riparian buffers along the restored stream channel
will improve water quality. The reestablishment of the riparian buffers with hardwood species will also
improve wildlife habitat on the property. These measures will improve the physical, chemical, and
biological components of the unnamed tributary and the Brock property, as well as Big Chinquapin
Branch and other downstream waters (EEP, 2006).
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 3
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
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 along a UT to Chinquapin Branch. Its watershed is part of the Coastal Plain
physiographic province, covering approximately 315 acres. According to EEP (2006), broad, flat
interstream areas are the dominant topographic features of this province. Slopes are generally less than
four percent and elevations at the Project Site range from approximately 39 to 52 feet above mean sea
level (EEP, 2006).
The following directions are provided for accessing the Brock Project Site:
• From US 70 in Kinston, Proceed east on NC 58 approximately 12 miles.
• Turn left onto gravel farm road approximately one -third mile after passing the intersection
with the second loop of Pine Street on the left.
• Proceed approximately 800 feet along gravel farm road.
• Project Site is located to the immediate east (right side) of road.
D. History and Background
The project is undergoing its first 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
Nutrient Offset calculations are per NCDWQ recommendation.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Source: EEP, 2010
Page 4
Exhibit Table I. Project Restoration Components
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
L
C
C
Project Segment or
c
a
>
c
m M
2p c
Stationing
Comment
Reach ID
N
r
a
:� oc
: . D
'x
a
W
Reach 1 - UT
1850
Ell
P3
1.5:1
1,233
0 +00 28 +50.16
Chinquapin Branch
Nutrient Offset
Calculated by
Nitrogen Reduction
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
149.27
n/a
77.57N Ibs /ac /yr x
Ibs /year
Credit
1.97 acres
Neuse Buffer
n/a
R
n/a
1:1
4.23
1 n/a
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream (If)
Riparian
Nonriparian
Total Wetland
Buffer (ac)
I
I
Nutrient Offset Nitrogen
Wetland (ac)
Wetland (ac)
(ac)
Reduction Credit
1,233
1 4.23
1
149.27 Ibs /yr for 30 years
Ell = Enhancement II
R = Restoration
P3 = Priority Level III
Nutrient Offset calculations are per NCDWQ recommendation.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Source: EEP, 2010
Page 4

Exhibit Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Actual Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
May 2006
May 2006
Final Design (90 %)
n/a
April 2008
Construction
n/a
June 2009
Temporary S &E Mix Applied
n/a
June 2009
Permanent Seed Mix Applied
n/a
June 2009
Bare Root Seedling Installation
n/a
June 2009
Mitigation Plan/ As -Built (Year 0 Monitoring- baseline)
n/a
August 2010
Year 1 Monitoring
December 2009
January 2011
Supplemental Planting
n/a
February 2010
Year 2 Monitoring
Dobson, NC 27017
Year 3 Monitoring
Mari Seal (336) 786 -2263
Seed Mix Source
Year 4 Monitoring
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Natives
Year 5 Monitoring
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Source: EEP, 2010
Exhibit Table III. Project Contact Table
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Designer
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Primary Project Design POC
Nathan Jean (919) 865 -7387
Construction Contractor
Shamrock Environmental Corporation
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Browns Summit, NC 27214
Construction Contractor POC
Unknown
Planting Contractor
Carolina Wetland Services
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
Planting Contractor POC
Josh Frost (866) 527 -1177
Seeding Contractor
Seal Brothers Contracting
P.0 Box 86
Dobson, NC 27017
Planting Contractor POC
Mari Seal (336) 786 -2263
Seed Mix Source
Unknown
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Natives
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
(704) 527 -1177
Monitoring Performer
Ecological Engineering, LLP
128 Raleigh Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Stream Monitoring POC
G. Lane Sauls Jr. (919) 557 -0929
Vegetation Monitoring POC
G. Lane Sauls Jr. (919) 557 -0929
Source: EEP, 2010
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 5
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Project County
Jones County
Drainage Area
315 acres (0.5 sq. miles) — Unnamed Tributary
Impervious Cover Estimate
Less than 5%
Stream Order
1— Unnamed Tributary
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omernik)
Carolina Flatwoods
Rosgen Classification of As -built
E5
Cowardin Classification
n/a
Dominant Soil Types
Goldsboro loamy sand, Grifton fine sandy loam,
Lynchburg fine sandy loam, Muckalee loam and
Norfolk loamy sand
Reference Site ID
Unknown/ Not Applicable
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03020204010060
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
Percent of project easement fenced
0%
Source: EEP, 2010
D. Monitoring Plan View
The Monitoring Plan View drawings associated with the project are provided as part of Figure 3.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 6
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

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 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 buffer mitigation credit. The success
criteria for 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 associated with Vegetation Plot #3 is more
restrictive, denoting a minimum planted, hardwood, stem requirement of 320 stems per acre after five
years.
According to initial planting counts, stem counts within each of the four plots averaged approximately
637 individuals per acre. Although this average appears close to the normal planting average at 680
stems per acre, the plots individually have significantly varying stem counts. Specifically, Vegetation Plot
#1 (identified as 92333 -ALC -0001) exhibited 1,052 stems per acre at planting while Vegetation Plots #2
and #4 (identified as 92333 -ALC -002 and 92333 -ALC -004) exhibited counts ranging between 485 and 849
stems per acre, respectively. The planted stem count for Vegetation Plot #3 (identified as 92333 -ALC-
0003) was 161 stems per acre.
Monitoring counts for each plot were conducted as part of Year 1 monitoring activities. In summary, first
year mortality rates exceeded 50% in Vegetation Plots #2 and #4. These rates however, were low in
Vegetation Plots #1 and #3 as compared with the baseline planting counts. Average stem counts based
on all of the plots dropped to approximately 465 stems per acre. Vegetation Plots #1, #2 and #4
exhibited 1,133, 283 and 445 stems per acre, respectively. Vegetation Plot #3 exhibited 161 planted,
hardwood stems per acre. Potential reasons for mortality were mainly unknown; however, it is very
likely that drought played a major role. 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 denoted areas void of
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 7
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

planted trees across the majority of the site. Although stem counts exceeded recommended numbers
established by the USACE and NCDWQ in Vegetation Plot #1, this plot should not be used as a
comparison sample when assessing vegetation throughout the floodplain area. In addition, small
isolated occurrences of Bare Bench as a result of continued inundation. The areas were too small to map
during Year 1 monitoring assessments and will be reevaluated during Year 2 monitoring assessments.
These areas are summarized in Appendix A - Table 7 and are depicted on the Figure 4.
Supplemental planting to increase overall stem counts per acre was recommended and completed
during the dormancy season between Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring assessments, prior to the
finalization of this report.
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
i g Y•
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 7.0 square feet. The bankfull elevation and area at Cross Section 3 remains consistent
with the two cross sections situated upstream; however, its mean depth is approximately half of that as
compared with the other sections. As a result, the "missing area" is accounted for in the adjacent
floodplain along the right side of the channel. Based on visual observations, this area may have settled
since construction implementation. In fact, settling has likely occurred along all three cross sections. This
is evident based on the data presented in Appendix B, although visually there does not appear to be any
compromises to the overall integrity of the channel nor its floodplain areas. This area exhibited standing
water during the survey. It will be monitored throughout the following years to ensure that it remains
stable.
Exhibit Table V. Cross Section Comparison
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Bankfull/ Flood Dimension
Cross Section #1
Station 11 +00
Cross Section #2
Station 15 +00
Cross Section #3
Station 23 +00
Bankfull area (sq. feet)
7.2
6.9
7.2
Bankfull width (feet)
8.7
8.3
29.0
Bankfull mean depth (feet)
0.8
0.8
0.4
Bankfull max depth (feet)
1.4
1.4
0.7
Width -depth ratio
10.5
9.9
82.3
Flood prone area width (feet)
52.4
49.9
51.0
Entrenchment ratio
6.0
6.0
1.8
FLow bank height ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 8
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

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 2009. Specific information regarding this event is depicted
in Exhibit Table V. In addition, precipitation data from a nearby weather station is presented in Appendix
C.
Exhibit Table VI. Verification of Bankfull Events
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Date of Data
Date(s) of
Calculated
Measured High
Photo #
Collection
Occurrence
Method
Bankfull
Water
(if available)
Elevation
Elevation
10/24/09
Unknown
Crest gage
14 inches
35 inches
Not available
Bank Stability Assessments
EEP requires that detailed Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Shear Stress (NBS) be
performed in Year 5, post- construction which correlates to Year 2013. The purpose is to describe the
proportion of bank footage in the various hazard categories and to produce sediment export rates in
tonnage per annum. Due to the nature of this type of mitigation, EEP will determine the extent of
_ assessment required during Monitoring Year 5.
2. Stream Problem Areas
No significant changes to the dimension were observed during Year 1 monitoring activities. A visual
assessment of the channel was conducted throughout its length and no problem areas were noted.
Although elevation changes were observed based on the data collected, the visual assessments did not
locate any obvious areas of instability and /or erosion.
3. Fixed Station Photographs
Photographic documentation was taken at 16 permanent photo stations, established during the as -built
survey. The documentation ranges between views of the channel and buffer, to vegetation plots and
cross sections. Appendix D provides an ongoing comparison of yearly photographs for each station. The
actual locations of the photographs are shown in Figure 3.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 9
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

SECTION IV. METHODOLOGY SECTION
This document employs methodologies according to the post- construction monitoring plan and
standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents. References are provided below.
Barnhill, W.L., 1981. Soil Survey of Jones County, North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP), 2010. Brock Stream Enhancement, Draft As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Report, Draft
Version dated April 2010. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP), 2006. Brock Stream Restoration Plan, Final Version dated July 28, 2006. Prepared by
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Available via: http: / /www.nceep.net /.
NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1988. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts and T.R. Wentworth, 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.0. Available: http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm.
Rosgen, David L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Inc. Pagosa Springs, CO.
385 pp.
Shafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2005. Information
Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Wilmington, NC.
November 28, 2005. Available via:
htto: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /ncwetlands/ documents/ CoastalPlainSTreamMitiRationFinalDraftPolic
VNov28.doc.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) and NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2003. Draft Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service and NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2002. Level III
and Level IV Ecoregions of North Carolina Map.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page 10
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Plan
April 2010
Local Roads
Major Roads
Railroads
_ Site Boundary
County Boundary
Streams
Municipality
Directions to the Brock Stream Restoration Site:
From Raleigh, take HWY 70 East to Kinston, NC.
The Brock Restoration Site is located approximately
12 miles southeast of Kinston, North Carolina and lies
in northern Jones County. From US 70 East in Kinston
turn right on NC 58 and travel approximately 12 miles.
The site is located on the left approximately three miles
past the beginning of the Pine Street loop (SR 1301).
0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles
Figure Courtesy of Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., 2010
VICINITY MAP
E6n'oineerin� J Brock Stream Restoration Site, Jones County, NC
EEP Project No. 92333 Hi al meet
August 18, 2010

Z aan8ij
Fm
OIOZ `d33 :aoanoS dewase8
OLOZ `b Ajenuer
eullo.'e3 41aoN `AlunoC) souor
(£££Z6 'oN PelOAd d33) BIIS 3130JS
L 133HS - ddW 13SSV 133rOad
I ZZ'179 +OZb'1S t-ld 133HS 33S 3NIlHO1dW
I
F
L 11 l U1/ /
W
Q
1 X11 t a� w '
r
v �
11 1,
h� (J)
h ti
/
h f
N
.v
rn
w
I
I
I�
1 -u
I_L�
aw
a
I�
lu
II
�U04)Ie�i�olo —���
N
0
N
H
Cl)
O
0
0
0
0
0
Q
z
W
W
U
z
a
oz
z
LL
U.
m
z
O
W
S
0
0
0
0
z W
w LL
m
W
LL
m
N
z
E
co
z
m

OIOZ `d33 = aoanoS dewasee
OIOZ `b Aaenuer
Z a,ng, j ew10ae3 4PON `Alunoo souor
aau� u
(£££Z6 'ON 1381oad d33) OPS MOODS Ie�lao10
Z 133HS - ddW 13SSV 133rOad
= , LIL
\`
LIJ
\ LU
jai \ \ } / D •�•/ 1
���a�� � � •�• \ \ \\ \ �� \ � �� /i,/ H p \ 111
a
0
OC a
II 11 \ I Q a, \ /
1 i
1111 11 \ \ \ cn,
f
o C1 l� /�jll
w
LLJ /
y IIIIIIIII >
1 I \ \ + zO
u
W f f \ I 1 III ill —' % // o
Ln
a+o
p 1 I 1111 IIII \ 116j� / N
p
N
W! 1 1 J Q III 1lll
11 1 I o/ / / J 1 11111 III 1Jlll� /11 N
I � I II 1
I lliri , d
U)
\ \ w \ I�QIII I z
1! \ \ Q \ \ \ III 5£� W
111 \ \ \ \ N 11 IIIiI / v LLI
z
LU
F-
\ z w
CO
a
Z
m
o
Z
�ooN
z
z
I VIII
�
Q
oLwu
w
!
/
z
W
LL
LL
w
w
Z
ZZ°

OTOZ 'd33 :a»noS dewase8
OTOZ '8T isngnb
£ ajngi j euiloie, WPON `Aiuno:) sauof
(£££Z6 'ON ha(oJd d33) 8VS VOJS
Z 30 Z 133HS - M31A Ndld 9NIU011NOIN
ZZ'Id9 +OZ'b1S ti-Id 133HS 33S 31NI1HOiM
z
al O 1 1
a ..
1
c 1
111 � I 1
1 1
1 � 1
w1
LU
�1 I W
z
w O
l`
V
O .-
U
C\ \
I
i
6
W
U)
W
w
C)
1,
N
d
} wad M"t
��uuaaui u
z
O
i=
z
>a0
1
i
I
I
I
I I
I o
W
IX Co
I
I
II
�4z
C5
> 0
O
C)
U
W
x�
0
z
z C7 W
5 z a:
Z
F of EL
g
g � a o
o a m W of z
z
Z z z_ - m
LU
m g m z Q
J
W
O g w 0
O
U)) i ai a
W
W W
7
D
W
D
7
MO
7
m m
{{{Nye
y
PH
�fn
fo fn
FFFf-Fm=-
MOM =
tOJODU
jj� jjD
amm
0
UU
❑O
O
O C
CKKKK
2-2-2-2-2
�M
'l
0 0
2K
0
0
in`
O
z
O
+,
+,
O
LL
OG
O
c
W
J
J J
U7
O
J J
V7
J N
J
J
J J
LLLL
LLLL
LLLLLL
m
7
K
=
O
m
Z
LL
O
W
f
yp
��Np{
0O
a
F
0
W
=
7
o m
LU
�aZ
Lu
�
t Lu
5
a��d�
¢
d
l`
V
O .-
U
C\ \
I
i
6
W
U)
W
w
C)
1,
N
d
} wad M"t
��uuaaui u
z
O
i=
z
>a0
1
i
I
I
I
I I
I o
W
IX Co
I
I
II
�4z
C5
> 0
O
C)
U
W
x�
0
z
z C7 W
5 z a:
Z
F of EL
g
g � a o
o a m W of z
z
Z z z_ - m
LU
m g m z Q
J
W
O g w 0
O
U)) i ai a

OIOZ `d33 :aoinos dewaseg
OIOZ `8L isn6nd Ilixto , Irt 1,1
b aan�y eulloaeD 41JoN `Alunoo seuor
(£££Z6 'ON 1381oad d33) OPS )I3oa8
L 133HS - M31A NVId d3HV W3180ad N011V1303A
ZV*1 OZVIG IP-ld 133H8 338 3mnHoLvw
t
y \ �
CL �1 t
W
W {
z f
z� °
E'
CL I 1
W �t f V
N
~7 'll
w y
il+ y
n• FnW' --
m
v. VJ
LIMS
N tT
IL ¢
i k1y
¢ @LuJJ
T
IG S
k y
zo
,h
WRZ
LJ J
L� �
W W
IL L. V
L
u W
L)
LL
W W
U t� L}
LL'
W
L•
LL�
LJ J
LL 1
W j
{L
4
it
PF
3
via
+
W
i
W
U,Io
i
p�
in
1. JI
li .�
LL V
ILL r
LL
Y
LL LL
LL W
LL +.
LL
�y�
N
9
•�
(S.�
a
��
h.
Lit
i�b
�
Ll
Y LS
�'
t
,L �
U J
t1y
� U
r_� U.
•L �
t T
'
x
r
11�CJ
S
W
Lc
w
LL
Y
NI
W
t
S
s
'S
�Irc
o.
T vl
W w x
y ��n¢YLµ.N
'•Lt;
�
PTIy
II'J
�,
a
¢
r5¢•lii
n
Z '��i
yCJ�
�
�. Y!
�
µCJ•
�
►C1•
3 i�
Y
�+�.
In
ce n
.'..
?7n
a
.�i`
f
1 �
5 � 1
1
rrt y
i 4
1 �•1
1 �1
1
I
!
f J
I
I
II
ti
� 4 I
` � I
I
1 �
f f /
I
tt I
�V
��uiaaaui�u,
ju�iSolo� -�
I I I
T U
U •Q
C y
!0 -p
E a
M
vo E
cm
C 2 Vl
i r C
o o
E m
m N c
d N y
a R E cm
U U
a o a
'o E
�
N D
C} 1p
d C dY
3 m o
Im
d Y
C L m
f+
�-
=° 3 w
E t
o a�
a � m c
o
Z fn N m
m
W
zo
8
WRZ
CL

OLOZ `d33 :aoanos dewase8
OLOZ 18L isn6nd
b aangi j eu!!oae0 WON `Alunoo sauor
L ' ��ulaaaui�u�
(EEEZ6 'ON 1301a,d d33) 03!S M30JS , le :)Noluo
Z 133HS - M31A Ndld d3HV W3180M N011d1303A
;71-_
d
ti
r
{ 1 / ~ I lG
1
A
.
1
ti
r
{ 1 / ~ I lG
1
f
W
1
CD 1
CL A
E
�1
m
w
�0o
a y E ti i 1
E ° E 1 }
1 j r
U C V
� � I
"0 0
• y
C a ca
r W
E
Z
a C d � 1 � i t y 1 •,
i� I g z U.
m o cm 4)
U.
t i c6 ' z
a y � � I 1 1 �
E -0 Ila
-� o
E CO W R.
LL�
a U) O
O
CD
)
Zfn vlM
1
q�f
fr
f
W
1
CD 1
CL A
E
�1
m
w
�0o
a y E ti i 1
E ° E 1 }
1 j r
U C V
� � I
"0 0
• y
C a ca
r W
E
Z
a C d � 1 � i t y 1 •,
i� I g z U.
m o cm 4)
U.
t i c6 ' z
a y � � I 1 1 �
E -0 Ila
-� o
E CO W R.
LL�
a U) O
O
CD
)
Zfn vlM

OLOZ `d33 .a3jnog dewaseg
oLOZ `8l jsn6nd
eu'IOABO 41JON `Alunoo seuor
` ��u!aaaui u
(£££Z6 "oN 1381oJd d33) 83!S M30JS L, �e�!zllU0
Z 30 Z 133HS - M31A NVId ONIa011NOW
Az
-30
T
or td
,1
07
J
I( f
Z
z
w
2
W
co
z
0
a
a
W ( I
0 I I
U
W (I III
11 --- T---
I
� III !,� ► �
Ily I' 1
1 �
x (nn
�1bw
yap
R
�J
l r

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data and Monitoring Plot Photographs
Appendix A provides a series of tables (Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8) automatically generated by the Data Entry
Tool designed in conjunction with the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0 (Lee et. al.,
2006). Table 7 is based on visual observation during the monitoring assessment.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page A- 1

Appendix A - Table 1. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Report Prepared By
Lane Sauls
Date Prepared
12/7/2009 13:55
database name
EcoEng- 2009 -A- 92333 - Brock- EntryTool- v2.2.7.mdb
database location
L \Projects \50000 State \EEP 50512 \50512 -004 EEP Brock Site \2009 Year 1 Monitoring \CVS DATA
computer name
LSAULS
file size
35901440
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT -- ----- ---
Mctadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes
2
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and
Proj, total stems
all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.)
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor 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 type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot;
ALL Stems by Plot and spp idead
and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY-----------------------------------
Project Code
92333
project Name
Brock Stream Restoration
Description
EEP Brock Stream Restoration, Jones County, NC
River Basin
Neuse
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
water oak
area (sq m)
1
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 10
Source: CVS Data entry Tool Version 2.2.7
Appendix A - Table 2. CVS Vigor by Species
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Species
CommonName
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush
2
Cornus foemina
stiff dogwood
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
7
7
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
4
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
1
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
2
2
3
3
Quercus
oak
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
2
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
2
5
2
21
3
Unknown
11
2
TOTALS:
11
10
13
23
10
71
10
Source: CVS Data entry Tool Version 2.2.7
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page A- 2
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Appendix A - Table 3. CVS Damage by Species
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
c�4�e;
°
Clethra alnifolia coastal sweetpepperbush 0 2
Cornus foemina stiff dogwood 4 4
Unknown 1 2 1
TOTALS: 11 110 30 33 1 29
Source: CVS Data entry Tool Version 2.2.7
Appendix A - Table 4. CVS Damage by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
�o
0- F f
V.,o .4. pro
92333 -ALC- 0001 - year:l 11 15 1 10
92333 -ALC- 0002 - year:l 9 3 9
92333 -ALC- 0003 -yea r:1 3 1 3
92333 -ALC- 0004 - year:l 7 14 7
TOTALS: 4 30 331 1 29
Source: CVS Data entry Tool Version 2.2.7
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page A- 3
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
4
10
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
7
7
7
Quercus
oak
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
41
31
4
Quercus nigra
water oak
0
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
5
5
1
4
Unknown 1 2 1
TOTALS: 11 110 30 33 1 29
Source: CVS Data entry Tool Version 2.2.7
Appendix A - Table 4. CVS Damage by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
�o
0- F f
V.,o .4. pro
92333 -ALC- 0001 - year:l 11 15 1 10
92333 -ALC- 0002 - year:l 9 3 9
92333 -ALC- 0003 -yea r:1 3 1 3
92333 -ALC- 0004 - year:l 7 14 7
TOTALS: 4 30 331 1 29
Source: CVS Data entry Tool Version 2.2.7
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page A- 3
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Appendix A - Table 5. CVS Planted Stems by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Source: CVS Data entry Tool Version 2.2.7
Appendix A - Table 6. CVS All Stems by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
F� 000 000 C
a. ?� ZCy y CV CV Ci
2C y OC t� ��F Qv Qv Qv
6 Al
4 01r'' Otis 0�V
Cornus foemina
��y
4
000 000
4
4S'
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
14
1
14
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
Grp
3
a
hQ
V�
'tom
�Q
Q
Q Q Q
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
14
1
14
14
4
Quercus
oak
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
3
2
1.5
1
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
9
3
3
2
3
4
Quercus nigra
water oak
Quercus
oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
7
4
1.75
1
1
2
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Quercus nigra
water oak
4
1
41
1
1
4
Salix nigra
black willow
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
1
1
1
Unknown 1
is
Quercus phellos
willow oak
7
1
7
7
1
TOTALS:
0
TOTALS:
0
571
8
46
8
9
24
7
4
11
Source: CVS Data entry Tool Version 2.2.7
Appendix A - Table 6. CVS All Stems by Plot
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
F� 000 000 C
a. ?� ZCy y CV CV Ci
2C y OC t� ��F Qv Qv Qv
6 Al
4 01r'' Otis 0�V
Cornus foemina
stiff dogwood
4
1
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
14
1
14
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
3
2
1.5
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
11
3
3.67
2
5
4
Quercus
oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
71
41
1.75
11
11
2
3
Quercus nigra
water oak
4
1
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
7
1
7
7
Salix nigra
black willow
4
1
4
4
Unknown 1
1
1
1
1
TOTALS:
0
11 110
571
11
28
9
4
16
Source: CV5 Data entry Tool Version 2.2.7
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page A- 4
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Appendix A - Table 7. Vegetative Problem Areas
Brock Site (EEP Project No. 92333)
Feature /Issue
Station #/ Range
Probable Cause
Photo #
Bare Bank
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bench
Isolated throughout
Inundation
N/A
Bare Floodplain
14 +50 to 16 +00, 18 +00 to
Drought or lack of available water (woody
2, 4, 7, 13
20 +50, 26 +00 to 28 +00
stems only)
Bare Buffer
10 +00 to 28 +00
Drought or lack of available water (woody
1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14,
stems only)
15,16
Invasive /Exotic
N/A
N/A
N/A
Populations
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page A- 5

I
v
to
ca
a
m
M
M
N
Ql
O
Z
u
U
41 n-
0
J
L
d
a �
W L
w �
v
i C
O
p p O4
O C
N N W
to M
u
•L (a
p v _O
C u
p w
C
O T
ai
L p
Y m
u @ p•
O C v
m LZ a
O
m
m
.-i
v
r
'D
N
m
�
N—
.--�
N
e-1
lD
a
O
N
°a
CL
°
D
c
oo
m
v
af0i
`3
°
CL
N
V
M
01
O
01
01
C
c
v
O
a
m
r
°o
ID
Mm.
ml-,r-
-,t
n
oov
N
a
v
O
�
ri
d
°
C>
J
c-I
°
o
�
�
O
O
r
m
ry
¢
M
m
a
O
a
0
0
0
O
N
J
d
N
N
V
N
Ol
PA
14
ID
O
O
~
N
N
�
U
J
—
~
e•1
ry
M
6
O
T
m
en
O
0
0
Ern
Pll
E Q, N
A
d
=
L
LA O
O
.�
n
in
m
m
Z
O
N
HrTN
pp
O Y
d
C
G
N
•--�
m
.--i
ti
.-i
m
yaj , d
U
n
V 0
7¢
N
~
co
a
u
en
�^
d
0o a
ui
N
O
O
O
C
m
a
ry
ti
a
m
M
CA
rn
X O
o
F
C
Ol
J
—
N
ry
'y
a
en
d
o
m
Q
m
NN
.--I
N
7
O1
J
V
O
IQ
I
I
W
W
6
3 U
I u ¢
o
v
v
c
,o
,
E H a w
r
r
3
d
m •� d •� a
o
a
3
v
a
v
a
v
a
v
m
c
a E
N
VI
L
N
`1
`!
W
K
L
in
�
E
m
U
N
Z
Cl
CL
O
E
Y
O
C
v-0
u
Y
o
E
H
3
L
C
L
Y
O
n
E
O—
O
m
v
u
u
d
0
n
co
Z
u
N
-o
c
E
aq
3
Y
u°
c
o
u
m
.�
E
Q
O
N°
3
s
u
3-
i
AL
•C
o
a`
c
ti
m
d
o
o
C
m
M
u
w
C
ONi
Z
tco
>
L3'
to
-
4
N
'O
u
fa
m
N
N
X
c
to
C
O
u
=-
c
°
c
E
c
.•
�
m
o
o
v
C
c
a_
u
oo
m
u
m
o
O
O
2
c
nn
0
L
C
_�
X
O
ate•
U/
w
N
N
N
c
u
1
y�
o
2
v
3
3
7
O
7
C
W
_d
u
u-
J
_�
aGfUUaCf�
�
v
I
v
to
ca
a
m
M
M
N
Ql
O
Z
u
U
41 n-
0
J
L
d
a �
W L
w �
v
i C
O
p p O4
O C
N N W
to M
u
•L (a
p v _O
C u
p w
C
O T
ai
L p
Y m
u @ p•
O C v
m LZ a

Monitoring Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot #1
Photostation 2.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #1
Taken November 17, 2009
Vegetation Plot #2
Photostation 3.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #1.
Taken November 17, 2009
Photostation S.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot 42
Taken November 17, 2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Photostation 6.
Facing northwest across Vegetation Plot #2.
Taken November 17, 2009
Page A- 7

Vegetation Plot #3
Photostation 8.
Facing southwest across Vegetation Plot #3
Taken November 17, 2009
Vegetation Plot #4
Photostation 9.
Facing southeast across Vegetation Plot #3.
Taken November 17, 2009
Photostation 11.
Facing northeast across Vegetation Plot #4
Taken November 17, 2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Photostation 12.
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #4.
Taken November 17, 2009
Page A- 8

APPENDIX B
Geomorphic Raw Data
This appendix is consistent with the USACE and NCDWQ draft mitigation guidance document ( USACE,
2005) related to stream restoration in outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Traditional natural channel
design monitoring protocols with pattern and profile has been determined to be inappropriate for
coastal headwater streams, such as the unnamed tributary at the Brock Site. Therefore, the geomorphic
raw data included within this appendix is restricted only to cross section comparisons.
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page B- 1
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Cross Section #1 Comparison
Station 11 +00
XSC #1 - Brock Site Sta. 11 +00
42 — - --
41
40
39
38
z
c
0 37
m
_d
w 36
35
I
%81W
12009
34
33
32
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (ft)
+As-Built X2009
Note: The as -built survey data was based on compilation of topographic contours and not an actual cross section survey. As
a result variability exists between the actual cross section survey (conducted as part of monitoring efforts) and as-
built data.
Year 1(2009) Cross Section Photographs
Facing north along the west side of Cross Section #1. Facing west across Cross Section #1.
Taken October 24, 2009 Taken October 24, 2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page B- 2
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Cross Section #2 Comparison
Station 15 +00
XSC #2 - Brock Site Sta. 15 +00
40 -.. -- -- _ - -- - -- — - -
I
39
38
-
37
36
c
0 35
—
d
w 34
33
Wt
32
31
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)
tAs -Built -2009
Note: The as -built survey data was based on compilation of topographic contours and not an actual cross section survey. As
a result, variability exists between the actual cross section survey (conducted as part of monitoring efforts) and as-
built data.
Year 1 (2009) Cross Section Photographs
Facing northeast along the west side of Cross Section #2.
Taken October 24, 2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version - Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Facing northwest along the west side of Cross Section #2.
Taken October 24, 2009
Page B- 3

Cross Section #3 Comparison
Station 23 +00
Note: The as -built survey data was based on compilation of topographic contours and not an actual cross section survey. As
a result, variability exists between the actual cross section survey (conducted as part of monitoring efforts) and as-
built data.
Year 1(2009) Cross Section Photographs
Facing northeast along the west side of Cross Section #3. Facing northwest along the west side of Cross Section #3.
Taken October 24, 2009 Taken October 24, 2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page B- 4
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
XSC #3 - Brock Site Sta. 23 +00
35 - - -
34
33
c
32
0
.W
m
w
31
30
29 —
28
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (ft)
0 As -Built - +-2009
Note: The as -built survey data was based on compilation of topographic contours and not an actual cross section survey. As
a result, variability exists between the actual cross section survey (conducted as part of monitoring efforts) and as-
built data.
Year 1(2009) Cross Section Photographs
Facing northeast along the west side of Cross Section #3. Facing northwest along the west side of Cross Section #3.
Taken October 24, 2009 Taken October 24, 2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page B- 4
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Cross Section Data Summary
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page B- 5
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
mmo��ommo��oo�o��m
amommoomoommm
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page B- 5
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
amommoomoommm
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page B- 5
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

APPENDIX C
Rainfall Data Summary
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page C- 1
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Rainfall Data Summary 2009
2009 Preci itation Data
DATE
AMOUNT in.
May 25, 2009
0.02
May 29, 2009
0.01
May 30, 2009
0.11
June 6, 2009
0.71
June 7, 2009
0.02
June 10, 2009
1.58
June 11, 2009
1.58
June 13, 2009
0.6
June 16, 2009
0.88
June 17, 2009
1.59
June 18, 2009
0.04
June 19, 2009
0.15
June 27, 2009
1.7
July 2, 2009
0.02
July 6, 2009
0.47
July 14, 2009
1.08
July 17, 2009
0.17
July 18, 2009
1.27
July 21, 2009
0.25
July 23, 2009
0.51
July 24, 2009
0.04
July 26, 2009
0.28
July 29, 2009
0.16
July 30, 2009
0.11
August 1, 2009
0.65
August 2, 2009
1.34
August 3, 2009
0.45
August 6, 2009
0.03
August 7, 2009
0.06
August 12, 2009
0.06
August 13, 2009
0.42
August 15, 2009
0.33
Au ust 22, 2009
0.01
August 23, 2009
0.45
August 24, 2009
0.41
August 29, 2009 1
0.49
Data Source:
2009 Preci itation Data
DATE
AMOUNT in.
August 30, 2009
0.47
August 31, 2009
1.49
September 1, 2009
0.22
September 7, 2009
0.19
September 8, 2009
0.38
September 18, 2009
0.04
September 22, 2009
1.11
September 23, 2009
0.31
September 24, 2009
0.07
September 26, 2009
0.05
September 27, 2009
0.74
September 28, 2009
0.04
October 5, 2009
0.02
October 6, 2009
0.19
October 7, 2009
0.05
October 12, 2009
0.14
October 13, 2009
0.06
October 15, 2009
0.37
October 16, 2009
0.04
October 17, 2009
0.02
October 27, 2009
0.15
October 28, 2009
0.05
November 1, 2009
0.02
November 2, 2009
0.13
November 11, 2009
1.41
November 12, 2009 1
3.72
November 13, 2009
0.63
November 14, 2009
0.04
Location:
7 miles SE of Kinston, NC
Approximately 7 miles N of Project Site
Station No: 314684
Station Name/Type: KINSTON 7 SE (314684) / COOP -TP
Date of First Observation: September 1, 1899
Latitude: 35.1966666
Longitude: 77.5433333
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page C- 2
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

APPENDIX D
Photograph Comparisons
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page D- 1
Final Version —Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Photostation #1
Facing north from beginning of project at Station 10 +00
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Photostation #2
Facing northeast along the eastern side of Vegetation Plot #1
Year 1 - Taken 11/17/2009
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Year 1 - Taken 11/17/2009
Page D- 2

Photostation #3
Facing north across Vegetation Plot #1
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009 Year 1 - Taken 11/17/2009
Photostation #4
Facing downstream at Cross Section #1
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009 Year 1- Taken 11/17/2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page D- 3
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Photostation #5
Facing northeast along the east side of Vegetation Plot #2
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Photostation #6
Facing northwest across Vegetation Plot #2
Year 1 - Taken 11/17/2009
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Year 1- Taken 11/17/2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page D- 4
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Photostation #7
Facing north - northeast at Crest Gage situated near Station 18 +65
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Photostation #8
Facing southwest along western axis of Vegetation Plot #3
Year 1 - Taken 11/17/2009
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Year 1 - Taken 11/17/2009
Page D- 5

Photostation #9
Facing southeast across Vegetation Plot #3
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Photostation #10
Facing northeast along tributary in the vicinity of Station 22 +50
Year 1 - Taken 11/17/2009
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Year 1- Taken 11/17/2009
Year 1- Taken 11/17/2009
Page D- 6

Photostation #11
Facing northeast along the eastern axis of Vegetation Plot #4
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Photostation #12
Facing northwest across Vegetation Plot #4
Year 1- Taken 11/17/2009
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Year 1- Taken 11/17/2009
Page D- 7

Photostation #13
Facing southwest (upstream) along the tributary from Station 28 +25
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Year 1 - Taken 11/17/2009
Photostation #14
Facing northeast along buffer area associated with tributary from Station 28 +25
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Year 1- Taken 11/17/2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333) Page D- 8
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP

Photostation #15
Facing southwest from Chinquapin Branch
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Photostation #16
Facing southeast at buffer area along Chinquapin Branch
Year 1 - Taken 11/17/2009
Year 0 Baseline - Taken 7/2/2009
Brock Site Monitoring Report (EEP Project No. 92333)
Final Version — Year 1 (2009)
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Year 1- Taken 11/17/2009
Page D- 9