20060558 Ver 2_Monitoring Report_20160830

HAR
HABITAT ASSESSMENT & RESTORATION PROFESSIONALS
Mr. William Elliot
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Quality
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit Supervisor
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
301 McCullough Drive, Suite 400
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Office: 704.841.2841
Fax: [phone]
Email: info@habitatassessment.--om
www.habitatassessment.zom
A Woman Owned Small Business
Celebrating 20 years!
August 26, 2016
Subject: Year 5 Monitoring Report — Twin Lakes Voluntary Stream and Wetland Restoration
Permit Numbers:
USACOE: SAW -2009-01298
DWQ: 06-0558V2
AUG 3G 2016
Dear Mr. Elliot and Ms. Higgins,
Enclosed you will find the Year 5 — (Final Year) Monitoring Report for the above mentioned project. On behalf of our
client Sustainable Resources Properties, LLC, we are requesting final close out of the project and its monitoring
obligations.
I have not been successful in locating a form so to speak for the close out request. Can either of you direct me to the
location of such a form if it exists or tell me what procedure you would like for us to follow to accomplish this deed.
As a refresher this was a voluntary restoration and was not part of a mitigation obligation.
Should you wish to discuss this please feel free to email or telephone me. I can be reached at 336.362.6776 or via
email Karriahabitatassessment.com. .
Respectfully Requested,
7 71
Karri Cecil Blackmon
President
CC: Alan Johnson — Mooresville Regulatory Office
Sustainable Resources Properties, LLC
STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION, DELINEATION AND DESIGN - RESTORATION PLANTING - RAIN GARDEN, POND. AND WATER
QUALITY BMP MAINTENANCE AND DESIGN - MITIGATION MONITORING - INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT - 404/401 WATER QUTALITY
PERMITTING -SITE INSPECTION -THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES SURVEYS -GROWER OF NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS, AND PLANTS
HARP IS A WOMAN OWNED / EMPLOYEE OWNED SMALL BUSINESS - WWW.HABITATASSESSMENT.COM - INFOC-�HABITATASSESSMENT.COM

Stream Restoration Year 5 [2016] Final 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.
August 2015
R 1'
H,---- LM P�'&
HABITAT ASSESSMENT & RESTORATION PROFESSIONALS
361 McCuBWyh Oma, 4M Flow Office ?04,&41254;
Chwkae. NC 28282 Fm 764841244

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 5. Monitoring
6
Section 4.
2016 Closing Conditions
8
Appendices
10
A. Location & Planform Maps, Design Parameters
B. Yr. 5. Photo Station Photos
C. Yr. 5 Cross Sections and Tables
D. Yr. 5 Longitudinal Profile and Tables
E. Yr. 5 Vegetation Monitoring Table
F. Copy of Permit Closure Letter

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 has 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 through 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 lst 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 install 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
MI

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 1 S` order perennial stream (much of which was a rip rap
ditch with no pools or riffles);
b) preserve —.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 — 02 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 1.0-12" 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 Appendix A). 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 of Appendix B 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 4 in Appendix C 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 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 Appendix D. 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
p. 4

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 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 6 (Appendix E) 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 E).
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 7, Appendix A).
p. 5

Section 3. Year 5 Monitoring
Monitoring for Year 5 was conducted in late July and early August of the 2016 growing
season. 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 data is compared to the as built report longitudinal profile, and
earlier monitoring results in Figure 5 found in the Appendix.
• 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. Like the longitudinal profile the year 5 data is compared to the as built
and earlier monitoring results in Figure 6 found in the appendix.
• 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 from along the transect are included in photojournal found in the Appendix [Photos
9-17] and the numerical plant monitoring data is provided in the last Table of the Appendix.
Stream Elements: The implemented stream monitoring for this stream restoration was 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 were set up for the up and down
stream tie in points, and at selective meander bends and a photo is 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
five years following completion of restoration activities along with photographs
from each of the established photo stations.
Year 5 Stream Morphologic Results:
The longitudinal profile surveyed in the Year 5 monitoring cycle shows very good
agreement with the 2014 and earlier results. Overall meander pools and riffles have maintained
remarkable vertical and horizontal stability for approximately 5-6 years. Earlier reported
p. 6

challenges with vegetation encroachment into the channel sandbars from about station 290-360',
triggering temporary medial sand bar formation and channel aggradation have been eliminated
by over story shading out of the herbaceous `hemp vine' [as predicted in the earlier monitoring
reports] by woody bank vegetation.
The surveys of the cross sections likewise show little significant change except perhaps
in cross section 3 where the outer bank of the meander bend has been steepened and the thalweg
perhaps migrated by a few centimeters. This is regarded as a natural evolutionary aspect of the
restored stream and the low, approximately 1-3 cm/yr, migration of the thalweg, and steepening
of the slope of the outer bank is within the range of expected `equilibrium' adjustments that this
restored reach may experience over time. The reach was constructed with sufficient buffer areas
to both sides to accommodate these minor adaptations.
At this, the fifth year of monitoring, there are no signs of instability in the channel's
fluvial morphology that would warrant additional monitoring or any remedial actions. The well
vegetated banks with deeply rooted woody vegetation has set a sound foundation for the channel
to stay in `equilibrium' with bankful events for the foreseeable future.
Pond Littoral Habitat Monitoring: The littoral zones have been reasonably
established on site over the 5 years since completion of grading. The water levels have stabilized
and now maintain their full pool stages throughout the year. As noted in the prior year's report,
the littoral habitat around these two small ponds represent `value-added' ecological attributes
over the primary stream and wetlands restoration and preservation elements of this site. Formal
numerical monitoring for these littoral areas of the ponds was considered essential as over all the
ponds were not strictly a restoration goal, but a value-added asset for the natural area. The plants
installed following completion of construction were intended as a starting population that would
allow the pond littoral zones to adapt to site hydrology over time. These ponds have an
established aquatic plant community that should not require additional stock to propagate as the
ecosystem dictates.
Wetland Monitoring: As was the case years 3 and 4 only visual inspections of wetland
hydrology were made during year 5, as up to a 0.5 of surface waters noted to present into late
May and early summer for the wetlands adjacent to the lower and upper ponds. These surface
waters made the use of the subsurface pressure transducers irrational, as they were intalled with
the appropriate protocol sealing them from surface waters. Data from them would not have
reflected the surface ponding, thus producing misleading information. Once surface waters were
noted to prevail into early summer they were eliminated. The presence of these surface waters
into late May is sufficient to meet NC seasonal hydrologic conditions for jurisdictional wetlands.
The monitoring of wetland plant communities (Piedmont Swamp Forest of Figure 5) is also part
of the overall vegetation community monitoring and the results are presented in tabular form in
the Appendix. At the point all wetlands on site prior to the restoration work have remained
stable and meet both vegetation and hydrologic wetland criteria.
p. 7

Section 4. Closing Summary
Figure 7 is a mosaic of orthometric aerial photos shown at the same scale encompassing
the site. The mosaic shows how the site has evolved over the last 18 years.
In 1998 the Twin Lakes business park had established irrigation pumps that drew water
out of the pre-existing —2 acre lake and fed the Park's commercial irrigation system. In 2003-5
this lake had to be drained for removal of the dam in order for the State of North Carolina to
widen US Hwy. 21 in association with the construction of the Interstate's 77 and 285
interchange. As part of this effort DOT installed approximately 120' of rip rap lined ditch across
the lower portions of the pond to bring water to a new culvert that was placed under the widened
US Hwy. 21. From 2003 to 2010 this area was left as an abandoned bottomland with some of
the poorly drained areas slowing converting to wetlands.
In 2010 the NW27 permit was issued to restore approximately 440' linear feet of a 1St to
2nd order stream across the original valley floor that had been flooded by the lake as well as to
preserve and enhance the evolving wetlands that had become established within poorly drained
areas of the former lake bottom. In association with these wetlands and stream restoration
elements two smaller ponds were also established in areas of the old pond bottom that were not
occupied by wetlands. The grading for the restoration was completed in the fall of 2010, and the
plantings for the stream, uplands, and wetlands were completed prior to summer of 2011. The as
built report was submitted in June of 2011. Thus, this 2016 growing season brings the project to
the end of its 5 year monitoring period.
Subsequent to the submission of the monitoring in 2013 (year 2) the Twin Lakes
Business Park had to dissolved it's property owners' association due to changes in NC statutes
and the inclusion of a `sunset' clause in the original POA's charter. The dissolution of the
ownership entity led to the transfer of ownership of the property to a newly incorporated entity:
Sustainable Resources Properties, LLC. During dissolution and deed transfer [which took
approximately 15 months] the project transitioned from its 3rd to 4th monitoring years and an
thus an integrated 3rd & 4th year report was filed in the 4 the quarter of 2015. This final, 5th year
monitoring report, includes the final 5th year of documented monitoring data acquired on behalf
of the new owners, during July and August of the 2016.
to:
There were two outstanding matters noted in the last, 2015 report. These were the need
continue to watch the section of the stream that has show the potential for aggradation
from stations 290-360' due to the encroachment of `hempvine' into the channel and
development of some medial sandbars cause the profile and cross section #3 to reveal
some channel aggradation. That issue is now longer a concern as woody vegetation
has become dominant in this area, and channel profile and cross sections do not
reveal any signs of continued aggradation. The channel should now be able to evolve
in equilibrium with it's contributing watershed gradually over time.
2. The second issue, was that development [clearing and grubbing] of the adjacent land
to the north of the lower end of the restoration site (just north of the lower Pond] had
been releasing significant amounts of sediment into a small intermittent channel that
p. 8

feeds into the lower Pond from this northern contributing catchment area. The
amount of sediment is still elevated over what was released when the area was
forested, but has not resulted in significant (measurable) siltation within the buffer
wetlands around the lake or the littoral fringe of the pond itself. While accumulation
of sediment in this pond will show increased accumulations over time, there are not
surface accumulations over wetland soils that are measurable. Turbidity clouds
remain after storms within this pond, but do not appear to have resulted in significant
habitat degradation at this time.
Thus these two prior concerns have been resolved, and no longer threaten the long term success
of this restoration. In conclusion the site's preserved wetlands, restored stream reach, and pond
littoral zones have met success criteria for this the 5`" and final year of monitoring. A letter
closing out the permit is attached in the appendix.

Appendix
P. 10

t �
CD
a
y
6
4�
A
3
Ale S:spaerdna Joplor
P�
Rmtomtion Site
Rtfermce Site t 00
TO
9:
�- L
4�
c
A ;
3
wo Ma r.iE fwd _z
a �
+�rQft
M �
a
a 4.
r, m
�5 Mi s'
It <DoF V ah a e $1n;, p2005 NAVTEQ
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
HaeTA-
Ass =yam+F" "'', rt A Twin Lakes -Stream Project
Twin Lakes Business Park Figure 1. Location and Driving Directions 03/09/06

TOPO ! map printed �i_ rn "f'`1,_:ICfii"l +-iC_IId IIU,ntitlerd.tpg"
'p[4Ir�kfent�dr i tai''iitr - r# a
Hagg t M 8 } 4f1
.15 m; z
z �
W1 LiIik�
6
$'
Restoration Reach :� Reference Reach +;' e
it M
I, f
r e
A
V 4v
Ni 71,
N �r y
�,-
f ,r
f � i
s
T}T 7^} 11Y T S�I�s1F`� -,84 8I -I 6. 6_ 81 c' VV
I� I �e 1 I�
E- +�
Printed from TOPO! @2001 Hatilond Geographic HoUn7gs (www.topo.com)
HA8 TA-
Assts5VMT Avc Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 2. Twin Lakes Restoration and 11/07/05
RFSTORATION Twin Lakes Business Park Reference Reach Drainage Basins
INMRAM _.

Legend
I As Built Graded Restoration Features
,l
Existing Preserved Seasonal Wetlands
Low Gradient Pool Areas in all
i I g Constructed Meander Bends
/ Areas of Improved Seasonal Wetland
I Constructed Riffle habitat in all new
f Hydrology (- 0.1 ac.) Inflection zones
) r^, �� � �
Permanent Pond Areas, Controlled b
y Rock Grade and Flow Control Crossvane
Spillway (- 0.5 ac.)
Graded Low to Moderate Slope Littoral
i
Shelf, 0'-2' Depth (- 0.13 ac.) Rock Grade Control Sill
f % ! ' LLoowHeight(<2'earthen impoundment Flagstone Cascade Spillway
Graded Floodplain Bench, Potential Coir Fiber Lo Wetland Retention Berms
/x r P
Wetland Hydrology v 9
i
rt-cs ,
Monitoring Photo Station Locations Monitoring Cross Section Locations
/A
,L PS-, rTpr ` I, ,i \ _ ! f - rL cs-3 Approx. 485 linear feet
,,�I +"t— ri-cs-� of Festored Perennial
TS►.z S) J �y `_y\ — _ -- Stream
---
TL-P6-4
M1 PS-5 PS•S M\CRIB
-14
- R ,i /�---.,� Mme. TL-PS-4
Tr
tv 18
6
�" ♦ � M7\
J
r
Scale
HARP`
POA-Twin Lakes Business Park Figure 3, Planimetric View of As 5/31/11 30 Q 3V7 gO feet. —
Stream Restoration, North Side Built Restoration Conditions 1
Feu..,aataMtH,a.Es,oR..noHPRo.EssioH,rs Common Area -

ROAD
ATP , �' +► �► �r,r d ✓ / `2�i`
p;
�t 4.0!..::::::;:\\,. .. r :,.. •� �.� ...... 1
--
any a
J, •�\N•N••
Site Conservation Planting &
, ..y
• /0, N
N� \\,,„%Vegetation
Management
��,' \\.\\.\�\,•.\\.\\•.�\,\\\,•. ,zN222,,,, .�
ZMZ flt:;....t. i i =
Zones
�e;....\.........<:.:;:� , / ,
r\.,.\. ............... = ,
Yvvva r .. ! J
t* f t „' � ♦ �' !
CZ -1 Ripetrian WoodySlnah
�5tlim r g
»'1 %antroiunr, !8' O.C. f1
/
CZ -2: Replanted as Bottanlond
.....:,:
♦ IJ
faest
ton ti .r. Piedmont Swam - 2 7
®
££
.......... t ♦
..........
..........
... ..... ,
CZ -3: Replanted as low growth Z i C tD
' TEMP RUCK C�o'e+! "vv ��♦ ��
woo Yhtabs, shotellal r. O
Eldrrry) j g
\
CM1.OS 1t
�► ��
O!0ofrAtt
�"
FAI--
sNFE ,r"�'arr Y\ OC Z- 2 ♦ :
^' % \'C.
ZI TJ/ fJ "., a ;,r�
?: Replanted usgottontlauda ew
➢irdnwnt forstr
�pis
1 'XOc -4'
VVY \.
,,
x,V ur Thr „r +.`r v. ' , ....
.J'l�AJ✓'} J.�}i ✓J���aOl.` �. Y "VYV .' �
C"e` ` '� �1r �5x+/ ✓'r��.�.�+ VViv VrrV 1 ` - �`\
J Yy YYVY-V: VY VY
:: ' OCZ-1: 5 rn rnvasives, building, s.
� j f v g, •r-- -
• • plernent Platte as gufunriand hedrimul
Forest with Wew scape audbutes.
Q
(: "Y'/v'V.YVY YVV VyYVYi'VY, VY rYY\ .�
.......
............... : •� J � J�j� 1, �"' ,.
....• � vv ♦
•,.,,,•.••„r,••,••,
Ott -2: Spray invnsivrs, boshl,ng sup-n
,39n U s. plane as gutlonland ➢ledrrrual O 0
i _
plerrirat
orest, C
•.Y ♦ rV•x...
N R
t G
u v:CZ- I ~
♦ .• +
.. ter.
OCZ-3: Splaylnvnsirrc hasbhng, jd- .^t _a
r. Iwv 01h su ertavka) rr luntirr as C 11
Pee P g
ii's:is's::::c:::::::::si:ic:::i:;OC7- j:i;e'si::
_::..............::::. :::::::::::. ,
NK
Piedmont swamp forest
n
OCZ•4: Spraylnvasives. busbhog Id- 4 _
�
O
'�
............:..............
+�rte•_
Inv, with suPplenratni'tPlanttag as p�
::::.,°m
:}t
➢o,ttdrlmbuutnets. vurr jurrst wiviewscu e N
].. G1
CD M
-_
_ ........."
-_ � . ...:
.
OCSltlul 0-2' D
—c
•:':::::::��:::1::�?
_-. _`._ _
...r
zanrolr
depth, plant a divrrsity of aquatlt spe• I
o
_�M
-Z ......_
`` \ �"
_ _ _ �� C�Z�,•-�
nes. fnlinssing frlgng ofpnads.
OCZ-6: Open ater
w
C
U
_ _
I�+
C
Area
set aside for pedrstdntrod
oi
as -cox

y
C:
...mss ��...« <..
r
v. r ,
.
1
•YYY ..♦♦ .., L .
• i�Y,MYWYYYY Y •YY4Y MYY .... •' .......
YYYYVY �: ..t
YYY
Posted Habitat Conservation Area
(signs at all corners and — 200' spacing ���':
on perimeter boundary)
Habitat and Plant Community
Map - As built
YYYY YY
rVYVYY
Riparian Woody 9rrub
Botfpnlerrd
F7admont 9vemp F—I
Low hagnt woody shrubs managed
s alma (e.q. Corel Berry)
Littoral zorres 0 - 2' water depth,
planted with a do-sity o/ aquatic .spe-
ties
Open weter
♦ 1
AWW Wobon of fddiatt rl Trail

ERROR: undefined
OFFENDING COMMAND: CVDict
STACK:

782
780
^Y`
W
w 778
C
0
N 776
LLI
774
772
0
TWIN LAKES BUS
5th
Year
[2016] Water Profile
5th
Year
[2016] Bed Profile
Riffle Zone
100
LEGEND
Pool Zone
As Built
Water Elevation
Bed Elevation
2013 [Yr. 2 Mon.]
„ .... Water Elevation
Bed Elevation
2012 [Yr. 1 Mon.]
.. Water Elevation
• Bed Elevation
2015 [Yr. 3-4 Mon.]
Water Elevation
—� Bed Elevation

At Profile Station 84.5
785
a)
aD
w
c
.2 780
ICU
aD
LU
775
0 10 20
At Profile Station 115
785
m
m
0 780
c�
a>i
UJ 775
LEGEND
2012 [Yr. 1 Mon.]
---,-Ground Elevation
,Water Elevation
2015 [Yr. 3-4 Mon.]
Ground Elevation
Water Elevation
30 40
Station (feet)
1
0 1U 1U :3U
At Profile Station 437 Station (feet)
-� 785
aD
C
o 780
Q
LU 775
0 10
At Profile Station 450.5
785 --
a�
a�
o
ICU 780
m
w
775
0 10
20 30
Station (feet)
2016 [Yr.6 Mon.]
Ground Elevation
.Water Elevation
Cross Section # 1
50 60 70
Cross Section # 2
4U 5U
Cross Section # 3
40 50
Cross Section # 4
20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
HAR
POA -Twin Lakes Business Park
Stream Restoration, North Side
Common Area
Figure 7. Cross Sections
Yr. 5 Monitoring
8/15/16
HABITAT
ASSESSMENT
& RESTORATION
PROFESSIONALS
� rory�ui.r �sr

r • a =� p
r yy •
V •
5 r
4.
..
�11' ♦ aC ,b � • /.. � �$ sib ..
I
,
arl
r
�4
1
r
:Apr/ jm'
� r
,a
` 'if#
r
S
t
-
If
r s .
r • a =� p
r yy •
V •
5 r
4.
..
�11' ♦ aC ,b � • /.. � �$ sib ..
I
,
arl
r
�4
1
r
:Apr/ jm'

i;
_ ♦ �,
a ♦ i' ` _
Nnr
yn R
43 tie` 0
...a
a.ply
_
t.
2 l� rt
s
o.7 law
\
<
• _
t .
T
TAW
too
r. .
JL
kv
ie

f
..
_<
ll
m
L _ �-

.tel• �~. ., :���[�'�' ,.1' t
ns a
t
a
M.
r
K e
" � Ni"►. `1`:rai4•.: ;�G�, A _ i ,sT�x a:. t>-. y,. •t.":,
t a J
_ -rte
�. �• �j �
t
•�
f
i
v r

NA
y�1�y,
k"
T7
��a' � �y f�J
1
r C'
I •
. e
an4y
Jill

T
A £
'�'��
� .>,
ad :">
��,
yy
3
o-3
Mme,-
_...; �`�
4: a
��
aaE?
� '� `"'; `�
W � �:�
�a e t4�' �
S
a

Pw
Or
r
-s
a
Air

�� ,� �
»1+• '" .�` ov
�33' u..
�
I i Il�t 7 i �rf�. � � I �_
�� + �'+a
�
'=A, _�
�
�a
_
a
r
8
'
.14
a•
s
a
ti
"
3
�.
s
x
r a � 1 w` ♦
�. `YR
w
+
WRa,Y
a.
e
y
Ae
to
a
z
gS
>
i _
..
.14
�
a
ti
"
3
yrs
e
to

PHOTO 17. Upper Pond, looking west.

c 0 /■
U01jejolsau:we\i}s IR SpQe}am!S0d \\\\!
I

TWIN LAKES MONITORING 2016
Longitudinal Profile
JTS,MDC
21 -Jul -16
Station
Back Height of
Sight Instrument
Fore
Sight
Water
Depth
Water
Elevation
Bed
Elevation
Comments
TP #1
10.97 792.74
781.77
Screw Driver
0
10
19.42
0.83
774.15
773.32
POOL
23
18.91
0.34
774.17
773.83
POOL
24
18.20
0.05
774.59
774.54
CROSS VEIN
35
0.33
774.59
774.26
POOL
38
0.23
774.59
774.36
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
55
17.81
0.13
775.09
774.96
TOP OF RIFFLE
64
19.09
1.40
775.05
773.65
POOL
75
17.80
0.13
775.44
774.94
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
86.5
17.31
0.02
775.44
775.43
TOP OF RIFFLE
96
18.40
1.24
775.58
774.34
POOL
101
17.41
0.18
775.51
775.33
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
106
16.99
0.07
775.90
775.75
TOP OF RIFFLE
113
18.30
1.42
775.86
774.44
POOL
119
17.12
0.22
775.84
775.62
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
124.5
16.76
0.12
776.12
775.98
TOP OF RIFFLE
134
17.41
0.78
776.11
775.33
POOL
145
0.16
776.11
775.95
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
151
0.08
776.31
776.23
TOP OF RIFFLE
156
17.31
0.88
776.31
775.43
POOL
161
16.70
0.23
776.27
776.04
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
190
15.53
0.15
777.43
777.21
TOP OF RIFFLE
199
16.94
1.47
777.27
775.80
POOL
206
15.64
0.24
777.34
777.10
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
213
15.01
0.13
777.86
777.73
TOP OF RIFFLE
230
16.29
1.38
777.83
776.45
POOL
236
0.15
777.83
777.68
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
241
0.14
778.02
777.88
TOP OF RIFFLE
253.5
2.04
778.02
775.98
POOL
262
15.05
0.33
778.02
777.69
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
TBM #2
14.87 796.19
781.32
Wood Hub
273
17.60
0.26
778.85
778.59
TOP OF RIFFLE
282.5
19.21
1.91
778.89
776.98
POOL
296
17.72
0.42
778.89
778.47
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
303
17.61
0.30
778.88
778.58
TOP OF RIFFLE
311
18.30
0.98
778.87
777.89
POOL
315
0.28
778.87
778.59
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
325
17.50
0.17
778.86
778.69
TOP OF RIFFLE
331
18.25
0.98
778.92
777.94
POOL
333.7
17.41
0.14
779.08
778.78
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
337
17.10
0.17
779.26
779.09
TOP OF RIFFLE
354
17.74
0.81
779.26
778.45
POOL
367
0.15
779.26
779.11
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
373.5
16.92
0.08
779.35
779.27
TOP OF RIFFLE
385.5
17.89
1.04
779.34
778.30
POOL
390.4
17.03
0.17
779.33
779.16
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
398
16.56
0.15
779.78
779.63
ITOP OF RIFFLE
403.5
17.19
0.80
779.80
779.00
POOL
409
16.57
0.18
779.80
779.62
Debris jam
411
16.00
0.00
780.19
780.19
Debris 'am
419
15.94
0.11
780.36
780.25
430
17.06
1.22
780.35
779.13
POOL
435
15.99
0.16
780.36
780.20
BOTTOM OF RIFFLE
437.5
15.76
0.18
780.61
780.43
TOP OF RIFFLE
453
16.71
1.11
780.59
779.48
POOL
458
15.73
0.11
780.57
780.46
Sand bar
463
16.94
1.35
780.60
779.25
Plunge pool
469
15.22
0.08
781.05
780.97
CROSS VEIN
477
14.82
0.15
781.52
781.37
VEGETATED SILL
483
14.83
0.32
781.68
781.36
VEGETATED SILL
488
15.00
0.48
781.67
781.19
END, VEGETATED SILL

Cross Section #3
JTS,MDC 20 -Jul -16
Station
Back Height of Fore
Sight Instrument Sight
Water
Depth
Water
Elevation
Bed
Elevation
Comments
TBM #2
6.26 787.58
781.32
WOOD HUB
0
4.89
782.69
LEFT BANK
5
5.47
782.11
10
5.82
781.76
15
6.16
781.42
17.6
6.66
780.92
TOP OF BANK
18.5
7.61
0.42
780.39
779.97
TOP OF BANK
20.6
8.23
1.04
780.39
779.35
THALWEG
22.8
8.73
1.52
780.37
778.85
THALWEG
23.7
6.40
0.00
780.62
781.18
TOP OF BANK
30
5.87
781.71
35
5.51
782.07
TOP OF BANK
40
4.88
782.70
45
4.34
783.24
46.71
3.96
783.62
JEND
Cross Section #4
JTS,MDC
20 -Jul -16
Station
Back Height of Fore
Sight Instrument Sight
Water
Depth
Water
Elevation
Bed
Elevation
Comments
TBM #2
6.26 787.58
781.32
WOOD HUB
0
4.89
782.69
LEFT BANK
5
5.55
782.03
10
5.54
782.04
12.4
5.75
781.83
13.7
6.34
781.24
14.5
6.50
781.08
TOP OF BANK
15.3
7.04
0.07
780.61
780.54
16
7.22
0.27
780.63
780.36
THALWEG
16.8
6.96
0.00
780.62
780.62
17.5
6.40
781.18
19
5.81
781.77
TOP OF BANK
21
5.92
781.66
23
6.07
781.51
25
6.09
781.49
30
6.05
781.53
35
5.92
781.66
37
5.84
781.74
39
5.24
782.34
42
4.37
783.21
46
3.94
783.64
48.2
3.63
783.95
END

Cross Section #1
JTS,MDC
21 -Jul -16
Station
Back
Sight
Height of
Instrument
Fore
Sight
Water Water Bed
Depth Elevation Elevation
Comments
TBM #2
4.34
785.66
781.32
WOOD HUB
TP #1
4.00
785.77
3.89
781.77
Screw Driver
0
7.58
7.23
778.54
LEFT BANK
5
7.76
7.27
778.50
10
7.60
7.45
778.32
15
7.93
6.91
778.86
19.5
8.73
6.35
779.42
25
9.43
7.76
778.01
30
9.87
7.96
777.81
35
10.77
0.35
8.11
777.66
37
11.84
1.42
8.45
777.32
THALWEG
40
11.21
0.78
9.78
775.99
42.6
10.37
10.37
0.10 775.50 775.40
THALWEG
44.5
9.85
9.84
775.93
46.5
9.57
9.60
776.17
48
9.06
8.87
776.90
50
8.79
8.35
777.42
55
8.53
7.89
777.88
56
7.26
7.77
778.00
58
6.73
7.04
778.73
END
60.5
5.65
780.12
JEND
Cross Section #2
JTS,MDC
21 -Jul -16
Station
Back Height of Fore
Sight Instrument Sight
Water
Depth
Water
Elevation
Bed
Elevation
Comments
TP #1
4.52 786.29
781.77
Screw Driver
0
7.63
778.66
LEFT BANK
5
7.58
778.71
10
7.76
778.53
14
7.60
778.69
16
7.93
778.36
18
8.73
777.56
20
9.43
776.86
21.2
9.87
776.42
21.4
10.77
0.35
775.87
775.52
22.3
11.84
1.42
775.87
774.45
THALWEG
24.3
11.21
0.78
775.86
775.08
24.4
10.37
775.92
25
9.85
776.44
25.6
9.57
776.72
28
9.06
777.23
32
8.79
777.50
34
8.53
777.76
37
7.26
779.03
40
6.73
779.56
END

TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
Site Conservation Planting and Vegetation Monitoring Zones
2016 Woody Stem Monitoring
Zone Common Name Scientific name Counts Dimensions Area Density
(trees per acre)
OCZ-1
Piedmont Forest
1 American elm Ulmus americana 3
100'x16'
1600 sqft
0.0367 ac
2016
2 Black cherry Prunus serotina 1
3 Black oak Quercus velutina 1
4 Eastern baccharis Baccharis halimifolia 1
5 Eastern red cedar Juni erus vir iniana 3
6 Hickory Carya s . 3
7 Loblolly pine Pinus taeda 4
8 IPersimmon Diospyros vir iniana 3
9 1 Red maple Acer rubrum 13
10 Smooth sumac Rhus glabra 10
11 Southern arrowood Viburnum dentatum 1
12 Sweent- um Li uidambar st raciflua 19
13 Willow oak Quercus phellos 3
14 Winged elm Ulmus alata 6
15 Winterber Ilex verticillata 1
16 Yellow o lar Liriodendron tuli ifera 2
Total= 74
OCZ-2
Bottomland
Piedmont Forest
1 Eastern baccharis Baccharis halimifolia 45
100'x16'
1600 sqft
0.0367 ac
1771
2 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 7
3 Loblolly pine Pinus taeda 1
4 Short -leaf pine Pinus echinata 1
5 Southern red oak Quercus falcata 3
6 Sweent- um Li uidambar st raciflua 3
7 Willow oak Quercus phellos 2
8 Win ed elm I Ulmus alata 2
9 1 Winterberry I Ilex verticillata 1
Total= 65
OCZ-3
Piedmont
Swamp Forest
1 American elm Ulmus americana 3
95'x16'
1520 sqft
0.0349 ac
1499
2 Black willow Salis nigra 14
3 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 11
4 Persimmon Diospyros vir iniana 3
5 Red maple Acer rubrum 11
6 Sweent-clum Li uidambar st raciflua 13
Total= 55
1 S camore Platanus occidentalis 1
OCZ-4
Piedmont
56'x16'
696 sqft
293
2 Water oak Quercus nigra 1
3 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1
Swamp Forest
0.0205 ac
4 Red ma le I Acer rubrum 3