20060558 Ver 2_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20140825

Stream Restoration Year 2 [2013] Monitoring Report
Unnamed Tributary to Long Creek, Catawba River Basin,
Mecklenburg County, NC
USACOE: SAW- 2009 -01298
DWQ: 06- 0558v2
Twin Lakes Business Park
Property Owners Association, Inc.
Dec. 20, 2013
HAR
HABITAT ASSESSMENT & RESTORATION PROFESSIONALS
301 McCullough Drive, 4th Floor Office 704.841.2841
Charlotte, NC 28262 Fax [phone]

Table of Contents
Page
Section 1.
Site Background Information 2
A.
Site Location and Watershed Setting 2
B.
Summary of Stream Restoration 2
a. Restoration Goals and Objectives 2
b. Restoration Schedule 3
Section 2.
As -built Conditions 4
A.
Fluvial Geomorphology 4
a. Pattern 4
b. Dimension 4
c. Profile 4
B.
Hydrologic Restoration 5
C.
Habitat and Plant Community Restoration 5
D.
Conservation Area 5
Section 3.
Year 2. Monitoring 6
Section 4. 2013 Yr. 2 Outstanding Matters /Contingency Considerations 8
Appendices
A. Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
B. Yr. 2. Photo
C. Tables
Location Map
Topographic Catchment
As Built Planimetric Map
As Built Planting /community Map
Year 2 Monitoring Longitudinal Profile
Year 2 Monitoring Cross Sections
Littoral Planting Areas of Ponds
Planimetric Map Showing Areas of Concern
Aerial Photos of Potential Watershed Erosion Area
Station Photos
10
P. 1

Section 1. Site Background Information
A. Site Location and Watershed Setting
Site Location: Figure 1 includes a location map and driving directions to both the proposed
restoration reach and the reference reach sites. These sites both lie within the Twin Lakes
Business Park and are located within adjacent catchments within the headwaters to Long Creek.
The connector roads in the Park are now cut by the outerbelt right -of -way, and the two sites must
be accessed from different entrances as indicated in the driving directions noted on Figure 1.
Watershed setting: Figure 2 shows the 1:24,000 USGS topographic and hydrographic data
for the vicinity of the Twin Lakes Business Park. On this map, the watershed boundaries have
been delineated for both the proposed restoration reach and the reference reach. Both watersheds
are headwater catchments of Long Creek (Catawba River Basin) and lie within the North
Carolina Piedmont Physiographic Region.
The drainage basin contributing to stream flow at the lower end of the proposed restoration
site is approximately 0. 15 square miles. Three small subcatchments converge on the reach
within the drained lake at the restoration site. The drainage basin contributing to stream flow at
the reference reach is also 0.15 square miles. The proposed restoration reach and reference reach
are both 1St order tributaries that have perennial flow. The USGS map shows only the pre-
existing lake at the restoration site with an intermittent blue line extending down stream from the
lake. Visits to the site over the last few years have demonstrated that the main channel feeding
the pond (from the NNE subcatchment) is a perennial stream with persistent year round
baseflow. While the USGS map shows the reference reach as an intermittent stream, persistent
baseflow was noted throughout August to November 2005, a period during which there had been
below average precipitation, and for which the regional water table would normally have reached
its annual low level.
B. Summary of Stream Restoration
a. Restoration Goal and Objectives.
The goals of the proposed restoration activities were to restore original morphologic,
hydrologic and ecologic functions to approximately 437 linear feet of a Rosgen E5 /C5 stream
reach in northern Mecklenburg County along an un -named 1 st order perennial stream in
conjunction with the preservation, enhancement and restoration of approximately 0.6 acres of
bottomland wetlands. The stream and bottomland wetlands are located within the "Twin Lakes
Business Park" on a common area open space tract held by the Twin Lakes Park Owners
Association, Inc. The site was formerly a small pond, but due to road widening along US21 in
association with construction of the nearby I -485 Charlotte outerbelt, NCDOT drained the pond
and installed a riprap lined ditch to collect and convey runoff to the new culvert that was placed
under the widened US21 (the latter installed at the sedimented -in level of the old pond bottom).
Watershed runoff from approximately 0.15 sq. mi. flowed into the former pond where it was
conveyed along a channel, with more ditch -like characteristics than that of a natural stream, to
the outflow culvert (Figure 3 of original 2006 plan). In 2006, a restoration plan was submitted
p. 2

and approved for a NW27 permit for stream restoration at the site in conjunction with the
formation of two small ponds to serve as value -added amenities for the open space plan within
the business park. The 2006 plan was not implemented due to construction access limitations
that persisted until the fall of 2008. The original restoration permit expired in April of 2007.
Between April of 2007 and Spring of 2009, the vegetation, hydrology and soils in the drained
pond bottom continued to evolve, such that in May of 2009 when it was determined that
construction access could again be gained from the recently completed Hwy 21 corridor,
substantial areas of jurisdictional wetlands formed. Thus, in May and June of 2009, the target
restoration area was assessed for jurisdictional wetlands (see Rindner report, Appendix to 2009
restoration plan).
Due to regulatory requirements, the existence of significant jurisdiction wetlands in the old
drained pond bottom required that any restoration attempted at the site provide for increased
wetland and stream benefits. Thus, the 2009 restoration plan revised the original plan to protect,
enhance and restore additional wetlands at the site as a North Carolina Bottomland Swamp
Forest habitat in conjunction with the stream restoration work. Overall, the revised 2009 plan for
restoration at the site aimed to restore the following water related resources within the old
drained pond bottom:
a) restore —437 feet of a Ist order perennial stream (much of which was a rip rap
ditch with no pools or riffles);
b) preserve —0.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands by incorporating these areas in a
permanent conservation easement;
c) enhance the above 0.4 acres of wetlands by blocking the artificial ditches that
were installed to promote drainage and by installing new plants to provide
diversification to existing grasses and shrubs and promote a robust NC
bottomland swamp forest wetland type habitat;
d) restore an additional — 0.2 acres of bottomland as Piedmont Bottomland Swamp
Forest wetland;
e) establish two open water areas in hydraulic equilibrium with floodplain shallow
aquifer and adjacent wetlands (as back water stream splay or ox -bow lake type
environments) to augment both aquatic resources at the site and park amenity site
goals; and
f) establish approximately 6000 square feet of littoral habitat in the shallow 0 -3 ft
fringe of open water ponds to promote broad spectrum ecological support at the
site.
b. Restoration Schedule: The 2009 restoration plan was submitted in early July of 2009
(SAC 2007 - 2368 -6NJ) and approved shortly thereafter. In the fall and winter of 2009/2010,
designs moved into construction plans and local permitting. Financing and final construction
contracts were approved in the late summer of 2010 and construction commenced in early
September. Grading on the site continued until the early part of November 2010. From
November to March, various aspects of the planting schedule were installed. As -built surveys
were conducted in the spring of 2011. In May of 2011, the official survey of the conservation
areas to be protected by the conservation instrument was completed. At the time of writing of
this as -built report, littoral plant installation is still outstanding, as these are usually a late spring
early summer installation. Due to the presence of geese in the ponds, it had been decided that the
p. 3

littoral zones should be planted in 2 or 3 phases with exclusion fencing. If the first plots are
successfully established, the remaining plots will be installed in 2012. Pond water levels are
being suppressed by 10 -12" to allow the deeper 2' depths of the littoral plant zones to adapt
gradually to deepening water conditions over a 30 -90 day period. Full pond levels should be re-
established by late summer.
Section 2. As -built Conditions
A. Fluvial Geomorphology
The overall morphologic parameters of the restored stream's pattern, dimension, and
profile closely followed the reference reach -based design elements laid forth within the original
60% design documents submitted and approved by the NW27 permit. The basic morphologic
design parameters are laid out in Table 3 of the initial plan (included here in Appendices). The
design initially laid forth in this document was adapted slightly to accommodate tie -in elevations
and zones of unstable running sand encountered during excavation of the new channel through
the old pond sediment. The spillways for both ponds were shifted to opposing stream banks in
order to minimize areas of potential impacts from future potential maintenance, the placement of
a grade control sill at the lower end of both spillways, and to facilitate construction.
a) Pattern Restoration: Figure 3 (in Appendices) shows the surveyed constructed pattern
as measured using standard stream morphologic survey methods in the winter of 2011 following
final construction of the stream in early November of 2010. The restored intermittent stream
channel is approximately 485 feet in length and is broken up into approximately 18 riffle
(inflection) areas and 18 pool (meander) areas. The restored stream pattern parameters followed
the guidelines laid out in the initial restoration plan. The constructed new alignment follows the
alignment laid forth in the initial restoration plans, selected to avoid and enhance existing
wetlands, and mimic meander belt width, radii of meander curvature, and the meander
wavelengths observed in the reference reach.
b) Dimension Restoration: Figure 6 in Appendix A illustrates the typical cross sections
that have been constructed along the length of the restored stream for both inflection and
meander areas. The surveyed data for these monitoring cross sections are tabulated and provided
in Appendix C. Each monitoring cross section has permanent stakes placed for successive re-
occupation over the 5 years of monitoring. A reasonably consistent bankfull cross section area,
aligned with the parameters established by the reference reach, is maintained throughout the
restoration, with exception of the last —100' or so feet that drops the stream into the culvert that
crosses under US Highway 21. Here, two floodplain benches were necessary (see Figure 3) to
maintain an appropriate bankfull dimension and floodprone width.
c) Longitudinal Profile Restoration: The constructed longitudinal profile was surveyed
by conventional stream morphologic methods (tape and transit level). The final survey tables of
the data and a plot of the longitudinal profile (Figure 5) are included in Appendices. On the plot
of the longitudinal profile, the two primary fluvial habitats, riffles and pools, are separated. At
the upper tie -in, a midway point (at the end of the pond spillways) and at the lower tie -in grade
control structures were installed. The upper and lower tie -in areas had conventional cross vanes
installed and the midway point had a grade control sill put in. The grade control structures were
ism

constructed by: 1) over excavation, 2) placement of ABC and nonwoven filter fabric as a
preparatory bed for the grade control tabular stones, 3) laying in both a footer and upper layer of
large tabular rock to bring the stream to its design bed elevations, and 4) chinking voids with
smaller rocks, and then matting and seeding banks for the transition around the structure. Also
for grade control, each of the constructed riffle zone had continuous underplating with nonwoven
filter fabric to inhibit any potential for either `outflanking' or incision over time, and at least 1/3
of the stone placed had diameters in excess of expected mobility thresholds.
B. Hydrologic Restoration for Stream and Wetlands
The hydrology of the restoration area has already stabilized. By early March of 2011,
both ponds were full and in equilibrium with water levels in the upslope wetlands. While the
stream was initially thought to be transitional from intermittent to perennial in hydrologic nature,
it is likely to be perennial, as it has flowed continuously since its completion in November. All
adjacent wetlands have had surface or near surface water continuously from late February to the
1St of June. The two small areas of floodplain bench grading (along the southeastern perimeter of
the stream restoration) may, or may not, transition to permanent or seasonal wetlands. Overall,
the creation of low head berms along the fringes between the lower pond and the NW wetland
areas provides a net aerial expansion as well as a temporal increase in the duration of wetland
hydrologic conditions. In addition, to insure grading did not have a detrimental impact on
existing wetlands, coir fiber log runs were established at the downslope areas to those wetlands
not protected by the low head pond berms. These logs will transition to soil and form permeable
retardation berms for the existing wetlands. At the time of As Built report documentation, the
project met, and in several areas exceeded, design expectations.
C. Habitat and Plant Community Restoration
Figure 4 (Appendix A) shows an overview of the restoration area broken down into its
four primary habitat areas. These are the a) riparian banks along the stream corridor, b) the
bottomland ,`Piedmont Swamp Forest', floodplain wetlands, c) the surrounding hill slopes which
target a general Piedmont Upland Forest community dominated by native hardwood species, and
d) the aquatic plant community to be established in the 0' to 2' water depths around about 70%
of the perimeters of the two ponds. All habitat communities use native species in comparable
ecological settings, adapted to local factors of microclimate, soils, and hydrology. The final
installed range or mix of species used in each of these areas is laid forth in Table 5 (Appendix
C). Survivorship of these installed plants is discussed in the monitoring and contingency section
that follows.
D. Conservation Area
The project includes a conservation area to limit disturbance within the restored stream,
wetlands and habitat areas. This area is approximately a 2.6 acres that extends from the upper
stream restoration tie -in down to US Hwy 21 (see Figure 4, Appendix A).
Ii

Section 3 Year 2 Monitoring
Monitoring for Year 2 was conducted in the latter part of the 2012 growing season (site
work from late Sept. to Oct.). The monitoring included stream, wetland, littoral shelf and upland
buffer habitat areas. The stream monitoring consists of:
• a series of visual check points where formal photostation monuments have been
installed. The locations of the formal photostations are shown on Figure 3,
• a survey of the restored stream's longitudinal profile, noting elevations of stream
bed, and water surface at the start and ending of each constructed riffle zone, each
meander pool, and for all other grade control rock structures (e.g. sills and cross
vanes). This is to be compared to the as built report longitudinal profile,
• a survey of the formal monitoring cross sections noting morphologic breaks in
slope, top and toe of left and right stream banks, and water depth at thalweg
locations.
• Other visual observations as noted in a traverse of the stream bed from lower to
upper tie in points.
Vegetation monitoring for wetlands, uplands and littoral shelf plant communities is
provided by formal representative transects crossing a representative sample of each habitat
community. The locations of the plant community monitoring transects are shown on Figure 5.
Photographs taken along transects are included in Appendix B, and the numerical plant
monitoring data is provided in the table provided in Appendix C.
Stream Elements: The proposed stream monitoring for this stream restoration is as follows.
Preparation and submittal of as -built document providing constructed pattern,
dimension and profile sheets that also show the location of all in stream structures,
and recommended photo stations. Photo stations are to be set up for up and down
stream tie in points, and at selective meander bends and a photo should be
provided looking both up and down stream at each station.
Field checks with archiving of photo documentation of creek conditions during
first year of flow following completion of planting program after each significant
storm (0.5 inches of rainfall), or alternatively on a bi- monthly schedule.
Surveys of longitudinal profile and three representative cross sections for each of
the five monitoring years following completion of restoration activities along with
photographs from each of the established photo stations.
Year 2 Stream Morphologic Results:
The longitudinal profile surveyed in the Year 2 monitoring cycle shows one area of
significant departure from the as built profile from station 270 to about 390. The as built, year 1
and yr 2 data sets are overlain in Figure 5. One can see there is a reasonable agreement of the
three sets of observations with regards to pool depths along the restored stream bed. However,
riffle elevations have been aggregated by siltation due to sediment trapping with areas of
`hempvine' encroached onto the stream banks and riffle areas from about station 270 to station
390 (area of encroachment shown in figures 5 & 8). As noted in the vegetation monitoring
IS

(discussed below) this species may be shaded out over the next couple of years as riparian woody
species mature. At this time, we view the influence of the hempvine as `threatening' but not a
problem that should trigger remedial site work at this time. Should the morphologic data show
further aggregation of the stream bed in the next monitoring cycle, a remedial action plan will
have to be developed to remove the hempvine and then monitor bed recovery through a series of
follow on storm events. Once the hempvine is removed, underlying cobble -based riffle zones
should re- emerge after storm flow has remobilized the finer sediment that had been trapped by
the mats of vines now covering the bed in the zone.
The surveys of the cross sections likewise show little significant change except in cross
section 3 where the hempvine has caused sediment trapping and aggredation of the stream bed.
The plots of the cross section data and the survey data tables are found in Appendix C. The area
of the stream with hempvine will have to be closely watched, and the 2014 monitoring will have
to evaluate the need for invasive species removal and whether or not stream banks and the stream
bed will require any physical restructuring that can not be adequately recovered by natural
processes of stream flow.
Should the 2014 monitoring reveal the need to address deficiencies either in the channel,
banks, or riparian buffer areas the monitoring agent is to inform property owner /manager of the
problem. Property owner /manager is to seek appropriate professional advise for remedial action
and implement corrective actions as soon as is practical, but the corrective actions should be
undertaken no longer than one year following initial notice of the problem. Should a corrective
action be undertaken within the 5t' year, or for a problem arising during the 5th year, the
monitoring program is to be extended to provide verification of successful corrective actions for
at least one bankfull event following corrective actions.
Wetland Monitoring: Visual inspections of the wetland plant communities and
groundwater level loggers were both utilized during year 2 for monitoring wetlands adjacent to
restored stream and littoral areas of the two ponds. The groundwater levels recorded at the two
monitoring sites are shown in Figure 10. Both sites show water in the upper 12 inches in excess
of 18% of the NC Piedmont growing season (spring /early summer). One logger overflowed its
internal data memory by July Ist, but still revealed sufficient data prior to that to demonstrate
seasonal wetland conditions. The monitoring of wetland plant communities (Piedmont Swamp
Forest of Figure 4) is part of the overall vegetation community monitoring and the results are
presented in tabular form in appendix C.
Pond Littoral Habitat Monitoring: The littoral zone received its second cycle of planting
during the 2012 summer. The list of species installed in the littoral zone is shown in Table 5 of
Appendix C. Visual conditions are also documented with the established photo stations. Littoral
plants installed on the lower pond have suffered this year due to low water levels in the lower
(western of the two ponds). The upper pond has maintained a stable water level since
completion of construction, and all littoral plants are doing well. It is hoped that the
accumulation of fine silt and clay will better seal the bottom of the lower pond over time, and
help to stabilize its summer water levels. At this time we are recommending that water levels in
the lower pond be monitored for an additional year, and depending on where those levels are in
mid June of 2014, a new `full pond' level be set to the observed water line. Once this `stable'
growing season average water level is observed, a new littoral planting zone should be
p. 7

determined and a remedial littoral planting schedule be implemented.
Section 4. Outstanding Matters /Contingency Considerations
Past Noted Contingency Items: The 2012 monitoring report brought forth 5
outstanding matters where contingency mandates were set forth to address concerns.
1. The first was damage to the lower pond perimeter areas due to invasion and
burrowing of muskrats. These areas have been remediated, and no further
impacts have been noted during the 2013 monitoring cycle. The actions taken
follow the recommendations that were brought forth in the 2012 year 1 report.
2. Second, the 2012 report noted two 4 to 8 feet long sections of bank failure that
needed to be repaired. These areas were repaired with the methods as outlined in
the 2012 report in the late summer of 2012, and have remained stable during the
2013 monitoring cycle. These areas will be rechecked for stability during the next
monitoring cycle.
3. Third, the 2012 report recommended that the monitoring be expanded to include
wetland subsurface water levels in a couple of representative areas. While not
explicitly required in the originally approved restoration plan, two `Omega CP-
1000' logging piezometers have been installed in shallow wells using the standard
well protocol during the 2013 monitoring cycle. No data has been recovered from
the loggers to date.
4. A forth matter was the completion of the littoral edge planting program. This
deficiency has yet to be addressed for reasons discussed above in regards to the
unstable water levels in the lower pond. Further actions are discussed below.
5. The last item of concern was the control of invasive species on the site. One
round of selective spraying of the main areas of blackberry sprouting was
implemented after monitoring. Concerns regarding the `hempvine' encroachment
within the upper restored stream areas remain, as due concerns regarding the
invasive Baccharis halimifolia. At this time neither species appear to challenge
survivorship success criteria within the established riparian, wetland, littoral, or
upland forest habitat areas, and as such trigger no strict obligations for
implementation of a monitoring plan. The invasive species are further discussed
under continuing concerns below.
New and Continuing Contingency Items: There are 3 new and continuing contingency
matters to address in the 2014 and follow on monitoring years.
1. First is the continuing concerns of invasive or nuisance plant species. As
footnoted in the vegetative monitoring completed by HARP biologist John Soule:
"A significant threat to the site is the presence of invasive species. These
are Climbing hempvine, Mikania scandens, a perennial vine, and Eastern
Baccharis, Baccharis scandens, a perennial shrub. The hempvine is
restricted to the stream corridor and over grows the stream bank
vegetation. This adversely affects the stream shrubs and other vegetation.
I suspect that in time the hempvine will be shaded out by shrubs. The
Baccharis, however, invades open banks and will in time become the

dominate species present if the current seed sources and seedlings are not
removed. The Blackberry, Rubus sp. is still present in spots and will in time
become a significant problem as well if control measures are not
maintained.
In light of these observations, but also acknowledging that at the current time
native vegetative community success criteria are being met, this monitoring report
recommends that early, middle and late growing season observations of invasive
plants be assessed during 2014. Then it is recommended that the next 2014
monitoring report include a decisive invasive species management plan that best
insures that future success criteria for stream and plant habitat communities shall
be meet. One option would be to have additional monitoring years to potentially
demonstrate that native plants will self - establish and stabilize independent of the
presence of non - native or nuisance species, in lieu of an aggressive but perhaps
perpetual program of fighting invasive plants that have abundant nearby but off
property seed sources. The next monitoring report should assess options available
and provide the best recommendations that assure habitat goals of this restoration
project are achieved.
2. The second concern, also of a continuing nature, is the establishment of the
littoral aquatic habitat along the perimeter of the lower pond. As noted above,
the littoral plants installed on the lower pond have largely died back due to low
water levels during the growing season. At this time we are recommending that
water levels in the lower pond be monitored for an additional year, and depending
on where those levels are in mid June of 2014, a new `full pond' level be set to
the observed water line. Once this `stable' growing season average water level is
observed, a new littoral planting zone should be determined and a remedial littoral
planting schedule be implemented.
3. One new concern that has emerged that may not directly impact the project's
success criteria is land clearing and mass grading that has taken place on the
approximate 5 acre parcel of land that adjoins the restoration tract to the north.
Since completion of the restoration in 2011 this adjoining parcel of land (which
provides most of the upland runoff via an intermittent stream to the lower pond
within the restoration) was mass cleared and grubbed, and then regraded to
provide what appears to be a permanent bare dirt racing /practice track for a motor
sports concern. A large quantity of sediment has been transported into the lower
pond from this cleared plot of land. Aerial photos of the cleared land and the
sediment impacts to the lower pond are shown in the aerial photograph of Figure
9. There does not appear to be an adequate sediment and erosion control
management plan in place for the adjoining recently cleared parcel of land, which
could negatively affect habitat goals of this restoration project. Future monitoring
cycles may be challenged to incorporate measures to adequately assess impacts
should the adjoining site continue to release large quantities of sediment into the
intermittent stream, wetlands, and the restoration site's lower pond littoral habitat.

Appendix A.
Figures
P. 1

29
-4 lama
�rex��de � � J °pl°r
' 1:
�t " RJnfOPefiOR Site N ,.
Ir
I
'jtg }lam i i�"iy -616,
I
I ky
` I 44
51z
Y l
1.0 I{ill
05 mi —
Ob 2405 Yahaa! Inc I I 42005 N,*%VTEQ
Directions to Restoration Site
1. Take exit #18 /HARRIS BLVD /REAMES RD - go 0.3 mi
2. Turn on W WT HARRIS BLVD - go 0.3 mi
3. Turn on STATESVILLE RD - go 1.6 mi
4. Turn on ALEXANDERANA RD - go 0.2 mi
5. Turn on TWIN LAKES PKY - go 0.1 mi
6. Arrive at restoration site, open space on right with pinic tables, drained
pond sits and creek restoration site sits adjacent and NW of pinic area.
Directions to Reference Reach
1. Take exit #18 /HARRIS BLVD /REAMES RD - go 0.3 mi
2. Turn on W WT HARRIS BLVD - go 0.3 mi
3. Turn on STATESVILLE RD - go 0.8 mi
4. Turn on TWIN LAKES PKY - go 0.5 mi
5. Turn on VANCE DAVIS DR - go < 0.1 mi
6. Arrive at reference reach site, walk along right bank of lake follow I -485
construction corridor to east for 300 yds to creek, reference reach is first 300
feet downstream of box culvert
HA DTA-
AsSESSMENTANO Twin Lakes - Stream Project
RESTORATIOlJ Twin Lakes business Park Figure 1. Location and Driving Directions 03/09/06
PROGRAM IW -----

TOPOi map printed on 05/05/06 from "North Carolina.tpo" and ''Untitled.tpg"
80.855550 W WGS84 80.816670
z
0
W
W
in
M
L. —
,�. •ter .. _ t+€
Nigh $c $ t ire r:
Id
R ` �' ^ of - 1 - -•'�
JO
825 } . 5Mi2
` -'.. .15 mil
k I -
$�
Me
rN LA
qL
t
Restoration Reach Reach _
1h nd
Q)
_ + �.
A + 1
■ tc
'Wy
W
in
CO
80.855550 W WGS84 80.816670
MN TN G _ _ .5 1 MILE
7%` 1CCO Ft E I 0 5M IODO ME TEAS
Printed from TOPO! 02001 National Geogaphic Holding (vrww.topo.com)
HA9rrAT
AssEssmuvrmo Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 2. Twin Lakes Restoration and 11/07/05
PESTORAMN Twin Lakes Business Park Reference Reach Drainage Basins
PROGRAM Nc - - - -=

I I
I � h
28 pnq
a�.
Legend
As Built Graded Restoration Features
Existing Presented Seasonal Wetlands Low Gradient Pool Areas in all
Constructed Meander Bends
Areas oflmproved Seasonal Wetland Constructed Riffle habitat in all new
Hydrology (- 0.1 aa) Cons rote Riffle
Permanent Pond Areas. Controlled by R Grade and Flow Control Crossvane
Spillway (- 0.5 ac.) ock
Graded Low to Moderate Slope Littoral
Shelf. 0' -2' Depth (- 0.13 ac) O Rock Grade Control Sill
Low Height (c 2' earthen impoundment ® Flagstone Cascade S pill -a,
berms)
I Graded Floodplain Bench, Potential O Colt Fiber Log Wetland Retention Berms
Wetland Hydrology
11 CS
Monitoring Photo Station L M
ocations onitoring Cross Section Locations
1 — T`- -' \aaa, jjj
_TL -CS -3—
Approx. 485 linear feet
of Restored Perennial
— TL�CS -4
_ T P Stream
—
— — '
-- —_ - -_ '
— — — — — — — �M'l'S\ M17
Mll M13 TL -PS -5
R7� \R9
_
a0.
7600 � ..... �`.
Scale
POA -Twin Lakes Business Park Fiyure 3, Plnnilnetric View of As 5131111 30 0 30 60 feet,
Stream Restoration, North Si de guilt Restoration Con tlitions
Common Area
� 1
S �
wr
©R'159.na X99'
.pS.q
qP/
/
1 �
1
it
t9
'.TL
CSI
�I I
CS 2
TL CS 1
�l I
I
I
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
28 pnq
a�.
Legend
As Built Graded Restoration Features
Existing Presented Seasonal Wetlands Low Gradient Pool Areas in all
Constructed Meander Bends
Areas oflmproved Seasonal Wetland Constructed Riffle habitat in all new
Hydrology (- 0.1 aa) Cons rote Riffle
Permanent Pond Areas. Controlled by R Grade and Flow Control Crossvane
Spillway (- 0.5 ac.) ock
Graded Low to Moderate Slope Littoral
Shelf. 0' -2' Depth (- 0.13 ac) O Rock Grade Control Sill
Low Height (c 2' earthen impoundment ® Flagstone Cascade S pill -a,
berms)
I Graded Floodplain Bench, Potential O Colt Fiber Log Wetland Retention Berms
Wetland Hydrology
11 CS
Monitoring Photo Station L M
ocations onitoring Cross Section Locations
1 — T`- -' \aaa, jjj
_TL -CS -3—
Approx. 485 linear feet
of Restored Perennial
— TL�CS -4
_ T P Stream
—
— — '
-- —_ - -_ '
— — — — — — — �M'l'S\ M17
Mll M13 TL -PS -5
R7� \R9
_
a0.
7600 � ..... �`.
Scale
POA -Twin Lakes Business Park Fiyure 3, Plnnilnetric View of As 5131111 30 0 30 60 feet,
Stream Restoration, North Si de guilt Restoration Con tlitions
Common Area
� 1
S �
wr
©R'159.na X99'
.pS.q
qP/
/
1 �
1

-�__ -.
� I
�1N I
1�
1
1
...........
0-
- -�
oo ♦ i -�-��
. ........
1
I
I
Habitat and Plant Community
Map - As built
d
Riparian Woody Shrub
Bollomlard
Piedmont Swamp Forest
Low height woods, managed
shoreline (e.g. Coral Berry)
d
Littoral zones, 0 - 2' water depth,
planted with a di ePsity of aquatic spe-
c
Open water
It 1
Approx Location of Pedestrian Trail
CU
IM o m
ct:
Q
a U
c _
UCU
:7)
2
LL
Y �
tL U)
on L
to
00
Z
to
m 0
N.
0 N
� O �
J U l
� N Q
� C
O
~ t 6 E
¢OE
O CO)
tL(,

�8/
s�cA ice/.. Fien
Zz
'
9 �.i
/
CREEK CROSSING
�n_y
till
DETA SHE.- xI S rrar \ \
�ITC�r O - � \\ DENaDEDw+CA\ i\0 A \\ � ` \
e K
PR -3'Kku a - -: -- _ . i • \
7ernai
lnv—
_
/r/'.
GRAPHIC SCALE
CS

782
780
w 778
0
M
g 776
w
774
772
0
TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK POA - LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
LEGEND
❑ Riffle Zone
As Built
Water Elevation
Bed Elevation
2013 [Yr. 2 Mon.]
�i Water Elevation
�i Bed Elevation
••
❑ Pool Zone
2012 [Yr. 1 Mon.]
• Water Elevation
• Bed Elevation
200
Station (feet)
=I- 121.88
Zone with `Hempvine'
stream bank and bed
encroachment
300
400
500

LEGEND
AS BUILT 2012 [Yr. 1 Mon.]
Ground Elevation Ground Elevation
Water Elevation Water Elevation
2013 [Yr. 2 Mon.]
Ground Elevation
Water Elevation
[10 October 2013]
At Profile Station 84.5
785
CD
a�
.°_ 780
c�
CD
w
775
0 10 20
At Profile Station 115
785
a)
a�
0 780
30 40
Station (feet)
cv I
a)
w 775 0 10 20 30
At Profile Station 437 Station (feet)
-� 785
a)
a)
o 780
Z
w 775
Cross Section # 1
50 60 70
Cross Section # 2
4U Z) U
Cross Section # 3
0 10
At Profile Station 450.5
785
aD
a�
c
0
u 780
a�
w
20 30
Station (feet)
40 50
Cross Section # 4
775 ' I I I I '
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
HAIRT.11TION P POA -Twin Lakes Business Park
Stream Restoration, North Side Figure 7. Cross Sections 12/20/13
HA6ITAT ASSESSMENT PROFESSIONALS Common Area Yr. 2 Monitoring
wcawon o,:.., eu vco.
m�.,em. HC aazea
Area whine invasive covering
- -
-
stream banks and bed
0 10
At Profile Station 450.5
785
aD
a�
c
0
u 780
a�
w
20 30
Station (feet)
40 50
Cross Section # 4
775 ' I I I I '
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
HAIRT.11TION P POA -Twin Lakes Business Park
Stream Restoration, North Side Figure 7. Cross Sections 12/20/13
HA6ITAT ASSESSMENT PROFESSIONALS Common Area Yr. 2 Monitoring
wcawon o,:.., eu vco.
m�.,em. HC aazea

0 / A// PORAR "y t _ ��� _�\ Al � /
.................
..................
_- 2012 - Phase 11
lA'v ��/ " ssszii
.:::::::::: ::::..�.:........�............-
2011 - Phase I
TEMP. ROCK C
CMLDS ''���\ \ \ \
/ DETAZL SNEE �mrwia.? \ \ \ Dwr�w
DITCFiTO PR 3efECf3'wku d - - :. �\ \� DENTIDE 0 AC,
=` 1nJ178
b/9ifROW_n \�
/nv 7�EYY�',iiiiiiiiii'::::i. #�
WeN�riit — .. �.. --
__
LN
\ \ \\ \\ \
70--
Habitat and Plant Community
Map - As built
Riparian Woody Shrub
Bollomlard
Piedmont Swamp Forest
Low height woody shrubs, managed
shoreline (e g Coral Berry)
Littoral zones, ter depth,
planted with a diversity of aquatic spe-
cies.
I;
Approx. Location of Pedestrian Trail
o
0 U
J N
0)
N
Rb CU
L
d
L.L
Yo
a- in
N L
on
00
�z
to
CO p
on
0
J N
N Q
��C
F E E
¢ 0 E
O o
tL()U

Legend
I As Built Graded Restoration Features
r„ fi Existing Preserved Seasonal Wetlands
Low Gradient Pool Areas in all
Constructed Meander Bends
1
I ........... Areasogy( -0.1 Seasonal Wetland Constructed Riffle habitat in all new
- �y Hydrology l-0.1 ac) Inflection zones
Permanent Pond Areas, Controlled by ock
/ R Grade and Flow Control Crossvane
Spillway (- 0.5 act U
Graded Low to Moderate Slope Littoral
Rock Grade Control Sill
Shelf, 0' -2' Depth ( ac
0.13 )
Low Height (c 2' earthen impoundment
® Flagstone Cascade Spillway
L berms)
Graded Floodplain Bench, Potential Colt Fiber Log Wetland Retention Berms
Wetland
ah I H drolo
I l i I / I?SII I�Y k Y 9Y
Monitoring Cross Section Locations
fG \ \ \ Monitoring Photo Station Locations
NH i
olq,�rp<
TL -CS -3
— —C— — - - - --
_ \ i— / — _ — - �
Qc :17 -- — —<
— — _ — —
- ILL 7x! ri _ _
s
19 /
0
Rl�`M
., � ".\ a 3 � r� 'r•— �M -1'2� '— oRl9 d�mt�i[t9.na 49��
I^ R 4 fi, ri" R11 4
n
m
�M2 �R4� ,�,,,.ri �.,�.}+rf' �... __M18 S
/
M7 R9w R10 J "+
I w -
`VI .. CS 1 M6 ` ,nZ iNe `L ''✓ i�� 'i �. ^O
11
# Dominant growing season water „ dc. j'P /
II i table has been lower than antics- Q� -. s /
pated resulting in poor establish- Riparian zone where
" ment of the littoral shelf. Need to 'hempvine' has become /
st
I c monitor sustainable water level established in the stream
I �•
_ /
bed and is causing some
'
during 2014 season and then � � � 9
adapt littoral planting Ian spring � � � � bed aggradation; needs to
P P 9 P P 9 _
of 2015 to that level robabl be manually removed on a
a � lower Y _ maintenance schedule
will i �e to.1.2' lower than — until wood vegetation
anticipated in design). � � Y �
— — shades in out.
Scale \ �
P` POA -Twin Lakes Business Park Figure 8, Planiuietric View of Site U/1 9 30 0 30 60 feet, \ \�
MN Stream Restoration, North Side Areas of Concern from
H AR
Cu uiumn Area Year 2 Monitoring

Extreme Turbidity
Observed in Lower Pond

Temperature
zs Wetland Monitoring North Well: adjacent to lower pond Water Level
Device LeveI1000 12
Serial Number M21704
Device ID b
6
_Ground
Level_
_ _
_
_ _
0
� °
aC
T0
aio
12 inches
-6 =>
CE
CE
-12
sensI
-18
-8.6
08:35:49 PM 07:47:49 AM 06:59:49 PM 06:11:49 AM 05:23:49 PM 49 AM
Oct 07, 2012 Dec 05, 2012 Feb 01, 2013 Apr 01, 2013 May 29, 2013 , 2013
EDT EDT EDT EDT EDT DT
26 Wetland Monitoring South Well: south of restored stream Temperature Device - Level1000
Water Level Serial Number M23490
Device ID - CS-3
12
6
eC
Ground
Level
— —
0
12 inches
6
NW It
I 1
12
— —
— — —
— —
— — —
—
— sensorhead-
VV
-18
12:00:01 PM 08:00:01 PM 04:00:01 AM 12:00:01 PM 08:00:01 PM 04:00:01 AM
Oct 08, 2012 Jan 25, 2013 May 15, 2013 Sep 01, 2013 Dec 19, 2013 Apr O8, 2014
EDT EDT EDT EDT EDT EDT
Twin Lakes Business Park
P`
Stream Restoration, North Side Figure 10. Groundwater 12/20/13
HA R
sir.rnssESS EHrxaESroannoHeaoFESSioNnis Common Area Yr. 2 Monitoring

Appendix B.
Photography

OCZ-1-A
OCZ-1-B

OCZ -2 A
Photograph Unusable
OCZ -2 B

i
OCZ -3 A
OCZ -3 B

OCZ -4 A
OCZ -4 B

Photo Station 1
Photo Station 2

Photo Station 3
Photo Station 4

Photo Station 5
.�� SSA'. �' r. i . • _ • 1 {�
_ _ - _ jam. ] C�.� 'I�•t
:mot,' � �- •`,k: = �� -.., .. ri
Photo Station 6

Photo Station 7
Photo Station 8

Appendix C.
Tabular Data

TWIN LAKES
Longitudinal Profile
JTS, RDF
Station BS
H. 1. FS
Water
Water
Bed
Depth
Elevation
Elevation
TBM #4 8.90
789.76
780.86
0
15.89
0.10
774.46
774.36
15.00
18.77
0.30
774.66
774.36
20.00
16.06
0.90
774.60
773.70
24.00
15.04
0.01
774.73
774.72
44.00
15.10
0.20
774.86
774.66
54.00
14.68
0.05
775.13
775.08
62.00
16.13
1.60
775.23
773.63
75.00
14.75
0.22
775.23
775.01
86.00
14.25
0.20
775.71
775.51
95.00
15.15
1.15
775.76
774.61
100.50
14.16
0.10
775.70
775.60
107.00
13.86
0.15
776.05
775.90
114.00
15.21
1.50
776.05
774.55
119.00
14.01
0.30
776.05
775.75
126.00
13.70
0.15
776.21
776.06
135.00
14.18
0.65
776.23
775.58
145.00
13.79
0.25
776.22
775.97
150.00
13.54
0.15
776.37
776.22
156.00
14.25
0.90
776.41
775.51
161.00
13.60
0.25
776.41
776.16
174.00
12.69
0.20
777.27
777.07
177.00
12.99
0.55
777.32
776.77
181.50
12.56
0.12
777.32
777.20
187.00
12.43
0.22
777.55
777.33
192.00
13.66
1.45
777.55
776.10
204.00
12.40
0.20
777.56
777.36
208.00
11.99
0.10
777.87
777.77
213.00
12.71
0.85
777.90
777.05
222.00
12.96
1.10
777.90
776.80
229.00
11.88
0.05
777.93
777.88
241.00
11.62
0.05
778.19
778.14
TAPE 248.00
13.34
1.75
778.17
776.42
0 255.00
12.05
0.45
778.16
777.71

TWIN LAKES
Longitudinal Profile
JTS, RDF
TAPE
TBM #3 9.58
790.44
780.86
3
258.00
12.06
0.00
778.38
778.38
15
270.00
11.90
0.03
778.57
778.54
27
282.00
13.16
1.55
778.83
777.28
37
292.00
12.13
0.50
778.81
778.31
43
298.00
11.80
0.20
778.84
778.64
49
304.00
12.67
1.00
778.77
777.77
54
309.00
12.09
0.40
778.75
778.35
58
313.00
11.52
0.12
779.04
778.92
69
324.00
12.48
1.10
779.06
777.96
73
328.00
11.47
0.05
779.02
778.97
84
339.00
10.92
0.15
779.67
779.52
96
351.00
11.87
1.10
779.67
778.57
105
360.00
11.08
0.30
779.66
779.36
113
368.00
10.79
0.05
779.70
779.65
119
374.00
12.00
1.25
779.69
778.44
131
386.00
11.00
0.20
779.64
779.44
137
392.00
10.79
0.20
779.85
779.65
141
396.00
11.38
0.80
779.86
779.06
144
399.00
10.88
0.30
779.86
779.56
153
408.00
10.34
0.10
780.20
780.10
160
415.00
11.19
1.00
780.25
779.25
166
421.00
10.53
0.35
780.26
779.91
173
428.00
9.98
0.20
780.66
780.46
185
440.00
10.74
1.00
780.70
779.70
189
444.00
10.40
0.65
780.69
780.04
193
448.00
10.11
0.35
780.68
780.33
197.7
452.70
11.04
1.30
780.70
779.40
203
458.00
9.49
0.01
780.96
780.95
210
465.00
8.96
0.20
781.68
781.48
228
483.00
9.22
0.50
781.72
781.22

TWIN LAKES
Longitudinal Profile
17- Oct -12
Spillway notch, Upper Pond
At Culvert
Bottom of Riffle
Pool below cross vane
Cross vane, Grade control
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle, Grade Control

TWIN LAKES
Longitudinal Profile
17- Oct -12
Spillway notch, Upper Pond
Rock Sill
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool
Bottom of Riffle
Top of Riffle
Pool at Cross Vane
Cross Vane
Top of Vegetated Riffle
Tie In

TWIN LAKES STREAM RESTORATION
Cross Section # 4
At Profile Station 450.5
JTS, RDF
Station BS H. 1.
FS
Water
Water
Bed
At Profile Station 437
Depth
Elevation
Elevation
TBM #2 6.34 787.66
Station BS H. 1.
781.32
Hub
0.0
4.97
782.69
Elevation
3.0
5.51
782.15
Hub
6.0
5.60
782.62
782.06
3.0
9.0
5.64
782.00
782.02
5.75
12.0
5.98
9.0
781.68
13.0
6.21
12.0
6.08
781.45
Top of Bank
15.0
6.98
0.00
780.68
780.68
Toe of Bank
15.9
7.34
0.34
780.66
780.32
Thalweg
17.0
6.96
0.00
780.70
780.70
Toe of Bank
18.0
6.95
Thalweg
21.0
780.71
Top of Bank
21.0
6.22
22.5
6.26
781.44
781.40
24.0
6.32
6.39
781.34
27.0
6.09
781.44
781.57
30.0
30.0
6.16
781.74
781.50
5.72
33.0
6.12
36.0
781.54
36.0
6.06
39.0
5.01
781.60
782.65
39.0
6.12
4.68
781.54
42.0
4.35
783.36
783.31
46.7
45.0
4.06
783.60
END
783.60
6.80
48.0
3.65
Spillway notch, Upper Pond
784.01
END
9- Oct -13
9- Oct -13
Cross Section # 3
At Profile Station 437
JTS, RDF
Station BS H. 1.
FS
Water Water
Bed
Depth Elevation
Elevation
TBM #2 6.34 787.66
781.32
Hub
0.0
5.04
782.62
3.0
5.66
782.00
6.0
5.75
781.91
9.0
5.88
781.78
12.0
6.08
781.58
15.0
6.47
781.19
16.0
6.49
781.17
Top of Bank
18.0
7.39
0.00 780.27
780.27
Toe of Bank, Edge of Water
19.3
9.41
2.00 780.25
778.25
Thalweg
21.0
7.39
0.00 780.27
780.27
Toe of Bank, Edge of Water
22.5
6.26
781.40
Top of Bank
24.0
6.39
781.27
27.0
6.22
781.44
30.0
5.92
781.74
33.0
5.72
781.94
36.0
5.52
782.14
39.0
5.01
782.65
42.0
4.68
782.98
45.0
4.30
783.36
46.7
4.06
783.60
END
TBM #4
6.80
780.86
Spillway notch, Upper Pond
9- Oct -13
9- Oct -13

` IXOT 591
10- Oct -13
Cross Section # 2
At Profile Station 115
JTS, RDF
Station
BS
H. 1.
FS
Water Water
Bed
Depth Elevation
Elevation
TBM #4
5.83
786.69
780.86
Spillway notch, Upper Pond
0.0
7.97
778.72
3.0
8.04
778.65
6.0
8.04
778.65
9.0
8.14
778.55
12.9
7.90
778.79
16.0
8.01
778.68
Top of Bank
19.0
9.60
777.09
21.4
10.66
0.00 776.03
776.03
Edge of Water
23.0
12.14
1.45 776.00
774.55
Thalweg
24.3
10.63
0.00 776.06
776.06
Edge of Water
27.0
9.57
777.12
Mid -bank
29.0
9.23
777.46
Top of Bank
32.0
9.19
777.50
35.0
8.43
778.26
38.0
7.35
779.34
Tree Ball
40.0
7.92
778.77
END
Cross Section # 1
At Profile Station 84.5
JTS, RDF
Station
BS
H. 1.
FS
Water Water
Bed
Depth Elevation
Elevation
TBM #3
5.79
786.65
780.86
Spillway notch, Upper Pond
0.0
8.12
778.53
3.0
8.15
778.50
6.0
8.23
778.42
9.0
8.33
778.32
12.0
8.32
778.33
15.0
7.84
778.81
18.0
7.34
779.31
21.0
7.50
779.15
24.0
8.63
778.02
27.0
8.96
777.69
30.0
8.93
777.72
33.0
9.06
777.59
37.3
9.48
777.17
Top of Bank
41.0
11.14
0.00 775.51
775.51
Toe of Bank
43.0
11.47
0.30 775.48
775.18
Thalweg
45.4
11.16
0.00 775.49
775.49
Toe of Bank
47.0
10.19
776.46
Mid -bank
48.8
9.60
777.05
Top of Bank
51.0
9.09
777.56
54.0
8.98
777.67
57.0
8.35
778.30
61.0
6.58
780.07
END
` IXOT 591
10- Oct -13

TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
Site Conservation Planting and Vegetation Management Zones
2013 Monitoring
Zone
Common Name
Scientific Name
Counts
Dimensions
Area
1
American elm
Ulmus americana
2
2
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodafolia
1
3
Eastem red cedar
Juniperus virginiana
3
4
Hickory
Carya sp.
2
5
Loblolly pine
Pinus taeda
3
6
Red maple
Acer rubrum
18
OCZ -1
Piedmont
7
Southem arrowood
Vibumum dentatum
1
100'x16'
1600 sqft
Forest
8
Sweet -gum
Liquidambarstyraciflua
15
0.0367 ac
9
Water oak
Quercus nigra
1
10
Wild cherry
Prunus serotina
1
11
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
1
12
Winged elm
Ulmus alata
3
13
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
14
Yellow poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
6
Total
58
1
American elm
Ulmus americana
1
OCZ -2
2
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagodafolia
3
Bottomland
3
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7
100'x16'
1600 sqft
Piedmont
4
Short -leaf pine
Pinus echinata
1
0.0367 ac
Forest
5
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
2
6
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
Total
15
1
American elm
Ulmus americana
2
2
Black willow
Salix nigra
17
OCZ -3
3
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9
Piedmont
4
Red maple
Acerrubrum
11
95'x16'
1520 sqft
Swamp Forest
5
Sweet -gum
LiquidambarstyraciFlua
11
0.0349 ac
6
Winged elm
Ulmus alata
1
7
Winterberry
Ilex verticillata
1
Total
52
1
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2
OCZ-4
Piedmont
2
Red maple
Acerrubrum
3
56'x16'
896 sqft
Swamp Forest
3
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
1
0.0205 ac
4
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
1
Total
7
Zone OCZ -1, experienced little disturbance from construction except thinning for viewscape purposes. It therefore has the highest diversity and t
increase (49 %) in volunteer numbers. Zones OCZ -2, and OCZ-3 each gained a 3% increase in volunteers while Zone OCZ1 had no increase.