20010606 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20081029

of _ oC,OC-
EDWARDS BRANCH
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
2007 Post-Construction Monitoring Report
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Prepared for: Prepared by:
charbt "ftCklen M"
STORM
WATE R. ___= ME
Services
Charlotte Storm Water Services S&ME, Inc.
600 East Fourth Street 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2844 Charlotte, North nCCaarro(lliina 28273
E U !:! RE
July 2008 O C T 2 9 2008
npuR - WATER QUALITY
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&ME Project 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
Joey Lawler, P.W.S.
Natural Resources Project Manager
Lisa J. Beckstr , C.E., C.W.B
Natural Resources Department Manager
Senior Reviewer
JOULJB/jol S:\1357\PROJECTS\2007\07-038 COC - Edwards Branch
SBME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Blvd / Charlotte, NC 28273 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / 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 Project 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 1 B: 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
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project 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 1B. 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.
2007 Post-Construction Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project 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 I I I Longitudinal Profile Graphs
Appendix IV Cross Section Analysis and Graphs
Appendix V Vegetation Tables
Appendix VI AOC Photographs
Appendix VII BMP Checklists and Photographs
00
Cl)
O
0
r-
r
O
z
t5
a)
O
0
a
a?
`o
.c
O
0
0
N
c
O
U
c
O
U
0
O
CL

m
O

? _O
O
V
0
++
m
4. N Q Q O U)
'p O
O d d a) (n z z z
LE 4)
NN
I.I. co

C

c a
d

o c ° c
L.
R L
a
E CO r
y N U) N U) > i O Q Q
o m a a z z z

a E
E
CD
4.0
M
=

-

a?
L
C l)
/

E L CO)

L r+
m
+
+
co
t O
_ m

m &-
0
O
1-
LU a.
U)
o
-ate z z
L
m
3 m °-'
-a a? a
W
co

O
N
c6 M
--

^ "?
Cf)
o CY)

Q
0) O
ao
0
= O A
O
2:
m cu Q >
L-
0

O

U
U)
+
+ p U)
i ca O
V = a) c a? U .) -0
U) 2
O
L
U) m m
Co w cn
V L co V U W
_
V/ CO > U) V/ co co W
L
L
U
0
U)
a)
V
V
7
cn
4-
O
R
E
m
cn
_N
r
00
co
O
r
0
r-
U)
6
Z
U
N
.O
w
U)
V-
0
CL
N
aI
C
Ct
C
O
0
0
N
C
O
U
L
cn
c
O
d
d d

y LO
O LO LO
O
o y O
M
d 4)

N

L m o
00

N
r
m 2 Q
C1
) N

ti (6

u
N e
ti
'
IT
O f- v, '
o to O
d
L U
00
I?t
't
fA
d r r
N ti

c
C O M
O e

7 m

O
O
CO
ti
O 3 V

+L+ N co

c0
ti
co
d 0 00 h O N m O co
co 0-6

.O
G1
V O
N
d
u
M

`- V
++
y

?
cy
co
ti
Lo O
a
-
co d
o U
) 0
:r >
O
(A
t+
rn
(0 G.
E
g
E o
N '0 jp
L
N
r
m L.
V co LO ?
s V

L L
N 0
r
r r
r r
r #
y+

V
=
ti co
O

d LO

00
U')
ti
co

a)

(D
d
J ch N y a
) a>
? Q Q

y N N co O O
cm L
cu L
co L
m U U
m

C C ?
O
U Co -C O
C m
(D
Y
m ? m % C O
co am O O -0 cn c a m IL V
m fn W N ?,.2 d = O
O E L E O v O w L H
CL a) ?=3 N c °
-0 L-
CL L- M. C
_ wc0 coo) - a.WA -co U
m
N
as
L
ea
N
C
L
O
C
CO
G
O
E
m
m
d
H
M
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project 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.
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project July 30. 2008
Southgate Branch
Comparison of the As-built and Year I 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
5
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project 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 styraciflua) 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 Project 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
R
t
ti
Southgate Branch Stream Restoration
on:
es
ora 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 Project 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 3,589 If 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 Project 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 Project 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, D50, D84 and D95 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 II. 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 Project 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 Project 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 MHAP,
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: Ed wards Branch a t 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
Tarrin ton 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 Project July 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 (600 lbs./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
Ratin : Good Fair/
Good Good Good Good Good Good
Site: Edwards Branch at Driftwood Drive 130804
Date Sampled: 7/01 8/02 7103 7104 7/05 7/06 6/07
WQI: 65.9 60.3 73.6 59.5 66.09 NS NS
Water Quality
Ratin : 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 Ibs/acre/ r 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 Project 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 bankf ill 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
Flood prone 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
Flood prone 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 Project July 30, 2008
Flood prone 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
Flood prone 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
Thalwe Length ft: 3,540 3,589 3,538
Sinuosit : 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 Project July 30, 2008
Valle 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
D35 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 l Year 2
D35 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 Project July 30. 2008
Graphs IA and 1B present the Year 2 particle size distribution for Edwards Branch.
Graph 1A: Year 2 Particle Size Distribution for Edwards Branch
100.0%
90.0%
i
80.0% +
-
70.0%
i
i60.0% --
? ? XS1 Riffle
50.0 % - +XS2 Pool
a
`o XS3 Riffle
--x-XS4 Pool
u 40.0% -- - - -
IL
30.0% - +
i
20.0%
li
10.0%
-
0.0% --
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
vraan i b: Year z
100.0%
90
0%
.

80.0%

70.0%
`m
c
E
m 60.0% 1
m
u
Y
IL 50.0%
`o
c
u

m 40.0%
CL

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
0.01 0.1
-6 Pool Composite
t Riffle Composite
Overall Composite
varticie Size uistribution Tor tawaras rsrancn
17
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
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
VP1 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 Project July 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: South ate Branch at 1114 Tarrin ton Avenue B0801
Date Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
Assessment
Score: 46 46 46.5_f 105 NS 115 100
NS=Not Sampled
Table 16: Macrobenthic Invertebrate Monitoring Summary
Site: Southg ate Bran ch at 11 14 Tarrin ton Avenue 130801
Date Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7105 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: Sout hgate Br anch at 1114 Tarrin ton Avenue 130 801
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
Ratin : 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 Project 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
Flood prone 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
Flood prone 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
Thalwe Length ft : 577 567
Sinuosit : 1.03 1.02
22
Post-Construction 2007 Monitoring Report S&ME Project No. 1357-07-038
Edwards Branch Watershed Improvement Project 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 fUft 0.0142 0.0140
Valle Slope fUft 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 XSI (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
D35 11.51 1.8
D50 15.06 8.41
D84 27.2 422.99
D95 41.25 1357.04
Cross Section ID: XS2
Feature: Riffle
Date Measured: As-built Year 1
D35 7.89 7.86
D50 12.02 17.2
D84 29.56 72.7
D95 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 Project July 30 2008
Graph 2: Year 1 Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution for Southgate
Branch
100.0%
I
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
--
-

i

4

I
M 60.0%
-
I
?
t
?
m
+XS1 Pool
a 50.0% - r --~XS2 Riffle
c

c
Overall Composde

40.0
%
L
30.0%
--

20.0% ? lil
10.0% -
0.0%
1
0.01 0.1 1 1 0
10
0
1
000
0
000
Pa rt icl e Size ( mm )
5.4 Vegetation Monitoring
During the October 2007 field review, one previously established vegetative plot (SG 1)
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 Project 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
A en 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.
Invasive golden bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea) on
2 6 32 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 Project 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 Project July 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 Project July 30 2008
Table 27: Water Quality Monitoring Summary
Site: Winterfield Tr ibutary a t 3100 Winterfield Place B 0805
Date
Sampled: 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05 7/06 7/07
WQL 73 36.8 73.7 69.6 72.85 NS NS
Water Quality
Ratin : Good Fair/
Good Good Good Good NS NS
NS=Not -?amplecl
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
Flood prone 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
Flood prone 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 Project July 30. 2008
6.3.2 Pattern
Approximately 281 if of Winterfield Tributary was surveyed in connection with the Year
2 monitoring. According to the AMEC 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
Thalwe Length ft : 172.5* 281 281
Sinuosit : 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 Winterfield Tributary
Parameter As-built Year 1 Year 2
Water Surface Slo e ft/ft 0.0262 0.0204 0.020
Bankfull Slope ft/ft Not provided 0.0242 0.020
Valle 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 Winterfield Tributary
Cross Section ID: XS1
Feature: Riffle
Date Measured: As-built Year 1 Year 2
D35 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 Project July 30. 2008
Date Measured: As-built Year 1 Year 2
D35 >0.0625 0.21 0.63
D50 0.79 0.46 0.96
D84 189 156 81.7
D95 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%
i
i

--
80.0%
-
a
70.0 /
I
`m
C
LL 60.0%
?

N
Z
+XS1 Riffle
M 50.0%
a - - - - - -+t-XS2 Pool
`p - Overall composite
c
40.0%
a
0%
20.0%
10.0%

P
I
0.0% - t L r-- - LL'
0.01 0.1 1 10 10 0 10 00 10 000
P ar tic 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 Protect July 30, 2008
Table 32: Winterfield Tributary Stability AOC
Appendix V1
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 Project 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 Project 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 Project 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 Project 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 styraciua) 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