20060558 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060403

CF W A TF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor

p
'14
? G
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
co \ n } North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
>_? _??
_ -1
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
'-ZI Division of Water Quality

May 23, 2006
DWQ# 06-0558
Mecklenburg County

J UN1 2006
Mr. Sandy Roper
Twin Lakes Limited Partnership rEf'rt _ t<.,„•
2719 Coltsgate Road
Charlotte, NC 28211-3502
Subject: Twin Lakes Stream Restoration
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Roper:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact 416 linear
feet (If) of an unnamed tributary of Dixon Creek, a perennial stream, and 0.25 acres of wetland as part of a
stream restoration project as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on
April 3, 2006. The location of the project is Twin Lakes Parkway, south of Alexanderana Road in Mecklenburg
County. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this project is covered by Water Quality
General Certification Number 3495. Please note that you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Non-Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design that you described in your application (unless modified
below) and will expire with the associated USACE 404 permit unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality
Certification. Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ in writing and you may be required to
submit a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. For this approval to remain valid,
you must adhere to the conditions in the attached certification and those listed below:
1. The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing upon initiation of the restoration project.
2. All construction activities associated with this project shall meet, and/or exceed, those requirements specified
in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual and shall be
conducted so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
3. It is recommended that the riprap located directly upstream of the restoration project be removed. This will
allow for the passage of aquatic life between the restored portion of the stream and those areas upstream
(which are outside the limits of the proposed impacts).
4. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality.
5
Continuing Compliance. The applicant shall conduct all activities in a manner so as not to contravene any
state water quality standard (including any requirements for compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of state and federal law. Oneltcarolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Intemet: ??«w.nc?caterqu;dit?.or Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Page 2
If DWQ determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a
designated or achieved use) or that state or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are
necessary to assure compliance, DWQ may reevaluate and modify this certification to include conditions
appropriate to assure compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC
2H.0507(d). Before codifying the certification, DWQ shall notify the applicant and the US Army Corps of
Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503, and provide opportunity for public
hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to the
applicant in writing, shall be provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any
permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404
Permit for the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless
you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If
you have any questions, please telephone Ms. Polly Lespinasse in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-
1699 or Mr. Ian McMillan in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-715-4631.
Sincerely,
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Ian McMillan, Central Office Wetlands Unit
Mecklenburg Water Quality
File Copy
Triage Check List
Date: 4/05/06 Project Name: Twin Lakes Stream Restoration
DWQ#: 06-0558
County: Mecklenburg
Alan Johnson, Mooresville Regional Office
To:
60-day Processing Time: 4/03/06 - 6/01/06
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
Stream length impacted
F-i Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
Cumulative impact concern
r_1
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
< 00
U
° SS
Stream estoration Plan
For
Twin Lakes Business Park
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina
Joint Application Form and Supporting Documentation for
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION
TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE
SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
Prepared For.
Mr. Sandy Roper
Twin Lakes Limited Partnership
2719 Coltsgate Road
Charlotte, NC 28211-3502
Prepared By: U P@Ta v P I
Leonard S. Rindner, PWS 3 - 2006
Environmental Planning Consu ltant APR
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
prNj Jy"?tiFRR ? AfiCH
F
[phone] .t5.,
*Subject to verification by the USACE and NCDWQ
Date: 4/01/2006
Office Use Only: ; j 5 Form
Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ?`J D
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applica ' r ' A".)
? Z006
APR
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:' u
X Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or
Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit Isolated Wetland
Permit DWQ
X 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401
Certification is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is
proposed for mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to
submittal of PCN), complete section VIII and check here: .
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed
on page 4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management Area of Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further
details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Mr. Sandy Roper
Twin Lakes Limited Partnership
2719 Coltsgate Road
Charlotte, NC 28211-3502
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent
Authorization letter must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the
owner/applicant.)
Name: Leonard S. Rindner PWS
Company Affiliation: Environmental Planning Consultant
Mailing Address: 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Fax Number:
Matthews NC 28105
Telephone Number: 704 904 2277 Fax Number: 704 847 0185
E-mail Address: lrindnerncarolina rrcom
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to
local landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site
plan showing property boundaries and development plans in relation to
surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map and site plan must include a scale
and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings, impervious surfaces, or
other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should include
the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the
property boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at
the applicant's discretion, so long as the property is clearly defined. For
administrative and distribution purposes, the USACE requires information to be
submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format; however, DWQ may
accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction drawings
rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will
be informed that the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are
provided.
1. Name of project: Twin Lakes Stream Restoration Plan
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg County Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
See attached vicinity map - Near the intersection of Alexanderana Road and
Twin Lakes Parkway
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.36700N, 80.8387°W
(WGS84/NAD83)
USGS Derita Quad (Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet
that separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): + 5.35 Acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Unnamed Tributary
of Dixon Branch
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river
basins. The River Basin map is available at
http://li2o.enr.state.ne.us/adinin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity
of the project at the time of this application: Site is primarily a drained pond
bed succeeding do a bank to bank disturbed stream withan an adiacent
adjacent park area in the business park.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be
used:
Stream restoration within former pond bed - dam removed to overall I-485
construction and related road realignment requirements - see overall area plan
on Mecklenburg County GIS Exhibits
Explain the purpose of the proposed work:Provide a recreational, educational,
and acceptable visual amenity for employees of the business park to enjoy
within a passive park setting.
IV. Prior Project History
if jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or
obtained for this project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the
past, please explain. Include the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project
Number, application date, and date permits and certifications were issued or
withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits, certifications or
other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a
NCDOT project, list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same
T.I.P. project, along with construction schedules.
A permit was issued (Action Id 200231390 & DWQ# 03-0185) to rebuild the dam
and impoundment However this permit was not utilized. The developer elected to
restore the stream bed as part of passive lark for the recreational enjoyment of the
employees of the business park.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the
current application.
Additional impacts to wetlands are not expected. Additional impacts if required
will be applied for appropriately.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
it is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all
impacts to wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project.
The applicant must also provide justification for these impacts in Section VII
below. All proposed impacts, permanent and temporary, must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site plan. All wetlands and
waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland
and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact
is strictly for wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section
VIII below. If additional space is needed for listing or description, please attach a
separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Permanent
impacts to wetlands consist of remnant fringe areas along stream channel. As
the area has drained the wetland areas have succeeded to uplands. Remaining
wetlands are estimated to be less than 1/4 acre.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
A NWP #27 .25 no < 50' PEM1C - disturbed

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to:
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts
due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA
Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or online at httn://wNv%v1ema go v.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland,
beaver pond, Carolina Say, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by
USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: +/-
+ 0.33 acres
Total area of permanent wetland impact proposed: +/-0.33 acres
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below: NA
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
1 NWP 27 416+/- UT of Dixon Branch 3'- 6' Perennial

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and
associated rip-rap, dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet
before and after, and net loss/gain), stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.),
excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear
footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary)
to the nearest downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-
800-358-9616, or online at wwmuses.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of
USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com, www.nrmguest.com, etc.).
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries,
sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below: N/A
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,

bay, ocean, etc.

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts tnciuae, oui arc uuL uuuKcu w. its
excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts
should be included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also,
the proposed pond should be described here and illustrated on any maps
included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation,
installation of draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic,
trout pond, local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface
area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be
useful to provide information related to site constraints such as topography,
building ordinances, accessibility, and financial viability of the project. The
applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact site layouts, and
explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss
construction techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The purpose of the plan is to restore a stable stream in a former pond be as a
visual recreational and educational amenity. The natural area will consist of the
restored stream conservation buffers bioretention cells and pond areas. This area
is adjacent to and upland park area with large specimen trees. The area is a
passive recreational amenity n for the employees of the Twin Lakes Business
Park Approximately 400 linear feetof the stream is stable and will be preserved.
In accordance with USACE and NCDENR requirements the restoration area by
restrictive covenants The Wilmington District Process for Preservation of
Mitigation Property will be used to develop the restrictive covenants.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by
the NC Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to
one acre of impacts to freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear
feet of total impacts to perennial streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of
Nationwide Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000,
mitigation will be required when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the
aquatic environment are minimal. Factors including size and type of proposed
impact and function and relative value of the impacted aquatic resource will be
considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation
as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable
include, but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and
maintaining wetland and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such
as streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource functions and values by
creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar functions and values,
preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be
attached in order for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for
processing. Any application lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP
concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete. An applicant may also choose
to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's Draft Technical
Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
littp://h2o.etir.state.nc.us/ncwetIands/striiiL,ide.liti-n1.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description
should provide as much information as possible, including, but not limited to:
site location (attach directions and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and
river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet) of mitigation proposed
(restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.),
and a description of the current site conditions and proposed method of
construction. Please attach a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands
Restoration Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's
responsibility to contact the NCWRP at [phone] to determine
availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior to submittal of
a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at
littp•//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.litni. If use of the NCWRP is proposed,
please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the following
information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):.
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):_
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ) NA
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use
of public (federal/state) land?
Yes ? No X
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document
pursuant to the requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA
document is required, call the SEPA coordinator at [phone] to review
current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so,
please attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
NA
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all
impacts to required state and local buffers associated with the project. The
applicant must also provide justification for these impacts in Section VII above.
All proposed impacts must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on the
accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a map, whether or not
impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ Regional
Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B
.0233 (Meuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250
(Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify
Yes ? No ? If you answered "yes", provide the
following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by
applying the buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
s uare feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed
(i.e., Donation of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration /
Enhancement, Preservation or Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration
Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified within 15A NCAC
2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on
the site. Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters
and wetlands downstream from the property.
Project development is subject to local Charlotte/Mecklenburg Stormwater
Regulations. Per conversation and confirmation with Ms. Cyndi Karoly - GC
3495 (NWP #27) does not include stormwater treatment requirements, however a
component of the plan includes bioretention cells and ponds fed from the bio-
retention cells, and a conservation buffer.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or
discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available
capacity of the subject facility.
NA
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ) NA
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any
Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No X
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No X
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance
of desired construction dates to allow processing time for these permits.
However, an applicant may choose to list constraints associated with construction
or sequencing that may impose limits on work schedules (e.g., draw-down
sc?ed*s for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and Threatened Species,
accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is
provided.)
L abt. i vL L
to??ZOnQi:' L ?, f??, j I ?. - cti , y?Cb t.6LIQP1 i? }?wJ? I}I fi(/`- 1.
;r.?,?'1»G32J31kpsancaAe l,< j'1 / ?`.?\S' r '? q, i ?;???,?"???, ?? ? ? J,•r? J u!?' ?1t 5?'?11?f1 11 ???1.;?r J'.
+. •? r y`'/ =,?b r' a-- `...r?t{ i`I_ , ;• 1 t.•-SJr}?tfl^?,,t, !
;? ? J SS??+??^?•?!`f 1 1 ) J ,/, N,`,
1 ?`' ?4 ft T v . t l C _N
1; '• \'•' ,1?4 ?w I (I -L' `" f ?'•?.]? s` i t.r'`-•?Y 1 (o I / '-? ?•. « fly I , _ JJ
SI( ?• Ali i I ?. rte. , T? _ ± :4L ?.
V -? 1 / ! r r ?} I ? , ._s ? ^ 1 7a -J' r5-r ? ?-??;Q?t'+?-- J I .. ' }?? r` ? f ?1l r4p?l ? ,? r??'' ` }•---5 y
1 1 1., i ti. fJ(
.)1 /??IIJ-i? L 1.1 ?\r Jr- !x
? ?f' f? ? l .'.I ? !^ ?? ?}? I i? !? I I I J{ ?f 11 C_~ !!Y1 ? ? ???`?7
JJ l f???; '? - .j?y'Allcxandcr. ?'i1r' "`?? {Jfrf?- fl?ii? ?. •'?:?n., 77,
f-- Jr Htah Sc)a ., i _'T845 ?l 1 J)? ,1? Its 1 I , ?? H
1 ?a? r' ,/,ry>?. -'li ?? ? _ --y _"'7i - ? - ? f ??/?%?+??I ?e?z??7? I i y tl?•,•1
i, ? ? ??, • / -y?:1 i .. ?_r-??li? r??1-? ?..s??I il$ .?y_ 5 ` . ?r J! // f ? ?"-•+?! 4 ?,I
'.'?..,???„r.,.,_,.y- \ 1 t ? - 'y : ? 1? • ? ` l t ??I??1 J J S)• -: ? J (? l . -? ?1 ?
1~ ' I + /?, 1 Ir? J..? Irlr{?L?Pfy_.)I f 1 ?•`t?
J,? 11 s \ ?; 7?} t i? ?rtli McrklenbdrQ rI N ('?J1'S t?ll1?
i tL4 ??i \ r' 'EtK?YI , r`I 't i`. ?t {
rr ,~, ' ft ' j_„CJ , • - 3iigh S
.iii }•.^?'???J)-1??' ??l `_ .% J ....??. ) ?I ?{` j` 1 t 1, r'?!?11 S ?I y
a - ??`? ? / ?J ? I, _ J/- t t• . -• • ? -?li \ jt1 r r `7 } (' - t't `:? . Jj
??I '??• II .l r• + ?• .. i? yffl J.11 ??I?~?. J?Ji ?1. ? ` •?'^ti_ ':?•".
?• !, I ,J? ? ` ., ` • .?.-. _ '? `• 1 - t. - 11 ,. \ . t 1 S- ,%ly. r ??e ? ,1-
t/ I ' 1!
, f !I L I ? i Ilt ? ? ??? -?1•'. '7.? .+i^1 ? .I ? •\?. --?-'_. :?--'? [YJf, Ij •
?? • -'f I 1 it, - - ??? '• ? t ?;? I,r ? ' i1?5? •; f? I i? t --? I I _-b•-•,;?, •
T,
-1 -3l/ Laker,
\?. ?I? i l I " ! '.t}I ? Il"" ?'!! J I?I J 1 ?. ?J t ' r, rr
J,k
1 V 'lam'. i`i" ?• ?il` ?Y J !'! •Tr; ,?t? f ?•IF.. Il '"?'? } ! 1 ?? '?
___ 1 ? J I i I I I i 1? ?; t.-1 1/"• - ?i`' 1 4 n/+•` ?.}_ 1
vY??, 1 '? i f..t i.t 5 !1 `t5 i+? •I i ''.?? r y 1 ? ??. !t
/16
_ yam.- _ Lt''? r ,? I ? ? I ?I1 f l'fr, ? --L. •.` r; , ?I
•? I ? S ? .?: I'? ''./ I, ?FN '? ? ? 1? Its ,. ?\4}a?.?'r ? ? ? ?r'--•-•-..
?/ I Ilf?t _) 1\ 'l?? l•, - • ??. .. :? I,•?. ??. I,111/ \t .f s i'• 1,1 \ .`?'?
1, ?S I- i'I 4 •. 1 ?? f!I I ?4CJl-kJ fSy 1,. \I \ \ `?
r IT
aFircttAr;;:e rla t ?, ,' 1? .I "I;r \'
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 km
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 mi
Map center is 35.36700N, 80.8387°W (WGS84/NAD83)
Derita quadrangle
Projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD83 Datum
G
h1=-7.151
G=0.093
file://C:\DOCUME-I\LENNEW-I\LOCALS-I\Temp\YKD80RC8.htm USGS DERITA
Mecklenburg County, NC POLARIS
Page 1 of 1
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
POLARIS
Property Ownership Land Records Information System
Date Printed: Fri Mar 31 09:12:39 EST 2006
- --- ---- - ---
l rl I ? f •?
I _ l
f\ L +? ?? -t Itl I
V ! ?' NCDOT --?
;I . Id y
II 'I ? •f G ? L 1•
1?- 1• ,
I f r-
t I •
IT/
rth
dll tj !r• i ? • ??,?
+ _ dl
?_ : ?'I 18D011
LA MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS , ; go;
This map is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps, surveys,
planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aformentioned public primary information
sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the information
contained herein.
http://maps2.co.mecklenburg.nc.uslservletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=RealEstate&ClientV..,. 3/31/2006
Mecklenburg County, NC POLARIS
Page i or i
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
POLARIS
Property Ownership Land Records Information System
Date Printed: Fri Mar 31 08:38:50 EST 2006
?'a `?? i{1t3 ozsas?,l4 - -
a - IIDD?
8?0 P ,rp'',y 'i
? ' l y
SAO
+O
azsuszos
co
O
tee, ? ,? i
90
o 83.0 J U rF
o, - as
X19 ^ 59 / • •/ • h?0 i, ''i
?• OzSO5Z09
_Al
a
•
ya / 89.4
,q Y0 11.49
Dom. Q . ?? i
. ?• O /
J,
1 • /• • ? • ??O ?h0 'Sy
rc"p Y? Ozsof+z05
•, p o I
N
. m
m g, D
{ J MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS 205ft
This map is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps, surveys,
planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aformentioned public primary information
sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the information
contained herein.
http://maps2.co.meck lenburg.ne.us/servlet/com.esri.esriinap.Esrimap?ServiceName=RealEstate&ClientV... 3/31/2006
I
Mecklenburg County, NC POLARIS
rage or I
http:l maps2.co.mecklenburg.nc.uslservletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=RealEstate&ClientV... 3! 1 -1 06

Stream Restoration Plan
Un-named Tributary to Long Creek,
Catawba River Basin
Twin Lakes Business Park
Charlotte, NC
March 2006
HAE31-T AT
ASSESSMENT AND
f
RESTORATION
PROGRAM INC.
HARP, Inc
P.O. Box 655
Newell, NC 28126
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Restoration Project Goals
2. Site Location and Background Information
2.1 Topographic, physiographic, and watershed setting
2.2 Landuse in the watershed
2.3Soils and Geology of the restoration and reference reach sites
3. Existing Conditions in Reach Proposed for Restoration
4. Reference Reach Information
5. NC Regime Data Analysis
6. Mailing Equation-based Estimates of Bankfull Discharge
7. Reference Grainsize Analysis
8. Restoration Design
8.1 Restoration planform
8.2 Restoration dimension
8.3 Restoration profile
8.4 In-stream structures
8.5 Bank stabilization
8.6 Riparian bank and Buffer Planting Plan
9. Stability Assessment
10. Monitoring and Contingency Plan
11. References
Appendices
A. Photos of Restoration Site
B. Photos for Reference Reach
C. Tables of Survey Data
D. Enlarged Color Versions of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Page
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Location Map
Topographic and Watershed Map for Restoration and Reference Sites
Aerial Photo Showing Landuse for Restoration and Reference Sites
Soils Map for Restoration and Reference Sites
Geology Map for Restoration and Reference Sites
Planform Map of Existing Conditions at Restoration Site
Cross Sections of Existing Conditions at Restoration Site
Planform Map for Reference Reach
Cross Sections for Reference Reach
Longitudinal Profile for Reference Reach
Restoration Design Planform Map for Restoration Reach
Restoration Design Cross Sections for Restoration Reach
Figure 13. Restoration Design Longitudinal Profile for Restoration Reach
Figure 14. Typical Detail for In-stream Grade Control
Figure 15. Typical Detail for Riparian Planting
Figure 16. Velocity and Sediment Stability Curve
Figure 17. Bed Shear Stress and Sediment Stability Curve (Shield Curve)

CI
0
0
0
n
n

ks
u
LJ
F.,
List of Tables
Table 1. Morphologic Parameters for Reference and Restoration Sites
Table 2. North Carolina Regime Equation Data
Table 3. Bankfull Discharge Calculations using Manning Eq.
Table 4. Planting schedule for Bank and Riparian Areas

1. Restoration Project Goals
C
L
C
n
C!
U.,
U
1-1
F,,,
ri'l.-I,
0
The goals of the proposed stream restoration activities are to restore original
morphologic, hydrologic and ecologic functions to approximately 416 linear feet of a
Rosgen E5/C5 stream reach in northern Mecklenburg County along an un-named lst
order perennial stream located with the "Twin Lakes Business Park" on a common area
open space tract held by the Twin Lakes Limited Partnership. The site was formerly a
small lake, but road widening along US21 in association with construction of the nearby
I-485 Charlotte outerbelt forced NCDOT to drain the lake 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 sediment-in level of the old lake bottom). Watershed runoff
from approximately .15 sq. mi. flows into the lake where it is conveyed along a channel
with more ditch-like characteristics than that of a natural stream to the outflow culvert.
This stream restoration plan presents: a) the reference reach restoration design
foundations, b) the morphologic restoration elements for stream pattern, dimension, and
profile, c) channel habitat and stability measures, d) the stream bank and riparian planting
and habitat conservation measures, and e) monitoring and contingency plans.
2. Site Location and Background Information
Figure 1 shows 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.
2.1 Topographic, physiographic, and 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 1St order tributaries that have perennial flow.
The USGS map shows only the pre-existing lake at the restoration site, and then 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 lake (from the NNE
p. 1 - HARP

C

u
H
G]
U.
n_"
n
u

[J
u
U,
n
k-
subcatchment) is a perennial stream with persistent year round baseflow. The USGS map
shows the reference reach as an intermittent stream, but again, persistent baseflow has
been noted over the last few months, a period during which there has been below average
precipitation.
2.2 Landuse in the watershed
Figure 3 shows a 2004 color aerial photograph for the vicinity of the Twin Lakes
Business Park, and the headwater areas of Long Creek, Mecklenburg County. The
landcover/landuse that dominates a watershed, particularly the impervious surfaces such
as roads, parking lots, and building roofs, can significantly impact a number of basic
morphologic indices for natural stream channels due to the increases in storm water
discharges. The most important factor is the creek dimension, which can undergo a
400% enlargement as it transitions from wooded lands to a highly urbanized landscape.
However, in more recent years the larger NC urban areas have implemented storm water
regulations that limit some of the impacts of the increased impervious cover
accompanying development. The Twin Lakes Business Park has storm water BMP
requirements for its commercial tenants, and thus would not be expected to experience
dramatic changes in bankfull channel morphologies. This catchment does, however
include a portion of the North Mecklenburg High School at its northern limits, which
does not have storm water BMP's in place and would generate some minor amount of
increase runoff within the catchment. The reference reach watershed is largely open land
(<15% impervious) and can be considered a rural NC Piedmont watershed. This will
change soon, as the outer belt is completed, and bring raise the impervious cover for the
catchment to closer to 30%. On the basis of a comparison of the landuse between the two
watershed, it would be expected that the reference reach would have bankfull discharges
slightly lower than those of the restoration reach.
2.3 Soils and Geology of the restoration and reference reach sites
Figures 4 and 5 show the soil and geologic rock types that are found in both the reference
and restoration sites. A range of soil types, common in northern Mecklenburg County,
are found in both watershed. These soil types are derived from the underlying igneous
and metamorphic rocks composing the Charlotte Granite Belt, specifically the meta-
quartz diorites and tonalites for the restoration reach, and a mix of meta-quartz diorites
and tonalites and meta-volcanic units for the reference reach. The former catchment is
dominated by Cecil sandy-clay loams, the latter by Vance sandy loams. However, the
reference reach lies within a small corridor of floodplain alluvial sandy clay loams (of the
Monacan soils unit) that were not mapped on the Mecklenburg County Soils maps, and
this provides a comparable context to the restoration reach setting where the restored
stream will lie within the alluvial/lucustrian deposits of the former lake.
3. Existing Conditions in the Reach Proposed for Restoration
1 p. 2 - HARP
hJ
Figure 6 shows a planform map of the degraded reach that lies within the drained lake
bottom. This was surveyed with tape and compass in November of 2005. The 416 feet
proposed for restoration can be separated into two zones. The lower of the two is formed
of a linear ditch that was recently enlarged and lined with rip rap to stabilize and direct
water into the down stream culvert in association with the road widening project along
US21 (see Photo #TL-2, Appendix A). This segment is approximately 260 feet in length.
The adjacent up stream 230 feet of channel is composed of basically three linear
segments without significant meanders or riffles. The remaining portions of the stream
leading up to culvert under the Twin Lakes Parkway is not proposed for restoration as
this area has both some natural meander and riffle characteristics along with riparian
woody vegetation.
Figure 7 shows three cross sections for the reach within the drained lake. It is clear from
these sections that there is no consistency in dimension along the reach. It is also clear
that the lower area lined with rip rap is over dimensioned when compared to either the
reference reach data, or the NC regime data (discussed below, and presented in Tables 1-
3).
Appendix B contains a series of photographs taken in the proposed restoration reach in
November of 2005. The photographs show typical channel conditions within the lower
500 feet of the impacted channel. Most of the lower reach is composed of a silted-in run
with no significant pools or riffles down to where the bed is lined with rip rap.
.In summary, the lower 400 to 500 linear feet of channel that lies within the old pond
bottom has a degraded planform, dimension, and profile and should be restored to
morphologic conditions that can provide most if not all of the original functions of the
stream that was situated in this location prior to the creation of the lake. A stable
restoration is proposed for approximately 416 linear feet herein using a reference reach
and bio-engineering approach. Reference reach information is discussed below, and is
then followed by a detailed presentation of the design, stability assessment and planting
plans.
4. Reference Reach Information
A 380 foot long reference reach for the restoration was located on a nearby tributary of
similar drainage area and physical setting (see figures 1, and 2 for location and
topographic setting). The reach has both C and E Rosgen channel characteristics, and
indicates long term stability of both channel grade and planform by the presence of old
trees rooted along banks at stream bottom grade, as well as thick moss coverings along
most outer meander bend banks (see reference reach photographs of Appendix B).
The reference reach planform was mapped in detail using tape and compass and is shown
in figure 8. From the planform mapping meander radii, meander belt width, meander
p. 3 - HARP
s
1-1
u
wavelength, and sinuosity were determined, annotated on Figure 8, and summarized in
Table 1. The reference reach has a relatively high sinuosity of 1.42 (thus the Rosgen E
affiliation) for a North Carolina Piedmont I" order tributary. The meander bends have an
average radii of curvature of approximately 11 feet with an average wavelength 35 feet.
The average radius of curvature (11 ft) is slightly less than 2 x the bankfull width,
perhaps influenced by three of the meander bends that have trees which have inhibited
meander evolution over time. Normally meander radii at morphologic equilibrium will
be 2 to 2.5 x bankfull widths consistent with theoretical and empirical expectations for a
stable natural channel (Newbury and Gaboury, 1993).
The reference reach channel dimensions, along with bankfull indicators are shown in
Figure 9 for three inflection sections, and two meander sections. Individual and average
bankfull widths, depths, areas, entrenchment ratios, and W/D ratios are annotated on the
figure, and average values compiled in Table 1. Four bankfull indicators were surveyed
in on cross sections and averaged to obtain a mean bankfull stage for the reach.
The channel has an average maximum bankfull depth of 1.13 feet, an average bankfull
width of approximately 7.75 feet, an average depth of 0.78 foot, and bankfull area of 6.45
square feet. The entrenchment ratio is greater than 5.75. The dimensional data is directly
applied to the design to promote sediment transport continuity and long term bank and
bed stability. This is achieved by nonnalizing bed shear stresses throughout the corridor
at the bankfull stage.
The longitudinal profile for the reach was surveyed in using tape and transit level, and is
shown in Figure 10. The longitudinal profile of the reference reach shows a nice pattern
of alternating pools and riffles with a riffle to pool ratio of approximately Z 0.53. The
1 pools are dynamically maintained by meander bends and scour zones within riffle areas
and provide an excellent reference for re-establishing bed habitat structure in impacted
reach. The average length of the riffles is z 8.8 ft, and the avereage length of the pools is
z 15.25 ft. There is approximately .7 to 1 feet of water depth in the pools, and .1 ft of
water depth in the riffles at low flow stage.
5. North Carolina regime data analysis
•A second method of determining the likely dominant (channel forming) discharges and
stable channel morphological dimensions in a given setting of the North Carolina
Piedmont and Mountains is to use "regime" relationships worked out by analysis of
streams that have good bankfull morphologic indicators as well as USGS gauging. This
analysis has been done for both Mountain and Piedmont streams in the North Carolina
Piedmont (Harmon et. al, 1999) and generated the following sets of relationships:
Urban Streams (this set is in meters and kin2): Rural Streams (this set is in feet and miz):
Abkf= 3.11 AH, 0.14 Abkf = 66.57 A,,, "9
I p. 4 - HARP
D
n
Qbkf = 5.44 ANY 0" Qbkf = 18.31 A,y o."
Wbkf - 5.79 A,v 0.32 Wbkf = 1 1.89 A,,.0.43
®
® Dbkf = 0.54 A,v 0.32 Dbkf= 1.50 A,v 0.32
In these equations,
A,v = the drainage basin contributing area
Abk f = cross section area of flow at the bankfull stage
Qbkf = discharge at the bankfull stage
Wbkf = width of the water surface at the bankfull stage
e Dbkf = mean depth of flow at the bankfull stage
In a followup study to the urban stream analysis of Harmon et.al., 1999, Forsythe et al.,
2004 reanalyzed the urban bank-full relationships to watershed area for stream located in
the Charlotte metropolitan area. This latter study recorded stage and discharges directly at
sections with bankfull indicators rather than by extrapolation from USGS gaging station
cross sections. It also verified scaling laws within individual urban watersheds. The
second study verifies the earlier conclusion that urban watersheds have adjusted
(enlarged) geometries in the Piedmont of North Carolina, but indicates the earlier study
over estimated the adjustments. The modified set of urban relationships (in feet and miz)
is:
o.?a
Abkf = 45.57 ANY
Qbkf = 169.55 A,v 0.
Wbkf = 21.53 A,,, 0.29
. Dbkf - 2.11 A, 0.35
The stream drainage areas pertaining to this project are shown in Table 2. Both the rural
and urban estimates for Abkf, Qbkf, Wbkf, and Dbkf generated from the above equations are
listed in this table. It should be noted that a preponderance of the data used to generate
the urban curves was obtained from urban streams in Mecklenburg County. The values
for bankfull discharges under rural and urban conditions are dramatically different,
begging an implied history of instability as the creeks transition from rural to urban
conditions within their watersheds. The differences in channel dimensions that are
required to carry the increased storm flow resulting from urbanization of the watershed
create challenges in restoration efforts. Stability under current conditions and stability
under future conditions potentially dictate different channel pattern and dimensional
attributes. Measures are adopted in the restoration design to limit instability as the
watershed undergoes future development.
6. Manning's Equation based Estimation of Banldull Discharge
The observations of bankfull indicators within the reference reach allow the Manning
e
p. 5 - HARP
n

P",
U],
k

u

H]
0
C
I
r

L
n
Equation to be used to estimate the bankfull discharge associated with this
morphologically defined stage. The surveyed estimates of cross-sectional areas, wetted
perimeters, and channel slopes, along with estimated Manning's roughness coefficients,
allow an average discharge calculation for the reach to be determined using Manning's
Equation. The input parameters and calculated results are presented in Table 3. The
estimate of Manning's roughness coefficient is somewhat subjective and brings some
ambiguity into these calculations. A roughness coefficient value of .026 is adopted for
the tributaries based on the depth of bankfull flow with respect to diameter of channel
bed materials, the stable bed framework, and bed material sizes following concepts
summarized in Arcement and Schneider, 1984. This base value is then modified for other
resistance factors such as sinuosity, bank vegetation, and obstructions. To reflect
reasonable variation of these parameters within the studied stream reaches, two values of
roughness coefficient (.03 and .04) were used to calculate a range of discharge values.
The resulting discharge estimates are shown in Table 3 and compare very favorably with
the rural regime estimates (10 to 13 efs compared to 11.3 cfs). In these tables values
obtained for an additional reference reach acquired from an unnamed tributary to Back
Creek a few miles to the cast on the Mecklenburg-Cabarrus County line along with
estimates for the proposed restored conditions at the restoration site reach are also
included for comparison value. Due to the slightly high stream grade at the restoration
reach the Manning equation results in bank-full discharges that are higher than those of
the reference reach. This is actually a beneficial consequence as the greater extent of
development in the restoration reach's contributing drainage area is anticipate to yield a
higher bankfull discharge. Bankfull discharges two to three times that of a rural
watershed of similar area can be accommodated if the reference reach dimensions are
used in the restoration along with the average steeper stream grade of 0.014. This is still
only 1/5`h of the increases represented by the urban streams used to define the urban
regime conditions in watershed lacking significant storm water BMPs.
7. Reference Grain Size Information
In order to understand the hydraulics that forms and maintains bed structure within the
channel, an analysis of the sizes of sediment present in the reference reach channel are
normally undertaken. However, due to the recent unknown potential impact of clearing
and grading activities for the 1-485 outerbelt on sediment transport dynamics in the
primary reference reach for this restoration effort we have elected to use the sediment
analysis that was performed on the other nearby UT to Back Creek reference reach
(mentioned above). This reach had a slightly smaller drainage area (0.8) but similar
channel dimensions, and a steeper stream slope (perhaps more comparable to the
restoration site in this regards, ie., .024 versus .019) The D84 in, Dso, and D84 n,ax. grain
size values are listed in Table 1. This reference reach-based grain size data will guide the
selection of any supplemental bed materials that may have to be placed into the
restoration reach.
p. 6 - HARP
e
n

8. Restoration Design
There are three morphologic perspectives on the relocation/restoration design, and two
additional habitat and stability issues. The morphologic factors are: planform, dimension,
and longitudinal profile. These are separately discussed below, and illustrated in Figures
11, 12 and 13. The bed habitat is broken down into riffle and pool areas, which are
shown in pattern view on Figure 11, and in longitudinal profile in Figure 13. The sizes of
bed materials are listed in Table 1. The details for bank and riparian planting is shown in
Figure 15. The details for riffle/cross vane construction are shown in Figure 14. The
riparian planting is separately discussed below, as is the analysis for stability.
8.1 Relocation/restoration planform
Figure 11 shows a plan view of the proposed restoration. The restored creek will recover
a natural and stable radius of curvature, meander belt width and sinuosity by grading a
new channel with a series of bends defined by the average design parameters listed in
Table 1. Using reference reach conditions, the newly aligned and restored reach is to be
broken up into riffle and pool areas by a combination of natural hydraulic action, and use
of in stream structures (discussed below). The pattern of meanders will stabilize pools at
the apex of the meander bend, and cross vane or sill structures at the heads or tails of
riffle zones will stabilize pools in the areas between meanders.
8.2 Restoration dimension
Figure 12 shows two typical cross sections for meander and inflection areas of the
proposed new stream channel. Using the reference reach sections the bankfull areas as
well as bankfull width and depth ratios have been adjusted to promote hydraulic and
sediment transport continuity in the reach. The meander bends are restored to more
appropriate cross section areas that should limit rates of aggradation on the inner point
bars to values more in line with geologic rates of meander cut bank migration. The final
restoration reach will have similar bankfull cross section areas and bankfull average
depths as those that are typical for the reference reach areas. The stream will be graded
to an average slope. The riffle material will be emplaced to create the basic riffle and
pool water surfaces. Hydraulic action during the first year of flow will both excavate
meander pools along the outer channel perimeter in the meander bend areas, as well as
deposit sand and gravel in inner meander bend areas to form the point bars. The inner
meander bend areas are purposely graded to low 4:1 slopes to provide space for the
growth of inner point bars, as well as to lower bed shear stresses in order to promote
sedimentation on the point bars.
8.3 Restoration profile
Figure 13 shows the proposed restored longitudinal profile with water and bed elevations.
p. 7 - HARP

[,-j
The restoration reach ties into the up and down stream channels at their existing
elevations. Within the new alignment, the proposed changes in riffle and pool grades of
the bed are to be achieved by construction of riffle and riffle-cross vane structures. These
zones are founded with cobbles sized over the mobilization threshold diameter (discussed
under stability below).
8.4 In stream structures
There are only two classes of in-stream structures to be used in the restoration of this
small I" order stream. In-stream structures are un-nature features that should, as a general
rule, be avoided when deemed non-essential. Due to the E channel relationship of the
bankfull stage to the floodplain in the proposed restoration there should be no need for
hard structures to stabilize meander bend areas. However, since the restored stream will
be resting on alluvial or lake (lucustrian) deposits, it is assumed that the new bed will be
founded on erodable deposits of sand, silt and clay and that incision could easily occur
without some artificial grade control. To prevent incision and promote grade stability
each of the riffle areas will be built with the details shown in Figure 10. The use of a
base of large footer stones (underlain by non-woven filter) under each of the up stream
crests of the riffle zones will inhibit incision and promote both bed and bank stability.
Periodically the rock riffle sills will be augmented with cross vanes extending to the
bankfull stage (floodplain in this case) Each of the riffle crests have elevations which
control up stream pool water levels and also stabilize the riffle to pool ratios for the areas
outside of meander bends. The average sizes of the riffle materials to be used are listed
in Table 1. The base of the riffle crest is sized 1.5 to 2 x the average diameter indicated
in the table to insure immobility.
8.5 Banlc stabilization
The banks are to be established as shown in the attached figures for cross sections and
bank stabilization (Figures 12 & 15). Banks are to be 1.5:1 or lower. The base of the
slopes in areas susceptible to erosion (outer banks on meander bends, and in the flank
areas of riffles (without cross vane materials) are to be lined with 7 lbs/ft coconut fiber
logs staked according to the directions of the manufacturer. Erosion control matting is to
be place on all slopes that are cut or filled. Any soils not judged to be appropriate for
plant establishment is to be amended prior to matting. Temporary herbaceous cover is to
be planted in the matted areas with a riparian seed mix appropriate to the season of the
work for proper germination and temporary stabilization. Then either potted plants or
live stakes are to be used to establish woody riparian species along the banks to provide
the root density and depth required to inhibit bank erosion. Should woody plants not be
planted until the fall or winter season following channel grading, additional herbaceous
cover may be needed to assure bank stability during the following spring and summer.
Bank stabilization is thus achieved by a combination of factors including: bed
stabilization (inhibiting undercutting of banks), use of toe protection in the early years of
bank replanting (coir fiber logs), vigorous root structure within the bank, and velocity
p. 8 - HARP

s
reduction at the water/bank interface (produced by the frictional resistance of woody
vegetation growing out into the channel cross section area).
8.6 Riparian bank & buffer planting
The following outlines the planting plan for the stream restoration components of Twin
Lakes project site. The plan includes a list of the types of tree and shrub species that will
be used to vegetate the buffer surrounding the project as well as the vegetation that will be
used to stabilize the slopes of the new stream banks. These new stream banks will be
covered with matting, seeded with a temporary grass seed mixture and then live staked
using native material. This covering will extend at least 1 feet beyond the top of bank.
The live stakes will be planted on 18 - 24' centers, starting from the top of the coir fiber
log to the top of bank.
A natural buffer will be provided along both sides of the restored stream. The drained
lake bottom is also being used to create two large paired bioretention cells and small
ponds (the latter for passive recreational/aesthetic value) that are also shown on Figure 11.
However, this still leaves a large area to conserve as a natural bottomland hardwood
habitat and riparian stream buffer. All conservation and buffer areas shown on Figure 11
will be planted using tree species native to the area that have wildlife value, and are
adapted for riparian and floodplain situations. All buffers are to be left in a natural state,
with the exception of selective maintenance that may be needed to maintain channel and
riparian habitat functions (e.g. removal of debris, invasive or diseased plants). The buffer
will be planted on 8' centers and monitored such that the buffer retains at least 320 trees
per acre. Refer to Table 4 for a list of live stake and tree species to be used on this reach.
Tree species planted in the buffer will mimic the native tree species found in the project
area, however species that are being considered include Black walnut (Juglans nigra),
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Hackberry (Celtis
laevigalus), Water oak (Quercus nigra) and Overcup oak (Q. lyrata). Bare root seedlings
and possibly some 1-2 year-old potted seedlings will be used to re-vegetate or enhance the
riparian buffer area.
7. Stability Assessment
Stability of the restored reach is achieved by three interdependent approaches. First, slope
' and dimensions are set at values that are consistent along the restoration, and yield bed
shear stresses (see Table 1) that will provide transport continuity from upstream to down
stream areas. In this way neither erosion nor aggradation of the bed is to be expected.
Second, the reach has a series of grade control structures to prevent the bed from eroding
into underlying alluvial deposits. Lastly, bank toe support and woody vegetation are
designed to promote velocity reductions as well as increase erosional resistance to stream
flows. The mobility threshold for clasts in the channel can be approximated by the
relationship: Tractive force (kg/m2) = incipient diameter (cm) (Newbury and Gaboury,
1993). The tractive force at the bankfull stage is 5.89 kg/m2 and is 11.78 kg/m2 at the
p. 9 - HARP

n
floodprone stage. This means that the D84 riffle crest material should be at least 17-18 cm
in diameter (1.5 x mobility threshold diameters at floodprone stage).
8. Monitoring and Contingency Plans
The proposed verification and monitoring for this stream restoration is recommended to
be:
1) 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 each meander bend, and a photo should be
provided looking both up and down stream at each station),
2) field checks with archiving of photo documentation of creek conditions during
first year of flow following completion of planting program after each
significant storm (.5 inches of rainfall), or alternatively on a bi-monthly
schedule.
3) Surveys of longitudinal profile and 3 representative cross sections 1, 3 and 5 year
following completion of restoration activities.
Should monitoring reveal problems 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 under no
circumstances should be undertaken no longer than 1 year following initial notice of the
problem. Should a corrective action be undertaken in the 5`h year, or for a problem
arising during the 5`t' year, the monitoring program is to be extended to provide
verification of successful corrective actions for at least one bankfull event following
corrective actions.
9. References
Arcement, G.J., Jr., and V.R. Schneider, 1984, Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains, FHWA-TS-204 or USGS Water
Supply Paper 2339.
Doll, Barbara, D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harmon, R.E.
Smith, R.E. 2000. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout
the Piedmont of North Carolina, in NCSU Course Notes: N.C. Stream Restoration
Institute, River Course, Raleigh, NC.
Forsythe, R., et al. Regime and Design Issues for Urban Piedmont Streams, 2004 Stream
Restoration Conference, June 22-23, 2004, Winston-Salem, NC.
(littp://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wgg/sri/).
p. 10 -HARP
G?
n
Goldsmith, R., Milton, D. J., and Horton, J. W., Jr., Geologic Map of the Charlotte l' x
2° Quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina, Misc. Inv. Series, Map I-1251-E,
USGS, Washington, DC.
Harmon, et. al., 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. In: AWRA Wildland Hydrology Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J. P.
Potyondy eds., AWRA Summer Symposium, Bozeman, Mt, pp. 401-408.
Newbury, R. W., and Gaboury, M N, 1993, Stream Analysis and Fish Habitat Design, a
Field Manual, Newbury Hydraulics, Manitoba, 262 p.
Rosgen, D.L., 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers,
Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel
Incision.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers, Catena 22 (1994): 169-199.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.

CJ

p. 11 -HARP
Ujig

F1111,
u

n
F
u
0
n

f_
n

u
I p. 12 - HARP
Figures
H.
TOPO! map printed on 03/05/06 from ''North Carolina.tpo" and "Untitled,tpg"
'. _o rfk? }unbtr 1 t r t r . 1
flik-h
S l t k
ri
S
r
i
a n :...... !
15 miz
z
a
4L?
Ln
M
80,8. W V GS84 30-81671 Vv'
MN TN 0 -5 1 MILE
71 °
0 1000 ? EEf 41
I WTUIS
Punted from TOPO! X72001 Natioi-bal G eopmpldc Holdir?- (v,?vv,.topo.com)

Ass-,cw 4T.aun Twin Lakes - Stream Project
RCS Q AI ON Twin Lakes Business Park Figure 2. Twin Lakes Restoration and t /0 /05
Reference Reach Drainage Basins

1
r.
0
TOPO! map printed on 03/05/06 from "North Carolina.tpo" and "Untitled,tpg"
80.83333° W WGS64 60.616670 W
II
.
f
North t? a }a?inht?r ,sI tJ fti'? 1?TZ +'V ? S t t '10
f
r f i\? "'° lf' ' " ? t p -VIP 0
1W It ?
825
15 Mil? Toplor
fr .15 Mil
L `kg
j f, 'All 7
Restoration Reach Reference Reach
?r
s
s
s=
s
s
s
s
s
s,
s
s
L
n
0
N
CY'i
Ln
(Y)
80,633330 W WGS84 80.816670 W
IVIN JTN 0 .5 1 MILE
7%11 ®000 FEET 0 -- 50) -- 1000 MUMS
Printed from TOPO! @2001 National Geographic Holdings (vrww.topo.com)
HA5f-AT
As ='`' Tarn ?', Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 2. Twin Lakes Restoration and 11/07/05
RLS OKAf Qri Twin Lakes Business Park Reference Reach Drainage Basins
r.?
HAB?-A?
A SSNILW.AND Twin Lakes - Stream Project
R STORVION Twin Lakes Business Park
PROGRAM I,x _,_
Figure 3. 2004 Aerial Photo - Twin Lakes
Business Park, Mecklenburg County, NC
03/09/06
0 1000 2000 feet
3?,
Legend
Symbol soils It... and Cl... slop*
AGO Allmislo sandy load 21. 6 percent slop.,
ApS Applinp randy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes
Apo Applinp sandy loam 81o 15 pernnl slopes
k kmenia loran
B.B ladin channery sill loom 21oI per-I
d, ps
Boo Badin channery sih loam n
Ble l 5 perm, slope,
BoF Each ch.nnery sill loam 15 U 45 permnt s!apas
482 (e al sandy clay loom 2 la 1 percent slope, eroded
(e 02 (.adsondy kyloom 8 to 15 percent slopes, ... clad
Cub (edUrban land complex 2 to 10 percent slope
(A (hewada sandy loam (repwnlly (loaded
(.B (,.now clay loom 1 to I percent slopes
(aD (mnan day loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
W2 Cullen day loam 21o 8 permnt slop., eroded
(u D2 (ullen<layloom I to 15 percent slopes, eroded
,no (non sandy loom 21.8 perronl slopes
EaD (non sandy loam 11. 15 percenl slopes
Eo1 [non Urban land complex 21.10 perronl slopes
0.92 Curguill. silly clay loam 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
G.C Goldcton very dionnery silt loam d to 15 percent slope,
G.F Goldslon very channery sill loam 15 U l 5 perusal slopes
Hall Herndon sill loam 2 to 8 pernnl slopes
HwB Hioerassee cloy loam 2 to I percent slopes
HwD Hinrassee day loam Ile 15pero slopes
IdA Bedell loam 0to2 ps ril slopes
Id8 Bedell loam 2 to 6 percent slopes
SA/ 1lr6sey sill tom I to 6 percent slopes
Mel MoWenbrg loom 2 to B percent slopes
M.0 Moc6lenbnp loom 81. 1S percent slopes
AIV.B Meddenhurp Urban land complex 21. 10 percent slops
IAA AYsenheim rchonmry sill loom 0 to l patient slopes
N Parole) sandy loam I S le 35 percent slopes
1113 PacoleFUdor6entc nmplex 12 to 25 percent slopes, lullied
PoB Paindexlu tom 2 to 8 percent slopes
PoD Paindexlu tom Ito 15 percent stop.,
W Poindextu lam 15 b 45 percent slopes
511 Sedph.ld sandy lam 2 to 8 percent slopes
Tab Tatum silt loam 2 to B percent slopes
T.D ToNm tilt loan Ito lSpermnt slopes
T1`82 Tali. silt <lay loam 21. 8 percent slopes,-dad
11D2 Taum silt clay loam 6to lS par<ant slope; eroded
Ud Udarlhenx loamy
Ur Urban land
Va8 Ymce sandy loom 2 to 8 percent slopes
Volt Yarn sandy loom Bla l S pernnl slopes
We Wehad6eeloom Iregxnllylloaded
W Water
IICL3
\"
i'nEi
i'`'113 1
:13 ?1
i
i
V,?T3
;iUf
VdS

v"
T

Scale
0 5 1.0 mile
HABITAT
AskSSUE"rANO y'r l Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 4. Vicinity Soils Map - Twin Lakes
03/09/06
RrSTG A iON Twin Lakes Business Park Business Park, Mecklenburg County, NC
PROGRAM 1,

KT l? * 5? f i !ri I L -r ! I ! f y d +r ?1 `? , .?
Legend

r± 1 ` (i ce r; [ t ,? aScgb x.l /r;
1 !ri •U ? ?Reatoratlon Area
i;j l
, r
m d Qaart:its
o ..

M.t.t..l:t.
r;. •
•""
?
.
• /
R.Iennce Reaeh Area f
q
r
T.
mUb
? Qssrtz Taaalita
M.tas.rti.sad
lit
.
t
tT
M
t
/
t
X T4 i? S"- A7%?? ?ZC4G1` C ll.. .? ?T
\ j C'
?'
`I
? .aa
o
:
.,
s
at..tar
ft
'
?, ?1, 6 ? r _; I d ;" I% ?? ,. ? _ ? f
. s' ?`? ?
r
w /
JJ
y ?
/'
\
1
M.ta/?aias.
tt
Ta
.?
t
?
? ?
\
r Malay .lc aeries
t x 4 m.v
1 F J G\ ,.; f! F . F 11L11 `? . f li ,? ?` / r -fit
`?; y/r
r
,?"...w -,
..
.+
?
?`
/
`
'
?y ? ?` \ \
Zr
Jt /,.' f
f - .,. \?
' `?,.-r ??'; Z:.
.•.ba..?}r"' '_n'
?
4 M.camophos.d Matic Rocks
,.1??
f?
.r ,?
?
l ' •v `
??. • c? ? , n ?s` ..- ?.,
? -,.,..?,<' ;,, ,,. %?,
`e ?'?w
?r
?
M.radi.i.,. - c..c..d ePx.
?
.
?
,,.
? ?
.
,,®
{
a `
? - A ?J m9 .iin - caac.rl cpx.
M.tas
/
M.ta-lcaaic Rocks
co 1)
1) d r'
r s;
r t ?- "' rr
.?•
-•
? f y
- ?
\
„3
?
v
Bi. tit. Mo az.ait. 6 Craaito

-
?
r y
.
„- f
`
v
- /
?
v - A
`
'
??
? M.tagrasitot Gras.di.rita

?
. ?
? ?
-
`? }
? . k
?.1 f
':`
1
y \ J r
,?
. v
Qurtz S.riciL Schist
.
?
r
.
?, ?',
!
_
i •
: Hrsi
Shoals Gra.it.
kyr
? ^
1 6
1i
?.
Y
?^- - ?
gas j r?
ocgb f
l\ \
1 /
,
/ R
. ?,
1 r f
?',
r
'
J ?
?F/- `?
?/
i
?
/_'S
` Cisrciland Platonic Cpx.

?
\
7
? J r
(
,
r,.?`l
`
F? ?
t ?
?
y?
'S .. ?y\
? 1
t'
?
... ?,
".. .' --•,. v :-
? MRt
V\ ?
?
,?? ?? !?
,
?
? K-FaldsparGranlb
? '?--'
-
?'
?
?
?
??
..
f
.
t
f-,' ?_ ;
..?
.:?
?• 1r " M. alra onto

,.
:d
?
f f?
m Pbyllita
y
te
f "
? .1
f •3x /
DScgb .' r.
r' PS o
i} 4r?
J
c?
1 Piytlit. A Schist
mvf
_ l
approx. sca
e
MAN''Ar Charlotte-Douglas Intl. Airport Figure 5. Geologic Map of Portions of
/?..f_F.`, :M-NT AND
RESTCRATION
3rd Parallel Runway Stream
North and South Carolina in the
3/06 S Tl
PROGRAM & Wetland Mitigation Project Vicinity of the Restoration after Goldsmith& Horton, Jr, 1983
M M M M ® ® M MM ® ® M ® M 'M ® M
v Jv Q vv
Zone 3: 260 straight ditch
lined with rip-rap
Zone 1: 209' stable e reach \? A 1 £ with some meanders, riffles and
\ ? \ nr. _ ! 13 9h riparian wetlands in development
V \ y A ??? ?? Zone 2: 230' reach with straight segments - - -
\ \ \ \
with few raffles or meanders ,? -
0 200 ft
HAB to i
Asse nrA.,r j I') , Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure G. Twin Lakes - Stream and 03/07/06
R GDW ,? d? Twin Lakes Business Park Pond Bottom Existing Condition
PNCC- AIM r,.:. .._.

790
785
0 780
775
W
770
Cross Section # 1 (N.C.D.O.T. Ditch)
36 sq. ft.
0
Left Bank
790
0)
°' 785
c
780
m
775
W
100
790
770
20 40 60 80
Station (feet)
Cross Section # 2, (Meander)
10.5 sq. ft.
0 20 40 60 80
Left Bank Station (feet)
Cross Section # 3 (Inflection)
785
0 780
ca
> 775
W
770
4.7 sq. ft.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Left Bank Station (feet)
HABITAT
ASSESSMENT AND II Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 7. Channel and Lake Cross Sections -
RESTORATION 11/07/05
_14 Twin Lakes Business Park Existing Conditions
PROGRAM Inc.- - -
L

H.,
1
n
0
u
H
H
Hall,
H-",

fl
H.
u
0
u
n__
ft
Cross Section # 1 inflection Eankfull Width e
)
th=
1
6ankfull Max Depth = 0.95 ft
102 ankf II Area 5 53 ft2
O
°3 100

98
0
96
>
? 94
w
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Cross Section # 2 inflection)1 Bankfull Width e th=ft
/ Bankfull Max Depth = 1.1 ft
102 ankfull Area = 6 27 ft2
N
2 100
c 98

O
to 96
>
a
i 94
w
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Width = 10.21 ft
Cross Section # 3 (meander) Bankfull Max. Depth = 1.75 ft
Bankfull Area = 6.72 ft2
.^. 1 02 B kf II M D 0
N
w 100
c
98
O
96
'
a
? 94
w
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Wdth = 8.78 ft
Cross Section # 4 (meander) Bankfull Max Depth= 1.75 ft
102 Bankfull Area = 7 87 ft2
N
a? 100

98
o
'?
96
>
? 94
W
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Width = 7.59 ft
Cross Section # 5 (inflection) Bankfull Max Depth = 1.35 ft
Bankfull Area = 7.4 ft2
102
N
a? 100
c 98
O
CO 96
>
a
i 94
w
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Dimensions (Inflection Areas; n=3)
Bankfull Indicators Average Bankfull Width = 7.57 ft
Stage (ft) Average Bankfull Max Depth = 1.13 ft
.94 Average Bankfull Area = 6.45 ft2
1.16
Average Bankfull Mean Depth = 0.78 ft
.99
Average Bankfull W/D Ratio = 9.02
1.26
Average Floodprone Width => 42.37 ft
Average = 1.1 (n=4)
Average Entrenchment Ratio => 5.56
Averge Wetted Perimeter = 10.73 ft
HABITAT Figure 9. Reference Reach
AssESSMENTANn
I1E510RA1"ION ?? ?'-1 ?
` Twin Lakes - Stream Project
Cross Sections
03/07/06
ll
I Twin Lakes Business Park
.
PROGRAM ;tic.-.- - E UT to Long Creek
u -
Banktull Mean Depth = 0.73 ft

-
'.7P tt Bankfull W!D Ratio= 10.8
Floodprone Width=>62.2 ft
5.68 ftz
62.19 ft Entrenchment Ratio => 6.01
etted Per mrrer = 19"3

Bankfull Mean Depth = 0.85 ft
6 27 ft2 ankfull W/D Ratio = 6.65
Floodprone Width = 34.57 ft
34
57h Entrenchment Ratio=>4.69
. __._. Wetted Perimeter= 11.32 ft
I

an u jean epth = .(£ ft
Bankfull W/D Ratio = T5.46
6.72 ft2
-- Floodprone Width = 42.7 ft
Entrenchment Ratio = 4.18
42 70R I Vetted Pe rimeter= 11.3 ft

Bankfull Mean Depth = .89 ft

7.87 ft2 Bankfull W/D Ratio = 9.8
Floodprone Width = 44.25 fl
44 25 h Entrenchment Ratio = 5.08
Wetted Perimeter = 10 0 ft

_....__.?? 3J6 ft `-?-
Bankfull Mean Depth = 0.97 ft
Bankfull W!D Ratio = 7.82

- -- 7.4 ft2
30.35h
- Floodprone Width = 30.35 ft
Entrenchment Ratio=3.99
Vletted Perimeter= 8.49 ft
I
!. 7 ty ft ;-•

TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Longitudinal Profile
96

?- Bed Elevation
- - _
- e- -Water Elevation
95.5
v
_ -

95
o-o
e-

94.5
e

0 -o LN 2
0
94
\6
CU 0
m
w
93.5

93
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (feet)
Longitudinal Profile Parameters
Length of Reach = 385.3 ft
Stream Grade = 0.005
Average Riffle Length = 8.8 ft
Average Riffle Grade = 0.012
Average Pool Length = 16.7 ft
Average Pool Grade = 0.0035
Riffle /Pool Ratio = 0.526
HABITAT
HARTA
Figure 10. Reference Reach
MENIAND
R?STORATI0
14 li Twin Lakes -Stream Project
t?. Longitudinal Profile, 03/07/06
.

..:.----
PROGRAM ,g Twin Lakes Business Park

=

UT to Long Creek
M
Mrand Elev. 786.52..
Legend {
8aM Mdth 7 " "'t
El_-?. -786. 2
Mrmdrr Radus N
of Curvolurr+'•
??mntr. Upper Tie-in
?.
Y _
- con:,nKtrd j 1 Elevation779.40 j
•--?- ? Ewstmg 5treom
Conservation Buffer
B+oretention Cells
Ponds fed from
lev. 782.4
Biaretention Cells
X12 375 ft2 Per.=459 ft ,\ P
Per. =48 ft r1 t Berm
Length 447 ft
EI? ? • `t . ° ? ;Y-r-c...x, .? Elev. 780.9. ? h
GZ,22 f :ti s rti: r
l iElev.779.4 \
Berm # E! `.'. = 7i54.QG
Length = 215 ft uF K, jtlev. 779.4
.t:- ./• _.. ' ice,
Lower tie-in =17 ft u Lfn o Of from culvert, Elev. P a c 0 ft2 ectlp 17
11, 00 $
7 _Z
/E
- ?' Brid
?/? Pedestrian ge
? Radius of Curvature = 16 ft
j 0 s0 100 ft
Project
Twin Lakes - Stream
6 Figure 11. Stream Restoration Planform M ap I 03/09/06
Twin Lakes Business Park
INFLECTION ZONE SECTION
7.0 - 7.5'
I
- - ?\ _-......--- - ...- - . -- --- - --- i.- - _ _ _ -? ..--
6.0-6.5ft2
1.2-1.5'
.: .?'
15 1.5
MEANDER BEND SECTION
27.0'
I
`. 9.0 - 9.5 ft2
1.2- 1.5'

Planting Zones for Bot- Planting Zone for Planting Zones for Bot-
tomland Riparian Banks tomland
Hardwood Community Hardwood Community
-? Stapled matting (e.g. S0150)
12" Coir fiber logs, staked into
\ \ cohesive channel substrate
Riffle zones augmented with
river cobble (DB4; sized for immobility)
underlain by nonwoven filter fabric (or
layer of aggregate graded to prevent
subgrade erosion and deflation)
HABITAT
As.u.s &1`41 AND
RISTGRATON ? j "; Twin Lakes - Stream Project
Twin Lakes Business Park Figure 12. Typical Cross Sections for
Inflection and Meander Bend Areas
03/09/06

780
779
778
777

c
776

a?
w
775

774

773

772
0 100
F7 Riffle Zone
Pool Zone
200 300
Longitudinal Distance (ft)
400
Longitudinal Profile Parameters
Length of Reach = 416.5 ft
Stream Grade = 0.013
Average Riffle Length = 10.0 ft
Average Riffle Grade = 0.03
Average Pool Length = 17.8 ft
Average Pool Grade = 0.0033
Riffle /Pool Ratio = 0.561
Longitudinal Profile
® rr r ® rr ® rr ® rs r r? rr rr a? ® rr ® ® rs
DESIGN FOR ARTIFICIAL BEDROCK RIFFLE
ZONE, MULTIPURPOSE IN STREAM GRADE, HYDRAULIC, AND HABITAT
STRUCTURE
1. PLAN: build riffle to extend across base of stream with
largest diameter boulders at crest line and reduce sizes
progressively downstream. Crest has boulders sized 1 to 1.5
times maximum size transportable with flood prone stage event.
Riffle crest has similar sized footers to cohesive saprolite or bedrock.
2. PROFILE: construct downstream face of riffle at
approximately 20:1 and upstream face at approximately
4:1 slope. Slope should be adjusted to meet design
riffle:pool ratio, and riffle slopes.
3. CROSS-SECTION: V-shaped crest cut down towards
center of channel.
4. SURFACE: space large surface rocks 20 to 30 cm
apart on the downstream face of the riffle to form
low fish passage channels.
5. BANKS: extend riffle side slopes up bank to levels
equal to height of coir fiber logs, and then extend crest
back with rock emplaced within banks at 20 to 30°angle
from bank, and with a rise angle of 2-7° (as is seen in the
cross vane structures).
Bankfull Stage
PLAN VIEW
-_Bank Toe
approx. 4:1
Bankfull Stage
approx. 20:1
Bankfull berm
PROFILE Flow P
Approx. 4:1 slope
Riffle Crest
Aprox. 20:1 slope
Non-woven filter fabric
SECTION
Adapted from: Field Manual of Urban Stream Restoration, Newbury et al.,
State Water Survey, West lafayette, Indiana, and cross vane elements from
Rosgen, 2002, www.wildiandhydrology.com
P A TOP OF DANK
0 -T-
I ? ?- tDNTAN?R:,ED
C c.° ?: d AND E7Af2E-ROO'
J MATCRAL 5
I
y
i - ._.....__ ME STAKES
I
d c1
--------------
{ S7-E ICE CF :14K
1. STF EAM3A:4,( C;"ADINO
2. SOIL SURFACE ROUCHEN:RC
3. SEEDING OF GW,' C.OWR CRCP
S1RE;?M FICY/ WI?H SPFC;A) Si TD ud
- - "- ~ ?. NaTAAATI',)N OF EROSION COUTROL MATER;A
A TO MA-41JU URERS SPECIFICATIONS
3. TOP F7:OTI_CTUN INSTALLATION
PLe1t VEW fi. ,"AE^,TAK NC
CONTA.mC P, ZED 7, CCNTA"'EW.LD AND CAR;.-ROOT SEEOUNC
AP:D EW ?--' OT INSTALL ATiON
MATEF':A' S AT
of skCPE?
r-_AFPRC.ID SPEC CS OF LIVE-
UURY A MiNIMUU SiA-F-S, WI-H 2 ' LAF SCti.S
y OF 6• (TYP.) / OR N-DES AYCrE CRCUND
f- FIN:CHED G2AOE EXSTINC
C!'.ANNEL
rCKCS ON CON'FR01.. IAATERAL DN COTTOM /-I
ti?. ( rR7 T -E r7DTECTIGN
V'?
{ (COIR RGCR LOG,
/ F:CR4AL
Fbw SPA4"JS RASED ON (J2 lDG 0
ME OF VEGETATION ? ? ? ?t?
AND S,.E CONDIT:OWS
DETAIL SECT, N A A
NCT TO MILE
HA87AT
Acs_ u`: A' D 711, Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 15. Planting Details 03/09/09
RESTGRATf-N Twin Lakes Business Park
PRn;ar.Mr..__. _
EM 1110-2-1416
31 Oct 94
70
50
<0
10 DEPTH
OF FLOW
` .0R
G1 i uR
} i 09
to
J
w y
4
~ 3 ?
2
i
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 tU 2 3 5 10 20 30 bo 100 200 3cc 503 mm
I? i- 1
0.01 O.C2 hap 010 0.10 0.%` 1 2".
BED MATERIAL GRAIN SIZE, DW
Example of allowable velocity-depth data for granular materials.
From USACOE 1994 Appendix A and B.
Range of estimated velocities Twin Lakes restoration channel bankfull storm plotted on the Mean Velocity
vs Bed Material Size (D 50) chart from the USACOE 1994 guide to stream stabilization.
HAB AT
TA,t* Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure TL-16. Velocity Sediment Stability
RFSTOFAnen R }-r; 03/09/06
Twin Lakes Business Park Curves
PRO6FAt.! KC, - .... _
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
e
1000
;zv 13cm
100
h
4
u
u
10
W
W
A
1
.01
1
1
10 100
ct 1., 1
I `-
.001
.01 .1 1 10
TC = CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS (Ibs./sq. ft.)
100
HAD. [A! Figure TL-17. Shield Curve with Range
A>s_ M rrr ANC yf r y^ Twin Lakes - Stream Project
R. STORATON n If a; Twin Lakes Business Park of Conditions for Twin Lakes Restora- 03/09/06
prof N i:__._- r+?Y. tion Reach

p. 13 - HARP
Tables
IE
4C d
6

u
G
L
n

t
r
r
0
C
L
L'
Table 1. Stream Morphologic Parameters

Parameter Magnolia Springs
Reference Reach
Parameters Vance Twin Lakes
Reference Reach
Design Parameters
Streamtype C5/E5 E5/C5 E5/C5
Watershed area (sq mile) 0.08 0.15 0.15
Valley Slope (Grade) 0.028 0.007 0.023
Stream Slope (Grade) 0.024 0.005 0.019
Sinuosity 1.17 1.42 1.21
Meander wavelength (ft) 41 35 35 - 60
Meander radius of curvature (ft) 10.9 11 11
Meander belt width (ft) 26 46.9 35
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.06 7.75 7.0-7.5
Bankfull Average Depth (ft) 0.84 0.780 0.8-0.9
Bankfull maximum Depth (ft) 1.61 1.13 1.2- 1.5
Bankfull Cross Section Area (sq ft) 5.59 6.45 6.0- 6.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.23 9.02 9.2
Floodprone Width (ft) 39.40 42.37 40.8
Entrenchment Ratio 5.94 >5.56 5.75
Average Riffle Slope (Grade) 0.055 0.012 0.034
Average Pool slope (Grade) 0.003 0.0035 0.003
Average Pool Length (ft) 13.81 16.7 15.25
Average Riffle Length (ft) 9.38 8.8 9.09
Riffle/Pool Ratio 0.68 0.53 0.6
Stream D 50 (mm) 4.00 na 4.00
Riffle D 50 (mm) 81.00 na 81.00
Stream D 84 (mm) 6.30 na 6.30
Riffle D 84 (mm) 190.00 na 190.00
e

Table 2. North Carolina Rural and Urban Piedmont Regime Calculations
Urban (Doll et al., 2000) Rural (Harmon et al., 1999)
Drainage Drainage X-Section Flow X-Section Flow Bankfull Width Bankfull Depth Flow X-Section Flow X-Section Bankfull
Site Area Area Area Atkf -kf Area k W?kf Dpkf k Area kr Area Abkf Width W f Depth .k
s .miles s .km s .m. cros s .ft. cfs (M) I ft m ft cfs s .ff. (CMS) I s .m. ft ft
Twin Lakes Restoration Site 0.13 0.34 1.55 2.93 16.68 103.28 4.09 13.41 0.38 1.25 10.83
1
0 3.96 0.31 0.37 4.95 0.78
Twin Lakes Reference Reach Site 1 ? 0.137 0.35 1.60 3.01 17.25 106.42 4.16 13.64 0.39 1.27 ,
1 4.12 0.32 0.38 5.06 0.79
Magnolia Springs Reference Reach 0.08 0.21 1.14 2.22 12.22 78.32 3.50 11.48 0.33 1.07 7.03 2.75 0.20 0.26 4.01 0.67
Urban (Mecklenbur Count ; Forsythe et al., 2004)
Drainage Drainage Flow X-Section Flow X-Section Bankfull
Site Area Area k Area Atkf Area Atkf
? Width W k Depth E)bkf
s .miles s .km cfs (Sq-ft-) I cros s .m. ft ft
Twin Lakes Restoration Site 0.13 0.34 45.94 12.35 1.30 1.15 11.91 1.03
Twin Lakes Reference Reach Site 0.137 0.35 47.51 12.77 1.35 1.19 12.10 1.05
hla nolia Springs Reference Reach 0.08 0.21 33.67 9.05 0.95 0.84 10.35 0.87

Table 3. Manning Eq. - Based Discharge at the Morphologic Bankfull Channel Dimension
Dlshcarge Manning
E Discharge
Regime E q.
Bankfull X- Bankfull Wetted
Area (sq Bankfull Mean Depth Perlmeter
Section ft) Width (ft) (ft) W/D R (ft) n1 n2 Slope AQ1 (cfs) AAQ2 (cfs) Q r Q u
UT to Back Creek 5.59 7.06 2.3 923 0.479 11.66 0.04 0.03 0.024 20 26 7.0 33.7
Twin Lakes Ref. Reach 6.45 7.75 3.8 9.02 0.420 15.35 0.04 0.03 0.005 10 13 11.3 47.5
T,in Lakes Res. Reach 6.25 7.2S 1.2 9.2 0.648 9.65 0.04 0.03 0.019 24 32 10.8 45.9
^ Discharge based on a Manning roughness of.04
^^Discharge based on a Manning roughness of .03
Q : rural regime estimate
Qu: urban regime estimate

n
s
1
J

p. 14 - HARP
Appendix A
Photos of Restoration Site

d'F a
C z,
?'dpf fika rx 1?T ??
Photo TL-2 View looking up stream at linear rip rap lined ditch, this section is approximately
260 feet in length.
HAE ST4i _-
As ME.;I,ND Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs,
RES p ar, Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TL-1 (upper) and TL-2 (lower) 03/09/06
Photo TL-I View looking down stream at culvert below riprap lined ditch.
03/09/06
Photo TL-3. View looking upstream at segment of evolving channel in old pond bottom with
few riffles or pools, high siltation levels (approx. 300 feet up from culvert)
Photo TL-5. View looking up stream at poorly developed stream channel (linear segments with
small radius bends) in old pond bottom, approx. 320 feet up from culvert.

' 8

L-oi
p_
Photi L 5 Diet icok 5 JOa.r stream c' iocct,or e cress secticr ncc ppcr pfOpeieQ Tie
in location.
As CIF AND Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs,
RES r= or; Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TL-5 (upper) and TL-6 (lower) 03/09/06
PROGRAM
HAeTA-
Acr V AND i Twin Lakes - Stream Proje
RES 6 -or: Twin Lakes Business Park
PROGRAM:-:.. _ ___
ct Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs, 03/09/06
Photo TL-7
Photo TL-7 View looking up stream at middle section of linear riprop lined ditch at locatoin of
cross section #1.
s
e
II
J

e

l
J

1 p. 15 - HARP
Appendix B
Photos for Reference Reach
i
s
HAE?TAT
AS M ', AM Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1. Reference Site Photographs,
RES OR ..a. 03/09/06
_ Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TLR-1 (upper) and TRL-2 (lower)
PROGRAM

Photo TLR-I View looking uo stream along reach where it enters culvert under I-485 right of
way.
Photo TLR-2 View looking down stream from I-485 culvert at upper end of the approximately
385 ft long reference reach.
Photo TLR-4, View looking up stream at meander bend with older tree rooted at bed level in
riffle zone demonstrating long term stability of gode and plonform of reach.
HnsT :
AS5r :F, AND Appendix 1 . Reference Site Photographs,
Twin Lakes - Stream Project 03/09/06
fii ?kr.icx Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TLR-3 (upper) and TLR-4 (lower)
?r_..

Photo DR-3. View looking down stream at two meander bends with stable moss covered outer
banks.
Photo TLR-6 Pebbles up to 2 in, lie within riffle areas mixed with sand and gravel.
HAeT.c- -
AN° Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1. Reference Site Photographs,
Res na on; 03/09/06
Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TLR-5 (upper) and TLR-6 (lower)
Photo TLR-5. View loodking down stream at a series of stable meander bends with point sand bars,
meander radii are approx. 11 feet, meander pools 7 to 12 inches in depth at base flow,
Photo TLR-7 coarse sand and gravel form meander bend inner point bar deposits.
0
U--
P
0
U_
n
0
k-
h-J,
L'
fl
C!
L
r
r
I p. 16 - HARP
Appendix C
Tables of Survey Data
fl

1
u

a
L
JTS, RF
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH PLANFORM DATA
Station
feet Leg Length
feet Azimuth
de rees Notes - Comments
0
9.2 43
9.2
10.1 68
19.3
12.2 357
31.5
12 2
43.5
6.7 38
50.2
11.8 51
62
8.9 0
70.9
13.1 345
84
13.3 47
97.3
10.4 350
107.7
10.7 335
118.4
10.6 58
129
14.7 122
143.7
Prepared by John T. Soule 3/16/06 Page 1
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
143.7
12.9 110
156.6
12 121
168.6
12.7 26
181.3
13.7 12
195
14.3 97
209.3
11.8 134
221.1
14 19
235.1
8.8 45
243.9
13.4 32
257.3
14.3 107
271.6
12.5 18
284.1
12.8 38
296.9
15.1 319
312
17 319
329
15 288
344
16.8 349
360.8
24.3 10 END Headwall
385.1
Ck Sum 385.1
Prepared by John T. Soule 3/16/06 Page 2
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 1
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section 4 1
N.C.D.O.T. Ditch
JTS. JFM
11-net-ns
STA

feet BS

feet HI

feet FS

feet Water
Depth
feet Bed/Ground
Elevation
feet Water
Elevation
feet Notes/Comments
TBM #1 1.98 783.67 781.69 South CNR of EXIST. Headwall
0 4.69 778.98 Origin on Left Bank
5 4.72 778.95
10 4.65 779.02
15 4.62 779.05
20 4.58 779.09
25 4.33 779.34
30 4.20 779.47
35 4.27 779.40
40 4.79 778.88
41.2 4.99 778.68 To of Bank
42.3 5.66 778.01 To of Rip-Rap
44 5.93 777.74
46 6.81 776.86
47 7.33 776.34 Toe of Bank
49 7.47 776.20
51 7.43 776.24 Toe of Bank
53 6.76 776.91
55 6.27 777.40
56.4 5.93 777.74 To of Rip-Rap
58 5.56 778.11
60 4.87 778.80
62 4.18 779.49
64 3.80 779.87 To of Bank
69 3.57 780.10
74 3.41 780.26
79 3.49 780.18
84 3.57 780.10
90 3.55 780.12 END
TP #1 1.46 783.77 1.36 782.31 Wood HUB, TBM # 2)
TBM #1 2.08 781.69 South CNR Headwall, (OUT 0.00)
0+00 to 0+90 Azimuth = 356 degrees
X-Section #1 at Planform Station 112.8
Planform intersects at X-sec station 49.8
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 2
Meander
JTS. JFM

STA

feet BS

feet HI

feet FS

feet Water
Depth
feet Bed/Ground
Elevation
feet Water
Elevation
feet Notes/Comments
TBM #2 3.91 786.22 782.31 Wood HUB
0 5.59 780.63 Origin on Left Bank
5 5.40 780.82
10 5.35 780.87
15 5.31 780.91
20 5.30 780.92
25 5.58 780.64
30 5.80 780.42
31.8 6.17 780.05 To of Bank
32.5 7.29 0.00 778.93 778.93 Toe of Bank, Edge of Water
34.5 7.89 0.90 778.33 779.23
36.7 7.05 0.00 779.17 779.17 Toe of Bank, Edge of Water
37.7 5.45 780.77 To of Bank
40 5.50 780.72
45 5.18 781.04
50 5.04 781.18
55 5.03 781.19
60 4.90 781.32
65 4.80 781.42
72 4.83 781.39 END
TP #2 7.05 788.50 4.77 781.45 To of X-sec #2 Stake
TBM #2 6.19 782.31 Wood HUB, (OUT 0.00)
0+00 to 0+72 Azimuth = 296 degrees
X-Section #2 at Planform Station 299.5
Planform intersects at X-sec station 34.6
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 3
TWIN LAIaS
Cross Section 9 3
Inflection
ITS .IFM
Z 1 _rlrf_r) r.
STA

feet BS

feet HI

feet FS

feet Water
Depth
feet Bed/Ground
Elevation
feet Water
Elevation
(feet) Notes/Comments
TBM #2 3.91 786.22 782.31 Wood HUB
TP #2 7.05 788.50 4.77 781.45 To of X-sec #2 Stake
0 1.67 786.83 Ori in on Left Bank
1.8 1.89 786.61
2 2.51 785.99
7 3.16 785.34
12 3.90 784.60
17 5.43 783.07
22 6.50 782.00
27 7.13 781.37
32 7.97 780.53 To of Bank
33 8.88 0.00 779.62 779.62 Edge of Water
33.6 9.18 0.22 779.32 779.54
34 9.03 0.00 779.47 779.47 Edge of Water
35.7 8.33 780.17
36.4 7.35 781.15 To of Bank
38.4 7.27 781.23
43 7.28 781.22
48 7.08 781.42
53 7.24 781.26
58 7.34 781.16
63 7.22 781.28
68 7.13 781.37
73 6.61 781.89
78 5.61 782.89
83 4.03 784.47
88 3.07 785.43
89.1 2.66 785.84
89.9 1.90 786.60
92 1.15 787.35
95 0.55 787.95 END
TBM #2 6.19 782.31 Wood HUB, (OUT 0.00)
0+00 to 0+95 Azimuth = 312 degrees
X-Section #3 at Planform Station 356.2
Planform intersects at X-sec station 34.0
e
a
e
e
i
i
i
s
s
r
s
s
s
e
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 3
JTS,RF (Meander)
Station BS H. 1. FS Water Water Elevation
Depth Elevation
TBM # 1 3.06 103.06 100 Manhole Rim
0 4.49 98.57
5 4.48 98.58
10 5.87 97.19
15 6.05 97.01
18.2 6.26 96.80 Top of Bank
20.3 8.34 94.72 Edge of Water, Toe of Bank
20.6 9.01 94.05 Thalweg
21.8 8.35 94.71 Edge of Water
27.3 7.56 95.50 Back of Point Bar
29.3 7.35 95.71 Back of Bankfull Bench
35 6.93 96.13
40 6.44 96.62
45 6.43 96.63
50 6.65 96.41
55 6.50 96.56
60 5.90 97.16
65 5.29 97.77
70 4.66 98.40
X-SEC # 3 @ Longitudinal Station 171.3
0+00 to 0+70 Azimuth = 321 degrees
26-Feb-06
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 4
JTS,RF (Meander)
FS Water Water
I
Station BS H Elevation
.
.
Depth Elevation
TBM # 1 3.06 103.06 100 Manhole Rim
0 4.98 98.08
5 5.86 97.20
10 6.35 96.71
15 6.78 96.28 Top of Bank
17 7.01 96.05 Back of Bankfull Bench
21.5 8.27 94.79 Edge of Water
24.5 8.84 94.22 ThaWeg
24.9 8.24 94.82 Edge of Water
26.9 6.32 96.74 Top of Bank
30 6.11 96.95
35 6.15 96.91
40 6.26 96.80
45 6.07 96.99
50 5.45 97.61
REBAR 3.24 99.82 Property Corner
X-SEC # 4 @ Longitudinal Station 192
0+00 to 0+50 Azimuth = 310 degrees
26-Feb-06
t
e
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 1
JTS,RF (Inflection) 26-Feb-06
Station BS H.I. FS Water Water Elevation
Depth Elevation
TBM # 1 0.59 100.59 100 Manhole Rim
0 4.27 96.32
5 4.15 96.44
10 4.18 96.41
.15 3.98 96.61
20 4.91 95.68
23 5.47 95.12 Back of Bankfull Bench
27.5 5.56 95.03 Top of Bank, Front of Bankfull
28.7 6.17 94.42 Back of Lateral Bar
30.6 6.41 94.18 Edge of Water, Front of Bar
33.1 6.41 94.18 Edge of Water, Toe of Bank
36.4 4.90 95.69 Top of Bank
40 4.94 95.65
45 4.86 95.73
50 5.15 95.44
55 5.40 95.19
60 5.28 95.31
65 5.11 95.48
70 5.10 95.49
75 4.96 95.63
80 4.98 95.61 END
REBAR 6.51 94.03 Long. Station 0+00
X-SEC # 1 @ Longitudinal Station 31.4
0+00 to 0+80 Azimuth = 269 degrees
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 2
JTS,RF (Inflection) 26-Feb-06
Station BS H.I. FS Water Water Elevation
Depth Elevation
TBM # 1 3.06 103.06 100 Manhole Rim
0 4.99 98.07
5 6.03 97.03
10 6.25 96.81
15 6.43 96.63 Top of Bank
17 7.14 95.92 Back of Bankfull Bench
18.3 8.27 94.79 Edge of Water, Toe of Bank
21.7 8.31 94.75 Edge of Water
24.2 7.40 95.66 Top of Bank
30 6.95 96.11
35 6.43 96.63 END
X-SEC # 2 @ Longitudinal Station 180.2
0+00 to 0+35 Azimuth = 277 degrees
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH (UT TO LONG CK)
Longitudinal Profile
JTS,RF
Station BS H. 1. FS Water Water Bed
Depth Elevation Elevation
TBM # 2 8.11 102.19 94.08 REBAR in Creek
0 8.23 0.14 94.10 93.96 Mid-Riffle
9.2 8.21 0.15 94.13 93.98 Top of Riffle
16 9.03 0.97 94.13 93.16 Pool
22 8.20 0.13 94.12 93.99 Bottom of Riffle
33 8.02 0.05 94.22 94.17 Top of Riffle
41 8.27 0.32 94.24 93.92 Pool
45 8.04 0.05 94.20 94.15 Bottom of Riffle
56 7.99 0.12 94.32 94.20 Top of Riffle
68 7.91 0.06 94.34 94.28 Bottom of Riffle
77 7.97 0.15 94.37 94.22 Top of Riffle
81.4 8.28 0.50 94.41 93.91 Pool
85.6 7.84 0.04 94.39 94.35 Bottom of Riffle
92.2 7.93 0.13 94.39 94.26 Top of Riffle
97.5 8.19 0.42 94.42 94.00 Pool
99 7.90 0.13 94.42 94.29 Bottom of Riffle
108 7.90 0.15 94.44 94.29 Top of Riffle
119 8.50 0.75 94.44 93.69 Pool
132.7 7.79 0.06 94.46 94.40 Bottom of Riffle
145.7 7.64 0.10 94.65 94.55 Top of Riffle
154.7 7.72 0.15 94.62 94.47 Bottom of Riffle
157.4 7.65 0.12 94.66 94.54 Top of Riffle
166 7.98 0.52 94.73 94.21 Pool
176 7.59 0.16 94.76 94.60 Bottom of Riffle
184.7 7.57 0.15 94.77 94.62 Top of Riffle
190.4 8.20 0.80 94.79 93.99 Pool
204.6 7.49 0.18 94.88 94.70 Bottom of Riffle
211 7.36 0.11 94.94 94.83 Top of Riffle
TP # 1 6.54 102.59 6.14 96.05
227.5 8.11 0.50 94.98 94.48 Pool
235 7.73 0.16 95.02 94.86 Bottom of Riffle
248.5 7.51 0.16 95.24 95.08 Top of Riffle
260.7 8.12 0.75 95.22 94.47 Pool
266 7.57 0.25 95.27 95.02 Bottom of Riffle
269.6 7.37 0.05 95.27 95.22 Top of Riffle
294' 7.81 0.52 95.30 94.78 Pool
304 7.30 0.06 95.35 95.29 Bottom of Riffle
324 6.99 0.10 95.70 95.60 Top of Riffle
348.6 6.92 0.07 95.74 95.67 Headwall
385.3 6.66 0.06 95.99 95.93 END
26-Feb-06
Table of Restoration Thalweg Longitudinal Elevations

Station # Pool ID
(Curve #) Pool
Length
Riffle ID Riffle
Length
Riffle Slope
Pool Slope
Elevation
0 1 17.5 0.0033 774.00
17.5 1 7.0 0.03 774.06
24.5 2 15.9 0.0033 774.27
40.4 2 10.7 0.03 774.32
51.1 3 19.9 0.0033 774.64
71 3 11.2 0.03 774.71
82.2 4 13.7 0.0033 775.04
95.9 4 10.0 0.03 775.09
105.9 5 17.0 0.0033 775.39
122.9 5 10.4 0.03 775.44
1'33.3 6 24.4 0.0033 775.76
157.7 6 10.3 0.03 775.84
168 7 12.3 0.0033 776.15
180.3 7 11.6 0.03 776.19
191.9 8 18.9 0.0033 776.53
210.8 8 10.3 0.03 776.60
221.1 9 17.9 0.0033 776.91
239 9 8.1 0.03 776.96
247.1 10 11.7 0.0033 777.21
258.8 10 8.8 0.03 777.25
267.6 11 19.3 0.0033 777.51
286.9 11 11.8 0.03 777.57
298.7 12 20.3 0.0033 777.93
319 12 11.9 0.03 778.00
330.9 13 19.1 0.0033 778.35
350 13 5.9 0.03 778.42
355.9 14 15.3 0.0033 778.59
371.2 14 7.8 0.03 778.64
379 15 22.7 0.0033 778.88
401.7 15 14.8 0.03 778.95
416.5 779.40

Average length
17.7
10.0
5.40 Elev.
Difference
L

u
n
n
v
n
n

t

L'

p. 17 - HARP
Appendix D
Enlarged Color Versions of Figures
t
w = = = = m m w = = = = m = w

i

f? D
r ?--
N N
W ?
N eNF
CD
N
N
T '0
0•
9
-0 T
O
a
w fD
O C)
3 :.
m=
x r
rt m
? N
O rt
a?
o
n.
0
w
0
0
rn
v
00
rn
Ln
N
2 0 0 6 0 5 5 8
Stream Restoration Plan
For
Twin Lakes Business Park
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina
Joint Application Form and Supporting Documentation for
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION
TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE
SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
Prepared For.
Mr. Sandy Roper
Twin Lakes Limited Partnership
2719 Coltsgate Road
Charlotte, NC 28211-3502
Prepared By:
Leonard S. Rindner, PW
Environmental Planning Consul
3714 Spokeshave Lane
Matthews, NC 28105
[phone]
D
APR 3 ZaO?

*Subject to verification by the USACE and NCDWQ
Date: 4/01/2006
I I- p@
,F ?1;7R?_C_{ . _D
APR
Office Use Only: t11?btt
Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ?0000558
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
X Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or
Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit Isolated Wetland
Permit DWQ
X 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401
Certification is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is
proposed for mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to
submittal of PCN), complete section VIII and check here: .
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed
on page 4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management Area of Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further
details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Mr. Sandy Roper
Twin Lakes Limited Partnership
2719 Coltsgate Road
Charlotte, NC 28211-3502
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:_
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent
Authorization letter must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the
owner/applicant.)
Name: Leonard S. Rindner PWS
Company Affiliation: Environmental Planning Consultant
Mailing Address: 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Fax Number:
Matthews NC 28105
Telephone Number: 704 904 2277 Fax Number: 704 847 0185
E-mail Address: lrindnernacarolina rr com
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to
local landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site
plan showing property boundaries and development plans in relation to
surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map and site plan must include a scale
and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings, impervious surfaces, or
other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should include
the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the
property boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at
the applicant's discretion, so long as the property is clearly defined. For
administrative and distribution purposes, the USACE requires information to be
submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format; however, DWQ may
accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction drawings
rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will
be informed that the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are
provided.
1. Name of project: Twin Lakes Stream Restoration Plan
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Mecklenburg County Nearest Town: Charlotte
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
See attached vicinityy mau - Near the intersection of Alexanderana Road and
Twin Lakes Parkway
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.36700N, 80.8387°W
(WGS84/NAD83)
USGS Derita Quad (Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet
that separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): + 5.35 Acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Unnamed Tributary
of Dixon Branch
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river
basins. The River Basin map is available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adinin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity
of the project at the time of this application: Site is primarily a drained pond
bed succeeding do a bank to bank disturbed stream withan an adiacent
adjacent park area in the business park.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be
used:
Stream restoration within former pond bed - dam removed to overall I-485
construction and related road realignment requirements - see overall area plan
on Mecklenburg County GIS Exhibits
Explain the purpose of the proposed work:Provide a recreational, educational,
and acceptable visual amenity for employees of the business park to enjoy
within a passive park setting.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or
obtained for this project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the
past, please explain. Include the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project
Number, application date, and date permits and certifications were issued or
withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits, certifications or
other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a
NCDOT project, list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same
T.I.P. project, along with construction schedules.
A permit was issued (Action Id 200231390 & DWQ# 03-0185) to rebuild the dam
and impoundment However this permit was not utilized. The developer elected to
restore the stream bed as part of passive park for the recreational enjoyment of the
employees of the business park.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the
current application.
Additional impacts to wetlands are not expected. Additional impacts if required
will be applied for appropriately.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all
impacts to wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project.
The applicant must also provide justification for these impacts in Section VII
below. All proposed impacts, permanent and temporary, must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site plan. All wetlands and
waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland
and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact
is strictly for wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section
VIII below. If additional space is needed for listing or description, please attach a
separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Permanent
impacts to wetlands consist of remnant fringe areas along stream channel. As
the area has drained the wetland areas have succeeded to uplands. Remaining
wetlands are estimated to be less than 1/4 acre.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
A NWP #27 .25 no < 50' PEMIC - disturbed

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to:
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts
due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA
Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or online at httn //w+++v.fema.LO+'.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland,
beaver pond, Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by
USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: +/-
+ 0.33 acres
Total area of permanent wetland impact proposed: +/-0.33 acres
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below: NA
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
1 NWP 27 416+/- UT of Dixon Branch 31-61 Perennial

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and
associated rip-rap, dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet
before and after, and net loss/gain), stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.),
excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear
footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
•" Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary)
to the nearest downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-
800-358-9616, or online at www.uses.cov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of
USGS maps (e.g., www.top(yone.com, www nimquest.com, etc.).
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries,
sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below: N/A
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.

I
List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts include, out are not umtuu w: uu,
excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts
should be included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also,
the proposed pond should be described here and illustrated on any maps
included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation,
installation of draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic,
trout pond, local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface
area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be
useful to provide information related to site constraints such as topography,
building ordinances, accessibility, and financial viability of the project. The
applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact site layouts, and
explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss
construction techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The purpose of the plan is to restore a stable stream in a former pond be as a
visual recreational and educational amenity. The natural area will consist of the
restored stream conservation buffers, bioretention cells, and pond areas. This area
is adiacent to and upland park area with large specimen trees. The area is a
passive recreational amenity n for the employees of the Twin Lakes Business
Park Approximately 400 linear feetof the stream is stable and will be preserved.
In accordance with USACE and NCDENR requirements the restoration area by
restrictive covenants The Wilmington District Process for Preservation of
Mitigation Property will be used to develop the restrictive covenants.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by
the NC Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to
one acre of impacts to freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear
feet of total impacts to perennial streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of
Nationwide Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000,
mitigation will be required when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the
aquatic environment are minimal. Factors including size and type of proposed
impact and function and relative value of the impacted aquatic resource will be
considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation
as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable
include, but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and
maintaining wetland and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such
as streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource functions and values by
creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar functions and values,
preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be
attached in order for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for
processing. Any application lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP
concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete. An applicant may also choose
to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's Draft Technical
Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
littp://h2o.ciir.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strini-,ide.litin1.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description
should provide as much information as possible, including, but not limited to:
site location (attach directions and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and
river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet) of mitigation proposed
(restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.),
and a description of the current site conditions and proposed method of
construction. Please attach a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands
Restoration Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's
responsibility to contact the NCWRP at [phone] to determine
availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior to submittal of
a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at
littp://ii2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.liti-n. If use of the NCWRP is proposed,
please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the following
information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):.
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):_
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ) NA
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use
of public (federal/state) land?
Yes ? No X
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document
pursuant to the requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA
document is required, call the SEPA coordinator at [phone] to review
current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so,
please attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
NA
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all
impacts to required state and local buffers associated with the project. The
applicant must also provide justification for these impacts in Section VII above.
All proposed impacts must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on the
accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a map, whether or not
impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ Regional
Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B
.0233 (Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250
(Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify
Yes ? No ? If you answered "yes", provide the
following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by
applying the buffer multipliers.
*
Zone Impact
(square feet
Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed
(i.e., Donation of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration /
Enhancement, Preservation or Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration
Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified within 15A NCAC
2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on
the site. Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters
and wetlands downstream from the property.
Project development is subject to local Charlotte/Mecklenburg Stormwater
Regulations. Per conversation and confirmation with Ms. Cyndi Karoly - GC
3495 (NWP 427) does not include stormwater treatment requirements, however a
component of the plan includes bioretention cells and ponds fed from the bio-
retention cells, and a conservation buffer.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or
discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available
capacity of the subject facility.
NA
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ) NA
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any
Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No X
Is this an after-the fact permit application?
Yes El No X
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance
of desired construction dates to allow processing time for these permits.
However, an applicant may choose to list constraints associated with construction
or sequencing that may impose limits on work schedules (e.g., draw-down
soed*s for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and Threatened Species,
a cessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
,
• Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is
provided.)
i ap., i vi
•.: 7 ,? -ter ?:
tOj30zone:'' YSibStB? ?jS l
VC.''Y?'11f37.?31A:p18Cd4."tJ1??L?ii} T 1\.? ?t f???,?ir• ?I``-. y.;-.?r'S,•.??ft? ?r? .
... w7_.?^-?C'^ 1f ' 1 }' i%l i+., rJ'n f ! l( c
( , I ?r?' 1 f r?, \ ,•.r- `1.,L ,I l r-?? _ ?r /%?_ ' S ?\ 1
. t r .,K r J /r _
W.,
E}S 1
}`. ??I1 j fl t',l•. T. C
.) I t r7 111 ./'' a I /! 5 i 1 ,_'J 11 1j`Jr ?---J ??{1 rf? fr.?. "t1, 'r,,
r f 1 ! f 1 _ h rfj
I ?,,?f :%!rr ti + + `,?-y ?r k .i 111 ?;1,? ?• '?` i .' ? t r Ji ? iti- r`Zlt t }?ri?r?3? t
1 11 ? /r / ?'i 1
i ?r?l ?,' ?, } ?? I . ? . F1bOt '' ?, , I ' r i r?% J? •1 A,}tl / . ? "?'r? C.
?? ?~; f! ' ?,"•' ;l'', dt` :C. ;.2 3r Hilkh Scb
r 111 r ?' ? -. r _ _??-_?•?--- T :: ?{ f{ I ?
-' J ' - ';r •-!, _r??7 i-. ?? •=f ?1-^ `t??] ri 1,5 Jay''
___c -"-nom-* t { ! ?tl ?ti r I i
l 1 i I' \J 1/; r ! ' •?'<?43.!-
??rtti'G3oc] nLdr?4 .-*?Fir N7'T S?rli ii ,:? 4tti _ "f' r
f l \` r ] ?ii
J j- ?, S ? 1 i 1 l;h ht ti+ \. ' :?? FYI \ + t t }4
50vv?1'' • {'
i( 1I(?1lCh
- ?rl 1`?, ? rl ? •-'• ?5-!' - . ?,.f-fl y`{`. , •til 1?.. ?ltyiii ?i ?I ? ? . `t`• -•r ?• r ?l"5
,I ,• ; r?!/? „? \??\ ? ? •.? .\ - . rr ii \,.f ?? ? `- .[`I I??`' ` ~` .n.r I r ,i' . ; ?i_
a ire ` 1 i - / '?__%? '?]?'4, '? • ?• ? .I • •a., -`-=:?: _ ! 1 r
t,
.i?G ?? t I{'I?: •,- s25, r {,''?. ..JuP
lpr
fill, ,_ 115
?rl ' ?. it ?J1r -r--.- • „'I, I''1 ,. LI, j J? )` ' r' _ `5 ••r<<ti.
`? c - \ • ? =? ? - t ? . j • l 1 _ ?Q?IrG(.,1,6t I `r `?c{tu?ader'Cti,
L4if???i J/ f \ ?l ?ti+t` •' f,
I R it 1? 7`? ,?
10
-. e+' _ '] r_. i r r) r. /r' 1 r .?./ / ,.1 '1 1 •fr.
•`_ -! 1 i i ?il'1
r"' a t r
"' . 'll l /?? \. •?.1 ?I?r ?. .??V. ,.?ri !r'/I ? ? 1. 1 \
:.
?/ I Ilrr S _i , \`'11`t f? `' ? I •? /x i,!1'1 `?? M ? } 1, 1` ?? ? ?\
a??7?i;Cti,'tt;GE 1 n '? ? ? % 4•Y ? ,r ? ,,? 1', '.
ran*•
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 km
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 mi
Map center is 35.36700N, 80.8387°W (WGS84/NAD83)
Derita quadrangle
Projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD83 Datum
G
M=-7.151
G=0.093
file://C:\D OCUME- I \LENNEW- 1\LOCALS-I\Temp\YKD8ORC8.htm USGS DERITA
Mecklenburg County, NC POLARIS
Page 1 of 1
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
POLARIS
Property Ownership Land Records Information System
Date Printed: Fri Mar 31 09:12:39 EST 2006
------------------ ---
I[j
III
•1-
__
I , 7 +a `? 51 ?- ? ? i
t r? 1?-?-?,II e v = -
-III r-?- ?+ ?f ... • I' • J "'T
,? f ?? • f • r j' E? t ? '1'? 1
I 18??-?? Jena --
r.1yJ '+5 I 1 ,` _ - it I I __--r
y tr :r-? III `??`?rl ? l • • • I? I ''1 ? '?-_ -
TES
NCDOT ---?,
i / ?rr w
? - II? 'I .} i ? ? lyS
-Alb
t si `
MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS
+ rc>- ?,?r. .?•? p 1 HIMI
This map is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps, surveys,
planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aformentioned public primary information
sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the information
contained herein.
http://maps2.co.mecklenburg.ne.uslservletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=RealEstate&ClientV... 3/31/2006
Mecklenburg County, NC POLARIS
rage i or 1
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
POLARIS
Property Ownership Land Records Information System
Date Printed: Fri Mar 31 08:38:50 EST 2006

82
02!4UO6
a
u~
silt
m
v •l? /
• i• ~• s,?? qq''• ••, l~4 0o i?
? ? o2soszaa ',? ?, , •
N0 U.48 ^ry ?J
7 /,
(A) MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS', p 2D5i1
This map is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps, surveys,
planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aformentioned public primary information
sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the information
contained herein.
http://maps2.co.meck-lenburg.nc.us/smlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceNaine=RealEstate&ClientV.;. 3/31/2006
?n10 o2saslla-
Mecklenburg County, NC POLARIS
gage > or 1
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
POLARIS
Property Ownership Land Records Information System
Date Printed: Fri Mar 31 08:38:50 EST 2006
r ?, 4
c3.

d?ym ?

J.

.025MMt .t y t •.,
_ oZso4B r
•._ `` `•O
qV _
.('ip, x
k'ME?ENBURG COUNTY Gl D
20511
This map is prepared for the inventory of real property within Mecklenburg County and is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tax maps, surveys,
planimetric maps, and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aformentioned public primary information
sources should be consulted for verification. Mecklenburg County and its mapping contractors assume no legal responsibility for the information
contained herein.
http://maps2.co.mecklenburg.ne.uslservletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceNaine=RealEstate&ClientV... 3/31/2006
Stream Restoration Plan
Un-named Tributary to Long Creek,
Catawba River Basin
2 0 0 6 0 5 5 8 Twin Lakes Business Park
Charlotte, NC
Vt.
711
- [ 7, qrr f }? .? t
?Fi, r' c dF;t 777
?Z 3d3
41.
ltu
rr (y
te r. Ir4
w
HABITAT
March 2006
ASSESSMENT AND
RESTORATION ?? +9
PROGRAM
HARP, Inc
P.O. Box 655

I Newell, NC 28126
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
r_ i
L

0
L I
1. Restoration Project Goals
2. Site Location and Background Information
2.1 Topographic, physiographic, and watershed setting
2.2 Landuse in the watershed
2.3Soils and Geology of the restoration and reference reach sites
3. Existing Conditions in Reach Proposed for Restoration
4. Reference Reach Information
5. NC Regime Data Analysis
6. Manning Equation-based Estimates of Bankfull Discharge
7. Reference Grainsize Analysis
8. Restoration Design
8.1 Restoration planform
8.2 Restoration dimension
8.3 Restoration profile
8.4 In-stream structures
8.5 Bank stabilization
8.6 Riparian bank and Buffer Planting Plan
9. Stability Assessment
10. Monitoring and Contingency Plan
11. References
Appendices
A. Photos of Restoration Site
B. Photos for Reference Reach
C. Tables of Survey Data
D. Enlarged Color Versions of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Page
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Location Map
Topographic and Watershed Map for Restoration and Reference Sites
Aerial Photo Showing Landuse for Restoration and Reference Sites
Soils Map for Restoration and Reference Sites
Geology Map for Restoration and Reference Sites
Planform Map of Existing Conditions at Restoration Site
Cross Sections of Existing Conditions at Restoration Site
Planforn Map for Reference Reach
Cross Sections for Reference Reach
Longitudinal Profile for Reference Reach
Restoration Design Planform Map for Restoration Reach
Restoration Design Cross Sections for Restoration Reach
n
Figure 13. Restoration Design Longitudinal Profile for Restoration Reach
Figure 14. Typical Detail for In-stream Grade Control
Figure 15. Typical Detail for Riparian Planting
Figure 16. Velocity and Sediment Stability Curve
Figure 17. Bed Shear Stress and Sediment Stability Curve (Shield Curve)
List of Tables
Table 1. Morphologic Parameters for Reference and Restoration Sites
Table 2. North Carolina Regime Equation Data
Table 3. Bankfull Discharge Calculations using Manning Eq.
Table 4. Planting schedule for Bank and Riparian Areas
e
1. Restoration Project Goals
1 The goals of the proposed stream restoration activities are to restore original
morphologic, hydrologic and ecologic functions to approximately 416 linear feet of a
Rosgen E5/C5 stream reach in northern Mecklenburg County along an un-named 1St
order perennial stream located with the "Twin Lakes Business Park" on a common area
open space tract held by the Twin Lakes Limited Partnership. The site was formerly a
small lake, but road widening along US21 in association with construction of the nearby
I-485 Charlotte outerbelt forced NCDOT to drain the lake 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 sediment-in level of the old lake bottom). Watershed runoff
from approximately .15 sq. mi. flows into the lake where it is conveyed along a channel
with more ditch-like characteristics than that of a natural stream to the outflow culvert.
This stream restoration plan presents: a) the reference reach restoration design
foundations, b) the morphologic restoration elements for stream pattern, dimension, and
profile, c) channel habitat and stability measures, d) the stream bank and riparian planting
and habitat conservation measures, and e) monitoring and contingency plans.
e 2. Site Location and Background Information
Figure 1 shows 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 tine driving directions
noted on Figure 1.
2.1 Topographic, physiographic, and 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 I" order tributaries that have perennial flow.
The USGS map shows only the pre-existing lake at the restoration site, and then 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 lake (from the NNE
p. 1 - HARP
subcatchment) is a perennial stream with persistent year round baseflow. The USGS map
shows the reference reach as an intermittent stream, but again, persistent baseflow has
been noted over the last few months, a period during which there has been below average
precipitation.
u
n
[1
s
0
H
u

P
L
2.2 Landuse in the watershed
Figure 3 shows a 2004 color aerial photograph for the vicinity of the Twin Lakes
Business Park, and the headwater areas of Long Creek, Mecklenburg County. The
landcover/landuse that dominates a watershed, particularly the impervious surfaces such
as roads, parking lots, and building roofs, can significantly impact a number of basic
morphologic indices for natural stream channels due to the increases in storm water
discharges. The most important factor is the creek dimension, which can undergo a
400% enlargement as it transitions from wooded lands to a highly urbanized landscape.
However, in more recent years the larger NC urban areas have implemented storm water
regulations that limit some of the impacts of the increased impervious cover
accompanying development. The Twin Lakes Business Park has storm water BMP
requirements for its conunercial tenants, and thus would not be expected to experience
dramatic changes in bankfull channel morphologies. This catchment does, however
include a portion of the North Mecklenburg High School at its northern limits, which
does not have storm water BMP's in place and would generate some minor amount of
increase runoff within the catclunent. The reference reach watershed is largely open land
(<15% impervious) and can be considered a rural NC Piedmont watershed. This will
change soon, as the outer belt is completed, and bring raise the impervious cover for the
catchment to closer to 30%. On the basis of a comparison of the landuse between the two
watershed, it would be expected that the reference reach would have bankfull discharges
slightly lower than those of the restoration reach.
2.3 Soils and Geology of the restoration and reference reach sites
Figures 4 and 5 show the soil and geologic rock types that are found in both the reference
and restoration sites. A range of soil types, common in northern Mecklenburg County,
are found in both watershed. These soil types are derived from the underlying igneous
and metamorphic rocks composing the Charlotte Granite Belt, specifically the meta-
quartz diorites and tonalites for the, restoration reach, and a mix of meta-quartz diorites
and tonalites and meta-volcanic units for the reference reach. The former catchment is
dominated by Cecil sandy-clay loams, the latter by Vance sandy loams. However, the
reference reach lies within a small corridor of floodplain alluvial sandy clay loams (of the
Monacan soils unit) that were not mapped on the Mecklenburg County Soils maps, and
this provides a comparable context to the restoration reach setting where the restored
stream will lie within the alluvial/lucustrian deposits of the former lake.
3. Existing Conditions in the Reach Proposed for Restoration
1 p. 2 - HARP
u
Figure 6 shows a planform map of the degraded reach that lies within the drained lake
bottom. This was surveyed with tape and compass in November of 2005. The 416 feet
proposed for restoration can be separated into two zones. The lower of the two is formed
of a linear ditch that was recently enlarged and lined with rip rap to stabilize and direct
water into the down stream culvert in association with the road widening project along
US21 (see Photo #TL-2, Appendix A). This segment is approximately 260 feet in length.
The adjacent up stream 230 feet of channel is composed of basically three linear
segments without significant meanders or riffles. The remaining portions of the stream
leading up to culvert under the Twin Lakes Parkway is not proposed for restoration as
this area has both sonic natural meander and riffle characteristics along with riparian
woody vegetation.
Figure 7 shows three cross sections for the reach within the drained lake. It is clear from
these sections that there is no consistency in dimension along the reach. It is also clear
that the lower area lined with rip rap is over dimensioned when compared to either the
reference reach data, or the NC regime data (discussed below, and presented in Tables 1-
3).
Appendix B contains a series of photographs taken in the proposed restoration reach in
November of 2005. The photographs show typical channel conditions within the lower
500 feet of the impacted channel. Most of the lower reach is composed of a silted-in run
with no significant pools or riffles down to where the bed is lined with rip rap.
.In summary, the lower 400 to 500 linear feet of channel that lies within the old pond
bottom has a degraded planform, dimension, and profile and should be restored to
morphologic conditions that can provide most if not all of the original functions of the
stream that was situated in this location prior to the creation of the lake. A stable
restoration is proposed for approximately 416 linear feet herein using a reference reach
and bio-engineering approach. Reference reach information is discussed below, and is
then followed by a detailed presentation of the design, stability assessment and planting
plans.
4. Reference Reach Information
A 380 foot long reference reach for the restoration was located on a nearby tributary of
similar drainage area and physical setting (see figures 1, and 2 for location and
topographic setting). The reach has both C and E Rosgen channel characteristics, and
indicates long term stability of both channel grade and planform by the presence of old
trees rooted along banks at stream bottom grade, as well as thick moss coverings along
most outer meander bend banks (see reference reach photographs of Appendix B).
The reference reach planform was mapped in detail using tape and compass and is shown
in figure 8. From the planform mapping meander radii, meander belt width, meander
p. 3 - HARP
wavelength, and sinuosity were determined, annotated on Figure 8, and summarized in
Table 1. The reference reach has a relatively high sinuosity of 1.42 (thus the Rosgen E
affiliation) for a North Carolina Piedmont I 1 order tributary. The meander bends have an
average radii of curvature of approximately 11 feet with an average wavelength 35 feet.
The average radius of curvature (11 ft) is slightly less than 2 x the bankfull width,
perhaps influenced by three of the meander bends that have trees which have inhibited
meander evolution over time. Normally meander radii at morphologic equilibrium will
be 2 to 2.5 x bankfull widths consistent with theoretical and empirical expectations for a
stable natural channel (Newbury and Gaboury, 1993).
The reference reach channel dimensions, along with bankfull indicators are shown in
Figure 9 for three inflection sections, and two meander sections. Individual and average
bankfull widths, depths, areas, entrenchment ratios, and W/D ratios are annotated on the
figure, and average values compiled in Table 1. Four bankfull indicators were surveyed
in on cross sections and averaged to obtain a mean bankfull stage for the reach.
The channel has an average maximum bankfull depth of 1.13 feet, an average bankfull
width of approximately 7.75 feet, an average depth of 0.78 foot, and bankfull area of 6.45
square feet. The entrenchment ratio is greater than 5.75. The dimensional data is directly
applied to the design to promote sediment transport continuity and long term bank and
bed stability. This is achieved by normalizing bed shear stresses throughout the corridor
at the bankfull stage.
The longitudinal profile for the reach was surveyed in using tape and transit level, and is
shown in Figure 10. The longitudinal profile of the reference reach shows a nice pattern
of alternating pools and riffles with a riffle to pool ratio of approximately Z 0.53. The
® pools are dynamically maintained by meander bends and scour zones within riffle areas
® and provide an excellent reference for re-establishing bed habitat structure in impacted
reach. The average length of the riffles is z 8.8 ft, and the avereage length of the pools is
z 15.25 ft. There is approximately .7 to 1 feet of water depth in the pools, and .1 ft of
water depth in the riffles at low flow stage.
5. North Carolina regime data analysis
•A second method of determining the likely dominant (channel forming) discharges and
stable channel morphological dimensions in a given setting of the North Carolina
Piedmont and Mountains is to use "regime" relationships worked out by analysis of
streams that have good bankfull morphologic indicators as well as USGS gauging. This
analysis has been done for both Mountain and Piedmont streams in the North Carolina
Piedmont (Harmon et. al, 1999) and generated the following sets of relationships:
Urban Streams (this set is in meters and kM2):
Abkf= 3.11 A, '"

p. 4 - HARP
Rural Streams (this set is in feet and mi2):
Abkf = 66.57 Aµ, 0.x9
',
J
Qbkf = 5.44 A,"'
Wbkf - 5.79 A,,, 0.32
Dbkf = 0.54 A,,, 0.32
In these equations,
Qbkf = 18.31 A,y 0.75
Wbkf - 11.89 A,,, 0.43
Dbkf = 1.50 Aµ, 0.32
A,, = the drainage basin contributing area
Abkf = cross section area of flow at the bankfull stage
Qbkf = discharge at the bankfull stage
Wbkf = width of the water surface at the bankfull stage
Dbkf = mean depth of flow at the bankfull stage
In a followup study to the urban stream analysis of Harmon et.al., 1999, Forsythe et al.,
2004 reanalyzed the urban bankfull relationships to watershed area for stream located in
the Charlotte metropolitan area. This latter study recorded stage and discharges directly at
sections with bankfull indicators rather than by extrapolation from USGS gaging station
cross sections. It also verified scaling laws within individual urban watersheds. The
second study verifies the earlier conclusion that urban watersheds have adjusted
(enlarged) geometries in the Piedmont of North Carolina, but indicates the earlier study
over estimated the adjustments. The modified set of urban relationships (in feet and mil)
is:
Abkf = 45.57 A,,. 0.64
Qbkf = 169.55 A,,, 0.'0
Wbkf = 21.53 A,,, 0.29
Dbkf= 2.11 A,,, 0.35
The stream drainage areas pertaining to this project are shown in Table 2. Both the rural
and urban estimates for Abkf, Qbkf, Wbkf, and Dbkf generated from the above equations are
listed in this table. It should be noted that a preponderance of the data used to generate
the urban curves was obtained from urban streams in Mecklenburg County. The values
for bankfull discharges under rural and urban conditions are dramatically different,
begging an implied history of instability as. the creeks transition from rural to urban
1
conditions within their watersheds. The differences in channel dimensions that are
required to carry the increased storm flow resulting from urbanization of the watershed
i create challenges in restoration efforts. Stability under current conditions and stability
under future conditions potentially dictate different channel pattern and dimensional
attributes. Measures are adopted in the restoration design to limit instability as the
watershed undergoes future development.
6. Manning's Equation based Estimation of Banlcfull Discharge
The observations of bankfull indicators within the reference reach allow the Manning
p. 5 - HARP
e
1
0
0
h
P

n
Equation to be used to estimate the bankfull discharge associated with this
morphologically defined stage. The surveyed estimates of cross-sectional areas, wetted
perimeters, and channel slopes, along with estimated Manming's roughness coefficients,
allow an average discharge calculation for the reach to be determined using Manning's
Equation. The input parameters and calculated results are presented in Table 3. The
estimate of Manning's roughness coefficient is somewhat subjective and brings some
ambiguity into these calculations. A roughness coefficient value of .026 is adopted for
the tributaries based on the depth of bankfull flow with respect to diameter of channel
bed materials, the stable bed framework, and bed material sizes following concepts
summarized in Arcement and Schneider, 1984. This base value is then modified for other
resistance factors such as sinuosity, bank vegetation, and obstructions. To reflect
reasonable variation of these parameters within the studied stream reaches, two values of
roughness coefficient (.03 and .04) were used to calculate a range of discharge values.
The resulting discharge estimates are shown in Table 3 and compare very favorably with
the rural regime estimates (10 to 13 cfs compared to 11.3 cfs). In these tables values
obtained for an additional reference reach acquired from an unnamed tributary to Back
Creek a few miles to the east on the Mecklenburg-Cabarrus County line along with
estimates for the proposed restored conditions at the restoration site reach are also
included for comparison value. Due to the slightly high stream grade at the restoration
reach the Manning equation results in bankfull discharges that are higher than those of
the reference reach. This is actually a beneficial consequence as the greater extent of
development in the restoration reach's contributing drainage area is anticipate to yield a
higher bankfull discharge. Bankfull discharges two to three times that of a rural
watershed of similar area can be accommodated if the reference reach dimensions are
used in the restoration along with the average steeper stream grade of 0.014. This is still
only 1/5`h of the increases represented by the urban streams used to define the urban
regime conditions in watershed lacking significant storm water BMPs.
7. Reference Grain Size Information
In order to understand the hydraulics that forms and maintains bed structure within the
channel, an analysis of the sizes of sediment present in the reference reach channel are
normally undertaken. However, due to the recent unknown potential impact of clearing
and grading activities for the I-485 outerbelt on sediment transport dynamics in the
primary reference reach for this restoration effort we have elected to use the sediment
analysis that was performed on the other nearby UT to Back Creek reference reach
(mentioned above). This reach had a slightly smaller drainage area (0.8) but similar
channel dimensions, and a steeper stream slope (perhaps more comparable to the
restoration site in this regards, ie., .024 versus .019) The D84 ,,,;n, D50, and D84 max- grain
size values are listed in Table 1. This reference reach-based grain size data will guide the
selection of any supplemental bed materials that may have to be placed into the
restoration reach.
p. 6 - HARP
L
8. Restoration Design

There are three morphologic perspectives on the relocation/restoration design, and two
additional habitat and stability issues. The morphologic factors are: planform, dimension,
and longitudinal profile. These are separately discussed below, and illustrated in Figures
11, 12 and 13. The bed habitat is broken down into riffle and pool areas, which are
shown in pattern view on Figure 11, and in longitudinal profile in Figure 13. The sizes of
bed materials are listed in Table 1. The details for bank and riparian planting is shown in
Figure 15. The details for riffle/cross vane construction are shown in Figure 14. The
riparian planting is separately discussed below, as is the analysis for stability.
8.1 Relocation/restoration planform
Figure 11 shows a plan view of the proposed restoration. The restored creek will recover
.a natural and stable radius of curvature, meander belt width and sinuosity by grading a
new channel with a series of bends defined by the average design parameters listed in
Table 1. Using reference reach conditions, the newly aligned and restored reach is to be
broken up into riffle and pool areas by a combination of natural hydraulic action, and use
of in stream structures (discussed below). The pattern of meanders will stabilize pools at
the apex of the meander bend, and cross vane or sill structures at the heads or tails of
riffle zones will stabilize pools in the areas between meanders.
8.2 Restoration dimension
Figure 12 shows two typical cross sections for meander and inflection areas of the
proposed new stream channel. Using the reference reach sections the bankfull areas as
well as bankfull width and depth ratios have been adjusted to promote hydraulic and
sediment transport continuity in the reach. The meander bends are restored to more
appropriate cross section areas that should limit rates of aggradation on the inner point
bars to values more in line with geologic rates of meander cut bank migration. The final
restoration reach will have similar bankfull cross section areas and bankfull average
depths as those that are typical for the reference reach areas. The stream will be graded
to an average slope. The riffle material will be emplaced to create the basic riffle and
pool water surfaces. Hydraulic action during the first year of flow will both excavate
meander pools along the outer channel perimeter in the meander bend areas, as well as
deposit sand and gravel in inner meander bend areas to form the point bars. The inner
meander bend areas are purposely graded to low 4:1 slopes to provide space for the
growth of inner point bars, as well as to lower bed shear stresses in order to promote
sedimentation on the point bars.
8.3 Restoration profile
Figure 13 shows the proposed restored longitudinal profile with water and bed elevations.
p. 7 - HARP
The restoration reach ties into the up and down stream channels at their existing
elevations. Within the new alignment, the proposed changes in riffle and pool grades of
® the bed are to be achieved by construction of riffle and riffle-cross vane structures. These
® zones are founded with cobbles sized over the mobilization threshold diameter (discussed
under stability below).
8.4 In stream structures
There are only two classes of in-stream structures to be used in the restoration of this
small 151 order stream. In-stream structures are un-nature features that should, as a general
rule, be avoided when deemed non-essential. Due to the E channel relationship of the
bankfull stage to the floodplain in the proposed restoration there should be no need for
hard structures to stabilize meander bend areas. However, since the restored stream will
be resting on alluvial or lake (lucustrian) deposits, it is assumed that the new bed will be
founded on erodable deposits of sand, silt and clay and that incision could easily occur
without some artificial grade control. To prevent incision and promote grade stability
each of the riffle areas will be built with the details shown in Figure 10. The use of a
base of large footer stones (underlain by non-woven filter) under each of the up stream
crests of the riffle zones will inhibit incision and promote both bed and bank stability.
Periodically the rock riffle sills will be augmented with cross vanes extending to the
bankfull stage (floodplain in this case) Each of the riffle crests have elevations which
control up stream pool water levels and also stabilize the riffle to pool ratios for the areas
outside of meander bends. The average sizes of the riffle materials to be used are listed
in Table 1. The base of the riffle crest is sized 1.5 to 2 x the average diameter indicated
in the table to insure immobility.
8.5 Bank stabilization
The banks are to be established as shown in the attached figures for cross sections and
bank stabilization (Figures 12 & 15). Banks are to be 1.5:1 or lower. The base of the
slopes in areas susceptible to erosion (outer banks on meander bends, and in the flank
areas of riffles (without cross vane materials) are to be lined with 7 lbs/ft coconut fiber
logs staked according to the directions of the manufacturer. Erosion control matting is to
be place on all slopes that are cut or filled. Any soils not judged to be appropriate for
plant establishment is to be amended prior to matting. Temporary herbaceous cover is to
be planted in the matted areas with a riparian seed mix appropriate to the season of the
work for proper germination and temporary stabilization. Then either potted plants or
live stakes are to be used to establish woody riparian species along the banks to provide
the root density and depth required to inhibit bank erosion. Should woody plants not be
planted until the fall or winter season following channel grading, additional herbaceous
cover may be needed to assure bank stability during the following spring and summer.
Bank stabilization is thus achieved by a combination of factors including: bed
stabilization (inhibiting undercutting of banks), use of toe protection in the early years of
bank replanting (coir fiber logs), vigorous root structure within the bank, and velocity
p. 8 - HARP

i reduction at the water/bank interface (produced by the frictional resistance of woody
vegetation growing out into the channel cross section area).
t 8.6 Riparian bank & buffer planting
The following outlines the planting plan for the stream restoration components of Twin
Lakes project site. The plan includes a list of the types of tree and shrub species that will
be used to vegetate the buffer surrounding the project as well as the vegetation that will be
used to stabilize the slopes of the new stream banks. These new stream banks will be
covered with matting, seeded with a temporary grass seed mixture and then live staked
using native material. This covering will extend at least 1 feet beyond the top of bank.
The live stakes will be planted on 18 - 24' centers, starting from the top of the coir fiber
log to the top of bank.
A natural buffer will be provided along both sides of the restored stream. The drained
lake bottom is also being used to create two large paired bioretention cells and small
ponds (the latter for passive recreational/aesthetic value) that are also shown on Figure 11.
However, this still leaves a large area to conserve as a natural bottomland hardwood
habitat and riparian stream buffer. All conservation and buffer areas shown on Figure 11
will be planted using tree species native to the area that have wildlife value, and are
adapted for riparian and floodplain situations. All buffers are to be left in a natural state,
with the exception of selective maintenance that may be needed to maintain channel and
riparian habitat functions (e.g. removal of debris, invasive or diseased plants). The buffer
will be planted on 8' centers and monitored such that the buffer retains at least 320 trees
per acre. Refer to Table 4 for a list of live stake and tree species to be used on this reach.
Tree species planted in the buffer will mimic the native tree species found in the project
area, however species that are being considered include Black walnut (Juglans nigra),
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Green ash Fra t xt'?
( ), ( us pennsylvaruca), Hackberry (Celtrs
laevigatus), Water oak (Quercus nigra) and Overcup oak (Q. lyrata). Bare root seedlings
and possibly some 1-2 year-old potted seedlings will be used to re-vegetate or, enhance the
riparian buffer area.
7. Stability Assessment
Stability of the restored reach is achieved by three interdependent approaches. First, slope
and dimensions are set at values that are consistent along the restoration, and yield bed
shear stresses (see Table 1) that will provide transport continuity from upstream to down
stream areas. In this way neither erosion nor aggradation of the bed is to be expected.
Second, the reach has a series of grade control structures to prevent the bed from eroding
into underlying alluvial deposits. Lastly, bank toe support and woody vegetation are
designed to promote velocity reductions as well as increase erosional resistance to stream
j flows. The mobility threshold for clasts in the channel can be approximated by the
relationship: Tractive force (kg/m2) = incipient diameter (cm) (Newbury and Gaboury,
1993). The tractive force at the bankfull stage is 5.89 kg/m2 and is 11.78 kg/m2 at the
p. 9 - HARP
J
r
floodprone stage. This means that the D84 riffle crest material should be at least 17-18 cm
in diameter (1.5 x mobility threshold diameters at floodprone stage).
8. Monitoring and Contingency Plans
The proposed verification and monitoring for this stream restoration is recommended to
be:
1) 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 each meander bend, and a photo should be
1 provided looking both up and down stream at each station),
2) field checks with archiving of photo documentation of creek conditions during
first year of flow following completion of planting program after each
significant storm (.5 inches of rainfall), or alternatively on a bi-monthly
schedule.
3) Surveys of longitudinal profile and 3 representative cross sections 1, 3 and 5 year
following completion of restoration activities.
Should monitoring reveal problems either in the channel, banks, or riparian buffer areas
1 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 under no
circumstances should be undertaken no longer than 1 year following initial notice of the
problem. Should a corrective action be undertaken in the 5"' year, or for a problem
arising during the 5`1' year, the monitoring program is to be extended to provide
verification of successful corrective actions for at least one bankfull event following
corrective actions.
9. References
Arcement, G.J., Jr., and V.R. Schneider, 1984, Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains, FHWA-TS-204 or USGS Water
Supply Paper 2339.
Doll, Barbara, D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harmon, R.E.
Smith, R.E. 2000. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout
the Piedmont of North Carolina, in NCSU Course Notes: N.C. Stream Restoration
Institute, River Course, Raleigh, NC.
Forsythe, R., et al. Regime and Design Issues for Urban Piedmont Streams, 2004 Stream
Restoration Conference, June 22-23, 2004, Winston-Salem, NC.
(http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/srio.
p. 10 -HARP

1
Goldsmith, R., Milton, D. J., and Horton, J. W., Jr., Geologic Map of the Charlotte 1 ° x
2° Quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina, Misc. Inv. Series, Map I-1251-E,
USGS, Washington, DC.
Harmon, et. al., 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. In: AWRA Wildland Hydrology Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J. P.
Potyondy eds., AWRA Summer Symposium, Bozeman, Mt, pp. 401-408.
Newbury, R. W., and Gaboury, M N, 1993, Stream Analysis and Fish Habitat Design, a
Field Manual, Newbury Hydraulics, Manitoba, 262 p.
Rosgen, D.L., 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers,
Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel
Incision.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers, Catena 22 (1994): 169-199.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
p. 11 -HARP

Figures
p. 12 - HARP
i

i 1?'li7V Q',r>
21

i I ED
"

i 4n
Q
.
L'S

i

J Fife'
an

d
er
ana Rd

`Jo for
P
2
by - - Restoration Site
b
fe
i

Reference Site
ri
e
a

L
m
? r'
r' a
V
Q
°
( t
??R'eSRa 1"+` ll'r Harris B W

i ? P?.d
c

w Croft
" r p7

I y
d
ro
1 0 km
?0

5mi
i ..
02DD5 Yahoo! Inc V ©2005 NAVTEO
Directions to Restoration Site
1. Take exit #181HARRI5 BLVD/REAMES RD -go 0.3 mi
2. Turn on W WT HARRIS BLVD - go 0.3 mi
3. Turn on STATESVILLERD - 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 #181HARRIS BLVD/REAMES RD - go 0.3 mi
2. Turn on W WT HARRIS BLVD - go 0.3 mi
3. Turn on STATE5VILLERD - go 0.8 mi
4. Turn on TWIN LAKES PKY - go 0.5 mi
5. Turn on VANCE DA MS 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
® HAE.TAT:
ASSE"WENTA^dD Twin Lakes - Stream Project
REST?R4*Ctir, Twin Lakes Business Park
!.
NcKRAM
Figure 1. Location and Driving Directions 03/09/06

TOPOI map printed on 03/05/06 from "North Garolina.tpo" and "Untitled.tpg"
80.833330 W WGS84 80.616670 VII
t
0
Ir1
1.:.7
k-

121

J
R ri
82
? fic?rt?? ?tiEc?.} F?.nl?tlr ? r
MK

?
? ?
,
i j}`,.J ? t ? -? ? f 3
J '`???? ` ? `'ii ?
? ?
f t?,
• ?? may-
{ti pF t

": v
K
,
r1, 1J
`
V

.15 Mi
.15 Mil
f

?y •?.?...?. 77 kp? i. c.i . t11 ;???f
Restoration Reach _-??\' Reference Reach'
CIL
Y. 1 ale t E
t, r
.
,
,r F ?? ?5 ?„•.,.•-r_ =-'.y4a tt(f ICY ...
till,
p f }}}}
tit t
S I t ?t ,?
jl fs "V is 4.t - i k ?f? t
0
N
LD
M
L()
M
80.833330 W WGS84 80.816670 W
o .s 1 MILE
MN TN
7s° 0
®FET - - 1000 METERS
- -- -
Printed from TOPO! @2001 National G eogaphir Holding (vpwN v.topoxom)

HABITAT
As =ssw JA•) a i.
R
''.
N
; Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 2. Twin Lakes Restoration and 1/07/05
cD
URA I:O G i Twin Lakes Business Park Reference Reach Drainage Basins

L
.»t
4 . ` J
` s
??t O
- C,
CO
O
\
O
M
O
J Z
.C N
7 C
O
U
O
0 `
O
-C .a
n- C
f4 O
` d
V
Q W
O Y
O cII
N CL
M N
? C
=3
N
0
LL co
N
O
O
O
N
++
U
O ?
as
E
? N
N c
L .
N 7
.m
V) W
Q) a)
J J
r
O
O
O
T-
M
zaan.
O

I 3
I Vafi J N E{ ?--
f
'Hcl3. V,'D CtU HcC CIVET Zti?-? t?
fA 0 If, [3
Vat3 ? r ?
Legend <1J (at H, a" y
Symbol $oil$ N.....a Clete slop. Vs? I1 t; ;.'' .---
VaD } 1f
A:B B Alloeiao sandy load 11:6 percent slopes {?
? t F f(: •:.t.? V,-y(j
Ap Applinp Bondy loom 11o8 pernnl slopes
ApD 4ginpsan dyloam BIe I5permnt slopes A1,13
Ar Atmenio loon
BoB Bdin shonnery sill loan 21o8pertent slopes t ? ---? ?
BoD Bodin channery sihloom It l5 pe¢ent slops
Bo, Rodin rhannerysih loom IS to lS percent stapes p nI41 .r? -r'I{3 1 `v A{;Q
Co. Coal sandy'toyloam 21a 8 pertentslopo;eroded CC132 V ,?.
GD2 Cedsandydaylcam Bnlsparcent slops, eroded ;(t{ ( y`? -"?? ..,,4/ C %? 1? v
CuB CeJ U,ban land rumdex 2 to 10 Percent slope
Ch Chewed. sandy loam 6e9clemly flooded / ..` • ? i A;-,U
CoB Coronae day team 21e Bpercent slopes '13 Va[) `
(oD Cgonomdoyloan Blol5pertenlslopes.? ,ihtJ /_ -...? CC{77
1,12 Cullen day loom 11o8percent dopes eroded
,u02 (ulbn doy loan B 1015 percent slopes, eroded 77 ?{ ns f
Ina In an Ban loon 2to8 percent dopes iC(3 a
°y Vance Twin Lakes 1.,13 c. /
InD Enon sandy loan 01.1 uronlslopes VaO
EoB Enon Main lond,emplex 21o 10 permntslopes {- j( 'Va ?;
Ge82 Gaorperille silly clay loam 21o 8 percent slopes, eroded
G:11
G rery ahannery sill loam 1 to 15 portent slopes F{rl.i
GoF Goldslon-y chancery sill loom ISto,15percenlslopas I_ A`
P,s
Hea Nerndan sill loam 2to8percenl slopes / 1,. 1? 1 f r `,/
NwB Hiowassae day loam 21o 8 pe(one slopes 1J_
H.D Niowassee day loan Bp l S pementelapes .t
IJA ':dell loan 0 b 2 portent slopes
IJB 'edall loan 1to'percent slopes
Kill Kinsey sih loan Ito d perrent slo

MaB
MeD
Mecldenbnploan
.,wonEurp loan p
2 6 peruntslo s
B le 15 percent slopes
A1'D
All Me:IJenburpLrban land <ompbx 21.10percentslopes
MIA AUnnhemerchanmry sill loan Olelpermnt slopes J s.lti) 1 \
PaF Pacobtsendyloon I S to 35 percent slopes
NO Pacok Udofients complex 12 to 25 percent slope; Rallied
PoB Poindexl. loam 2 to 8 percent slopes '
P:D Poindextear loom 8 to 15 percent slopes
Pop Poindexter I... IS Is IS percenl dopes
SIB Sedphold sandy loon 21e 8 portent slopes
Tab ToNm sill loan 21o B percent dopes s _ P L
TaD Ta. silt loan B IO 15 percent dopes J?0
1112 Town silt doy loon 2 b 8 percent slopes, eroded
TbD2 TaWn silt day loom 81o 15 Pernnt slope s, coded
Ud Udorthent; loamy
III cm land
VaB Vma sandy loon 21a B percent dopes
YaD Vmm sandy loam BIO IS percent dopes
We Waf,d4eelon GepmmlyHeaded - VA3
W Wages
;tDZ r
C.°52 0 ,
_C;.D2
IIri13
Cei)2
Ur CeD2
f•f C;rpd? ..
p7. U r
Scale
0 .5 1.0 mile
HAOTAT
A5'A5SVL AND yl Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 4. Vicinity Soils Map - Twin Lakes 03/09/06
RESTG.A I'V': _ Twin Lakes Business Paris Business Park, Mecklenburg County, NC
PPQGRAb1 1.,?,._...
u-_--
u
r
E
H_
L]

n
u
r
L'

n
n
W
? •• u N a '? 'v .. a p l
• .'. X y w ? ? • ? C y • N ? y t ? A ? C
? Q ? n . ?$ tl A -
J` , H. ? ? q
?
W 4 1..
?•? V ? _ V ? 1
? Q ? ` ? , ? ? 7 -
Y
^
+
r ?
7
L
i • l1 a + • « i • a - V

r ?? :
?'
•I ??--- * O
?
?
S
o
?'? ? -v
_-
??" i•
--
?? c
im, _
, ? ?,?1 ??
?. _
i y
?
?

cm =3
?, # .? ti ( ?: q
1 E O co O
4

L
U OZ

I LL

Q. co
f
r
d I
T3
a y

a s. , . r
05
J \

u
_
ti
} _ t -?'? „? } ?? 1"e' j f ?t.4 ?? .cr ? ? ••w "` ? a \ \? "t t+a? • G O ,

•.,Y-.4!wt'` ?t r. '-...,...t. t. .a`?+ y ' ?' ??1.J +.. .a. 1 tiff #i \i.? ' } i t - ; :•?.\ ?.,?
.( ti: ¢
0: a.

0
0
C
n
C
n
e
1
C
C
u
11
n
u
H--
p
u
L
L
° E „ I t
i .. E
I c N c
N
m ? ?k
E '
N E 5 ! G
,,y ? d Vii. ? U .?? i• -
N In
\ O
7 Q:
1
ID
N ? t
i C ?
!d 2
{ ?'.N _ OO b o g
/ y
O
O
c9 C
E °
.: C
N U
? C
y 'N
N
W
M W
E
3
h-
CO m
C
i a°
Y
a. CL
E
N
C1 ?
C
N
N ?
y fa
N Iq
Y Y
J
F"
?r
Z
Q " 5t
2
t`Qma-
LO
0
ti
0

C) '-
p
O r-
C)

O c
OD O
U
O
N
N
O

p
o0 O
U
O (1)
_Ile
m
O J
O
C
cv ?
^
`
C
O C

;O
-+
O
a O C
ca
?- O m a) O L U 0

U CD a)
? c
O v
O U
ti
f
N co O
c

Z
s
?- p-
N
O C c c N
Un
O O In m 0
+• "_ LL W
(D
M
U U
U)
a)

CO
+a)
CO C/)
O

U
N ? 'T a-?
V
O N
U) °
U
`a
o O V) a
N ti E N

? c

N
N N
O Y
Y Se
m m
(U J J
O m C C
CD U) C 0 p 3'3

(1001) uOIJena13 a
c O m ?.
c
coo O LO O U-)
00 co r- r-
O U-) O U-) p O J
t"' I
o' r- ti ti J (1001) UOi}eAG13
(10el) u01lena13 r

Q Z 1
7 O 5
1-
F
a ? a 7
F
~
m u u
O
= 4 X a
Cross Section # 1 Inflection Bankfull Width = 7.76 ft
th = 0
( ) B
kf
ll M
th = 0
D
D
95 ft
an
u
ax
ep
ep
.
2
102 ankfull Area= 568 ft
U
°? 100 Bankfull
5 ft
0 98
M 96

> 94
w
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Wdth = 7.36 ft
Cross Section # 2 (inflection) Bankfull Max Depth = 1.1 ft
«^. 102 ankfull Area 6 27 ftZ
N
w 100 Bankfull W!D Ratio
E
t
h
C 98
t R
n
renc
men
atio
34
57
N
.
O
96
>
a
i 94
U'
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Width = 10.21 ft
Cross Section # 3 (meander) Bankfull Max. Depth = 1.75 ft
Bankfull Area = 672 ft2
^. 1 02 B kf II M Depth 066 ft
N
w 100
c
98
O
cz 96
>
a
i 94
U' L J
_
92
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Width = 8.78 ft
Cross Section # 4 (meander) Bankfull Max Depth = 1.75 ft
102 Bankfull Area= 7.87 ftz
d
100
0
a
_
c 98 44 25 ff Entrenchment

CO 96

94
W
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Width = 7.59 ft
Cross Section # 5 (inflection) Bankfull Max Depth = 1.35 ft
Bankfull Area= 7.4 ft2
102
N
S? 100
98
C
O Wetted Perimeter = 6.49 ft
ro 96
> 7. f,
a
i 94
U'
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Dimensions (Inflection Areas; n=3)
Bankfull Indicators Average Bankfull Width = 7.57 ft
Stage (ft) Average Bankfull Max Depth = 1.13 ft
.94 Average Bankfull Area = 6.45 ft2
1.16
Average Bankfull Mean Depth = 0.78 ft
.99
Average Bankfull W/D Ratio = 9.02
1.26
Average Floodprone Width => 42.37 ft
Average= 1.1 (n=4)
Average Entrenchment Ratio => 5.56
Averge Wetted Perimeter = 10.73 ft
HABJA' Figure 9. Reference Reach
A`S`S`'•1ENTA"n Twin Lakes - Stream Project
Cross Sections
03/07/06
Rtsl oRArlora Twin Lakes Business Park
PROGRAM ;Nc_. -- _- _ UT to Long Creek
Bankfull Mean Depth = 0.73 ft
- 7 Floodprone W(D Width Ratio = = > 10.6
62.2 ft
5.68 ftz
62.79 K Entrenchment Ratio => 8.01
'Pnu1 Perimeter = 12.3

Bankfull Mean Depth = 0.65 ft

6 27 fl2 = 8.65
Floodprone W dth = 34.57 ft
=> 4.69
Wetted Perimeter = 11.32 ft

an u can =
Bankfull W/D
Ratio = T5.46
2

_
8.72 ft Floodprone Width = 42.7 ft
Entrenchment Ratio = 4
.18
42 70 /t I etted Pe rimeter = 11.3 ft

Bankfull Mean Depth = .69 ft

7.87 ft2

I Bankfull W/D Ratio = 9.6
Floodprone Width = 44.25 ft
Ratio= 5.08
Wetted Perimeter = 10.0 ft

---?? 378 ft -?
Bankfull Mean Depth = 0.97 ft
Bankfull W/D Ratio = 7.82
7.4 ftz
30,35 R
- Floodprone W dth = 30.35 ft
Entrenchment Ratio = 3.99
-

i I
C) 0
o ?
o
M
O

Lv Lv N LO CO
OM C) co MN L
U
Q) LO I OD (0 0
LO
c;
C)
-
N
co
?
M II II II II 0 II
?
C II N N II O
"o m -o -C N
(B
-
M U
C 2
C M 0)
o
U
C? J C? Y
U«
o

O
? au
? E N OJ O
..
o o a?
N
U U

? cum-
CL
o(uoo?
du
mom
p c:
co o
?? mrnm m? J
a
M CU
N

p

' J

O
> > N O
>

C C

cm o
QQQQ LL.
J
2 u
U o
cn
Q
w N
a?

E N
w
U a? N
N
Z
W ° + 'y
(n 3
0- C
° CO
o
W ca N O N N
W? g co ??

W ? ? 0 G
O
0
_
.J

z !

c O
z
0
w F
C,
-(D
O F Q
x
a uN s

_
W
U
zQx(L
W "
N
7" b
m? o
Ch L
.

g

o
c o LO m c n ? c n c o
rn L6 0 ) 0 ) M rn
0)
rn
rn
(wnlep ti ejligje : 10a1) UO i}ena13
I
I?

'cam
r
II

CD
w

e

n
n
u

n
C.i
u
9

i

;a

k
b
U-i
CY3
.2 J.

l

c
t
c

INFLECTION ZONE SECTION

= -.-7.0-7.5' - -
I
6.0-6.5ft2
1.2-1.51
1.5 1.5

MEANDER BEND SECTION
27.0'
9.0-9.5 ft2
-5 1.2-1.5' _

Planting Zones for Bot- Planting Zone for Planting Zones for Bot-
tomland Riparian Banks
Hardwood Community tomland
Hardwood Community
-? Stapled matting (e.g. SC150)
12" Coir fiber logs, staked into
\ \ cohesive channel substrate
Riffle zones augmented with
river cobble (D84; sized for immobility)
underlain by nonwoven filter fabric (or
layer of aggregate graded to prevent
subgrade erosion and deflation)
HABITAT
A utsu "rAtC j
R?STCaAo`' Twin Lakes - Stream Project
Twin Lakes Business Park Figure 12. Typical Cross Sections for
Inflection and Meander Bend Areas 03/09/06
??p...
PROGRAM Irc--. _...=-
LO
O
ti
O
m
O

O Q) tn0O
MOUO
a) p
CO O
r 0
_
?o
00 ? ?
C13 l a) 1
II Q)?-L II O 0 o
a ? ? mL m? c? c a
c C7 c m a)
O O
i J (D
O
-

N

Q

_
E 4
=
co a) _ O
?
F
Of
0
N
(l0 7
.
c1v 0 0
-
a)
b ? 0 0- M cri N .
? tn U) O
a)cO
Z3 (D cu a) CIO co
O Q ? >
O Q Q Q ti
O
Cl) J -
4-1

Q? U
O X
{?.., w L f0
0 .. n a
L E N
CL c ?a)
L C
c ° V) '

'a C N N
3 0 ? ?

N .? J J

C 0 cc

J

?i

a

O {

T
a a
m in n o
¢ a a
N°
o? N
IS
14-

U F1

O
O O co r (0 LO ct Ch N

r r r r r r r r r
(u) UOIIEA013
C)
a)
0
M
0 0
a)
a '-
O
m

E
o i
L
? N -
L f0
O
a
?
Y
c
6 «.
N Q o
m (U N
C
?
N U
a) U

X
O O
R1
CL \ L7
L
? \?
?
a?
°
CL
O

v
0
m
Co
3 XI

V)
V) ?
LLL O_
CL
'q

? a) 7 Q L U
C
N

m

W ~

Y

O
O F-
Y C

CO

z

` (LM

Z
co
? m LLJ
J
O
M LL o
3 °
?•
w N?
a =
a 2 N m

E N co
?
Y
O ?0 o L
co co
C teQ) N C
7 C C
Ln
>
O O
E
F
F-
co B

a)
O N L Q)

.
Cn
V
E N - v"
i ° E n °c) c Z
Q
.Ui 0° C
M
m E
°
O E
a) co
> 'c
O
) '
o>

U U •N O N

N O a) al X N

w, O CL) O

F+

M
O a
O
°
M
O
V1
O N
N

N O

'

O
-O N O_ >
p 0 a

a
C
O
O a)
r+ a+ O
Y X N .n
O
y .? ^
..
r ?
a) v 0 0
0
1 O O O" C O O v? M
Q)
Q) -
N C 7 O N
_ 'n C vl ~ O u~ N O a) .D Y N C E m 'JS o
JO 2. L °

m E Q, @ m Cc:

a o
L
a
N c>
=d [?a
LWL,
, (D N L p
'C a) N O (0 7 N
w a) U
'O N O
` O Vi
Q)
m O) C
0) C Q)
t9 aj O
U CL cu
CL u 0) 0

U
x
E
CL V)
c V) 2
(D
^

a)
^

w
T
p w
c N
0 (D M co a)
v m a
-0 .0 w
co u cm *a

Z
Q
` .n > N E
N '
N^ N C
m
o
Z
a
m c U
a u
'C w O. N j
v
N a1
3
UN
w y
'w a
V ? E o c
Q)
a O
V N )
?----•• y
NU ° O
3
X
LL D. .D E a)
E L O
a (n CJ C
N t W Q) N O p N N U 0 3
W
3
j .
<a > x y J c'Jo N O U« M u Y(D ?

w Z,
g N° CL 0
O a.
? cc:
° L z 0. M
ZQ 3>
° v o
O 0 0 d M° ? o
Q. (..) C N N M 7 U E N ?" O N
-
'E O.
i
'.
m u 0
t m o
ui (V .Q w
ro
z
W ?
m
. ? u o.
v) Z
LLJ 0
Q N
N
e
A - TOP OF DANK
1_-__'T--
r- covTA'uEraFD
d Gr CTj ,? I ( AND EIAr.E
j `- ? CS MATCnJ??:,
I
i
J
s:-NK
S-E
1 'RCAU7F H CRT H
2 SOIL SL:,-,'-ACE kOUGFIENNG
J -;_EOING F R"5 DVFR CROP
S1RE:?M FLv`7F? N?H F [7 uE'1 Yk%
Ld N,. TA IA7 )Y OF EF"7 I(..Y C.ON THOL VM LHo-
> A A Nfi TO MA4±,VACM;r[RS SF'EC.rI AIIGNS
^. T('.P F'R:7T' -CTIJN 1NSTALLA-b1DN
fT(„6,'? ?l 5. STAK F:G
CGN,AINF R ZED 7. CC N'Ad1ER:Z.O
At,) EIAkr-RGQT 7N$TAE.?i QY
A1A,T E1,', i AT
-AFPRC.ED SPCC'ES OF LVE-
\{ EiURY A W,1UU'al ? StAw FS, wISH 2 ' LA,
- SCAr.S
OF 5' ;WP) / GR h;CDEs' /,VQ'.'E GRGUNO
FIN-42D GRACC EX STWC
CHANNEL
/ r-EKC5-0Y CCNTRJI. MAND:A ON D
IOTTDM
L_J IJ ?f / I
(CGi? F; CH LOG. /
NAIEH LttlE'. J
FLAN T PA.;I1I EC EO CN i /2 LC m
YF E OF ?'!CEDIT N
AI.D s E cou?lr.O us
DETAIL $1N A A
RCT TD ?GtL£
HAB7AT
ass S11E`-A'0 j+ Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 15. Planting Details 03/09/09
RESTORAIXv,.?=; Twin Lakes Business Park
pp_
EM 1110.2.1418
31 Oct 94

70

50

SO UEPTH
OF FLOW
2 ?k
0 1 gk
} O k
1
(( 10
Q
J
w 7
>

4

3 1
2
I
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.5 O 2 3 S 10 20 10 SU
?-
100 200 300 500 mm
- '
0101 o c2 a M. 0110 0,1.0 0.50 1 2 11.
BED MATERIAL GRAIN SIZE
D
,
ay
Example of allowable velocity-depth data for granular materials.
From USACOE 1994 Appendix A and B.
Range of estimated velocities Twin Lakes restoration channel bankfull storm plotted on the Mean Velocity
vs Bed Material Size (D 50) chart from the USACOE 1994 guide to stream stabilization.
HAO.-A
Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure TL-16. Velocity Sediment Stability
RSTaoA*iea 03/09/06
Twin Lakes Business Park Curves
-f!
FROCRAm v::.-..
.01
1000
;z- 13cm
100
y
4
u
u
10
E
x
w
H
W
A
c 1
U
I
1 10
100
?C
old ct
1`
.001
.01 .1 1 10
TC = CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS (lbs./sq. ft.)
100
"A13 IAT Figure TL-17. Shield Curve with Range
As ;,,VLNI ANC Twin Lakes - Stream Project
Pof Conditions for Twin Lakes Restora- 03/09/06
R STORAT:ON Twin Lakes Business Park
aoc,A,M 1 , tion Reach
Tables
r_
C

u
u
u
1
C
p. 13 - HARP
1
u
n
0
n

C

I

0
n
r
C
r
r.
l'?
CIS
u
Table 1. Stream Morphologic Parameters

Parameter Magnolia Springs
Reference Reach
Parameters Vance Twin Lakes
Reference Reach
Design Parameters
Streamtype C5/E5 E5/CS E5/C5
Watershed area (sq mile) 0.08 0.15 0.15
Valley Slope (Grade) 0.028 0.007 0.023
Stream Slope (Grade) 0.024 0.005 0.019
Sinuosity 1.17 1.42 1.21
Meander wavelength (ft) 41 35 35 - 60
Meander radius of curvature (ft) 10.9 11 11
Meander belt width (ft) 26 46.9 35
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.06 7.75 7.0-7.5
Bankfull Average Depth (ft) 0.84 0.780 0.8- 0.9
Bankfull maximum Depth (ft) 1.61 1.13 1 .2 - 1.5
Bankfull Cross Section Area (sq ft) 5.59 6.45 6.0- 6.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.23 9.02 9.2
Floodprone Width (ft) 39.40 42.37 40.8
Entrenchment Ratio 5.94 >5.56 5.75
Average Riffle Slope (Grade) 0.055 0.012 0.034
Average Pool slope (Grade) 0.003 0.0035 0.003
Average Pool Length (ft) 13.81 16.7 15.25
Average Riffle Length (ft) 9.38 8.8 9.09
Riffle/Pool Ratio 0.68 0.53 0.6
Stream D 50 (mm) 4.00 na 4.00
Riffle D 50 (mm) 81.00 na 81.00
Stream D 84 (mm) 6.30 na 6.30
Riffle D 84 (mm) 190.00 na 190.00
lJ

0
P
C
L

u

r

L

d
'
a
c
co
A
c
co
co

7

C
O

U

L
O
Z
N
_d

e
oocq
?o
o?o
0
N C -OLn
^'a m ?m
m N o
Y ?
? N w
d
t 3
L LO m
c - OJ
LL o O
E
- u ?
C to d n
ox a
o Un Ln
m m m
o 5 t E o
? LL u
C
d
n I? LO
U CO m N O
U ?+ N N m
C N ? ?
ca x a
3 m n cn
o j "vir- m
y ? v v m
LL
u V L
m m N
co 1000
cu .
a
m
rn °•
A ° o 0
oa
? U
(n N
N
N N C
°2 cD
U
w (d C ?
N O N
? w
a) c
N 0 N
u
Y Y
J co
p
C C C
F L
m
n
H

e
m
a I a
E
o m
o
o?
c
_g

'?

d
W M N
N r fh
?W
ra
o ?

a O O 7
N N

N

? 0
0 0
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O
O
p a 6

0
3 0 0 0
0
0, a

m C v
S
L O O
m3 Cv
X
„
m?

? E E
o C
_ ? E E
N
5
F H o o
<sa
0
0

a
L,)

C
I__-
I
r
0
n
n
u
0
p. 14 - HARP
Appendix A
Photos of Restoration Site

.F ,
e si
44 :..?
Photo TL-1 View looking down stream at culvert below riprop lined ditch.

03/09/06
Photo TL-3. View looking upstream at segment of evolving channel in old pond bottom with
few riffles or pools, high siltation levels (approx. 300 feet up from culvert)
Photo TL-5. View looking up stream at poorly developed stream channel (linear segments with
small radius bends) in old pond bottom, approx. 320 feet up from culvert.
?. I
V.
3
Y
C 4 j'
1.6
r
i !` 2 r
tw
y S5 a. %
A? rr . +Jii
Photo -L-o _ew goo org aewr stream at location or cross section 4t3 near upper proposed ; ie-
in location.
i {ABTA-
A M AND Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1 _ Restoration Site Photographs,
Res R On Twin Lakes Business Paris Photos TL-5 (upper) and TL-6 (lower)
PROGRAM -- :J_
03/09/06
tlA@TA - - ,-_-_ - _
A' m AND Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs,
Res .e :or, Twin Lakes Business Paris Photo TL-7 03/09/06
Paocn.AM -
Photo TL-7 View looking up stream at middle section of linear riprap lined ditch at locatoin of
cross section #1.
1

1
i
J

s

1
i

S p. 15 - HARP
Appendix B
Photos for Reference Reach
t
Photo TLR-2 View looking down stream from I-485 culvert at upper end of the approximately
385 ft long reference reach.
HAE TA-
A rND Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1. Reference Site Photographs,
RES -,P. oN Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TLR-1 (upper) and TRL-2 (lower)
PROGRAM-
03/09/06
Photo TLR-I View looking uo stream along reach where it enters culvert under I-485 right of
way.
Photo TLR-4. View looking up stream at meander bend with older tree rooted at bed level in
riffle zone demonstrating long term stability of Bode and plonform of reach.
Hns;T=.
Asse ` A , Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1. Reference Site Photographs,
R oF« -'o= Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TLR-3 (upper) and TLR-4 (lower) 03/09/06
Photo , LR-3. View looking down stream at two meander bends with stable moss covered outer
banks.
Photo TLR-6 Pebbles up to 2 in, lie within riffi'e areas mixed with sand and gravel.
EtneTa?
`ND Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1. Reference Site Photographs,
RES F or.
Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TLR-5 (upper) and TLR-6 (lower) 03/09/06
Photo
TLR-5. View loodking down stream at a series of stable meander bends with point sand bars,
meander radii are approx. 11 feet, meander pools 7 to 12 inches in depth at base flow,
Photo TLR-8 Clay and silt deposits from recent over bank flow event lie just over the bonkfu! stage
on inner meander bend berm.
HAB TA" --
As Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1 . Reference Site Photographs,
03/09/06
Res P ON Twin Lakes Business Park Photo TLR-7 (upper) and TLR-8 (lower)
Photo TLR-7 coarse sand and grovel form meander bend inner point bar deposits,
J
e

L

II

I '?I
7

j

p. 16 - HARP
Appendix C
Tables of Survey Data
d
I TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH PLANFORM DATA
JTS, RF
0
0
n
P

u
r

L
u
C
L
t
n
-1
Station
feet Leg Length
feet Azimuth
de rees Notes - Comments
0
9.2 43
9.2
10.1 68
19.3
12.2 357
31.5
12 2
43.5
6.7 38
50.2
11.8 51
62
8.9 0
70.9
13.1 345
84
13.3 47
97.3
10.4 350
107.7
10.7 335
118.4
10.6 58
129
14.7 122
143.7
Prepared by John T. Soule 3/16/06 Page 1
0
u
n
U
0
n

r
0

u
L
C
n-
k
1
C
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
143.7
12.9 110
156.6
12 121
168.6
12.7 26
181.3
13.7 12
195
14.3 97
209.3
11.8 134
221.1
14 19
235.1
8.8 45
243.9
13.4 32
257.3
14.3 107
271.6
12.5 18
284.1
12.8 38
296.9
15.1 319
312
17 319
329
15 288
344
16.8 349
360.8
24.3 10 END, Headwall
385.1
Ck Sum 385.1
Prepared by John T. Soule 3/16/06 Page 2
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 1
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section a 1
N.C.D.O.T. Ditch
a
t
t
s
s
.ITS AFM
31-r)rt_nr,
STA

feet BS

feet HI

feet FS

feet Water
Depth
feet Bed/Ground
Elevation
feet Water
Elevation
feet Notes/Comments
TBM #1 1.98 783.67 781.69 South CNR of EXIST. Headwall
0 4.69 778.98 Origin on Left Bank
5 4.72 778.95
10 4.65 779.02
15 4.62 779.05
20 4.58 779.09
25 4.33 779.34
30 4.20 779.47
35 4.27 779.40
40 4.79 778.88
41.2 4.99 778.68 To of Bank
42.3 5.66 778.01 To of Rip-Rap
44 5.93 777.74
46 6.81 776.86
47 7.33 776.34 Toe of Bank
49 7.47 776.20
51 7.43 776.24 Tae of Bank
53 6.76 776.91
55 6.27 777.40
56.4 5.93 777.74 To of Rip-Rap
58 5.56 778.11
60 4.87 778.80
62 4.18 779.49
64 3.80 779.87 To of Bank
69 3.57 780.10
74 3.41 780.26
79 3.49 780.18
84 3.57 780.10
90 3.55 780.12 END
TP #1 1.46 783.77 1.36 782.31 Wood HUB, TBM # 2
TBM #1 2.08 781.69 South CNR Headwall, (OUT 0.00)
0+00 to 0+90 Azimuth = 356 degrees
X-Section #1 at Planform Station 112.8
Planform intersects at X-sec station 49.8
a
t
e
t
a
s
t
s
e
e
s
e
s
s
e
1
e
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 2
Meander
JTS. JFM
31-not-ns
STA

feet BS

feet HI

feet FS

feet Water
Depth
feet Bed/Ground
Elevation
feet Water
Elevation
feet Notes/Comments
TBM #2 3.91 786.22 782.31 Wood HUB
0 5.59 780.63 Origin on Left Bank
5 5.40 780.82
10 5.35 780.87
15 5.31 780.91
20 5.30 780.92
25 5.58 780.64
30 5.80 780.42
31.8 6.17 780.05 To of Bank
32.5 7.29 0.00 778.93 778.93 Toe of Bank, Edge of Water
34.5 7.89 0.90 778.33 779.23
36.7 7.05 0.00 779.17 779.17 Toe of Bank, Edge of Water
37.7 5.45 780.77 To of Bank
40 5.50 780.72
45 5.18 781.04
50 5.04 781.18
55 5.03 781.19
60 4.90 781.32
65 4.80 781.42
72 4.83 781.39 END
TP #2 7.05 788.50 4.77 781.45 To of X-sec #2 Stake
TBM #2 619 782.31 Wood HUB, (OUT 0.00)
0+00 to 0+72 Azimuth = 296 degrees
X-Section #2 at Planform Station 299.5
Planform intersects at X-sec station 34.6
B
8
1
1
1
1
1
e
t
a
t
s
i
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 3
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 3
Inflection
JTS. JFM
,i1-n,f-nr
STA

feet BS

feet HI

feet FS

feet Water
Depth
feet Bed/Ground
Elevation
feet Water
Elevation
feet Notes/Comments
TBM #2 3.91 786.22 782.31 Wood HUB
TP #2 7.05 788.50 4.77 781.45 To of X-sec #2 Stake
0 1.67 786.83 Origin on Left Bank
1.8 1.89 786.61
2 2.51 785.99
7 3.16 785.34
12 3.90 784.60
17 5.43 783.07
22 6.50 782.00
27 7.13 781.37
32 7.97 780.53 To of Bank
33 8.88 0.00 779.62 779.62 Edge of Water
33.6 9.18 0.22 779.32 779.54
34 9.03 0.00 779.47 779.47 Ed e of Water
35.7 8.33 780.17
36.4 7.35 781.15 To of Bank
38.4 7.27 781.23
43 7.28 781.22
48 7.08 781.42
53 7.24 781.26
58 7.34 781.16
63 7.22 781.28
68 7.13 781.37
73 6.61 781.89
78 5.61 782.89
83 4.03 784.47
88 3.07 785.43
89.1 2.66 785.84
89.9 1.90 786.60
92 1.15 787.35
95 0.55 787.95 END
TBM #2 6.19 782.31 Wood HUB, (OUT 0.00)
0+00 to 0+95 Azimuth = 312 degrees
X-Section #3 at Planform Station 356.2
Planform intersects at X-sec station 34.0
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 3
JTS,RF (Meander)
Station BS H.I. FS Water Water Elevation
Depth Elevation
TBM # 1 3.06 103.06 100 Manhole Rini
0 4.49 98.57
5 4.48 98.58
10 5.87 97.19
15 6.05 97.01
18.2 6.26 96.80 Top of Bank
20.3 8.34 94.72 Edge of Water, Toe of Bank
20.6 9.01 94.05 Thalweg
21.8 8.35 94.71 Edge of Water
27.3 7.56 95.50 Back of Point Bar
29.3 7.35 95.71 Back of Bankfull Bench
35 6.93 96.13
40 6.44 96.62
45 6.43 96.63
50 6.65 96.41
55 6.50 96.56
60 5.90 97.16
65 5.29 97.77
70 4.66 98.40
X-SEC # 3 @ Longitudinal Station 171.3
0+00 to 0+70 Azimuth = 321 degrees
26-Feb-06
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 4
JTS,RF (Meander)
Station BS H.I. FS Water
Depth
TBM # 1 3.06 103.06
0
5
10
15
17
21.5
24.5
24.9
26.9
30
35
40
45
50
REBAR
X-SEC # 4 @ Longitudinal Station 192
0+00 to 0+50 Azimuth = 310 degrees
4.98
5.86
6.35
6.78
7.01
8.27
8.84
8.24
6.32
6.11
6.15
6.26
6.07
5.45
3.24
Water Elevation
Elevation
100 Manhole Rim
98.08
97.20
96.71
96.28 Top of Bank
96.05 Back of Bankfull Bench
94.79 Edge of Water
94.22 Thalweg
94.82 Edge of Water
96.74 Top of Bank
96.95
96.91
96.80
96.99
97.61
99.82 Property Corner
26-Feb-06
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 1
JTS,RF (Inflection)
Station BS H. 1.
TBM # 1 0.59 100.59
0
5
10
.15
20
23
27.5
28.7
30.6
33.1
36.4
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
REBAR
X-SEC # 1 @ Longitudinal Station 31.4
0+00 to 0+80 Azimuth = 269 degrees
26-Feb-06
FS Water Water Elevation
Depth Elevation
100 Manhole Rim
4.27 96.32
4.15 96.44
4.18 96.41
3.98 96.61
4.91 95.68
5.47 95.12 Back of Bankfull Bench
5.56 95.03 Top of Bank, Front of Bankfull
6.17 94.42 Back of Lateral Bar
6.41 94.18 Edge of Water, Front of Bar
6.41 94.18 Edge of Water, Toe of Bank
4.90 95.69 Top of Bank
4.94 95.65
4.86 95.73
5.15 95.44
5.40 95.19
5.28 95.31
5.11 95.48
5.10 95.49
4.96 95.63
4.98 95.61 END
6.51 94.08 Long. Station 0+00
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH (UT TO LONG CK)
Longitudinal Profile
JTS,RF
Station BS H. 1. FS Water Water Bed
Depth Elevation Elevation
26-Feb-06
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 2
JTS,RF (Inflection) 26-Feb-06
Station BS H. 1. FS Water Water Elevation
Depth Elevation
TBM # 1 3.06 103.06 100 Manhole Rim
0 4.99 98.07
5 6.03 97.03
10 6.25 96.81
15 6.43 96.63 Top of Bank
17 7.14 95.92 Back of Bankfull Bench
18.3 8.27 94.79 Edge of Water, Toe of Bank
21.7 8.31 94.75 Edge of Water
24.2 7.40 95.66 Top of Bank
30 6.95 96.11
35 6.43 96.63 END
X-SEC # 2 @ Longitudinal Station 180.2
0+00 to 0+35 Azimuth = 277 degrees
?w w w w w ww ¦w ww w w ?w ¦w wi ?w

w w w w
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 2
JTS,RF (Inflection)
Station BS H.I.
TBM # 1 3.06 103.06
0
5
10
15
17
18.3
21.7
24.2
30
35
X-SEC # 2 @ Longitudinal Station 180.2
0+00 to 0+35 Azimuth = 277 degrees
FS Water Water Elevation
Depth Elevation
100
4.99 98.07
6.03 97.03
6.25 96.81
6.43 96.63
7.14 95.92
8.27 94.79
8.31 94.75
7.40 95.66
6.95 96.11
6.43 96.63
Manhole Rim
Top of Bank
Back of Bankfull Bench
Edge of Water, Toe of Bank
Edge of Water
Top of Bank
END
26-Feb-06
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH (UT TO LONG CK)
Longitudinal Profile
JTS,RF
Station BS H. 1. FS Water Water Bed
Depth Elevation Elevation
T B M # 2 8.11 102.19 94.08 REBAR in Creek
0 8.23 0.14 94.10 93.96 Mid-Riffle
9.2 8.21 0.15 94.13 93.98 Top of Riffle
16 9.03 0.97 94.13 93.16 Pool
22 8.20 0.13 94.12 93.99 Bottom of Riffle
33 8.02 0.05 94.22 94.17 Top of Riffle
41 8.27 0.32 94.24 93.92 Pool
45 8.04 0.05 94.20 94.15 Bottom of Riffle
56 7.99 0.12 94.32 94.20 Top of Riffle
68 7.91 0.06 94.34 94.28 Bottom of Riffle
77 7.97 0.15 94.37 94.22 Top of Riffle
81.4 8.28 0.50 94.41 93.91 Pool
85.6 7.84 0.04 94.39 94.35 Bottom of Riffle
92.2 7.93 0.13 94.39 94.26 Top of Riffle
97.5 8.19 0.42 94.42 94.00 Pool
99 7.90 0.13 94.42 94.29 Bottom of Riffle
108 7.90 0.15 94.44 94.29 Top of Riffle
119 8.50 0.75 94.44 93.69 Pool
132.7 7.79 0.06 94.46 94.40 Bottom of Riffle
145.7 7.64 0.10 94.65 94.55 Top of Riffle
154.7 7.72 0.15 94.62 94.47 Bottom of Riffle
157.4 7.65 0.12 94.66 94.54 Top of Riffle
166 7.98 0.52 94.73 94.21 Pool
176 7.59 0.16 94.76 94.60 Bottom of Riffle
184.7 7.57 0.15 94.77 94.62 Top of Riffle
190.4 8.20 0.80 94.79 93.99 Pool
204.6 7.49 0.18 94.88 94.70 Bottom of Riffle
211 7.36 0.11 94.94 94.83 Top of Riffle
TP # 1 6.54 102.59 614 96.05
227.5 8.11 0.50 94.98 94.48 Pool
235 7.73 0.16 95.02 94.86 Bottom of Riffle
248.5 7.51 0.16 95.24 95.08 Top of Riffle
260.7 8.12 0.75 95.22 94.47 Pool
266 7.57 0.25 95.27 95.02 Bottom of Riffle
269.6 7.37 0.05 95.27 95.22 Top of Riffle
294' 7.81 0.52 95.30 94.78 Pool
304 7.30 0.06 95.35 95.29 Bottom of Riffle
324 6.99 0.10 95.70 95.60 Top of Riffle
348.6 6.92 0.07 95.74 95.67 Headwall
385.3 6.66 0.06 95.99 95.93 END
26-Feb-06
Table of Restoration Thalweg Longitudinal Elevations

Station # Pool ID
(Curve #) Pool
Length
Riffle ID Riffle
Length
Riffle Slope
Pool Slope
Elevation
0 1 17.5 0.0033 774.00
17.5 1 7.0 0.03 774.06
24.5 2 15.9 0.0033 774.27
40.4 2 10.7 0.03 774.32
51.1 3 19.9 0.0033 774.64
71 3 11.2 0.03 774.71
82.2 4 13.7 0.0033 775.04
95.9 4 10.0 0.03 775.09
105.9 5 17.0 0.0033 775.39
122.9 5 10.4 0.03 775.44
133.3 6 24.4 0.0033 775.76
157.7 6 10.3 0.03 775.84
168 7 12.3 0.0033 776.15
180.3 7 11.6 0.03 776.19
191.9 8 18.9 0.0033 776.53
210.8 8 10.3 0.03 776.60
221.1 9 17.9 0.0033 776.91
239 9 8.1 0.03 776.96
247.1 10 11.7 0.0033 777.21
258.8 10 8.8 0.03 777.25
267.6 11 19.3 0.0033 777.51
286.9 11 11.8 0.03 777.57
298.7 12 20.3 0.0033 777.93
319 12 11.9 0.03 778.00
330.9 13 19.1 0.0033 778.35
350 13 5.9 0.03 778.42
355.9 14 15.3 0.0033 778.59
371.2 14 7.8 0.03 778.64
379 15 22.7 0.0033 778.88
401.7 15 14.8 0.03 778.95
416.5 779.40

Average length
17.7
10.0
5.40 Elev.
Difference
Appendix D
Enlarged Color Versions of Figures

p. 17 - HARP

I

/ W

O
" • Q
" 4
II ? a.
" Lq
c n ao v c
< co
O e A N ?e
10
Q- :t Zt (A
y
v r'?° a
• `
- 3?
IJ6
Q)
2 .
'?--?^-
Lil
h ?.?, n