20010606 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20081016

r
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
STORM
N WATER
Services
October 13, 2008
I - OGO(p
600 E_ Fourth Strcet
Charlotte, NC. 28202
Farr 704-336,0586

Ms. Amanda Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [)ENk - IvAI Ek, GUAL; I
151 Patton Ave., Room 208 WETLANDS AND sTORWNATER SKMC44
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Subject: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Post-Construction Year 1 & 2 Monitoring Report
City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Jones:
The City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) is pleased to present a comprehensive monitoring
report for the Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project (EBWIP). This monitoring report contains
Post-construction Year 1 monitoring information for Southgate Branch as well as Post-construction Year 2
monitoring information for Edwards Branch. This report also includes information on BMP performance
and water quality sampling results.
Based on the report prepared by S&ME, CSWS has been successful in meeting the goals of the Mitigation
Credit Proposal for the components of the EBWIP constructed to date. The third and final phase of the
project is currently in the planning process, and implementation of this future phase is expected to further
improve water quality conditions in the Edwards Branch watershed.
Stream Mitigation Credits
Although CSWS continues to have minor problems with easement violations and erosion, the overall stream
restoration projects in the watershed continue to improve in function and are trending toward stability.
CSWS addresses issues discovered through periodic inspections and annual monitoring as the need arises
and this will continue in perpetuity. Table 1 details the credit release summary for 2007.
Edwards Branch Main Stem
The Edwards Branch stream channel experienced some erosion over the first and second year of monitoring,
and this erosion and subsequent repairs were noted in the 2006 monitoring report. While the main channel
continues to trend toward stability, a preventative maintenance project has been initiated to ensure long-term
success of the project. Based on the Year 2 thalweg survey, CSWS is requesting a 10% release of the total
thalweg length of Edwards Branch into the City's bank. The total credits requested equal 358.94.
Southgate Branch
Southgate Branch continues to trend toward stability. Based on the Year 1 thalweg survey, CSWS is
requesting a 20% release of the total thalweg of Southgate Branch into the City's bank. The total credits
requested equal 115.32.
Sheffield Park RelocationSheffield Park Relocation continues to trend toward stability. Based on the Year 2
thalweg survey, CSWS is requesting a 10% release of the total thalweg length of Sheffield Park Relocation
into the City's bank. The total credits requested equal 28.07.
04b To report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311
h ttp://stormwater.charmeck.org
UIAHIDWE. G.
Watershed Improvement Credits
No watershed improvement credits are being requested at this time. Following the completion of the
Sheffield Park Wetland repair and retrofit, watershed improvement credits will be requested for downstream
influence on Edwards Branch. Following the completion of Winterfield Tributary Restoration and Willow
Park ED Basin repair and retrofit, watershed improvement credits will be requested for downstream
influence on Winterfield Tributary.
Table]. Credit Release Summary
Project Area Stage Length Percent Credits
Stream Improvements
Southgate Branch Year 1 576.60 20% 115.32
Edwards Branch Year 2 3589.40 10% 358.94
Sheffield Park Relocation Year 2 280.70 10% 28.07
Total 502.33
Note: Table 1 B from the report has been updated and attached to this cover letter.
Credit Adjustments
Annual monitoring of the EBWIP has resulted in varying thalweg lengths, possibly due to changing thalweg
length or survey artifacts. In the 2006 monitoring report, CSWS accounted for these changes by adding or
subtracting the differerence from the total number of credits requested. Rather than adjusting the credit on
an annual basis, CSWS would like to suspend any further credit adjustments until the project is closed out.
At that time, the final credit releases will account for all changes in survey length for all previous monitoring
years. Therefore, no credit adjustments are requested for this year.
Summary
The Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project has had demonstrated success in improving water
quality on a watershed-wide scale. Success has been documented through extensive monitoring of the
project, and the results are presented in detail in the mitigation monitoring report. CSWS hereby
requests that 502.33 credits be released into the City's bank.
Please contact me with any questions or comments at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Charlotte Storm Water Services
~- Jarrod Karl
Mitigation Administrator
encl: Updated Table 1
cc: Ms. Becky Fox, USEPA
Mr. Bryan Tompkins, USFWS
Mr. Eric Kulz, NCDWQ
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC
File

o
o Q O
m a°1 =
.+ I
N !D
!D -a N
= c a
mIWD o a
CL
c- o m
0
o rn
m
4°1'N
(D d - O
(D
as
ID
c m m m
? O N N
0 N
O C. N
fD .h
o
O O
N 7
II.
O
7
N. .
O
O
3
fD
(D
0 os a)-0
rr -
N :3 O (D
O
rt 0 =4 M uJ
O
_
O (D
n Q (A
D1

G Q O
Q K Q

rmlp
* (D
m
* O
O.
O
Al
Q Q M.

O O O

- ? -

(D (D (D
(D (D (D

O W W

O 0 0
0
0

OD
O O O
D
v

0 0 O

N_ W Cfl
W (W3l CY)
aD
4 W
(n
OD -4 O
O (J1
W
O N
W cn
_a
O
v
co W
W W 0
U) cn cn cn m
? C) CL
(D (D C (p
3 30 3Q
(D ? (n
(D (D (D (D
O -? v
?. O O O
O 0 v
7 3 M

(D (D (D
? N N
N ? N
N Ul W
OD
p -4
W (n
00
A
O O
O
O
N

cn
D
O -4
O W OD
:
,4 im
O O O Z.

?
OD CF)
v O -N
CY) OD

O (n Cn W

? N (n W
A OD ?
O CF)
4 -A.
W
N
OD
00
i PO
O
v Ab
cn I cn I ((n
EDWARDS BRANCH
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
2007 Post-Construction Monitoring Report
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Proj ect No. 1357-07-038
Prepared for:
Charlotte Storm Water Services
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2844
Prepared by:
vS M E
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
July 2008
S&ME
July 30, 2008
Charlotte Storm Water Services
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2844
Attention: Mr. Jarrod Karl
Reference: 2007 Post-Construction Monitoring Report
Edwards Branch
Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&MEProject No. 1357-07-038
Dear Mr. Karl:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to provide Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) with
this 2007 Post-Construction Monitoring Report for the above-referenced project. The
work was performed in accordance with the A- If guidelines identified in the CSWS
Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document, the terms and conditions of our Unspecified
Mitigation Monitoring Services Agreement (Contract No. 06-538), dated February 13,
2006, and your written acceptance of S&ME Proposal No. 1357-18626-07Rev on
October 22, 2007.
If we can provide additional information with respect to this project, please do not
hesitate to contact us at 704.523.4726.
Sincerely,
S&ME
L? V
Joey Lawler, P.W.S.
Natural Resources Project Manager
Lisa J. Beckstr C.E., C.W.B
Natural Resources Department Manager
Senior Reviewer
JOL/LJB/jol SA1357\PROJECTS\2007\07-038 COC - Edwards Branch
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Blvd / Charlotte, NC 28273 / p 704.523.4726 f704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
2007 Post-Construction Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................. ..................... 1
Stream Restoration Components .............................................. .....................4
Edwards Branch ................................................................ .................... 4
Southgate Branch ............................................................. .................... 5
Winterfield Tributary Relocation ........................................ .................... 5
BMP Components ..................................................................... .....................5
Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland ................................. .................... 5
Piersons Pond ................................................................... .................... 6
Willow Park Extended Detention Pond .............................. .................... 6
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... ..................... 7
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND ...................................................... ..................... 8
2.1 Site Location ..................................................................... ..................... 8
2.2 Project Components .......................................................... ..................... 8
2.3 Previous Monitoring ........................................................... ..................... 9
3. MONITORING METHODS ........................................................ ..................... 9
3.1 Photographic Documentation ............................................ ..................... 9
3.2 Channel Stability ............................................................... ................... 10
3.2.1 Longitudinal Profile ............................................. .................. 10
3.2.2 Cross-Sectional Surveys ..................................... .................. 10
3.2.3 Sediment Analysis .............................................. .................. 10
3.3 Vegetative Assessment ..................................................... ................... 10
3.4 Visual Assessment ............................................................ ................... 11
3.5 Completion of BMP Checklist ............................................ ................... 11
3.6 Integration of Additional Monitoring Data .......................... ................... 11
4. EDWARDS BRANCH STREAM RESTORATION .................... ................... 12
4.1 Biologic Monitoring ............................................................ ................... 12
4.2 Water Quality Monitoring ................................................... ................... 13
4.3 Stability Monitoring ............................................................ ................... 13
4.3.1 Dimension ........................................................... .................. 13
4.3.2 Pattern ................................................................ .................. 15
4.3.3 Profile .................................................................. ..................15
4.3.4 Sediment Analysis .............................................. .................. 16
4.4 Vegetation Monitoring ....................................................... ................... 18
4.5 Visual Assessment Monitoring .......................................... ................... 19
5. SOUTHGATE BRANCH ........................................................... ................... 21
5.1 Biologic Monitoring ............................................................ ................... 21
5.2 Water Quality Monitoring ................................................... ................... 21
5.3 Stability Monitoring ............................................................ ................... 21
5.3.1 Dimension ........................................................... .................. 21
5.3.2 Pattern ................................................................ .................. 22
5.3.3 Profile .................................................................. ..................23
5.3.4 Sediment Analysis .............................................. .................. 23
5.4 Vegetation Monitoring ....................................................... ................... 24
5.5 Visual Assessment Monitoring .......................................... ................... 25
6. WINTERFIELD TRIBUTARY RELOCATION ........................... ................... 27
2007 Post-Construction Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Protect July 30, 2008

6.1 Biologic Monitoring ............................................. .................................. 27
6.2 Water Quality Monitoring .................................... .................................. 27
6.3 Stability Monitoring ............................................. .................................. 28
6.3.1 Dimension ............................................ ................................. 28
6.3.2 Pattern ................................................. ................................. 29
6.3.3 Profile ................................................... .................................29
6.3.4 Sediment Analysis ............................... ................................. 29
6.4 Vegetation Monitoring ........................................ .................................. 30
6.5 Visual Assessment Monitoring ........................... .................................. 30
7. BANKFULL VERIFICATION ..................................... .................................. 31
8. BMP MONITORING ................................................... .................................. 31
8.1 Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland ................... .................................. 31
8.2 Piersons Pond .................................................... .................................. 32
8.3 Willow Park Extended Detention Pond ............... .................................. 33
9. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... ..................................34
9.1 Stream Restoration Components ....................... .................................. 34
9.1.1 Edwards Branch ................................... ................................. 34
9.1.2 Southgate Branch ................................ ................................. 34
9.1.3 Winterfield Tributary Relocation ........... ................................. 34
9.2 BMP Components .............................................. .................................. 35
9.2.1 Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland .... ................................. 35
9.2.2 Piersons Pond ...................................... ................................. 35
9.2.3 Willow Park Extended Detention Pond ................................. 35
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1A: Summary of Success Criteria .............................................. ............. 2
Table 113: Summary of Monitoring Stage and Credit Release ........... ............. 3
Table 2: Monitoring Data Record ......................................................... ............. 7
Table 3: MHAP Monitoring Summary ................................................... ........... 12
Table 4: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Summary ................ ........... 12
Table 5: Fish Monitoring Summary ...................................................... ........... 12
Table 6: Water Quality Monitoring Summary ...................................... ........... 13
Table 7: TSS Monitoring Summary ...................................................... ........... 13
Table 8: Dimension Summary Data for Edwards Branch ................... ........... 14
Table 9: Pattern Summary Data for Edwards Branch ........................ ........... 15
Table 10: Profile Summary Data for Edwards Branch ........................ ........... 15
Table 11: Pebble Count Summary Data for Edwards Branch ............ ........... 16
Table 12: Vegetation Summary for Edwards Branch ......................... ........... 18
Table 13: Edwards Branch Stability AOC ............................................ ........... 19
Table 14: Edwards Branch Vegetation AOC ........................................ ........... 20
Table 15: MHAP Monitoring Summary ................................................. ........... 21
Table 16: Macrobenthic Invertebrate Monitoring Summary ............... ........... 21
Table 17: Water Quality Monitoring Summary .................................... ........... 21
Table 18: Dimension Summary Data for Southgate Branch ............. ........... 22
Table 19: Pattern Summary Data for Southgate Branch ................... ........... 22
Table 20: Profile Summary Data for Southgate Branch .................... ........... 23
2007 Post-Construction Monitoring Report
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement P
S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
July 30. 2008
Table 21: Pebble Count Summary Data for Southgate Branch ........... ........ 23
Table 22: Southgate Branch Stability AOC ............................................ ........ 25
Table 23: Southgate Branch Vegetation AOC ........................................ ........ 25
Table 24: MHAP Monitoring Summary .................................................... ........ 27
Table 25: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Summary ................. ........ 27
Table 26: Fish Monitoring Summary ....................................................... ........ 27
Table 27: Water Quality Monitoring Summary ....................................... ........ 28
Table 28: Dimension Summary Data for Winterfield Tributary ............. ........ 28
Table 29: Pattern Summary Data for Winterfield Tributary .................. ........ 29
Table 30: Profile Summary Data for Winterfield Tributary .................... ........ 29
Table 31: Pebble Count Summary Data for Winterfield Tributary ........ ........ 29
Table 32: Winterfield Tributary Stability AOC ........................................ ........ 31
Table 33: Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland ...................................... ........ 32
Table 34: Piersons Pond .................................................................................. 33
Table 35: Willow Park Extended Detention Pond .......................................... 33
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1A: Year 2 Particle Size Distribution for Edwards Branch ............... 17
Graph 1 B: Year 2 Composite Particle Size Distribution for Edwards
Branch ............................................................................................... 17
Graph 2: Year 1 Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution for Southgate
Branch ............................................................................................... 24
Graph 3: Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution for Winterfield
Tributary ........................................................................................... 30
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 2005 Aerial Photograph
APPENDICES
Appendix I Monitoring Plan View Drawings
Appendix II Photo ID Points
Appendix III Longitudinal Profile Graphs
Appendix IV Cross Section Analysis and Graphs
Appendix V Vegetation Tables
Appendix VI AOC Photographs
Appendix VII BMP Checklists and Photographs
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project (EBWIP) is a watershed-wide
effort to improve water quality through a variety of stormwater management practices,
stormwater treatment and traditional water quality best management practices (BMP).
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) approved the project, monitoring program and credit release schedule in
2004. Goals of the project include restoration of water quality conditions in Edwards
Branch, development of techniques and practices that can be applied toward advancing
the water quality of streams within the county, and generation of mitigation credit.
Pursuant to the project goals, success criteria are determined based on the following
measurements:
Stream Restoration Credit (each of the following must be met):
In-stream habitat: mitigation credit will be issued if Mecklenburg County Habitat
Assessment Protocol (MHAP) scores equal or exceed 115.
Stream geomorphology: mitigation credit will be issued if there is no evidence of
excessive aggradation or degradation along the stream reaches.
Vegetation survival: mitigation credit will be received if survival rate equals or
exceeds 80 percent.
BMP (Watershed Approach) Credit:
BMP Condition: 1/3 of credit will be issued if project BMPs are installed correctly
and functional based on detailed inspection.
Water Quality and Biological: Up to the remaining 2/3 of mitigation credit will be
issued if stream water quality sampling, BMP performance sampling or biological
indicators (fish and/or benthos sampling) equivalent to a "Good/Fair" condition.
A summary of success criteria with respect to each project component is presented in
Table IA. Project phase, past and anticipated mitigation credit information is presented
in Table 113. MHAP scores averaged 114.75 for Edwards Branch and the score for
Southgate Branch was 100. The Southgate Branch MHAP score may have been due to
repair and replanting activities undertaken along the reach by the City. Drought and
zero-flow conditions prompted cancellation of MHAP monitoring by the City at
Winterfield Tributary from 2005 through 2007. The sampling is scheduled to resume in
2008, however, and the trend from 2001 through 2004 was positive. Based on visual
assessment of the reach, it is anticipated that the 2008 score will meet or exceed 115.
With respect to stability, each of the reaches exhibited areas of degradation or
aggradation, but not to an excessive degree. Lastly, each of the project reaches exhibited
some degree of vegetative stability. While the survival rate in the Edwards Branch
vegetation plots averaged less than 80 percent, this did not reflect replantings conducted
by the City shortly thereafter. Similarly, the survival rate at Southgate Branch was 72
percent, but did not reflect supplemental plantings. Visual assessment of Winterfield
Tributary Relocation indicated that vegetation there was performing well. With the
exception of Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland, each of the project stream and BMP
components are anticipated to meet their project goals by the end of the monitoring
period, and the net positive trend should be considered a success for the 2007 monitoring
year.
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Protect July 30, 2008
Table 1A: Summary of Success Criteria

C
it
i
S Stream Mitigation Improvement ID
uccess
r
er
a
Edwards Branch
Stream Restoration
Southgate Branch
Stream Restoration
Winterfield Tributary
Relocation
In-stream Habitat (MHAP) Yes Yes Yes
Stream Geomorphology (Stability) Yes Yes Yes
Vegetation Survival (>80% [320
stems/acre]) Yes Yes Yes

C
it
i
S Watershed Improvement (BMP) ID
uccess
r
er
a
Pierson Pond
Sheffield Park Wetland
USGS Station
BMP Condition Yes Yes N/A
BMP Efficiency Yes No N/A
Biological N/A N/A No
Watershed TSS Monitoring N/A N/A Yes
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Protect July 30, 2008
Table 113: Summary of Monitoring Stage and Credit Release
Stream Mitigation Credits
Length Credit
Initial
Construction
Year 1
Year 2

%
Improvement ID Stage (ft) Ratio Credits Release Release Release Release Relea
sed
(15%) (10%) (20%) (20%)
Edwards Branch Year 2 3
589 1.1 3
589 538.35 358.94 717.8 717.8 65
Stream Restoration , ,
Southgate Branch Year 1 577 1.1 576
6 86
49 57
66 115
4 - 45
Stream Restoration . . . .
Winterfield
Tributary Stream Year 2 281 1.1 281 42.15 20.07 56.14 56.2 65
Relocation
Wate rshed Improvement Credits
Improvement ID Stage Length* Credit Credits Construction TSS Goals Met %
Ratio Release (33 /o) (67 /o) Released
Piersons Pond Complete 576.6 2:1 288.3 96.83 191.47 100
Riparian Buffer
Sheffield Park Complete 1
087 1.1 1
087 385.71 - 33
Constructed Wetland , ,
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Stream Restoration Components
Edwards Branch
Restored portions of Edwards Branch were designed for a bankfull discharge ranging
from 82-95 cubic feet per second (cfs). The USGS gage station located just below the
project terminus at Tarrington Avenue and Sheffield Drive recorded eight events from
October 2006 through October 2007 where maximum daily discharge exceeded 100 cfs.
Recorded maximum discharges ranged from 100 cfs on September 13, 2006 to 223 cfs on
August 10, 2006. Accordingly, the project has experienced multiple bankfull flows
during the past monitoring year.
Streambanks from the origin of the project reach (upstream of Driftwood Drive) through
the vicinity of its confluence with Winterfield Tributary (Station 24+00) appeared
generally stable, although isolated areas of bank erosion and in-stream deposition were
observed. Favorable cross-section and profile comparisons indicate that there has been
no significant departure from channel dimension and profile. Numerous areas of bank
erosion were observed downstream of the confluence with Winterfield Tributary
(Stations 25+00 through 28+00) and upstream of Tarrington Avenue. Based on
information provided by CSWS, repairs in these areas were made through the City's
maintenance program subsequent to the 2007 monitoring event.
Vegetation monitoring indicates that the decline in survivability observed in previous
monitoring has continued, but to a lesser degree. The sharp decline observed between
August 2006 and January 2007 monitoring upstream of Tarrington Avenue (Plots 3 and
4), as noted by Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Program, Inc. (HARP), was
attributed to repair work conducted in the area and property owner interference. The
subsequent decline can likely be attributed to the prolonged drought that characterized
2007, or possibly from poor initial placement or installation of particular species,
including many split live stakes that were observed. Upstream of Driftwood Drive, black
willow (Salix nigra) is performing well and has achieved a stature that is providing bank
shading from an overstory canopy while the understory remains moderately open.
However, many of the balled-and-burlapped trees in this area appeared dead, likely a
result of the 2007 drought. Other notable problems included isolated patches with sparse
and/or stunted vegetation, likely a combination of poor soil and the prolonged drought.
According to CSWS, these portions of the reach where steep banks that exhibited poor
vegetative survival were observed have been reconstructed and replanted following the
2007 monitoring event.
Despite the setbacks identified above, data collected from the vegetation plots indicate an
average count of 2,561 stems/acre. Although survival rates for the Edwards Branch plots
ranged from 60 to 30 percent (below the 80 percent survival rate established as a criterion
of success), supplemental plantings to re-establish as-built densities occurred along the
reach subsequent to the monitoring event. The project should still be considered
successful from a vegetation standpoint, however, because areas where vegetation is
performing poorly are replanted each year. The City's proactive approach to addressing
poorly performing areas should provide reassurance that the target survival rate will be
met or exceeded over the length of the monitoring program.
4
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Southgate Branch
Comparison of the As-built and Year 1 profiles indicate numerous areas where minor
streambed degradation has occurred along the length of the channel. Future observation
of this reach will be conducted to determine whether significant erosion is genuinely
occurring, or the variation is due to a surveying error. Problem areas identified along the
reach were generally minor, and involved small areas of bank erosion or in-stream
deposition. Comparison of the 2007 data with results of the forthcoming 2008
monitoring will help provide verification with respect to the apparent streambed
degradation. Based on visual observation, the reach appears generally stable.
Overall, Southgate Branch exhibited vegetative stability during the Year 1 monitoring.
The survival rate within the one vegetation plot established along the reach was 72
percent, and the measurement of stems per acre is 1,332. This does not reflect
supplemental planting efforts undertaken along the reach by the City. Problem areas
noted within the reach included the presence of invasive species, particularly in the area
immediately downstream from Piersons Pond. Additionally, an area of porcelain berry
(Ampelopsis brevipedunculata) was observed farther downstream. Presence of the
invasives is not considered a significant problem, however, because the area is treated
three times annually by the City. Tree supports on planted sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), noted as a problem during baseline monitoring, have been removed.
However, some of the planted sycamore trees have reached the height of an overhead
powerline and could pose a risk. An area lacking herbaceous vegetation in the central
portion of the reach may benefit from overseeding with a native seed mix in 2008.
Winterfield Tributary Relocation
Comparison of the Year 1 and Year 2 profiles indicate several inches of streambed
degradation along portions of the channel. Other than several minor problem areas,
evidence of acute erosion was not observed within the channel. As with Southgate
Branch, future observation of this reach will be conducted to determine whether erosion
is genuinely occurring, or the variation is due to a surveying error. Based on visual
observation, the reach appears generally stable.
No vegetation plots were established along Winterfield Tributary. Monitoring conducted
in 2006 by HARP indicated that this area had approximately 95 percent survival of
planted vegetation. The Year 2 monitoring indicated that Winterfield Tributary continues
to have adequate vegetative cover. Invasive species noted near the confluence with
Edwards Branch are not considered problematic because the reach is treated three times
annually by the City.
BMP Components
Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
A majority of the structural components associated with the Sheffield Park Constructed
Wetland appeared to be in good condition and functioning properly. However, sparse
vegetation was observed in the marsh area and on the shoreline. Bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactylon) was observed at the fringes of the inlet deep water cell, and a bare
patch was observed on the bank adjacent to middle deep water cell. Evidence of minor
animal browsing was observed in the upland grass buffer, and several bare areas were
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
also observed there. Supplemental plantings in these areas are recommended. Two
active muskrat burrows were also observed on the embankment. CSWS plans to
reconstruct this BMP in 2008 such that surface elevations within the basin will facilitate
additional emergent vegetation growth.
Piersons Pond
Undesirable vegetative growth was observed near the bottom of the embankment around
the pond, and additional maintenance is recommended. Butterfly bushes (Buddleia
davidii) were observed in the utility easement and on the embankment near an adjoining
residence. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua) and willow oak (Quercus phellos)
saplings were observed growing out of riprap on the embankment, and evidence of
muskrats was observed along the eastern shore of the pond.
Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
A majority of the structural components associated with this BMP appeared to be in good
condition and functioning properly. Vegetation within the dry pond consists of lawn
grasses and is actively mowed as part of community maintenance. Minor erosion and
riprap displacement were observed in the channel through the wet meadow. This BMP is
scheduled for reconstruction later during Phase III of the project.
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) contracted S&ME to perform
monitoring within the EBWIP in the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). The project area is bounded roughly by Central Avenue to the north,
Sharon Amity Road to the east, U. S. Highway 74 (Independence Boulevard) to the south
and southwest, and Norland Road to the northwest. This report presents results of
photographic, vegetative, channel stability and BMP monitoring conducted on September
25, October 4, 8, and 30, 2007. Longitudinal profiles and cross sections were surveyed in
December 2007. Biologic, water quality and MHAP data identified in this report were
collected by Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services personnel in 2007 and provided
to S&ME in 2008.
Additional information related to completed portions of the project is presented in Table
2.
Table 2: Monitoring Data Record
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring
Project Title: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
USACE Action ID: 200130766
DWQ No. 010606
City, County and Location Information: Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, N.C.
Completed Project Components:
Edwards Branch Stream Restoration
Stream
Restoration: Southgate Branch Stream Restoration
Winterfield Tributary Relocation
Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
Watershed Piersons Pond Riparian Buffer/Littoral Shelf
Improvement BMP
Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
Ecoregion: Southern Outer Piedmont
HUC-Unit: 03050103
USGS Quad and
Coordinates: 1991 Charlotte East, N.C. - 35.2069°N, 80.7701 °W (Center of
Project Area)
Urban or Rural: Urban
Watershed Size: 1.0 square mile
Project Sponsor: Monitoring Firm:
City of Charlotte Storm Water Services S&ME, Inc.
Attn: Jarrod Karl
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
704.523.4726 [e-mail]
704.432.0966 [e-mail]
The monitoring was conducted in general accordance with the guidelines identified in the
CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document (November 2005). This report
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
presents results of photographic, vegetative, channel stability, TSS and project BMP
monitoring. Also included are bankfull event verification performed through the 2007
monitoring year. The monitoring conducted in September, October and December 2007.
Background information and previous monitoring data used in preparation of this report
were obtained from a March 2007 monitoring report prepared by AMEC and provided by
CSWS.
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Location
The EBWIP area is located within the Southern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion and the
Catawba River Basin, and more specifically, the Briar Creek portion of the Little Sugar
Creek Basin. The project watershed is highly urbanized and includes single and multi-
family residential property, commercial and industrial development, public parks, a
cemetery, churches and schools. The watershed contains over 10,000 linear feet (If) of
stream channel and riparian buffer with a drainage area of approximately 1.0 square mile.
The project area is depicted by the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the appropriate portion
of the 1991 Charlotte East, N.C. USGS topographic map (Figure 2) and a 2005 Aerial
Photograph (Figure 3).
2.2 Project Components
Because the project watershed is highly developed, controls and treatments were selected
based on physical observation of watershed conditions, construction feasibility and
effectiveness of pollutant removal.
Stream restoration components of the EBWIP addressed in this monitoring report consist
of three reaches.
Edwards Branch originates at a drainage discharge pipe at Teal Point apartments east
of Driftwood Drive and flows west for approximately 3,5891f to its terminus at the
floodway, near the intersection of Tarrington Avenue and Sheffield Drive. The
Edwards Branch Stream Restoration Project was completed in March 2005, with
minor repairs conducted in June 2006 and April 2008. Buffer widths vary from
approximately 50 to 80 feet along the length of the reach. This reach is considered to
be in the Year 2 phase of monitoring.
Southgate Branch originates at the outfall of Piersons Pond and flows north between
Sheffield Drive and Southgate Drive for approximately 5771f to its terminus at a
culvert that flows into Edwards Branch just south of Tarrington Avenue. The
Southgate Branch Stream Restoration Project was completed in March 2005 with
minor repairs conducted in June 2006. Because the As-built survey was not
conducted until 2006, monitoring associated with Southgate Branch is considered to
be Year 1.
Winterfield Tributary Relocation originates in Sheffield Park just north of the
Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland and flows southwest for approximately 281 if to
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
its confluence with Edwards Branch. This reach is considered to be in the Year 2
phase of monitoring.
Three BMP components of the EBWIP are also addressed in this monitoring report.
• Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland is located north of Tarrington Avenue and
adjacent to Edwards Branch in Sheffield Park. The project was constructed in 2002,
and repairs are scheduled for summer 2008.
• Piersons Pond is located north of Pierson Drive and west of Southgate Drive. The
buffer around Piersons Pond was established in 2001, and included installation over
1,000 livestakes and containerized plants. Littoral plantings have been installed, but
major construction of a proposed littoral shelf was eliminated due to feasibility
concerns.
Willow Park Extended Detention Pond is located in a gated apartment complex east
of Willow Park Drive. This BMP is currently under consideration for further work
during future phases of the project.
Remaining components of the EBWIP are in the planning stages, and although not further
referenced in this report, may be addressed in future monitoring reports.
2.3 Previous Monitoring
Pre-construction monitoring was undertaken throughout the subject watershed. Previous
As-built and Post-Construction monitoring events were conducted by AMEC and CSWS.
Results of the 2006 sampling, along with a summary of monitoring, is presented in a
March 2007 report prepared by AMEC. Because construction of the EBWIP was
completed in stages, project components are in differing periods of yearly monitoring. A
summary each project component and its current monitoring stage is identified in Table
2.
3. MONITORING METHODS
In accordance with the A- If guidelines identified in the CSWS Mitigation Monitoring,
the purpose of the Year 1 monitoring presented in this report is to determine if. 1) the
restored reach is self sustaining and maintains a stable form; 2) vegetation continues to
grow and enough of the plants survive to meet the vegetative success criteria; and 3)
determine if invasive species invade and overcome the newly-planted riparian buffer. A
majority of the monitoring occurred in late September and October 2007. However,
because the region was subject to a severe drought, portions of the monitoring were
conducted in December when flow was present within a greater portion of the channel.
Methodology used by S&ME to conduct current year monitoring presented in this report
is identified below:
3.1 Photographic Documentation
Digital photographs of the project reaches were taken on September 28, 2007. The
locations of the photographs were originally demarcated in the field by AMEC as Photo
Reference Locations (PRL). Photographs were identified with date, location, and PRL
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
number. The location of each PRL is identified on the Monitoring Plan View drawings
(Appendix I), and the photos themselves are included in Appendix II.
3.2 Channel Stability
3.2.1 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile of each project reach was conducted. The respective profiles were
compared to available As-built and Year 1 data for year-to-year data comparison. The
beginning and end of each profile were originally demarcated by AMEC, and the
collected data have been used as part of a channel stability assessment (Appendix III).
3.2.2 Cross-Sectional Surveys
Several cross-sectional surveys were conducted within each project reach. Each cross
section was measured to demonstrate departure from baseline bank and channel
conditions. Photographs of each cross section were also taken. The cross-sectional area,
bankfull-width, flood prone width, width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, stream type (for
riffle cross sections) as well as graphical representations generated from the data are
included in this report (Appendix IV).
3.2.3 Sediment Analysis
An evaluation of bed material was made by conducting Wolman pebble counts at each
reference cross section. Particle size distributions will be compared to future yearly
samples. The D35, 1350, D84 and 1395 distributions were generated along with percent
cumulative graphs for each pebble reach. Collected data were used for comparison with
available As-built and Year 1 data.
3.3 Vegetative Assessment
S&ME personnel performed monitoring of vegetation within identified portions of the
conservation easements. The methodology employed for vegetation monitoring was in
general accordance with the CSWS Mitigation Monitoring Guidance Document. As part
of the As-Built monitoring, AMEC subcontracted HARP to establish and survey
permanent plots. Four permanent vegetation plots were established along Edwards
Branch and one permanent plot was established on Southgate Branch. No plots were
established during HARP's baseline survey of Winterfield Tributary Relocation because
of its limited length, and HARP'S previously conducted baseline monitoring of this reach
consisted of vegetative notes taken along its length. Accordingly, Year 1 monitoring
conducted in October 2007 used the same general approach for Winterfield Tributary
Relocation.
As outlined in the CSWS monitoring protocol, each vegetation plot consists of a 16-foot
wide rectangular area extending from the edge of the bank to the outer extent of the
conservation easement on each side of the stream. Each plot was permanently marked in
the field along its approximate centerline with four markers. Additionally, photo points
were taken at the middle markers of each plot with each photo facing across the channel
towards the opposite bank. These photos correspond to PRL established by AMEC, and
are located in Appendix 11. The purpose of the field observations was to: 1) determine
the success of buffer re-vegetation and soil bioengineering methods utilized; 2) determine
the hardiness of plant species installed in relation to urban stream restoration; 3) note
10
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
distressed or dead plants; and 4) note areas with invasive species issues or other
management concerns.
3.4 Visual Assessment
S&ME also performed a visual assessment of each reach. Photographs were taken, as
appropriate, at sites where stream aggradation (bar formation) and degradation (erosion,
scour, etc.) were observed. Such areas were identified as Stability-Areas of Concern (S-
AOC). Additionally, photographs were taken at areas where concerns regarding
vegetation (presence of invasives, easement encroachments, etc.) were observed. Such
areas were identified as Vegetation-Areas of Concern (V-AOC). Photographs of the S-
AOC and V-AOC are included in Appendix VI.
3.5 Completion of BMP Checklist
S&ME assessed project BMPs with respect to design and maintenance features pursuant
to proper functioning. S&ME also completed CSWS' BMP Checklist and took
photographs of the respective project BMP. BMP checklists and photographs are
included in Appendix VII.
3.6 Integration of Additional Monitoring Data
Monitoring components that were not conducted by S&ME include: 1) MHAP sampling;
2) Fish sampling; 3) Macrobenthos sampling, and; 4) Water Quality sampling. These
monitoring components were conducted by Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services
personnel, with the available data provided to S&ME for inclusion in this report. See
Figure 2 for Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services monitoring locations.
11
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Protect July 30, 2008
4. EDWARDS BRANCH STREAM RESTORATION
4.1 Biologic Monitoring
Biologic data for the 2007 monitoring year were collected by Mecklenburg County Storm
Water Services personnel and provided to S&ME. Data preceding this were contained in
the AMEC report. Tables 3, 4 and 5, respectively, provide a summary of MM-P,
macrobenthic invertebrate and fish sampling conducted through 2007 at two sites on
Edwards Branch (MC30A and B0804).
Table 3: MHAP Monitoring Summary
Site: Edwards Branch at Sheffield Drive and Tarrington
Avenue (MC30A)
Date Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
Assessment
Score: 65.5 66.5 66.5 88 89 110 126.5
Site: Edwards Branch at Driftwood Drive (130804)
Date Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
Assessment
Score: 58 55 55.5 88.5 NS 130.5 103
NS=Not Sampled
Table 4: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Summary
Site: Edwards Branch at Sheffield Drive and Tarrington
Avenue (MC30A)
Date Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
EPT Taxa Richness: 3 3 3 2 5 3 3
Total Taxa: 18 16 21 15 24 20 21
Biotic Index: 8.24 8.19 7.47 7.67 7.72 7.54 7.83
Bioclassification: Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor
Site: Edwards Branch at Driftwood Drive (13080 4)
Date Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
EPT Taxa Richness: 3 2 3 3 NS 4 2
Total Taxa: 16 21 19 17 NS 20 21
Biotic Index: 8.20 8.10 7.67 8.28 NS 7.91 8.10
Bioclassification: Poor Poor Poor Poor NS Poor Poor
NS=Not Sampled
Table 5: Fish Monitoring Summary
Site: Edwards Branch at Sheffield Drive and
Tarrington Avenue (MC30A)
Date Sampled: 7/01 (Pre-con) 7/05 9/07
Total Taxa: 2 NS 3
No. Individuals Collected: 17 NS 419
NC Index Biotic Integrity: 30 NS 26
Bioclassification: Poor NS Poor
12
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect Julv 30. 2008
Site: Edwards Branch at Driftwood Drive (130804)
Date Sampled: 7/01 (Pre-con) 7/05 9/07
Total Taxa: 2 NS 2
No. Individuals Collected: 9 NS 229
NC Index Biotic Integrity: 30 NS 26
Bioclassification: Poor NS Poor
NS=Not Sampled
4.2 Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality data for the 2006 and 2007 monitoring years were collected by
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services personnel and provided to S&ME. Data
preceding this were contained in the AMEC report. Table 6 provides a summary of water
quality index (WQI) scores and ratings generated from data collected at MC30A and
B0804. One component of the WQI, change in temperature over one mile of stream,
could not be measured. In order to compensate for this missing value, the weighting
factors of all other components of the WQI were scaled up by 11.1% so that the sum of
the remaining factors equaled 1. Table 7 identifies the amount of total suspended solids
(TSS) recorded at MC30A for the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 monitoring years. It should
be noted that the target for credit release (6001bs./acre/year) was met in the 2005-2006
monitoring year, and continued to decline through 2007-2008.
Table 6: Water Quality Monitoring Summary
Site: Edwards Branch at Sheffield Drive and Tarrington Avenue
(MC30A)
Date Sampled: 7/01 8/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 6/07
WQI: 69.4 60.9 67.7 65.4 67.1 79.8 67.3
Water Quality
Rating: Good Fair/
Good Good Good Good Good Good
Site: Edwards Branch a t Driftwood Drive (130804)
Date Sampled: 7/01 8/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 6/07
WQI: 65.9 60.3 73.6 59.5 66.09 NS NS
Water Quality
Rating: Good Fair/
Good Good Fair/
Good Good NS NS
NS=Not Sampled
Table 7: TSS Monitoring Summary
Site: Edwards Branch at Sheffield Drive and Tarrington
Avenue (MC30A)
Date Sampled: 8/05 - 8/06 8/06 - 8/07 7/07-6/08
TSS (lbs/acre/yr) 556.31 Not provided 148.6
4.3 Stability Monitoring
4.3.1 Dimension
According to the AMEC report, upper reaches of Edwards Branch were designed as an
E5 stream channel, while the lower reach was designed as a BSc. As-built bankfull
13
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
widths varied from 10.92 feet to 13.74 feet, while Year 1 widths ranged from 9.04 feet to
10.73 feet. Year 2 bankfull widths were generally consistent with those previously
measured, and ranged from 9.53 feet to 13.29 feet. The Year 1 and Year 2 overlays for
XS 1 are generally similar, with only minor erosion of the channel bed noted. Slightly
more erosion can be noted at XS2, along with some undercutting of the right bank. Year
1 and Year 2 overlays for XS3 and XS4 are very similar, with only minor aggradation
observable. Table 8 presents the As-built, Year 1 and Year 2 dimension measurements
for the reach. Note that repairs conducted within the reach in 2006 may have contributed
to some of the changes observed in dimension and profile in the first monitoring year.
Table 8: Dimension Summary Data for Edwards Branch
Cross Section ID: XS1
Feature: Riffle

Date Measured: As-built
(3/05) Year 1
(8/06) Year 2
(12/07)
Cross-Sectional Area
(ft):
16.94
7.1
11.11
Bankfull Width (ft): 13.74 9.04 10.79
Floodprone Width: 31.1 20.33 26.09
Bankfull Max Depth (ft): 1.64 1.05 1.43
Bankfull Mean Depth
(ft):
1.23
.79
1.01
Width/Depth: 11.15 11.5 10.48
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.26 2.25 2.42
Cross Section ID: XS2
Feature: Pool

Date Measured: As-built
(3/05) Year 1
(8/06) Year 2
(12/07)
Cross-Sectional Area
(ft):
14.89
14.0
9.02
Bankfull Width (ft): 10.99 9.6 9.53
Floodprone Width: 27.94 25.03 23.56
Bankfull Max Depth (ft): 2.52 2.05 1.47
Bankfull Mean Depth
(ft):
1.35
1.46
0.95
Width/Depth: 8.13 6.6 10.03
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.54 2.61 2.47
Cross Section ID: XS3
Feature: Riffle

Date Measured: As-built
(3/05) Year 1
(8/06) Year 2
(12/07)
Cross-Sectional Area
(ft):
18.0
12.4
19.97
Bankfull Width (ft): 12.97 10.73 13.29
14
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Floodprone Width: 26.03 16.19 29.03
Bankfull Max Depth (ft): 1.61 1.38 1.91
Bankfull Mean Depth
(ft):
1.39
1.15
1.5
Width/Depth: 9.34 9.3 8.86
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.01 1.15 2.18
Cross Section ID: XS4
Feature: Pool

Date Measured: As-built
(3/05) Year 1
(8/06) Year 2
(12/07)
Cross-Sectional Area
(ft):
18.0
15.97
27.52
Bankfull Width (ft): 10.92 10.4 13.08
Floodprone Width: 17.01 15.08 21.76
Bankfull Max Depth (ft): 2.43 2.07 3.11
Bankfull Mean Depth
(ft):
1.65
1.53
2.1
Width/Depth: 6.63 6.78 6.23
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.56 1.45 1.66
4.3.2 Pattern
Table 9 presents restoration plan and As-built, Year 1 and Year 2 pattern measurements
for the reach. Because As-built and Year 1 meander length, belt width and radius of
curvature were not provided, these pattern parameters were not addressed in this report.
Table 9: Pattern Summary Data for Edwards Branch
Parameter As-built Year 1 Year 2
Thalweg Length (ft): 3,540 3,589 3,538
Sinuosity: 1.1 1.1 1.1
4.3.3 Profile
Review of the Year 1 and Year 2 profiles (Appendix III, pages 1 and 2) indicates that
while variation in streambed elevation has occurred, it is considerably less than that
which can be observed when comparing the As-built and Year 1 profiles. This may
indicate that the channel profile has largely stabilized, although the general trend evident
from review of the profiles is toward minor streambed erosion. A large area of channel
deepening can be observed downstream of Driftwood Drive between Stations 620 and
720, with resultant aggradation present further downstream. Lesser areas of degradation
can be observed further downstream. Table 10 presents the As-built, Year 1 and Year 2
dimension measurements for the reach.
Table 10: Profile Summary Data for Edwards Branch
Parameter As-built Year 1 Year 2
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0088 0.0088 0.0086
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.0087 0.0087 0.0082
15
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.0092 0.0092 0.0092
Average Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0334 0.0038 0.0589
Average Pool Slope (ft/ft) 0.0026 0.0023 0.0024
Pool-to-Pool Spacing (ft) 84.6 85.3 92.86
4.3.4 Sediment Analysis
Previous pebble count data indicate a general coarsening in bed material, with As-built
D50 ranging from was 0.27 mm (fine sand) to 0.68 (coarse sand) and Year 1 D50 from
0.87 mm (coarse sand) to 1.15 mm (very coarse sand). Year 2 data indicate that the trend
has generally leveled off, with D50 ranging from 0.51 mm (coarse sand) to 5.7 mm (fine
gravel). Table 11 presents the As-built and Year 1 and Year 2 pebble count data for the
reach.
Table 11: Pebble Count Summary Data for Edwards Branch
Cross Section ID: XS1
Feature: Riffle
Date Measured: As-built Year 1 Year 2
D36 0.18 0.21 1.33
D50 0.39 1.15 5.7
D84 2.72 27.3 58.82
D95 21.28 64 90
Cross Section ID: XS2
Feature: Pool
Date Measured: As-built Year 1 Year 2
D35 0.18 0.76 0.46
D50 0.37 1.47 0.81
D84 0.94 10.43 1.84
D95 28.7 17.65 14.95
Cross Section ID: XS3
Feature: Riffle
Date Measured: As-built Year 1 Year 2
D35 0.51 0.70 0.36
D50 0.68 1.15 0.51
D84 4.83 9.58 1.1
D95 10.76 26.99 1.98
Cross Section ID: XS4
Feature: Pool
Date Measured: As-built Year 1 Year 2
D36 0.7 0.52 0.46
D50 0.27 0.87 0.87
D84 22.07 8.95 8.92
D95 55.46 64 137.87
16
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Protect July 30, 2008
Graphs IA and 1B present the Year 2 particle size distribution for Edwards Branch.
n IA: Year z Particle size DlStrinution for tawaras tirancn
100.0%
i
90
0%
.
80
0%
.
70
0%
.
`w
c
E 60
0%
.
a
v
50
0%
.
a
o
c
40
0%
.
a
L
30
0%
.
20
0%
.
10
0%
.
0%
?XS1 Riffle
-FXS2 Pool
XS3 Riffle
XS4 Pool
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Graph 1 B: Year 2 Composite Particle size Distribution for Edwards Branch
100.0% F -
7r
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
`w
c
E 60.0%
a
v
Y
a 50.0%
0
c
40.0%
`w
IL
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0
4 Pool Composite
t Riffle Composite
Overall Composite
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
17
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
4.4 Vegetation Monitoring
During the October 2007 field review, four previously established vegetative plots were
located and photographs were taken from the permanent photo locations. Vegetation
within each established plot was identified and documented, and is presented in the
accompanying tables. In addition to documenting vegetation within plots, an inventory
of vegetation occurring between the plots was also taken. Problem areas were
documented and photographs were taken. Data from previous monitoring events in 2005
(As-built monitoring) and 2006 (Year 1 monitoring), as well as supplemental Year 1
monitoring in January 2007, were made available for year-to-year comparison. These
data, along with the October 2007 data, are identified in tables contained in Appendix V
to document the performance of each species over the course of the monitoring. Each
table provides a breakdown of planted and volunteer species; non-native species are
noted with an asterisk. Stems per acre and survival rates for each plot are summarized in
Table 12 below.
Table 12: Vegetation Summary for Edwards Branch
Plot ID Stems/Acre Survival Rate
VP 1 3,328 60%
VP2 3,766 60%
VP3 1,612 32%
VP4 1,537 30%
Reach Average 2,561 45%
In the vicinity of Vegetation Plot 1, black willow has reached the point that the
understory is open and visibility from the top of bank to the stream is moderate. This
may alleviate some of the apprehension that HARP expressed during previous monitoring
about the dense growth of black willow as a concern for adjacent residents. In this case,
the black willow has achieved a stature that is providing bank shading from an overstory
canopy while the understory remains moderately open. Additionally, in this area, wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and American holly (Ilex opaca) have been planted along the
top-of-bank, presumably as a screen. Because these species also provide dense growth,
and are evergreen, it is unlikely that black willow in this area will be viewed as a problem
by the adjacent landowner. On the a-b side of Vegetation Plot 1, numerous willow oak
saplings were observed.
Balled-and-burlapped trees have suffered during the prolonged drought of 2007. Many
of these plantings appeared dead at the time of the October 2007 monitoring. It is
possible that some of the trees may have entered an early dormancy and that they may
still leaf out in the spring of 2008. Based on the extent of dead branches observed, it is
likely that even if these trees do leaf out in 2008 that they will not produce enough leaves
to support the remainder of the plant. Other notable problems included isolated patches
with sparse and/or stunted vegetation, likely a combination of poor soil and the prolonged
drought. In the vicinity of Vegetation Plot 4, very steep banks exhibited poor vegetative
survival.
18
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Species performance, as indicated in the tables, below, generally follows a downward
trend with the sharpest decline in survivability occurring in the first year following the
As-built observations. Declines continued during the past year, but to a much lesser
degree. It is likely that the declines observed between the Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring
event are related to the prolonged drought that characterized 2007. The sharp decline
was observed between the As-built and Year 1 monitoring, as noted by HARP, may have
resulted from poor placement of particular species (notably, buttonbush), and poor
installation including split elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) live stakes.
Despite the setbacks identified above, data collected from the vegetation plots indicate an
average count of 2,561 stems/acre. Although survival rates for the Edwards Branch plots
ranged from 60 to 30 percent, supplemental plantings to re-establish as-built densities
occurred along the reach subsequent to the monitoring event. The City's proactive
approach to quickly addressing poorly performing areas will likely facilitate achievement
of project vegetation goals by the end of the monitoring period.
4.5 Visual Assessment Monitoring
S&ME conducted a visual assessment of each reach to identify potential AOC. S-VOC
are identified in Table 13 and V-AOC are identified in Table 14.
Table 13: Edwards Branch Stability AOC
Appen dix VI
S-AOC
ID Photo
Page Photo
No.
Description
1 1 1 Undermined area behind left arm of rock vane
2 1 2 Minor scour along both banks near rock vane
3 1 3 Minor in-stream bar formation
4 1 4 Minor in-stream bar formation
5 1 5 Minor slumping on left bank

6
1
6 Vegetation rooted on in-stream bar near BMP
intake

7
2
7 Minor in-stream bar formation and debris
accumulation; erosion on right bank
8 2 8 Erosion and slumping on both banks

9
2
9 Slumping and erosion under loose matting;
Some portions repaired with rock and stabilized.
10 2 10 Scour behind left arm of rock vane
11 2 11 In-stream bar formation

12
2
12 Vegetation rooted on in-stream bar at mouth of
inlet on left bank

13
3
13 In-stream bar formation and erosion on right
bank
14 3 14 Erosion on left bank near rock vane
15 3 15 In-stream bar formation
16 3 16 Loose matting and minor erosion on right bank
19
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
A total of 16 S-AOC were identified in the Edwards Branch Stream Restoration reach. A
majority of the S-AOC were located in the central portion of the reach. Those located
upstream of Driftwood Drive and in lower portions of the reach were minor and isolated,
and are unlikely to contribute to systemic instability of the respective reach. Locations of
the respective S-AOC are identified on the Monitoring Plan View drawings (Appendix I),
and photographs of the S-AOC are located in Appendix VI.
Table 14: Edwards Branch Vegetation AOC
Appen dix VI
V-AOC
ID Photo
Page Photo
No.
Description
1 3 17 Dead balled-and-burlapped flowering dogwood
(Corpus florida) tree and porcelain berry invasion.
2 3 18 Bush honeysuckle (invasive) in V-2.
3 4 19 Bare area on bank - possibly due to poor soil
conditions.
4 4 20/21 Portion of bank with cut live stakes and porcelain-
berry.
5 4 22 Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis).
6 4 23 Sparsely vegetated bank.
7 4 24 Unhealthy ash (Fraxinus pensylvanicum) tree with
root sprouting.
A total of seven V-AOC were identified along Edwards Branch. Locations of the
respective V-AOC are identified on the Monitoring Plan View drawings (Appendix I),
and photographs of V-AOC are located in Appendix VI.
V-AOC included areas with invasive species and areas with sparse vegetation. Treatment
for invasive species was observed on the date of the October 2007 monitoring.
However, monitoring should continue since many of these areas extend into the
conservation boundary from adjacent private property. Additional vegetative AOC were
comprised of bare areas that appeared to be related to poor soil conditions, which,
combined with the prolonged drought have created difficult growing conditions. The
prolonged drought has also likely contributed to the mortality of several balled-and-
burlapped trees observed along both Edwards Branch and Southgate Branch.
One area along Edwards Branch, near Sheffield Road and just upstream of the footbridge,
was observed to have live stakes cut back to approximately six inches above ground. The
affected area encompassed an approximately 20-foot wide swath that extended up both
banks. CSWS indicated that the pruning was conducted by the City for visibility and
safety concerns associated with the park.
20
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect Julv 30. 2008
5. SOUTHGATE BRANCH
5.1 Biologic Monitoring
Biologic data for the 2007 monitoring year was collected by Mecklenburg County Storm
Water Services personnel and provided to S&ME. Data preceding this were contained in
the AMEC report. Tables 15, and 16, respectively, provide a summary of MHAP and
macrobenthic invertebrate sampling conducted through 2007 at one site on Southgate
Branch (B0801). Fish sampling was not conducted within the Reach.
Table 15: MHAP Monitoring Summary
Site: Southgate Branch at 1114 Tarrington Avenue (130801)
Date Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
Assessment
Score: 46 46 46.5 105 NS 115 100
NS=Not Sampled
Table 16: Macrobenthic Invertebrate Monitoring Summary
Site: Southgate Bran ch at 11 14 Tarrington Avenue ( 130801)
Date Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
EPT Taxa Richness: 2 0 3 3 NS 3 3
Total Taxa: 10 11 11 19 NS 18 14
Biotic Index: 7.79 8.31 7.86 7.56 NS 7.88 7.39
Bioclassification: Poor Poor Poor Poor NS Poor Poor
NS=Not Sampled
5.2 Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality data was collected by CSWS personnel and provided to S&ME. Table 17
provides a summary of water quality index scores and ratings generated from data
collected at B0801. Note that CSWS did not conduct water quality sampling for the 2006
and 2007 monitoring years.
Table 17: Water Quality Monitoring Summary
Site: Southgate Br anch at 1114 Tarrington Avenue (130801)
Date
Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
WQI: 71.7 61.6 65 56.7 58.05 NS NS
Water Quality
Rating: Good Fair/
Good Fair/
Good Fair/
Good Fair/
Good NS NS
NS=Not Sampled
5.3 Stability Monitoring
5.3.1 Dimension
The Southgate Branch stream restoration was constructed in June 2006, and is contained
within a narrow valley confined by adjacent single-family residential dwellings.
According to the AMEC report, the reach was constructed as a B5 stream type and
21
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
designed to address excessive sedimentation from eroding and incising banks, as well as
to provide protection for an adjacent sewerline. As-built bankfull widths ranged from
5.95 feet to 10.28 feet. Year 1 bankfull widths were slightly larger, ranging from 8.06
feet to 11.88 feet. Considerable variation can be observed in the As-built and Year 1
overlays for XS 1, likely the result of erosion along the left bank. As-built and Year 1
overlays for XS2 were more similar, with only minor erosion along the bed and bank
noted. Table 18 presents restoration plan and As-built dimension measurements for the
reach. Note that repairs conducted within the reach in June 2006 may have contributed to
some of the changes observed in dimension and profile.
Table 18: Dimension Summary Data for Southgate Branch
Cross Section ID: XS1
Feature: Pool

Date Measured: As-built
(6/06) Year 1
(12/07)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft): 17.82 21.45
Bankfull Width (ft): 10.28 11.88
Floodprone Width: 20.7 21.76
Bankfull Max Depth (ft): 3.39 3.48
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft): 1.73 1.81
Width/Depth: 5.93 6.56
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.01 1.83
Cross Section ID: XS2
Feature: Riffle

Date Measured: As-built
(6/06) Year 1
(12/07)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft): 3.3 6.1
Bankfull Width (ft): 5.95 8.06
Floodprone Width: 14.41 18.31
Bankfull Max Depth (ft): 0.95 1.34
Bankfull Mean Depth ft : 0.55 0.75
Width/Depth: 10.73 10.75
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.42 2.27
5.3.2 Pattern
Due to sewer lines and residential constraints, it appears as though the channel pattern
was not altered. Table 19 presents As-built and Year 1 pattern measurements for the
reach. Because As-built meander length, belt width and radius of curvature were not
provided, these pattern parameters were not addressed in this report.
Table 19: Pattern Summary Data for Southgate Branch
Parameter As-built Year 1
Thalweg Length (ft): 577 567
Sinuosity: 1.03 1.02
22
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
5.3.3 Profile
Review of the As-built and Year 1 profiles (Appendix III, page 3) indicates several
inches of streambed degradation along the length of the channel. Visual evidence of this
level of channel erosion was not immediately evident during visual assessment of the
reach. Further observation of this reach will be conducted to determine whether
significant erosion is genuinely occurring, or the variation is due to an As-built or Year 1
surveying error. Table 20 presents restoration plan and As-built and Year 1 profile
measurements for the reach.
Table 20: Profile Summary Data for Southgate Branch
Parameter As-built Year 1
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0142 0.0140
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.0142 0.0140
Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.0150 0.0150
Average Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0393 0.0592
Average Pool Slope (ft/ft) 0.0011 0.0075
Pool-to-Pool Spacing (ft) 41.43 41.31
5.3.4 Sediment Analysis
As-Built pebble count data indicate that the D50 ranged from 12.02 mm to 15.06 mm
(both medium gravel). Year 1 data indicate that the D50 for XS 1 (the pool) is 8.41
(medium gravel) and 17.2 mm (coarse gravel) for XS2 (the riffle). Some large boulders
present near bankfull level at the pool cross section resulted in the increase observed in
D84 and D95. This may be a result of repairs conducted there in June 2006. Table 21
presents the As-built and Year 1 pebble count data for the reach.
Table 21: Pebble Count Summary Data for Southgate Branch
Cross Section ID: XS1
Feature: Pool
Date Measured: As-built Year 1
D3s 11.51 1.8
D50 15.06 8.41
D84 27.2 422.99
D96 41.25 1357.04
Cross Section ID: XS2
Feature: Riffle
Date Measured: As-built Year l
D35 7.89 7.86
D50 12.02 17.2
D84 29.56 72.7
D96 66.58 127.03
Graph 2 presents the Year 1 particle size distribution for Southgate Branch.
23
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Graph 2: Year 1 Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution for Southgate
Branch
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
`w
LL 60.0%
a
tXS1 Pool
a 50.0% tXS2 Riffle
c Overall Composite
c
40.0%
a
IL
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
00%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
5.4 Vegetation Monitoring
During the October 2007 field review, one previously established vegetative plot (SG1)
was located and photographs were taken from the permanent photo locations. Vegetation
within the established plot was identified and documented, and is presented in the
accompanying table. In addition to documenting vegetation within the plot, problem
areas were documented along the entire tributary and photographs were taken. Data from
the previous monitoring event in 2006 (As-built monitoring) were made available for
year-to-year comparisons. These data, along with the October 2007 data, are listed in the
tables located in Appendix V to document the performance of each species over the
course of monitoring to date. Each table provides a breakdown of planted and volunteer
species.
Overall, Southgate Branch exhibited vegetative stability during the Year 1 monitoring.
The measurement of stems per acre for Southgate Branch is 1,332. The survival rate
associated with SG1 was 72 percent. This does not reflect supplemental plantings
undertaken by the City along the reach. Some problems, however, were noted with
invasive species, particularly in the area just downstream from Piersons Pond.
Additionally, an area of porcelain-berry was observed downstream of V-1.
The tree supports on planted sycamore trees, noted as a problem during baseline
monitoring, have been removed. However, also as noted in previous monitoring, planted
sycamore trees in the vicinity of V-1 have reached the height of the powerline and could
pose a risk to the lines. An area of the bank within V-1, previously noted as bare, was
24
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
observed to have been colonized by sweetgum saplings during the October 2007
monitoring. There remains a general lack of herbaceous vegetation in this area.
Accordingly, this area may benefit from overseeding with a native seed mix in 2008.
5.5 Visual Assessment Monitoring
S&ME conducted a visual assessment of Southgate Branch to identify potential AOC. S-
VOC are identified in Table 22 and V-AOC are identified in Table 23.
Table 22: Southgate Branch Stability AOC
Appendix VI
S-AOC
ID Photo
Page Photo
No.
Description

1
5
25/26 minor erosion near rock vane on left bank;
Additional outlet protection needed
2 5 27 Erosion on left bank and undercut rock vane
3 5 28 Minor erosion on left bank

4

5

29 Small area of rooted vegetation on in-stream
bar; Erosion on left bank and minor slumping
on right bank
5 5 30 In-stream bar and erosion on left bank
A total of five S-AOC were identified in Southgate Branch. A majority of the S-AOC
were minor. Locations of the respective S-AOC are identified on the Monitoring Plan
View drawings (Appendix I), and photographs of each S-AOC are located in Appendix
VI.
Table 23: Southgate Branch Vegetation AOC
Appen dix VI
V-AOC
ID Photo
Page Photo
No.
Description
Invasive species present within and adjacent to
1 6 31 Conservation Boundary, just downstream from
Piersons Pond.
2 6 32 Invasive golden bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea) on
sewer easement.
Two V-AOC were identified along Southgate Branch. Locations of the respective V-
AOC are identified on the Monitoring Plan View drawings (Appendix I), and
photographs of V-AOC are located in Appendix VI.
Vegetative AOC included areas with invasive species and areas with sparse vegetation.
Treatment for invasive species was observed on the date of the October 2007 monitoring.
However, monitoring should continue since many of these areas extend into the
conservation boundary from adjacent private property. Additional V-AOC were
comprised of bare areas that appeared to be related to poor soil conditions, which,
25
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
combined with the prolonged drought have created difficult growing conditions. The
prolonged drought has also likely contributed to the mortality of several balled-and-
burlapped trees observed along the reach.
26
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect Julv 30. 2008
6. WINTERFIELD TRIBUTARY RELOCATION
6.1 Biologic Monitoring
Biologic data for the 2006 and 2007 monitoring years were not collected by Mecklenburg
County Storm Water Services personnel. Data preceding this were contained in the
AMEC report. Tables 24, 25 and 26, respectively, provide a summary of available
MHAP, macrobenthic invertebrate and fish sampling conducted prior to 2005 at one site
on Winterfield Tributary (B0805). Drought and zero-flow conditions prompted
cancellation of biologic monitoring by CSWS from 2005 through 2007. The sampling is
scheduled to resume in 2008.
Table 24: MHAP Monitoring Summary
Site: Winterfield Tributary at 3100 Winterfield Place (B0805)
Date Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
Assessment
Score: 46 44.5 41 72 NS NS NS
NS=Not Sampled
Table 25: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Summary
Site: Winterfield Tributary at 3100 Winterfield Place
(B0805)
Date Sampled: 8/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
EPT Taxa Richness: 0 0 1 2 NS NS NS
Total Taxa: 8 11 9 11 NS NS NS
Biotic Index: 8.9 9.17 6.68 8.92 NS NS NS
Bioclassification: Poor Poor Poor Poor NS NS NS
NS=Not Sampled
Table 26: Fish Monitoring Summary
Site: Winterfield Tributary at 3100 Winterfield Place
(B0805)
Date Sampled: 8/01 7/05 7/07
No Species Collected: 1 NS NS
No. Individuals Collected: 2 NS NS
NC Index Biotic Integrity: 26 NS NS
Bioclassification: Very Poor-Poor NS NS
NS=Not Sampled
6.2 Water Quality Monitoring
Similarly, water quality data for the 2006 and 2007 monitoring years were not collected
by Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services personnel. Data preceding this were
contained in the AMEC report. Table 27 provides a summary of water quality index
scores and ratings generated from data collected at B0805 through 2005.
27
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect Julv 30. 2008
Table 27: Water Quality Monitoring Summary
Site: Winterfield Tri butary a t 3100 Winterfield Place (60805)
Date
Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
WQI: 73 36.8 73.7 69.6 72.85 NS NS
Water Quality
Rating: Good Fair/
Good Good Good Good NS NS
NS=Not Sampled
6.3 Stability Monitoring
6.3.1 Dimension
Approximately 173 if of this reach (the portion that was repaired) was surveyed in
connection with the As-built monitoring, while approximately 281 if was surveyed during
the Year 1 monitoring. The reach was designed as a step-pool stream. Year 2 Bankfull
widths were consistent for both cross sections (8.63 feet at the riffle and 9 feet at the
pool). Table 28 presents the As-built, Year 1 and Year 2 dimension measurements for
the reach.
Table 28: Dimension Summary Data for Winterfield Tributary
Cross Section ID: XS1
Feature: Riffle

Date Measured: As-built
(3.05) Year 1
(8.06) Year 2
(12.07)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft): 14.1 4.51 8.3
Bankfull Width (ft): 10.44 7.68 8.63
Floodprone Width: 21.7 11.04 13.69
Bankfull Max Depth (ft): 2.25 0.88 1.45
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft): 1.35 0.59 0.96
Width/Depth: 7.74 13.07 8.99
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.1 1.44 1.59
Cross Section ID: XS2
Feature: Pool

Date Measured: As-built
(3.05) Year 1
(8.06) Year 2
(12.07)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft): 18.8 19.3 16.49
Bankfull Width (ft): 12.5 11.41 9
Floodprone Width: 25 28.18 22.88
Bankfull Max Depth (ft): 2.5 3.1 2.75
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft): 1.5 1.09 1.83
Width/Depth: 8.3 6.75 4.92
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.0 2.47 2.54
28
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect Julv 30. 2008
6.3.2 Pattern
Approximately 281 if of Winterfield Tributary was surveyed in connection with the Year
2 monitoring. According to the AWC report, 281 if of mitigation credit was generated
from the Winterfield Tributary stream relocation. The measurements presented in Tables
29 and 30.
Table 29: Pattern Summary Data for Winterfield Tributary
Parameter As-built Year 1 Year 2
Thalweg Length (ft): 172.5* 281 281
Sinuosity: 1.13 1.13 1.13
*Repaired Reach only
6.3.3 Profile
Comparison of the Year 1 and Year 2 surveys (Appendix III, page 3) indicates minor
deepening of the channel has occurred within several portions of the reach. An area of
aggradation can be observed near the terminus of the reach upstream of its confluence
with Edwards Branch. Riffle slopes averaged 0.06, and pool slopes averaged .001.
Table 30 presents the As-built, Year 1 and Year 2 profile measurements for the reach.
Table 30: Profile Summary Data for Winterfeld Tributary
Parameter As-built Year 1 Year 2
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0262 0.0204 0.020
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Not provided 0.0242 0.020
Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.0296 0.0297 0.0297
Average Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.065 0.0695 0.0624
Average Pool Slope (ft/ft) 0.0043 0.0022 0.0059
Pool-to-Pool Spacing (ft) Not provided 33.69 33.16
6.3.4 Sediment Analysis
As-Built pebble count data indicate that the D50 ranged from 0.79 mm (coarse sand) to 64
mm (small cobble). Year 1 data indicate a general decrease in particle size. Year 2
pebble count data indicate a slight increase, with D50 values ranging from 0.96 mm
(coarse sand) to 11.13 mm (medium gravel). Table 31 presents the As-built, Year 1 and
Year 2 pebble count data for the reach.
Table 31: Pebble Count Summary Data for Winterfeld Tributary
Cross Section ID: XS1
Feature: Riffle
Date Measured: As-built Year 1 Year 2
D36 6.1 0.28 5.34
D50 64 5.7 11.13
D84 170 135 107.6
D95 225 200 176.12
Cross Section ID: XS2
Feature: Pool
29
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Date Measured: As-built Year 1 Year 2
D36 >0.0625 0.21 0.63
D50 0.79 0.46 0.96
D84 189 156 81.7
D96 250 247 237.03
Graph 3 below presents the Year 2 particle size distribution for Winterfield Tributary.
Graph 3: Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution for Winterfield Tributary
100
0%
.
90
0%
.
80
0% A
.
70
0%
.
`w
E 60
0%
.
a

50
0%
+XS1 Riffle
-M-
.
a XS2 Pool
o Overall Composite
c
40
0%
.
`
w
IL
30
0%
.
20
0%
.
10
0%
.
0
0%
.
0. 01 0 .1 1 1 0 1 00 10 00 1 0 000
P art ic le Siz e
6.4 Vegetation Monitoring
No plots have been established along Winterfield Tributary. Rather, qualitative
monitoring in 2006 by HARP indicated that this area had approximately 95 percent
survival of planted vegetation. Follow-up monitoring in October 2007 indicated that
Winterfield continues to have adequate vegetative cover. Invasive species were noted
near the confluence with Edwards Branch and should be monitored for future treatment.
6.5 Visual Assessment Monitoring
S&ME conducted a visual assessment of Winterfield Tributary to identify potential AOC.
S-VOC are identified in Table 32. No V-AOC were identified in connection with this
reach.
30
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Table 32: Winterfeld Tributary Stability AOC
Appendix VI
S-AOC
ID Photo
Page Photo
No.
Description
1 6 33 Minor erosion on left bank
2 6 34 Erosion around outfall pipe

3
6
35 Vegetated in-stream bar near confluence with
Edwards Branch
A total of three S-AOC were identified in Winterfield Tributary. A majority of the S-
AOC were minor and isolated, and are unlikely to contribute to systemic instability of the
respective reach. Locations of the respective S-AOC are identified on the Monitoring
Plan View drawings (Appendix I), and photographs of each S-AOC are located in
Appendix VI.
7. BANKFULL VERIFICATION
Restored portions of Edwards Branch were designed for a bankfull discharge ranging
from 82-95 cubic feet per second (cfs). The USGS gage station located just below the
project terminus at Tarrington Avenue and Sheffield Drive recorded eight events from
October 2006 through October 2007 where maximum daily discharge exceeded 100 cfs.
Recorded maximum discharges ranged from 100 cfs on September 13, 2006 to 223 cfs on
August 10, 2006. Accordingly, the project has experienced multiple bankfull flows
during the past monitoring year.
8. BMP MONITORING
S&ME assessed project BMP with respect to design and maintenance features on October
17, 2007. Vegetative components of the BMP were assessed on October 30, 2007. The
CSWS BMP Checklist completed by S&ME for each BMP, along with representative
photographs depicting conditions encountered on the dates of inspection, are included in
Appendix VII.
8.1 Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
A majority of the structural components associated with the Sheffield Park Constructed
Wetland appeared to be in good condition and functioning properly. However, to
reestablish proper bottom elevations and water levels within the respective wetland cells,
the City plans to conduct retrofit work within the wetland during summer 2008. Photos 1
through 12 in Appendix VII depict typical conditions observed at Sheffield Park
Constructed Wetland at the time of the assessment. Brief comments regarding each of
the BMP components are identified in Table 33.
31
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Table 33: Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
BMP Component Comments
Diversion Box Minor spalling observed on top of concrete slab - most
patched. Areas of previous spalling or cracking in
connection with the masonry box patched at junction
w/slab.
Ductile Iron Pipe The ductile iron pipe was not exposed at the time of the
assessment.
Junction Box The manhole cover did not appear bolted.
Low Flow Diversion No evidence of sinkholes or blowouts was observed.
Pipeline
Energy Dissipater The energy dissipater was not exposed at the time of the
assessment.
Riser/Primary Outlet Minor cracking, much of which appeared to have been
patched previously, was observed on the sides of the
riser. Some of the bolts connecting the grate appeared
bent, and minor rusting was observed. Erosion was
noted around the concrete pipe draining to outfall
channel. The channel was dry, but evidence of sediment
accumulation near the outfall was observed.
Wetland Zones Bermuda grass was observed at the fringes of the inlet
deep water cell, and a bare patch was observed on the
bank adjacent to middle deep water cell. Isolated
patches of sparse vegetation were observed in the marsh
area and on the shoreline. Evidence of minor animal
browsing observed in upland grass buffer, and several
bare areas were also observed there. Supplemental
plantings in these areas are recommended.
Embankment Several bare areas were observed on the embankment.
Two apparent active muskrat burrows were observed on
the south side of the BMP.
Stream Relocation Pruning and hand-cutting conducted by the City for
safety/visibility concerns associated with park.
Buffer The buffer appeared in good condition.
Bridge Several isolated balusters missing on bridge railing, and
minor cracking was noted on sidewalk. The cracking did
not warrant repair at the time of inspection.
Other Areas of foot traffic noted along the embankment.
8.2 Piersons Pond
Components of Piersons Pond that were assessed are limited to those in connection with
the existing BMP buffer. A majority of these components appeared to be in good
condition. Photos 13 through 18 in Appendix VII depict general conditions of Piersons
Pond. General components regarding recommended maintenance or further monitoring
are identified in Table 34.
32
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
Table 34: Piersons Pond
BMP Component Comments
Buffer Undesirable vegetative growth (porcelain-berry, Chinese
wisteria) was observed near the bottom of embankment.
Evidence of some woody vegetation pruning was
observed at the time of the assessment. Additional
maintenance is recommended. Butterfly bushes were
observed in utility easement and on the embankment
near an adjoining residence. Annual mowing had not yet
been completed at time of the assessment. Sweetgum
and willow oak saplings were observed growing out of
riprap on the embankment, and evidence of muskrats
was observed along the eastern embankment.
8.3 Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
A majority of the structural components associated with Willow Park Extended Detention
Pond appeared to be in good condition and functioning properly. Photos 19 and 30 in
Appendix VII depict general conditions of the BMP. Additional project components and
those that require maintenance or further monitoring are identified in Table 35:
Table 35: Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
BMP Component Comments
Permanent Pools Only the area immediately around the riser
contained several inches of water from a recent
rain event. Minor urban debris was observed in
the sediment forebay. The shoreline consisted
only of maintained lawn grasses and scattered
ornamentals. This vegetation, however,
appeared healthy.
Dry Pond Vegetation within the dry pond consists of lawn
grasses. The area is actively mowed as part of
community maintenance. Similarly, the wet
meadow is actively mowed and consists only of
lawn grasses. Minor erosion and riprap
displacement observed in the channel through
the wet meadow.
Embankment The embankment is vegetated with lawn grasses.
Minor cracking was observed on Willow Park
Drive above the area of the outfall pipe.
Other Graffiti observed on the face of Inlet No. 1, and
no public signs identifying the BMP were
observed.
33
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
9. CONCLUSIONS
9.1 Stream Restoration Components
9.1.1 Edwards Branch
Review of the Year 2 monitoring data indicates that there has been no significant
departure from channel dimension and profile. While numerous areas of bank erosion
were observed downstream of the confluence with Winterfield and upstream of
Tarrington Avenue, repairs in these areas were made through the City's maintenance
program subsequent to the 2007 monitoring event. Vegetation monitoring indicates that
a decline in survivability has occurred, but can be attributed to repair work and the
prolonged drought that characterized 2007. Survival rates within the four vegetation
plots established along Edwards Branch ranged from 30 to 60 percent, with an average
survival rate of 46 percent. Although this is below the 80 percent survival rate
established as a criterion of success, the project should still be considered successful from
a vegetation standpoint. The measurement of stems per acre for Edwards Branch is
2,561. Areas where vegetation is performing poorly are replanted by the City each year.
The City's proactive approach to addressing poorly performing areas should provide
reassurance that the target survival rate will be met or exceeded over the length of the
monitoring program.
9.1.2 Southgate Branch
Review of the Year 1 monitoring data indicates that minor streambed degradation has
occurred along much of the channel. Acute evidence of channel bed erosion was not
observed, however, and the uniformity with which the apparent erosion has occurred may
point to a possible surveying error. Future observation of this reach will be conducted to
determine whether significant erosion begins to occur. Problem areas identified along the
reach were generally minor, and involved small areas of bank erosion or in-stream
deposition. Considerable habitat variation was observed along the length of the reach.
Comparison of the 2007 data with results of the forthcoming 2008 monitoring will help
provide verification with respect to the apparent areas of streambed degradation.
Overall, Southgate Branch exhibited vegetative stability during the Year 1 monitoring.
The survival rate within the one vegetation plot established along the reach was 72
percent, but does not reflect replanting efforts undertaken along the reach by the City.
Problem areas noted within the reach included the presence of invasive species,
particularly in the area immediately downstream from Piersons Pond. Additionally, an
area of porcelain berry was observed farther downstream. Presence of the invasives is
not considered a significant problem, however, because the area is treated three times
annually by the City.
9.1.3 Winterfield Tributary Relocation
Review of the Year 2 monitoring data indicates that the stream may be making
adjustments in bedform (longer areas of deepening and smaller areas of accumulation)
along its length. Other than several minor problem areas, evidence of acute erosion was
not observed within the channel. As with Southgate Branch, future observation of this
reach will be conducted to determine whether erosion is genuinely occurring, or the
34
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Proiect July 30. 2008
variation is due to a surveying error. Based on visual observation, the reach appears
generally stable.
No vegetation plots were established along Winterfield Tributary. Monitoring conducted
in 2006 by HARP indicated that this area had approximately 95 percent survival of
planted vegetation. The Year 2 monitoring indicated that Winterfield Tributary continues
to have adequate vegetative cover. Invasive species noted near the confluence with
Edwards Branch are not considered problematic because the reach is treated three times
annually by the City.
9.2 BMP Components
9.2.1 Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
A majority of the structural components associated with the Sheffield Park Constructed
Wetland appeared to be in good condition and functioning properly. However, sparse
vegetation was observed in the marsh area and on the shoreline. Bermuda grass was
observed at the fringes of the inlet deep water cell, and a bare patch was observed on the
bank adjacent to middle deep water cell. Evidence of minor animal browsing was
observed in the upland grass buffer, and several bare areas were also observed there.
Supplemental plantings in these areas are recommended. Two active muskrat burrows
were also observed on the embankment. CSWS plans to reconstruct this BMP in 2008
such that surface elevations within the basin will facilitate additional emergent vegetation
growth.
9.2.2 Piersons Pond
Undesirable vegetative growth was observed near the bottom of the embankment around
the pond, and additional maintenance is recommended. Butterfly bushes (Buddleia
davidii) were observed in the utility easement and on the embankment near an adjoining
residence. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua) and willow oak (Quercus phellos)
saplings were observed growing out of riprap on the embankment, and evidence of
muskrats was observed along the eastern shore of the pond.
9.2.3 Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
A majority of the structural components associated with this BMP appeared to be in good
condition and functioning properly. Vegetation within the dry pond consists of lawn
grasses and is actively mowed as part of community maintenance. Minor erosion and
riprap displacement were observed in the channel through the wet meadow. This BMP is
scheduled for reconstruction later during Phase III of the project.
35
FIGURE 1 SITE VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
FIGURE 3 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Folk"
P
s ,
M
-q
-0
kl..
g
o6L itw Yi°
A. 1-- A>"
ORA
'kin Ln.
4r
F
L -Cghor_neAv� I.. I I
Cl)
y.:
4):?AWjI5ra �ake,R
7
R3�aj 9 00 ,
Centra/
Qac)a
A, -q ft f
E=tway
4
x 14J
4g, e e 'ot
ni
17 7c
ox
N
lop
0
;jN, of
.1� %
gg
•
VV.
, F',
"'HIL./u Sl
00
9 Xv
n'eo),-
0 rc,�
Yr:.
-so
oJ
ate n
JAW
-r vo
E --:PW
V-
Vq
J ryeNa
A
Study Reach
es
7a --
REFERENCEA 991 CHARLOTTE EAST [NC] QUAD MAP �Dr
THE ABOVE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY
GIS DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, X5001_',000-1 -500 "°o
A
LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY S&ME ASSUMES NO cl
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
x/. Zk-
SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE
DATE: 09-25-07 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NO.
DRAWN BY: DDH S&ME Edwards Branch
PROJECT NO: WWW.SMEINC.COM Watershed Improvement Project 2
L 1357-07-038 Charlotte, North Carolina

+$ '?a `a a??4 ,?`' Willow Park1 ?? r,, ?'`.'.
? b
' Fa* ended Detention Por„ r 4,, ?,'{{a??
f
r?, ! fi !, f?` '. :??S?r + ?;w?'riY?•` I(1'?, 5?.? r ? •??, ? IY? ?' '?\00? ? ,??k ?.? ?zs
J'A ? _?"!?y 1•,?'? .Y, fin 7
1
?'tl ?? y?0? ?e? ?y ? pd +?j ?,:''d?7M r.?r ??? t •if+`??,?.??? +?,?"P"?r?,??` ?
fi
WINTERFIELD
ELEMENTARY
V4 -
yI'L y?s. r r +? w rM enanus pr
??,.t d r
". "js »? •ie A .YI??4o.' , /f sw y,.,-. I a r f"o
? i,Y, i++. "r,Y: }? ? ,?? ys rsj ?.4j• ?}.:' -. A,? ?• #?,?y.h',•.? ?? 'j? t??,' p:7,.?,
"}t
'64
?'q?=J,gh`! A- 'Y A !+. a {/p BSI y. `Y`-. r,
1-0 .Y F ' e
tTV ?,{Ay, P .kb"°??,?`??' Y n
gyp, p + J
f7k?1i'`,'?+Yf???:??'M'???d
ell-
y ?.? - I t? p Y `4 terfiield PI * . y
{+? Sheffield Park j ' , BoBOS War BoBOa
V11, wi-
,?;'^ ??f ,strRacted Wetlan,:
r fi r , yy QCy
. ? ? d ? 6 a Y r ? ` Yr! Y f! ? A?+{ _ ?..,??- ?Y" `3? 'i , .' lf^+ ?• !? ? 'PeAA. ? ? d ? ,??
0 "4;
f? 6.0
??r E 3 a" s^ Y ti' ??? pC
00
-?L..s•7Yrh, w+ ? `t ? ry `?yk r ` i '.1+? ? -? ' ?` i, _ ? ?' d ?r ? ?`.? ,'?y• ti?? ? ?i*ee' M. w ? ' •? ???'? ?J p ? r ? r. ?'y ^ ?..
80801 ;top or
??rA' ! w"yyk.°?~00/?
MC30A 1^i, s??r, '?1 `9y?i n ` t? ,tip 4? t ??Y
.,?'? -13
?.0 s ?? 7
--
,\F p r, F ??13w4 y O Mecklenburg Co. Storm Water
Q JE, " .v y , R t> e
Services Monitoring Station
Orl"
I
f i Study Reaches:
'1a r k u t
8.o
4N Edwards Branch
^a" Southgate Branch
Winterfield Tributary
ParkProperty
p BMP Areas
REFERENCE. + r' (deb i ``"
THE ABOVE GIS LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE MECKLENBURG COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS - Ga. `
(GIS) DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN ,0,. ZrJO\ •5500. `750, -`
LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet:
SCALE: - 500' 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE
NO.
DATE: 01-22-08 S&ME Edwards Branch
DRAWN BY: DDH Watershed Improvement Project 3
.???? Charlotte North Carolina
CHECKED BY: LAB PROJECT NO: 1357-07-038
MONITORING PLAN VIEW DRAWINGS
DRAWING 1 of 3
DRAWING 2 of 3
DRWAING 3 of 3
UPPER EDWARDS BRANCH
LOWER EDWARDS BRANCH/
SOUTHGATE BRANCH
MIDDLE EDWARDS BRANCH/
WINTERFIELD TRIBUTARY

IN .4 A
•. 1 ?! `?k r" r• , a;? '`? tom: I v r 2 co
p {! ,: .,tr ? o p
r { ?! ., . ( it r r o
m O
7??'jrf• r
h.
lp 00+00
CID
174 + a ( t' ` r y J o
CID
AAA +
?+ a
tt R i?(f': ?1 rye` f 1%00 Q 0
7b C/) lo-
?.?{?, k?, ? 'iii j ? r• vvll It t?Y ? ? ? ? ? S-AOC 1 ?
r" t " $' try ak 7a z
00
t?
05
,r +
N
iiF #
"" +1lI r 1 b 01
t' ?? _ ® x177
00
k
°o V ae
S-AOC 4 L Gaol
S AOC 5 ,A# 0 a d pot 8b
rnx° 1a I??. ?lR+
V-AOC 2 xo. o
LLI
+ CD
o ' h 1
+ O + co +
PIS
l' t r + V-A5 1 0 °® E
e + + o S AOC 3 f' I ' ?,! 9. Z N ns
0, ew,
1 . t o 8a 44 (U ? > .?
` + . , ? o p
°o :_ _ ,y 0] E
to E U
?` o' r r 7 ?' 7'i O
1 + 2a
? t* r t o
V-AOC,3 p
L z
LLJ
?s? i O!?i ' k it?' r li L O
koo 1 1 yj? 0 t
N 1 . ?,? ? _ fl Q 0
e# Q ) F ?U
r' KO it -?t, , . f6
iie
J r''
?i k 01V 10 U)
® Photo Reference Locations Z m
Stream Thalweg 0
?', ,,?'' ?> ? Edwards Branch 3
,ti yip -Southgate Branch W
Rx #? ,. -Winterfield Tributary
h • Greenbrook Or Banks
*, oStability-Areas of Concern eRawiNC No.
Vegetation-Areas of Concern
REFERENCE: 0 100 200 300 Conservation Easement Boundary I OF 3
BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM AMEC. THE 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS OBTAINED FROM THE MECKELENBURG COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) Parcels
DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES
ABOUT ITS ACCURACYS&ME,INC.ASSUMESNORESPONSIBILITYFORANYDECISIONMADEORANYACTIONSTAKENBYTHEUSERBASEDUPONTHISINFORMATION. Feet + Longitudinal Stationing /
I
ti L,,, r, ja t} a_
0 2 co
rji
pg?t?? If 1, r J i'i r I ?I m LU
?. ? 1• '.? >?, ' ;? t J *1 Fil it 1 , ?? _I. ?, ?? X. W >
co
. iri ?+ .?? t 1 Is fe tl4
1 1 n?' FF(F 1c ® rLr)i
e
a ti { t :{ +?2 ® o
1a z
0 4bf
I?f ft, "r , e r li 11 4c > w a
y i f \®
2c
? 5b 4a r ?...1t+ ,R ,, J pr , .?f,, f (;*, t 3c 3b . 2p r " f
t? ?l i'' i n !( I S-AOC 2 6+ ®3a 2a 5a
4,4
;rim z
S AOC 3 Sheffi6ld Park r`• uf: g
Constructed' 'PJ 'Wetland .1
f "•?? ` f ?? S-AOC 7
C8 S-AOC 6 f
+ 9b,
+ C4
N }
}
+ ?Vz?OC 0 +
0
S AOC 10 a? • w ° + 4 01
o $
8 00
9a o + +> o
? o W? d
•i ri- L
0
0k ' •t r N
3 11 ??iLr ? k`? (D E
??k 3a '? Z
° S-AOC 9 i ! Q 0
y ?o
00
'' 4 f r1 11t ???`A?? 1F ? X ?j 1 V rw,
Photo Reference Locations m o
01 ?-
fx 0-> -Cross Section u, r
r
r F? F -0
Vegetation Plot U r-j
Stream Thalweg Z 3 m`
f. * ' ti fi i? Gr 70 U)
,?+ p+ + ,?, I`• • ?Edwards Branch Q w
., ( -Southgate Branch
Wnterfield Tributary -0 w
A
,?+ ?' • t
'
0 (? I r?, t`'Y BMP Areas
' Banks
I? O ,/.
C ?
'PAS
e r
Stability Areas of Concern DRAWING NO.
\, ?•
a , > 4 =Vegetation-Areas of Concern
REFERENCE: 0 100 200 300 Conservation Easement Boundary OF 3
BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM AMEC. THE 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS OBTAINED FROM THE MECKELENBURG COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) Parcels
DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES t
ABOUT ITS ACCURACY S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet '? + Longitudinal Stationing
r 1-ee
?.:1 a_ as r
T_ co
36
C? C)
27+ '` ?,• d' n? 9. { • - 1 lM• F r J
0O,t
* '! N
VI?k • z o
Yk \r \`? Y
'28,00 Co
rwk ?: w 'Tr .y fj` s 4 K 1 t. ?
l- i j
S-AOC 11 LO
o
r z
XS.3 RIFF E '? a ?? a,?
lob ®y ?
a o
?, - ,,w ?® t r xr uC a
1Oa "tip i w'?' •
{
30- Ilk
S-AOC 13 Opr - aid
&LA
H
Southgate Dr
` V-AOC 6i`
31,00
AF 46 . -
4a 71
_ 14
*61
AN
'fit • + Q® 4b 1 J w + +?.
'. E
S-AOC 14 -
S-AOC 15 w fw-7
32+ LL v
b Op ?- I11= Piersons Pond 0 0
11 N ? ? (0 O
\®11 a pGOt X1 m a
W
c
Jt~ 2 3 S AOC 1 1 00+00
X 33+00 ,F S-AOC 5 S-AOC 3 ®® S-AOC 2 ?* >< Z >
t? ,, t X k a o
V-AOC 1 j C/)
a6 0
L o + +
O' W N O
X° ` t J N O d ? L O
0 U)
Z
U-AOC 7?? ro?
ti Q S AOC 1
6a c
?%, G S-AOC 4 Zp
0 it
S AOC 16 o° -0 g
yx`® 4 t 1 0 0ti,, '. 0 t
4 ® Photo Reference Locations H m 0
L
X L t I Stream Thalweg Z 3 _0 U)
X Edwards Branch Q W
®4 ,.. w A `s -Southgate Branch C (D
1' ?? + "
-Winterfield Tributary J w
,. Sheffield Dr 1 _
O BMP Areas
Banks
®Stability-Areas of Concern DRAWING NO.
Vegetation-Areas of Concern
REFERENCE: 1 0 100 200 300 Conservation Easement Boundary of 3
BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM AMEC. THE 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS OBTAINED FROM THE MECKELENBURG COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
Parcels
DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES
` ABOUT ITS ACCURACY S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Fee}
+ Longitudinal Stationing 4
PHOTO REFERENCE LOCATIONS
EDWARDS BRANCH - PHOTO PAGES 1-11
SOUTHGATE BRANCH - PHOTO PAGES 12-13
WINTERFIELD TRIBUTARY - PHOTO PAGES 14-21
BUILT

Edwards Branch
YEAR-1
?'
-
W6i
YK,?'- 1ss ? w ?y .

f .. ify _ b(•?
PRL 1a:Veaetation Plot 1 lookina at riaht bank. PRL
:Vegetation Plot 1 looking

w?•p ?
JNV 40%6
1 r
PRL 1 b:Vegetation Plot 1 looking at left bank. PRL 1 b:Vegetation Plot 1 looking at left bank. PRL 1 b:Vegetation Plot 1 looking at left bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB it
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 _S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 1
YEAR-2
ight bank. PRL 1a:Vegetation Plot 1 looking at right bank.
Edwards Branch
AS BUILT YEAR-1
PRL 2a:Vegetation Plot 2 looking at
t
4a #.
4
I
IN

fAl

r

J?
?
y ? , ?? +a lea
_
?

YEAR-2
711o

h
k r
_
X r ? s-

? atiy F ? ? a

50
?.,

ght bank. PRL 2a:Vegetation Plot 2 looking at right bank.
PRL 2b:Vegetation Plot 2 looking at left bank. PRL 2b:Vegetation Plot 2 looking at left bank. PRL 2b:Vegetation Plot 2 looking at left bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB it
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 _S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 2
3 Il
,}t
it bank. PRL 2a:Vegetation Plot 2 looking a
AS BUILT
PRL 3a: Vegetation Plot 3 looking at
AQK

f- ? F
a, q
r '
ars!
s
r A
kN'
PRL 3b: Vegetation Plot 3 looking at left bank. PRL 3b: Vegetation Plot 3 looking at left bank. PRL 3b: Vegetation Plot 3 looking at left bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB it
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 _S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 3
Edwards Branch
YEAR-1
4 _? 4rt?r ?f' i
x°
YEAR-2
ht bank. PRL 3a: Vegetation Plot 3 looking at right bank. PRL 3a: Vegetation Plot 3 looking at right bank.
PRL 4a: Vegetation Plot 4 looking at right bank

4 +r 7

PRL 4b: Vegetation Plot 4 looking at left bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2)
Edwards Branch
YEAR-1
_- IN
PRL 4a: Vegetation Plot 4 looking at right bank. PRL 4a: Vegetation Plot 4 looking at right bank.
"let

.,? k ??S_tci?
!o
.

T d? I 7 I -
PRL 4b: Vegetation Plot 4 looking at left bank. PRL 4b: Vegetation Plot 4 looking at left bank.
Checked by: LJB
As-Built: 3-2005 ItS&ME
Taken. Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007
PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 4
AS BUILT

r
PRL 5a: View at the upstream origin of the
monitorinq reach facinq the riqht bank.
r. '
.1
oc!
PRL 5b: View at the upstream origin of the
monitoring reach facing the left bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2)
PRL 5a: View at the upstream origin of the
monitoring reach facing the right bank.
PRL 5a: View at the upstream origin of the
monitoring reach facing the right bank.

v
.?4? ,f?
lnF r

F '?. FF

"4i r r{'
`
h ?.
'"
_

°
Kc
V •r
PRL 5b: View at the upstream origin of the PRL 5b: View at the upstream origin of the
monitoring reach facing the left bank. monitoring reach facing the left bank.
Checked by: LJB
As-Built: 3-2005 ItS&ME
Taken. Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007
YEAR-2
PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 5
Edwards Branch
YEAR-1
AS BUILT

Edwards Branch
YEAR-1

PRL 6a: View at the downstream terminus of the PRL 6a: View at the downstream terminus of the PRL 6a: View at the downstream terminus of the
monitoring reach facing the right bank. monitoring reach facing the right bank. monitoring reach facing the right bank.
41
t, t
? S 4 SY
Y X'*i
I ?
l ?yr'rt
PRL 6b: View at the downstream terminus of the PRL 6b: View at the downstream terminus of the PRL 6b: View at the downstream terminus of the
monitoring reach facing the left bank. monitoring reach facing the left bank. monitoring reach facing the left bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB - Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken. Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 6
YEAR-2
AS BUILT
Edwards Branch
YEAR-1
YEAR-2

_iQ^

Tr
?

fi N

PRL 7a: Riffle cross section 1 (XS1) looking at PRL 7a: Riffle cross section 1 (XS1) looking at PRL 7a: Riffle cross section 1 (XS1) looking at
right bank. right bank. right bank.

ib

te'

?
" ?;
r
1F K
I
a _
x

PRL 7b: Riffle cross section 1 (XS1) looking at PRL 7b: Riffle cross section 1 (XS1) looking at PRL 7b: Riffle cross section 1 (XS1) looking at
right bank. right bank. right bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 7
Edwards Branch
AS BUILT YEAR-1

144 t• ?'
V 7r
Yr
YEAR-2
PRL 8a: Pool cross section 2 (XS2) looking at PRL 8a: Pool cross section 2 (XS2) looking at PRL 8a: Pool cross section 2 (XS2) looking at
right bank. right bank. right bank.
s
PRL 8b: Pool cross section 2 (XS2) looking at PRL 8b: Pool cross section 2 (XS2) looking at PRL 8b: Pool cross section 2 (XS2) looking at
right bank. right bank. right bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 8
AS BUILT
Edwards Branch
YEAR-1
YEAR-2

k
PRL 9a: Temporary cross section looking at
right bank.
r ll•
k ?Rjo M a

{.y

F

PRL 9a: Temporary cross section looking at
right bank (not surveyed in 2006).
PRL 9a: Temporary cross section looking at
right bank (not surveyed in 2007).
ti z' f fi
?tyfy
PRL 9b: Temporary cross section looking at left PRL 9b: Temporary cross section looking at left PRL 9b: Temporary cross section looking at left
bank. bank not surveyed in 2006. bank not surveyed in 2007).
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken. Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 9

A

i6 2
Edwards Branch
YEAR-1
Riffle cross section 3 (XS3) k
right bank.
PRL 10a: Riffle cross section 3 (XS3) looking at PRL 10.
right bank.
r

r ?" d
v.J? .
t. ? u
Imo. F,
? 1/ u
I

?
Av
;z??'
'
-
? '
t .
10 ?
d
,?f
F '
?l' ?
'
w
- ?
lt
l
t?
_ Y+u ? F?' ? R

PRL 10b: Riffle cross section 3 (XS3) looking at PRL 10b: Riffle cross section 3 (XS3) looking at PRL 10b: Riffle cross section 3 (XS3) looking at
right bank. right bank. right bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 10
king at PRL 10a: Riffle cross section 3 (XS3) looking at
right bank.
YEAR-2
AS BUILT

PRL 11a: Pool cross section 4 (XS4) looking at
right bank.
Edwards Branch
YEAR-1

.'
An

le? in
YEAR-2

PRL 11a: Pool cross section 4 (XS4) looking at PRL 11a: Pool cross section 4 (XS4) looking at
right bank. right bank.

PRL 11 b: Pool cross section 4 (XS4) looking at PRL 11 b: Pool cross section 4 (XS4) looking at PRL 11 b: Pool cross section 4 (XS4) looking at
right bank. right bank. right bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 11
AS BUILT
n
?r
A,4
PRL 1a: View along left bank.
At*
Vol
X; V
r ?
s i
Nis;
PRL 1 b: View looking downstream.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2)
Checked by: LJB
As-Built: 3-2005
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007
Winterfield Tributary
YEAR-1

PRL 1a: View along left bank.
OQZI'.,C?Al

M
? 4r

xw kA?r 0 r
YEAR-2
PRL 1 b: View looking downstream. PRL 1 b: View looking downstream.
*S&ME
PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Winterfield Tributary
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 12
PRL 1a: View along left bank.
AS BUILT

PRL 1c: View along right bank.

W.146.
00
i
r
Winterfield Tributary
YEAR-1
PRL 1 c: View along right bank.
kph

J
i

;. i E r v?e '4- 5

YEAR-2
PRL 1 c: View along right bank.

Y` _ A .i F&;5re
6M"
PRL 2a: View along left bank. PRL 2a: View along left bank. PRL 2a: View along left bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Winterfield Tributary
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken. Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 13
AS BUILT
' `k u .
r - ;Alt
L,
g t =
Ar.M f,
PRL 2b: View looking downstream.
Winterfield Tributary
YEAR-1
?' t - ? ? "°°744• p ?'',1
1
PRL 2b: View looking downstream.
A

YEAR-2
N/

b
4
s'
"sue

PRL 2b: View looking downstream
I "N
V
,? ^F rt fia k ?' y' T
`t
`17 .
PRL 2c: View along right bank. PRL 2c: View along right bank. PRL 2c: View along right bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Winterfield Tributary
Checked by: LJB - Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 14
Winterfield Tributary
AS BUILT
YEAR-1
YEAR-2
t
,L ? • ~ 4
PRL 3a: View along left bank.
li 1ly'? p?*^A' t
Yq
A •z
low-
f -
q "? ' ' , ?1. `? ?? v,IS ? • ,err 2.?,. } R -
PRL 3a: View along left bank.
? '4r I'.' AMY ? ] ,'i
rT
v '1r': :?'1? •tl 1 4" R? 1'i
n r
? , /'i,?`. - ?? +? •- ' mod. ? ? - 1

qy

INV l ry - r` ...
ri
i
?I n 4 ?
F
? .. o-a '.

A
t qukri
or
.
. 6

PRL 3a: View along left bank.
PRL 3b: View lookin downstream. PRL 3b: View looking downstream. PRL 3b: View looking downstream.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Winterfield Tributary
Checked by: LJB Y' Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 15
AS BUILT

Y Y r!
r y-•
PRL 3c: View along right bank.
PRL 4a: Riffle cross section (XS1) looking at
right bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2)
Winterfield Tributary
YEAR-1

%

IP
Z
!

PRL 3c: View along right bank.

YEAR-2

PRL 4a: Riffle cross section (XS1) looking at PRL 4a: Riffle cross section (XS1) looking at
right bank. right bank.
Checked by: LJB
As-Built: 3-2005 ItS&ME
Taken. Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007
PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Winterfield Tributary
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 16
PRL 3c: View along right bank.
AS BUILT

4 ! 4

PRL 4b: Riffle cross section (XS-1) looking
downstream.

Winterfield Tributary
YEAR-1
Ali
x , -.'-
tom. - l?
w ?
ilk.
t4
Jr:
*', t
!
? - i • ..mac ? ??
PRL 4b: Riffle cross section (XS-1) looking
downstream.

YEAR-2
L X
P x
r
PRL 4b: Riffle cross section (XS-1) looking
downstream.

J?
I
.? I
r
? ^M
t
?'S 4 ..
' ??PF
S
,
,
..,# .+?
77
ZI.iPq
'
- 4

PRL 4c: Riffle cross section (XS-1) looking at left PRL 4c: Riffle cross section (XS-1) looking at left PRL 4c: Riffle cross section (XS-1) looking at left
bank. bank. bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Winterfield Tributary
Checked by: LJB - Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
As-Built: 3-2005 S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 17
Winterfield Tributary
YEAR-1
' a.
CA
4 an
PRL 5a: Pool cross section (XS2) looking at right PI
bank.
} rw
ZL 5a: Pool cross section (XS2) looking at rigt
bank.
YEAR-2
t PRL 5a: Pool cross section (XS2) looking at right
bank.
I',,
T
* A
lM
. ? * J b .L'? ? ? v'AM

PRL 5b: Pool cross section (XS2) looking PRL 5b: Pool cross section (XS2) looking PRL 5b: Pool cross section (XS2) looking
downstream. downstream. downstream.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Winterfield Tributary
Checked by: LJB t Edwards Branch Watershed Stream Restoration
As-Built: 3-2005 _S&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Taken. Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 18
AS BUILT
AS BUILT
PRL 5c: Pool cross section (XS2) looking at left
bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2)
Checked by: LJB
As-Built: 3-2005
Taken: Year-1:8-2006
Year-2: 9-28-2007
Winterfield Tributary
YEAR-1
r ?.
i
?IL 4?
X
i
i
YEAR-2
i
r?
f

'.;:• Z, <
PRL 5c: Pool cross section (XS2) looking at left
bank.
*S&ME
PRL 5c: Pool cross section (XS2) looking at left
bank.
PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Winterfield Tributary
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 19
Southgate Branch
2006
r

PRL 1: Pool cross section IXS11 lookina at left bank.
16" ,
J'?,J H A,i rt
tax -; zt .
A S .r r
t 4 S'•
± }
V4 'OL
2007
PRL 1: Pool cross section (XS1) looking at left bank.
PRL 2: Riffle cross section (XS2) looking at left bank. PRL 2: Riffle cross section (XS2) looking at left bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2) PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Southgate Branch
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Taken. Year-1: 8-2006 ItS&ME Charlotte, North Carolina
Year-2: 9-28-2007 Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 20
Southgate Branch
2006
? ?" - - •. -lug
Y
r;
h
I 7z
4 ?.
PRL 3: Vegetation Plot 1 looking at left bank.
Taken by: JoL, DDH (Year 2)
Checked by: LJB -
Taken. Year-1:8-2006 ItS&ME
Year-2: 9-28-2007
2007
PHOTO REFERENCE POINTS:
Southgate Branch
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-038 PHOTO PAGE 21
PRL 3: Vegetation Plot 1 looking at left bank.
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE GRAPHS
EDWARDS BRANCH
SOUTHGATE BRANCH
WINTERFIELD TRIBUTARY

Edwards Branch
W
716.000
714.000
712.000
710.000
708.000
N 706.000
C
o 704.000
0.00000
a)
706.000
i
704.000
702.000
900.00000
--*--As Built (2005)
m Year 1 (2006)
N 708.000
3 Year 2 (2007)
fx ?
700.000
698.000
900.00000
100.00000 200.00000 300.00000 400.00000 500.00000 600.00000 700.00000 800.00000
I if
696.000
Created Byr: DDH
Checked by: LJB
Date: 1-18-08
1000.00000 1100.00000 1200.00000 1300.00000 1400.00000 1500.00000 1600.00000 1700.00000
Longitudinal Distance (feet)
ME
1800.00000
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE COMPARISON GRAPH
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-038 Page 1
Edwards Branch (continued)
699.000
697.000
695.000
693.000
691.000
689.000
C
687.000

tr y- ?_ T f?? ?
.
- r
Ad
ditional cross vein
adde d after construction

1800.00000
W
m
695.000
(0
L? 693.000
r
691.000
689.000
687.000
685.000
683.000
1900.00000 2000.00000 2100.00000 2200.00000 2300.00000 2400.00000 2500.00000 2600.00000

m
o
4
C7 d'

X CO
X

?t' I
I I
I
1
I
? ' .
?
' { ."

I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
2700.00000 2800.00000 2900.00000 3000.00000 3100.00000 3200.00000 3300.00000 3400.00000 3500.00000 3600.00000
Longitudinal Distance (feet)
Created By: DDH LONGITUDINAL PROFILE COMPARISON GRAPH
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Checked by: LJB Charlotte, North Carolina ItS M E Date: 1-18-08 Project No.: 1357-07-038 Page 2
2700.00000
0 As Built (2005)
-Year 1 (2006)
Year 2 (2007)
Southgate Branch
N
N
c
O
c?
N
W
O)
N
3
c?
698.0000
697.0000
696.0000
695.0000
694.0000
693.0000
692.0000
691.0000
690.0000
689.0000
688.0000
687.0000
0.00000
250.00000
Winterfield Tributary*
702.0000
701.0000
N 700.0000
12
699.0000
c
698.0000
c>S
N 697.0000
W 696.0000
rn
3 695.0000
694.0000
693.0000
692.0000
0.00000
Created By: DDH
Checked by: LJB
Date: 1-18-08
100.00000 200.00000 300.00000 400.00000 500.00000 600.00000
Longitudinal Distance (feet)
50.00000 100.00000 150.00000
Longitudinal Distance (feet)
M E
200.00000
Year 1 (2007)
--As Built (2006)
Year 2 (2007)
Year 1 (2006)
300.00000
*Note: As-built survey data not provided for Winterfield Tributary
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE COMPARISON GRAPH
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-038 Page 3
CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS AND
GRAPHS
EDWARDS BRANCH
SOUTHGATE BRANCH
WINTERFIELD TRIBUTARY
CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS
Edwards Branch
Cross Section ID: 1 2
Feature: Riffle Pool

Date Measured: As-built
(3.05) Year 1
(8.06) Year 2
(12.07) As-built
(3.05) Year 1
(8.06) Year 2
(12.07)
Cross-Sectional Area
(ft):
16.94
7.1
11.11
14.89
14.0
9.02
Bankfull Width (ft): 13.74 9.04 10.79 10.99 9.6 9.53
Floodprone Width: 31.1 20.33 26.09 27.94 25.03 23.56
Bankfull Max Depth
(ft):
1.64
1.05
1.43
2.52
2.05
1.47
Bankfull Mean Depth
(ft):
1.23
.79
1.01
1.35
1.46
0.95
Width/Depth: 11.15 11.5 10.48 8.13 6.6 10.03
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.26 2.25 2.42 2.54 2.61 2.47
Cross Section ID: 3 4
Feature: Riffle Pool

Date Measured: As-built
(3.05) Year 1
(8.06) Year 2
(12.07) As-built
(3.05) Year 1
(8.06) Year 2
(12.07)
Cross-Sectional Area
(ft):
18.0
12.4
19.97
18.0
15.97
27.52
Bankfull Width (ft): 12.97 10.73 13.29 10.92 10.4 13.08
Floodprone Width: 26.03 16.19 29.03 17.01 15.08 21.76
Bankfull Max Depth
(ft):
1.61
1.38
1.91
2.43
2.07
3.11
Bankfull Mean Depth
(ft):
1.39
1.15
1.5
1.65
1.53
2.1
Width/Depth: 9.34 9.3 8.86 6.63 6.78 6.23
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.01 1.15 2.18 1.56 1.45 1.66
CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS
Southgate Branch
Cross Section ID: 1 2
Feature: Pool Riffle

Date Measured: As-built
(6.06) Year 1
(12.07) As-built
(6.06) Year 1
(12.07)
Cross-Sectional Area ft : 17.82 21.45 3.3 6.1
Bankfull Width (ft): 10.28 11.88 5.95 8.06
Floodprone Width: 20.7 21.76 14.41 18.31
Bankfull Max Depth (ft): 3.39 3.48 0.95 1.34
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft): 1.73 1.81 0.55 0.75
Width/Depth: 5.93 6.56 10.73 10.75
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.01 1.83 2.42 2.27
CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS
Winterfield Tributary
Cross Section ID: 1 2
Feature: Pool Riffle

Date Measured: As-built
(3.05) Year 1
(8.06) Year 2
(12.07) As-built
(3.05) Year 1
(8.06) Year 2
(12.07)
Cross-Sectional Area
(ft):
14.1
4.51
8.3
18.8
19.3
16.49
Bankfull Width (ft): 10.44 7.68 8.63 12.5 11.41 9
Floodprone Width: 21.7 11.04 13.69 25 28.18 22.88
Bankfull Max Depth
(ft):
2.25
0.88
1.45
2.5
3.1
2.75
Bankfull Mean Depth
(ft):
1.35
0.59
0.96
1.5
1.09
1.83
Width/Depth: 7.74 13.07 8.99 8.3 6.75 4.92
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.1 1.44 1.59 2.0 2.47 2.54
Project Name: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement
Reach: Edwards Branch
Cross-Section ID XS1
Surveyed By: SEPI, Inc.

,V
Year 2
Max
BKF BKF BKF BKF W/D BKF FPW
Feature Area Width Depth Depth Ratio ER Elev. Elev.
Riffle 11.11 10.79 1.03 1.43 10.48 2.42 713.22 714.65
XS1
719
718

717-

716- -

0
- 715
R
2 714
w
713

712

711

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
tAs-Built fYear 1
Project Name: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement
Reach: Edwards Branch
Cross-Section ID: XS2
Surveyed By: SEPI, Inc.
r ?? 1 e
E,l
t ; fti
;L
stl ?
F ???r 1n
t ` ra.
? 1.
k '
Year 2
Max
BKF BKF BKF BKF W/D BKF FPW
Feature Area Width Depth Depth Ratio ER Elev. Elev.
Pool 9.02 9.53 0.95 1.47 10.03 2.47 708.99 710.46
xs2
719
717
715
c 713
> 711
a
w 709
707
705
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
BAs-Built -¦-Year 1
Project Name: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement
Reach: Edwards Branch
Cross-Section ID: XS3
Surveyed By: SEPI, Inc.
Year 2
Max
BKF BKF BKF BKF W/D BKF FPW
Feature Area Width Depth Depth Ratio ER Elev. Elev.
Riffle 19.97 13.29 1.5 1.91 8.86 2.18 690.47 692.38
XS3
699
697-

695-

c
0
-

693
R
a
w

691

689

687

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)
BAs-Built -¦-Year 1
Project Name: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement
Reach: Edwards Branch
Cross-Section ID: XS4
Surveyed By: SEPI, Inc.
Year 2
Max
BKF BKF BKF BKF W/D BKF FPW
Feature Area Width Depth Depth Ratio ER Elev. Elev.
Pool 27.52 13.08 2.1 3.11 6.23 1.66 688.21 691.32

704 XS4
702
700
698
F 696
,
'0 694
692
w
690
688
686
684
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft)
BAs-Built -¦-Year 1
Project Name: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement
Reach: Southgate Branch
Cross-Section ID: XS1
Surveyed By: SEPI, Inc.
Year 1
Max
BKF BKF BKF BKF W/D BKF FPW
Feature Area Width Depth Depth Ratio ER Elev. Elev.
Pool 21.45 11.88 1.81 3.48 6.56 1.83 696.13 699.61
XS1
702
1 kA
700

w
698
0
696
w
694

692

0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
BAs-Built -Year 1
Project Name: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement
Reach: Southgate Branch
Cross-Section ID: XS2
Surveyed By: SEPI, Inc.
Year 1
Max
BKF BKF BKF BKF W/D BKF FPW
Feature Area Width Depth Depth Ratio ER Elev. Elev.
Riffle 6.1 8.06 0.75 1.34 10.75 2.27 691.66 693
xs2
701
699

697
_
c
°-
695
R
a
w

693

691

689

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
tAs-Built fYear 1
Project Name: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement
Reach: Winterfield Tributary
Cross-Section ID: XS1
Surveyed By: SEPI, Inc.
Year 2
Max
BKF BKF BKF BKF W/D BKF FPW
Feature Area Width Depth Depth Ratio ER Elev. Elev.
Riffle 8.3 8.63 0.96 1.45 7.74 2.1 701.49 702.94
XS-7
705

703
c
0

a
w
701 -
4"91

699

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Distance (ft)
BAs-Built -¦-Year 1
Project Name: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement
Reach: Winterfield Tributary
Cross-Section ID: XS2
Surveyed By: SEPI, Inc.
Year 1
Max
BKF BKF BKF BKF W/D BKF FPW
Feature Area Width Depth Depth Ratio ER Elev. Elev.
Pool 16.49 9 1.83 2.75 4.92 2.54 700.98 703.73
XS-8
705
703

c
°-
701
is
a
w
699

697

0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
BAs-Built -¦-Year 1
VEGETATION TABLES
EDWARDS BRANCH
SOUTHGATE BRANCH

Edwards VP1
Acres: 0.020
Date: 10/29/07 Observer: Catherine McRae
Species: Stem s Obser ved St ems / Ac re % Su rvival
Scientific Name Common Name As-built Year 1 Year 2 As-built Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2
Corpus amomum silky dogwood 39 39 34 1966 1966 1714 100% 87%
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush 34 29 14 1714 1462 706 85% 41%
Sambucus canadensis elderberry 23 8 5 1160 403 252 350%/ 22%
Salix sericea silky willow 2 2 2 101 101 101 100% 100%
Salix nigra black willow 12 11 11 605 555 555
0
920
92%
Volunteer
Acer ne undo box elder -
Acer rubrum red maple
-
Betula ni ra river birch -
Quercus hellos willow oak -
Ulmus rubra slippery elm -
Year 1 Survival Rate: 81%
Year 1 Stems/Acre: 4487
Year 2 Survival Rate: 60%
Year 2 Stems/Acre: 3328
Edwards VP2
Acres: 0.022
Date: 10/29/07 bserver: Catherine McRae
Spe cies: Stem s Obser ved Ste ms / Acre % Su rvival
Scientific Name Common Name As-built Year 1 Year 2 As-built Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2
Corpus amomum silky dogwood 37 35 29 1679 1588 1316 95% 78%
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
buttonbush
13
12
7
590
545
318
92%
54%
Sambucus
canadensis
elderberry
39
33
4
1770
1497
182
85%
10%
Salix sericea silky willow 41 35 35 1860 1588 1588 85% 85%
Salix nigra black willow 9 8 8 408 363 363 89% 89%
Volunteer
Acer
saccharinum*
silver maple
-
Betula ni ra river birch -
Hibiscus
moscheutos swamp rose
mallow
-
Ilex s . holly -
Lonicera mackii* bush honeysuckle -
Morella cerifera wax myrtle -
Year 1 Survival Rate: 88%
Year 1 Stems/Acre: 5581
Year 2 Survival Rate: 60%
Year 2 Stems/Acre: 3766
Edwards VP3
Acres: 0.028
Date: 10/29/07 bserver: Catherine McRae
Spe cies: Stems Observed St ems / Ac re % Su rvival
Scientific Name Common Name As-built Year 1 Year 2 As-built Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2
Corpus amomum silky dogwood 41 24 22 1469 860 788 59% 54%
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
buttonbush
29
11
7
1039
394
251
38%
24%
Sambucus
canadensis
elderberry
52
2
1
1863
72
36
4%
2%
Salix sericea silky willow 10 6 6 358 215 215 60% 60%
Salix nigra black willow 10 11 9 358 394 322 110% 90%
Volunteer
Acer ne undo box elder -
Acer rubrum red maple
-
Betula nigra river birch -
Year 1 Survival Rate: 38%
Year 1 Stems/Acre: 1934
Year 2 Survival Rate: 32%
Year 2 Stems/Acre: 1612
Edwards VP4
Acres: 0.023
Date: 10/29/07 bserver: Catherin e McRae
Species : Ste ms Obser ved St ems / Ac re % Su rvival
Scientific Name Common Name As-built Year 1 Year 2 As-built Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2
Corpus amomum silky dogwood 27 25 20 1186 1098 878 93% 74%
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
buttonbush
27
4
0
1186
176
0
15%
0%
Sambucus canadensis elderberry 22 2 2 966 88 88 9% 9%
Salix sericea silky willow 30 5 6 1317 220 263 17% 20%
Salix nigra black willow 11 7 7 483 307 307 64% 64%
Volunteer
Acer saccharinum* silver maple
-
Les edeza cuneata* sericea les edeza -
Li uidambar st raciflua sweet um -
Morella cerifera wax m rtle -
Prunus serotina black cherry -
Rubus phoenicolasius* wineberry -
Year 1 Survival Rate: 37%
Year 1 Stems/Acre: 1888
Year 2 Survival Rate: 30%
Year 2 Stems/Acre: 1537
Southgate VP1
Acres: 0.017
Date: 10/29/07 bserver: Catherine McRae
Species: Stems Observed Stems / Acre % Survival
Scientific Name Common Name As-built Year 1 As-built Year 1 Year 1
Cornus amomum silk dogwood 4 5 232 290 125%
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
buttonbush
16
0
927
0
0%
Ilex o aca American holly 1 0 58 0 0%
Panicum
vir atum
switch grass
1
0
58
0
0%
Platanus
occidentalis
sycamore
1
3
58
174
300%
Sambucus
canadensis
elderberry
2
3
116
174
150%
Salix sericea silk willow 7 11 405 637 157%
Salix nigra black willow 0 1 0 58 --
Volunteer
Ageratum
houstonianum
ageratum
Carex s p. sedge
-
Juncus effusus soft rush -
Morella cerifera wax myrtle -
Year 1 Survival Rate: 72%
Year 1 Stems/Acre: 1332
AOC PHOTOGRAPHS
EDWARDS BRANCH - PHOTO PAGES 1-3
SOUTHGATE BRANCH - PHOTO PAGES 4-5
WINTERFIELD TRIBUTARY - PHOTO PAGE 6
-SAM
164
?4,'ld ? v if '?• ???.?? '.?
1 w
f
d
PHOTO 2: S-AOC 2 - Edwards Branch
PHOTO 3: S-AOC 3 - Edwards Branch

Y
4
41 Ow

PHOTO 4: S-AOC 4 - Edwards Branch

I
I
9
w
L- r K
f? t C?QiZ? 5
` y
• ?
_? L
L?
R
°'
?
'1
-
- ..
. Vn+ 3 ?.
. p
.
rd 4

r
jL-d a
"? Li F R a y .+

PHOTO 5: S-AOC 5 - Edwards Branch PHOTO 6: S-AOC 6 - Edwards Branch
Taken by: JoL STABILITY- AND VEGETATION-AOC
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvements Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
- - 1 144 a tow M E Date: 10-23-2007
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 1
4 r '? r1-2? l
`
4i ?
y

`ELI?yI
'ry'V -
?
sb?
9 ;. `
? ? a
? ,J
F5 p -?

PHOTO 8- S-AOC 8 - Edwards Branch

a

VVV
11L ?, r 'Ile
4
1
T
t ?
_ 40

¢ I
,
JJ i
?

1 j? A

1
ti ?t

ss t

-F
PHOTO 10: S-AOC 10 - Edwards Branch
PHOTO 11: S-AOC 11 - Edwards Branch PHOTO 12: S-AOC 12 - Edwards Branch
Taken by: JoL STABILITY- AND VEGETATION-AOC
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvements Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
--, 4149tow ME
it uL &
Date: 10-23-2007
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 2
PHOTO 9: S-AOC 9 - Edwards Branch
5 +P
s,: ar a ? ? ? ? J
= i
1 t
PHOTO 13- S-AOC 13 - Edwards Branch
PHOTO 15: S-AOC 15 - Edwards Branch

,?i,?k sl a• ? ?/? q. Fir ? '.. Sri
-? 9F i Yr k
,.' • d°A

/
g
1,,y D
9A'

r `r
yy??''

y R { s
?Wi

PHOTO 14- S-AOC 14 - Edwards Branch

'l +R', n r

!u r ,. r r IY t?'

^ ?
S,
?f ?1
?1
• + y
I
M?
1? k
!
J.w 1,. ,
li. p?, p
.
F
?,

d
PHOTO 16: S-AOC 16 - Edwards Branch
i xax? t ?, e+ . + fi
PHOTO 17: V-AOC 1 -Edwards Branch PHOTO 18: V-AOC 2 - Edwards Branch
Taken by: JoL STABILITY- AND VEGETATION-AOC
Edwards Branch
Checked by: LJB
ltun&ME Edwards Branch Watershed Improvements Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Date: 10-23-2007
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 3

¦

PHOTO 21: V-AOC 4 - Edwards Branch
PHOTO 22: V-AOC 5 - Edwards Branch
i
PHOTO 23: V-AOC 6 - Edwards Branch
Taken by: JoL
Checked by: LJB
Date: 10-23-2007
PHOTO 24: V-SAOC 7 - Edwards Branch
STABILITY- AND VEGETATION-AOC
Edwards Branch
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvements Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 4

a« t1r '
?y
a
?

s,
t11 s ,.
y 4.x-nt"
y

PHOTO 26: S-AOC 1 - Southgate Branch
PHOTO 27: S-AOC 2 - Southgate Branch
PHOTO 28: S-AOC 3 - Southgate Branch

Cq I Zx
Irv

i%r ti` ..'.

PHOTO 29: S-AOC 4 - Southgate Branch PHOTO 30: S-SAOC 5 - Southgate Branch
Taken by: JoL STABILITY- AND VEGETATION-AOC
Southgate Branch
Checked by: LJB Edwards Branch Watershed Improvements Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
--, 4149tow ME
it u1L &
Date: 10-23-2007
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 5
- V
'
ol
f+. Ch -?gy _y
t ,k

PHOTO 31: V-AOC 1 - Southaate
PHOTO 34: S-AOC 1 - Winterfield Tributarv

40
Adi
.

•?
r 'f
,

sw

PHOTO 35: S-AOC 3 - Winterfield Tributary
Taken by: JoL STABILITY- AND VEGETATION-AOC
Southgate Branch and Winterfield Tributary
Checked by: LJB
& ME Edwards Branch Watershed Improvements Project
= Charlotte, North Carolina
Date: 10-23-2007
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 6
PHOTO 33: S-AOC 1 - Winterfield Tributarv
BMP CHECKLISTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS
SHEFFIELD PARK CONSTRUCTED WETLAND
PIERSONS POND
WILLOW PARK EXTENDED DETENTION POND

BMP CHECKLIST
BMP ID: Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
Project ID: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Date: October 17, 2007 and October 30, 2007
Checked Maintenance
Needed Inspection
Frequency* Remarks Photo
ID
Yes No Yes No A, M. S
Diversion Box A 3
1. Top concrete slab „1 4
a. Cracks or displacement V,
b. Minor spalling (>1 ") %1 Minor spalling observed - most patched 4
c. Major spalling (rebar exposed) 4 4
d. Joint failures 1' 4'
e. Seepage/leaks
f. Manhole ring ?,? +
- Missing Lid V,
- Corrosion 4 „
2. Middle concrete slab
a. Cracks or displacement ., V,
b. Minor spalling (>1 ") %I
c. Major spalling (rebar exposed) ,
d. Joint failures V,
e. Seepage/leaks v
3. Bottom concrete slab 4 .?
a. Cracks or displacement 1/ 41
b. Minor spalling (>1")
c. Major spalling (rebar exposed) .,? +
d. Joint failures , V,
e. Seepage/leaks
4. Masonry box Patched at junction w/slab 5
a. Cracks or displacement ., V,
b. Mortar failures %I
c. Seepage, leaks v+ %I
5. Metal grates Below backwater created from
downstream vane, therefore not
observed
BMP Checklist- Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
Page 2 of 6
a. Clogging
b. Corrosion
6. Outlet pipe J
a. Joint Failure 4
b. Riprap failure %t
c. Erosion/scour d
Ductile Iron Pipe
1. Exposed Not exposed therefore not inspected
Junction Box 6
1. Evidence of blowout/sinkholes 4 4
2. Seepage/leaks rJ q
3. Other q 4 Lid does not appear bolted
Low Flow Diversion Pipeline
1. Evidence of blowout/sinkholes V
Energy Dissipater Not exposed therefore not inspected
1. HDPE pipe 4
a. Cracks or displacement V
b. Joint/coupling failure 4
c. UV Corrosion/damage J
d. Clogging ,
2. Stainless steel rods
a. Fastenings insecure
b. Thread corrosion
3. Unstable piers
Riser/Primary Outlet A,S 7
1. Weir trash rack maintenance
a. Debris removal necessary ,
b. Corrosion 4 4
2. Excessive sediment accumulation inside riser , q
3. Concrete condition
a. Cracks or displacement Minor cracking - evidence of patching 8
b. Minor spalling (>1 ") ., V,
c. Major spalling (rebar exposed) .,
d. Joint failures ,
e. Seepage/leaks V,
4. Metal condition ,
a. Orifice plates clogged
b. Bolts loose Some bolts bent
BMP Checklist- Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
Page 3 of 6
c. Corrosion Minor rusting
5. Outfall channel 9
a. Erosion/scour 4 4 Erosion noted around outfall pipe 10
b. Debris removal necessary 4 4
c. Rock cross vein unstable +,/
d. Sediment noted 4 „ Channel dry, but minor sediment
accumulation noted
6. Other (specify)
Wetland Zones
1. Inlet deep water cell 4 .,?
a. Sediment noted
b. Inadequate vegetation ,?{ {
- Unhealthy ,
- Sparse
c. Disease/insect infestation
d. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation 4 4 Bermuda grass
e. Floating or floatable debris removal required 4
f. Odor (foul or chemical) ,,/ V,
g. Visible pollution (oil, foam, fish kill) d „
2. Middle deep water cell 4
a. Sediment noted V,
b. Inadequate vegetation
- Unhealthy %1 4
- Sparse a/ V Bare patch on bank
c. Disease/insect infestation , ,rr
d. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation
e. Floating or floatable debris removal required
f. Odor (foul or chemical)
g. Visible pollution (oil, foam, fish kill) .,? +
3. Outlet deep water cell V,
a. Sediment noted
b. Inadequate vegetation
- Unhealthy .?/ ,/
- Sparse .,
c. Disease/insect infestation
d. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation
e. Floating or floatable debris removal required v
f. Odor (foul or chemical) +
g. Visible pollution (oil, foam, fish kill) y/ .5/
BMP Checklist- Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
Page 4 of 6
4. Marsh
a. Sediment noted
b. Inadequate vegetation J 4
- Unhealthy 4 4
- Sparse Isolated patches of sparse vegetation
observed. Supplemental plantings
recommended.
c. Disease/insect infestation
d. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation
e. Floating or floatable debris removal required V,
f. Odor (foul or chemical) .,
g. Visible pollution (oil, foam, fish kill) ,
5. Shoreline
a. Inadequate vegetation vt
- Unhealthy
- Sparse ., Isolated patches of sparse vegetation
observed. Supplemental plantings
recommended.
b. Disease/insect infestation
c. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation J
d. Shoreline problems (erosion, slumping) 4 4
6. Woody vegetation/soil bioengineering slope
protection 4 4
a. Inadequate vegetation
- Unhealthy
- Sparse .,
b. Disease/insect infestation ,
c. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation %1 4
d. Slope erosion ,
e. Woody vegetation pruned yearly when
dormant J
f. Grass mowed yearly in fall
7. Upland grass buffer J , Evidence of minor animal browsing
observed
a. Inadequate vegetation
- Unhealthy „
- Sparse 4 4
b. Disease/insect infestation 4 4
c. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation 4 „ Several bare areas observed.
BMP Checklist- Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
Page 5 of 6
Supplemental plantings recommended.
d. Standing water or wet slopes
e. Sediment/trash accumulation
f. Grass mowed yearly in fall
Embankment
1. Inadequate vegetation
a. Unhealthy
b. Sparse , Several bare areas observed.
2. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation .! %I
3. Unauthorized plantings 4 4
4. Root voids V ,,/
5. Animal borrows %1 Muskrat borrows noted. 11
6. Embankment erosion 4 4
7. Slope protection V
8. Seepage/leaks on downstream face J 4
9. Other (specify) 4
Stream Relocation
1. Scour in outer bends d v'
2. Sediment in pools 4 %t
3. Woody vegetation/bioengineering slope
protection 4 Evidence of hand-cutting observed.
a. Inadequate vegetation 4 %1
- Unhealthy %I %I
- Sparse ,?{ {
b. Disease/insect infestation ,
c. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation
d. Slope erosion
e. Woody vegetation pruned yearly when
dormant 4 4 No pruning necessary.
f. Grass mowed yearly in fall 4 4 Mowing not recommended at time of
assessment.
Buffer
1. Inadequate vegetation
a. Unhealthy
b. Sparse
2. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation ,J %1
3. Unauthorized plantings (i.e., woody plantings of
sewer or embankments %I
4. Woody vegetation pruned yearly when dormant 4 4
BMP Checklist- Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
Page 6 of 6
5. Grass mowed yearly in fall
6. Concentrated flow (not sheet flow)
Bridge
1. Railing
a. Excessive splintering
b. Balusters missing d „ Several isolated balusters missing 12
2. Decking 4 4
a. Raised nails , a+
b. Warped planks .! %I
c. Rotten wood 4 4
3. Concrete footings
a. Cracks or displacement
b. Minor spalling (>1 ") 4 4
c. Major spalling (rebar exposed)
4. Fastening/mounting brackets
a. Loose 4 4
b. Corrosion/rusting
Sidewalk
1. Concrete cracks or displacement 4 4 Minor cracking noted
2. Settling (tripping concern) ,
Other
1. Encroachment on easement area %1 4 Areas of foot traffic noted
2. Complaints from residents %t N/
3. Vandalism .1+
4. Trash/dumping 4 4
5. Signs removed
6. Public hazards (specify)
7. Maintenance access 4 4
8. Other (specify)
* Inspection Frequency Key: A = Annual, M = Monthly, S = After Major Storm
BMP CHECKLIST
BMP ID: Piersons Pond
Project ID: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Date: 10.30.07
Checked Maintenance
Needed Inspection
Frequency* Remarks Photo
ID
Yes No Yes No A, M. S
Buffer ., A
1. Inadequate Vegetation , A
a. Unhealthy { A
b. Sparse , A
2. Disease/Insect Infestation A
3. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetative
growth A Undesirable vegetative growth near
bottom of embankment (porcelain-berry,
Chinese wisteria); some woody
vegetation had been pruned at time of
October 30, 2007 field visit, but
additional maintenance needed. 15
4. Unauthorized Plantings (i.e., woody plantings
over sewer or embankment) 4 ,* A Butterfly bushes planted in utility
easement and on embankment near
adjoining residence. 16
5. Woody vegetation pruned yearly when dormant 4 %1 A
6. Grass mowed yearly in fall 4 4 A Annual mowing had not yet been
completed at time of October 30, 2007
field visit. Sweetgum and willow oak
saplings observed growing out of riprap
on embankment. 17
7. Erosion A
a. Bank A
b. Entrance channel A
c. Embankment 4 A Some evidence of muskrats observed. 18
d. Outfall channel , ve A
8. Sedimentation A
a. Banks .+ A
b. Entrance channel A
9. Existing Utilities A
a. Exposure , A
b. Failure A
10. Concentrated Flow (not sheet flow) A
11. Other (specify) , A
* Inspection Frequency Key: A = Annual, M = Monthly, S = After Major Storm
BMP CHECKLIST
BMP ID: Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
Project ID: Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Date:
Checked Maintenance
Needed Inspection
Frequency* Remarks Photo
ID
Yes No Yes No A, M, S
Inlet No. 1 A 19
1. Erosion/scour , A
2. Debris removal necessary { A
3. Headwall ,a+ A
a. Cracks or displacement A
b. Minor spalling (>1") A Observed on concrete face
c. Major spalling (rebar exposed) J , A
d. Joint failures ?,? + A
4. Other (specify) A
Inlet No. 2/Seconday Outlet A,S 20
1. Erosion/scour 4 A,S Eroded channel downstream of inlet 21
2. Debris removal necessary 4 ,l A,S
3. Headwall ., A,S
a. Cracks or displacement A,S
b. Minor spalling (>1") ,?{ { A,S
c. Major spalling (rebar exposed) v A,S
d. Joint failures + A,S
4. Riprap failure A,S Riprap displaced
5. Other (specify) A,S
Riser/Primary Outlet A,S 22
1. Weir trash rack maintenance , V, A,S
a. Debris removal necessary A,S
b. Corrosion A,S Minor rusting only
2. Excessive sediment accumulation inside riser ., A,S Large wooden debris observed inside 23
3. Concrete condition ., A,S
a. Cracks or displacement A,S
b. Minor spalling (>1") A,S Observed on concrete face
c. Major spalling (rebar exposed) d °'? A ,S One area >1" on backside of riser but
no exposed rebar
d. Joint failures ,{ ?{ A,S
BMP Checklist - Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
Page 2 of 4
e. Seepage/leaks A,S
4. Metal condition A,S
a. Orifice plates clogged J , A,S
b. Bolts loose 4 4 A,S Some bolts slightly bent
c. Corrosion *1 A,S Minor rusting
5. Outfall channel d 4 A,S 24
a. Erosion/scour 4 A ,S Active erosion and riprap displacement
observed below outfall 25
b. Debris removal necessary 4 A,S
c. headwall 4 .,? A,S
- Cracks or displacement %1 4 A,S
- Minor spalling (>1") ,?{ { A ,S Minor spalling observed - most
previously patched
- Major spalling (rebar exposed) v A,S
- Joint failures 4 4 A,S
6. Other (specify) A,S
Permanent Pools M Only area immediately around riser
contained water 26
1. Sediment forebay 4 4 M
a. Sediment noted Ne V, M
b. Sediment cleanout when depth <50% design d j M
c. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation 4 4 M
d. Floating or floatable debris removal required 4 ,l M Minor urban debris observed
e. Odor (foul or chemical) 4 .,? M
f. Visible pollution (oil, foam) M
2. Outlet Pool { M Contained only several inches of rain
from recent event
a. Sediment noted M
b. Sediment cleanout when depth <50% design J M
c. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation 4 .? M
d. Floating or floatable debris removal required J , M Minor urban debris observed
e. Odor (foul or chemical) J %I M
f. Visible pollution (oil, foam) 4 4 M
3. Shoreline M
a. Inadequate vegetation .?} M Consists only of maintained lawn grass
and scattered ornamentals
- Unhealthy ., M
- Sparse M Lawn grasses
b. Disease/insect infestation , M
BMP Checklist - Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
Page 3 of 4
c. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation M
d. Shoreline problems (erosion, slumping) M
4. Other (specify) M
Dry Pond M 27
1. Upland grass buffer M
a. Inadequate vegetation d „ M
- Unhealthy 4 4 M
- Sparse , M Lawn grasses
b. Disease/insect infestation .! %I M
c. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation 4 4 M
d. Standing water or wet spots M
e. Sediment or trash accumulation „ M
f. Grass mowed yearly in fall M Area is actively mowed as part of
community maintenance
2. Wet meadow %l' M 27
a. Inadequate vegetation 4
M Area is actively mowed as part of
community maintenance and consists
only of lawn grass
- Unhealthy 4 M
- Sparse Ne M Lawn grasses
b. Disease/insect infestation d „ M
c. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation 4 M
d. Standing water or wet spots V, M
e. Sediment or trash accumulation 4 %1 M
f. Erosion/scour 4 M Erosion and riprap displacement
observed 28
g. Woody vegetation pruned yearly when
dormant 4 4
M Area is actively mowed as part of
community maintenance and consists
only of lawn grass
h. Grass mowed yearly in fall v M
Embankment M 29
1. Inadequate vegetation 4 M
a. Unhealthy J .4' M
b. Sparse % 4 M Lawn grasses
2. Undesirable (woody, invasive) vegetation 4 4 M
3. Root voids d % M
4. Animal borrows 4 4 M
5. Embankment erosion %J* %e M
6. Slope protection 4 %1 M
BMP Checklist - Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
Page 4 of 4
7. Potholes/pavement failure on Willow Park
Drive 4 .,? M Only minor cracking observed
8. Other (specify)
Other M
1. Encroachment on easement area 4 4 M
2. Complaints from residents *1 M
3. Vandalism d „ M Graffiti observed on Inlet No. 1 30
4. Trash/dumping 4 4 M
5. Signs removed %,* %e M No signs observed
6. Public hazards (specify) 4 %1 M
7. Maintenance access , M
8. Other (specify) M
* Inspection Frequency Key: A = Annual, M = Monthly, S = After Major Storm
--J* 04k
SP ?'!? fi• ? .NYC . 4 -
IPr
r)kl.
7 •
PHOTO 1: View of BMP from bridge facing east.
PHOTO 3: Diversion Box.

ILI
f?
PHOTO 2: View of BMP from bridge facing west.
y ...R}} liter `? ??
,?Y?-'lT Sj y?9 ..: ??7 f.: rl,???w}Y J??y "?'• ? ?'(?A}?K?1
S'l
PHOTO 5: Patching on masonry box. PHOTO 6: Junction Box
Taken by: JoL BMP PHOTOGRAPHS
Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
Checked by: LJB
4149tow ME Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project u1L & Date: 10-23-2007 Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 1
PHOTO 4: Top concrete slab of Diversion Box.

PHOTO 8- Minor crackina-

,

PHOTO 9: Outfall channel.

11 +
?IS rr` L??? ? Yt? p ?? t
A
6y1 Ay ? ? i?

+ ?? ?i f ~ i. r ,
cr
? a

PHOTO 11: Muskrat burrow. PHOTO 12: Missing baluster.
Taken by: JoL BMP PHOTOGRAPHS
Sheffield Park Constructed Wetland
Checked by: LJB
4149tow ME Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project u1L & Date: 10-23-2007 Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 2
PHOTO 10: Erosion around outfall pipe.
PHOTO 15: Invasive growth.
PHOTO 16: Butterfly bushes in easement.
1
?i
PHOTO 17: Vegetative growth on embankment.
Taken by: JoL
Checked by: LJB
Date: 10-23-2007
yLi, 4
k 6 ry.it ?
Muskrat tra
t -1 S&ME
BMP PHOTOGRAPHS
Piersons Pond
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 3

.14

K

PHOTO 20- Inlet No_ 2_

.
r i
fi
r _ ?
•?'?. ? -,te

T-r
s

I
a is
m
PHOTO 22: Riser/primary Outlet.

PHOTO 23: Debris inside riser. PHOTO 24: Outfall channel.
Taken by: JoL BMP PHOTOGRAPHS
Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
Checked by: LJB
4149tow ME Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project u1L & Date: 10-23-2007 Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 4
PHOTO 21: Eroded channel and displaced riprap.

A
J
z+?
i.,i r K Y? tw'+
?Ib

PHOTO 25: Erosion near outfall channel.

l
aw
-
-

PHOTO 27: Dry pond and wet meadow.

26: Permanent

PHOTO 28: Eroded channel and displaced riprap.
PHOTO 29:View of embankment. PHOTO 30: Graffiti on Outlet No. 1.
Taken by: JoL BMP PHOTOGRAPHS
Willow Park Extended Detention Pond
Checked by: LJB
4149tow ME Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project u1L & Date: 10-23-2007 Charlotte, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-07-037 PHOTO PAGE 5