20060558 Ver 2_Restoration Plan_20090713

t6-osS$va)-
Stream Restoration Plan
Un-named Tributary to Long Creek,
Catawba River Basin
Twin Lakes Business Park
Charlotte, NC
July 09, 2009
HABITAT
ASSESSMENT AND
RESTORATION
PROGRAM INC. I?-
L??U Vro §
!UL 1 3 2009
DENR • WATER WAUTY
WRA# , AND STORMWAI"0pjNCK
HARP, Inc
301 McCullough Dr., 4th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28262
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Restoration Project Goals 1
2. Site Location and Background Information 2
2.1 Topographic, physiographic, and watershed setting 2
2.2 Landuse in the watershed 2
2.3 Soils and Geology of the restoration and reference reach sites 3
3. Existing Conditions in Reach Proposed for Restoration 3
4. Reference Reach Information 4
5. NC Regime Data Analysis 5
6. Manning Equation-based Estimates of Bankfull Discharge 6
7. Reference Grainsize Analysis 7
8. Restoration Design 7
8.1 Restoration planform 8
8.2 Restoration dimension 8
8.3 Restoration profile 8
8.4 In-stream structures 8
8.5 Bank stabilization 9
8.6 Wetland preservation, enhancement and restoration plan 10
8.7 Pond and littoral habitat zone plan 10
8.8 Riparian stream bank and wetland and non-wetland buffer plan 11
9. Stability Assessment 12
10. Monitoring and Contingency Plan 12
11. Conservation Easement 13
12. References 13
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location Map
Figure 2. Topographic and Watershed Map for Restoration and Reference Sites
Figure 3. Aerial Photo Showing Landuse for Restoration and Reference Sites
Figure 4. Soils Map for Restoration and Reference Sites
Figure 5. Geology Map for Restoration and Reference Sites
Figure 6. Planform Map of Existing Conditions at Restoration Site
Figure 7. Cross Sections of Existing Conditions at Restoration Site
Figure 8. Planform Map for Reference Reach
Figure 9. Cross Sections for Reference Reach
Figure 10. Longitudinal Profile for Reference Reach
Figure 11. Restoration Design Planform Map for Restoration Reach
Figure 12. 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)
List of Tables Referenced in Text
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
List of Appendices
A. Photos of Restoration Site
B. Photos for Reference Reach
C. Tables of Survey Data
D. Jurisdictional Delineation & Vegetative Community Assessment Reports
E. Enlarged Color Versions of Figures
1. Restoration Project Goals
The goals of the proposed restoration activities are to restore original morphologic,
hydrologic and ecologic functions to approximately 437 linear feet of a Rosgen E5/C5
stream reach in northern Mecklenburg County along an un-named 1St order perennial
' stream in conjunction with the preservation, enhancement and restoration of
approximately 0.6 acres of bottomland wetlands. The stream and bottomland wetlands
are located within the "Twin Lakes Business Park" on a common area open space tract
' held by the Twin Lakes Limited Partnership. The site was formerly a small pond, but due
to road widening along US21 in association with construction of the nearby I-485
Charlotte outerbelt, NCDOT drained the pond and install a riprap lined ditch to collect
and convey runoff to the new culvert that was placed under the widened US21 (the latter
installed at the sedimented-in level of the old pond bottom). Watershed runoff from
' approximately .15 sq. mi. flows into the former pond where it is conveyed along a
channel, with more ditch-like characteristics than that of a natural stream, to the outflow
culvert (Figure 6). In 2006, a restoration plan was submitted and approved for a NW27
permit for stream restoration at the site in conjunction with the formation of two small
ponds to serve as value-added amenities for the open space plan within the business park.
The 2006 plan was not implemented due to construction access limitations that persisted
until the fall of 2008. The original restoration permit expired in April of 2007. Between
April of 2007 and Spring of 2009, the vegetation, hydrology and soils in the drained pond
bottom continued to evolve, such that in May of 2009 when it was determined that
construction access could again be gained from the recently completed Hwy 21 corridor,
substantial areas of jurisdictional wetlands formed. Thus, in May and June of 2009, the
' target restoration area was assessed for jurisdictional wetlands (see Ridner report,
Appendix E).
' Due to regulatory requirements, the existence of significant jurisdiction wetlands in the
old drained pond bottom requires that any restoration attempted at the site provide for
' increased wetland and stream benefits. Thus, the 2006 restoration plan is amended to
protect, enhance and restore additional wetlands at the site as a North Carolina
Bottomland Swamp Forest habitat in conjunction with the stream restoration work.
Overall, this revised plan for restoration at the site restores the following water related
resources within the old drained pond bottom:
' a) restores -437 feet of a 1St order perennial stream (much of which is
currently a rip rap ditch with no pools or riffles),
b) preserves -.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands by incorporating these areas
in a permanent conservation easement,
c) enhances the above 0.4 acres of wetlands by blocking the artificial ditches
that were installed to promote drainage, and installs new plants to provide
I p. 1 - HARP
diversification to existing grasses and shrubs in order to promote a robust
NC bottomland swamp forest wetland type habitat,
d) restores an additional - 0.2 acres of bottomland as Piedmont Bottomland
Swamp Forest wetland,
e) established two open water areas in hydraulic equilibrium with floodplain
shallow aquifer and adjacent wetlands (as back water stream splay or ox-
bow lake type environments) to augment both aquatic resources at the site
and park amenity site goals.
f) Establishes approximately 6000 square feet of littoral habitat in the
shallow 0-3 ft fringe of open water ponds to promote broad spectrum
ecological support at the site.
2. Site Location and Background Information
Figure 1 includes a location map and driving directions to both the proposed restoration
reach and the reference reach sites. These sites both lie within the Twin Lakes Business
Park and are located within adjacent catchments within the headwaters to Long Creek.
The connector roads in the Park are now cut by the outerbelt right-of-way, and the two
sites must be accessed from different entrances as indicated in the driving directions
noted on Figure 1.
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 0.1 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 0.1 square miles. The proposed
restoration reach and reference reach are both 1 S` 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 pond (from the NNE
subcatchment) is a perennial stream with persistent year round baseflow. While the
USGS map shows the reference reach as an intermittent stream persistent baseflow was
noted throughout the 4 late summer and fall months of 200 (Aug.-Nov.), a period during
which there had been below average precipitation, and for which the regional water table
would normally have reached its annual low level.
p. 2 - HARP
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 BMPs 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 at the time it was characterized it could be considered a rural NC
Piedmont watershed. This is expected to change, as the outer belt is completed. Future
development will likely raise the impervious cover for the reference catchment to closer
to 30%. On the basis of a comparison of the landuse between the two watersheds, 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. In addition to
this general soils setting, specific information on the sites hydric soils are appended in the
Wetland Jurisdictional Delineation Report of Appendix E.
3. Existing Conditions in the Reach Proposed for Restoration
' Figure 6 is a planform map of the degraded reach and associated wetlands that lie within
1 p. 3 - HARP
the drained lake bottom. The stream was initially surveyed with tape and compass in
November of 2005. The stream location and hydrologic character were further verified in
the Spring of 2009. Specific jurisdictional attributes of the wetlands and stream
resources are provided in Appendix E. The lower 437 feet of the stream that is proposed
for restoration can be separated into two zones (Figure 6). The lower of the two is
formed of a linear ditch that was created after the pond was drained in association with
the road-widening project along US21 (see Photo 4TL-2, Appendix B). The ditch is
significantly enlarged over the stream's expected natural dimensions when compared
with dimensions seem upstream or in the reference reach. The lower portion was lined
with rip rap to stabilize and direct water into the down stream culvert. This segment is
approximately 220 feet in length. The immediately adjacent 230 feet of channel up
stream 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.
Data for three cross sections for the reach within the drained pond were collected and
plotted (Figure 7). These sections indicate 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
2005 and again in 2009. 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 436 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).
p. 4 - HARP
1
The reference reach planform was mapped in detail using tape and compass and is shown
in figure 8. From the planform mapping radii of meanders, meander belt width, meander
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 1St 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
L 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:
I p. 5 - HARP
Urban Streams (this set is in meters and km`):
Abkf= J- 11 A„ 0.64
Qbkf = 5.44 A. 1.57
WW - 5.79 AW 0 .32
Dbkf = 0.54 A,,, 032
In these equations,
Rural Streams (this set is in feet and mi):
Abkf = 66.57 A,,, 0.39
Qbkf = 18.3 I A,, U5
w bkf = 11.89 AW 0.43

Dbkf= 32
1.50 AW 0
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 mi'`)
is
Abkf = 45.57 A,,, 0.64
Qbkf = 169.55 AW U1
Wbkf = 21.53 Ate, 0.29
Dbkf= 2.11 AW 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.
I p. 6 - HARP
6. Manning's Equation based Estimation of Bankfull Discharge
The observations of bankfull indicators within the reference reach allow the Manning
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 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 1151" 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 mi, D;o, and D84 max. grain
p. 7 - HARP
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.
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, specifically the
bankfull areas and the bankfull width and depth ratios the restoration dimension has been
adjusted to promote hydraulic and sediment transport continuity in the reach. The
I 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.
I p. 8 - HARP

8.3 Restoration profile
Figure 13 shows the proposed restored longitudinal profile with water and bed elevations.
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 and grade control
(sill) structures. The riffle zones are bedded 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 times 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.
p. 9 - HARP
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
reduction at the water/bank interface (produced by the frictional resistance of woody
vegetation growing out into the channel cross section area).
8.6 Wetland preservation, enhancement and restoration
A planimetric view of the wetlands to be preserved, enhanced and restored is shown in
Figure 12.
Wetland Enhancement: The existing wetlands are to be enhanced by two efforts. First,
drainage of these wetlands along three paths shown in Figure 12 is to be blocked. The
existing ditches are to be abandoned, and replaced by ls` order stream. This should
improve wetland hydrology in the existing wetlands on the site. Second, the existing
wetlands will have their vegetative communities enhanced. Specific details for
enhancement of the existing wetlands will be provided in the design supplement currently
under development.
Wetland Restoration: Approximately 10,000 square feet of the old pond bottom that lies
adjacent to the proposed new stream is to have essentially a flat topographic profile (or
less than 6:1) with a small stream top of bank levee to promote overbank floodplain
storage following both precipitation events and any overbank flow events. The low
gradient and natural levee structure of these areas will promote wetland hydrology in the
floodplains immediately adjacent to the stream. The areas shown as restored wetlands on
Figure 12 will have topographic elevations set close to the bankfull stage and thus be
within 12-24 inches of the underlying watertable. The poor drainage design, coupled
with proximity to the underlying water table should create wetland hydrology within the
proposed wetland restoration areas of Figure 12. Thirdly, the site has abundant clay loam
with organics that will have to be excavated to create the two ponds. Thus soils on site
are naturally- of low permeability in character and should readily promote the
development of hydric soil conditions. The detailed grading plan to be used to create the
ponds, littoral shelf habitat, and wetland restoration areas is currently under development
and will be provided as a supplement to this plan in the near future.
8.7 Pond and littoral habitat plan
A planimetric view of the proposed ponds with their littoral shelf aquatic habitats is
shown in Figure 11. Also shown in Figure 12 is a cross section view that provides
additional detail for the shallow water bathymetry (04' depth range) along with proposed
planting details. The exact excavation plans for each of the two ponds is under
development and pending consultation with site engineers regarding subsurface boring
information. Final design details for each pond's bathymetric contours will determine the
' precise extent and shape of the littoral zones. Where the ponds are excavated into
I p. 10 -HARP
' hillshopes on opposing pond edges to the restored stream, limited sections of poond
shoreline may use modular block/hardscapes to define the water edge adjacent to planned
picnic areas. This will limit erosion and maintenance problems in these two limited
access areas. A supplement to this plan with additional pond design and littoral planting
details is to be formulated in the near future.
1 8.8 Riparian stream bank, wetland, non-wetland buffer area planting plans
Stream banks: 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.
Conservation buffer areas: A natural buffer will be provided along both sides of the
restored stream. The stream will be variably bordered by bottomland swamp forest,
bottomland hardwood forest, or the littoral zone habitat of one or both of the two ponds to
be constructed. All three of the designated alternative buffering habitats will be planted
with native species adapted to each specific habitat zone. The list of native species to be
used to supplement the existing wetlands and non-wetland land areas are provided in the
margins of Figure I 1 for the Bottomland forest and swamp forest. The list of aquatic
plants to be used in the littoral shelf areas of the two ponds are shown in the lower left
inset (Inset B) of Figure 12. Tree to be used to establish bottomland swamp forest and
hardwood forest will be planted on 8' centers and monitored such that the buffer retains at
least 320 trees per acre. To the extent that construction permits, areas of existing wetlands
will be excluded from construction and grading activities. These conservation wetland
areas will be supplemented for better diversity, and detailed planting plans will be
developed to augment each of the existing vegetative zones that have been identified (see
HARP Vegetation Assessment in Appendix E). An exclusion or variance to the general
planting plans for either the bottomland forest or bottomland swamp forest is provided on
Figure 12 for a 15' wide fringe adjacent to Hwy. 21. A prior City/County
(Charlotte/Mecklenburg) zoning requirement has been imposed on the Business Park to
provide year round visual screening between the park and the roadway. Overhead
powerlines future complicate the planting plans to meet the screening requirement. The
supplemental plan under development will also outline the planting plan for this screening
area where it overlaps with wetlands and non-wetland buffer areas.
p. 11 - HARP
9. Stability Assessment
Stability of the restored reach is achieved by three interdependent approaches. First, slope
i 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 expected.
Second, the reach has a series of grade control structures to help 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 resistance to erosion from
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
t at the 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).
10. Monitoring and Contingency Plans
Monitoring and Contingency plans are to be provided for each of the three habitat
elements of this restoration: stream, wetlands, and littoral habitats. At this time specific
details are provided hear for the stream elements. A supplement to this plan is being
composed to provide additional details for wetland and littoral zone monitoring and
contingency planning and will be forwarded as an addendum to this plan upon its
completion.
Stream Elements: The proposed stream 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 for each
of five years following completion of restoration activities along with
' photographs from each of the established photostations.
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
I p. 12 - HARP
11
circumstances should be undertaken no longer than 1 year following initial notice of the
problem. Should a corrective action be undertaken in the 5 c" year, or for a problem
arising during the 5 `" year, the monitoring program is to be extended to provide
verification of successful corrective actions for at least one bankfull event following
corrective actions.
Wetland Monitoring: The section is to be provided as a future addendum to this plan,
after more detail construction plans are developed with more accurate grading
information. Piezometer wells, and vegetative assessments will both be included in the
final monitoring protocol.
Pond Littoral Habitat Monitoring: The littoral zone will also be under a vegetative
monitoring program. The littoral zone and ponds may require cycles of maintenance, and
thus be areas of more active management to deal with accumulated sediment, over
accumulation of organic matter (eutrophication issues), invasive plants or shoreline
erosion and deterioration. Thus monitoring and contingency plans for the littoral zone
necessarily incorporate elements of reasonable management activities that may include
remedial work to muck out decaying organic matter, invasive weed beds, and to replant
sections in order to restore optimal aquatic conditions. Details will be provided in the
addendum to this plan once more detailed grading and planting specifications are
developed.
It. Conservation Easements
Standard conservation easements shall be prepared to protect the restored wetland and
stream resources for perpetuity. The proposed limits of the conservation area are shown
in Figure 11. The area will include limited exclusions for passive recreation, such as the
two designated picnic areas shown on Figure 11 and walking paths that may also be
incorporated into the site plan to provide access and exercise.
12. 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/sri,").
p. 13 - HARP
' r
Goldsmith, R., Milton, D. J., and Horton, J. W ., Jr., Geologic Map of the Charlotte 1O x
2° Quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina, Misc. Inv. Series, Map I-121-E,
USGS, Washington, DC.
Harmon, et. at., 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. 14 - HARP
Figures
I p. 1 D- - HARP
1
1
1
1
1
1

A14004
21
1D
0
?
a
.
?r
-1
e
?
't R,te:<yntlFrana q? ?. Joplor
Restoration Site

Reference Site R

t- m

ato Harri
e
s

°
i
w Craft
47
1.© krn
?. ml
0 DD5 Yahoo! Inc

Q°
ilk
U
+rx
62005 NA\/TEQ
Directions to Restoration Site
1. Take exit #181HARRIS BL VD/REAM ES RD - go 0.3 mi
2. Turn on W WT HARRIS BLVD - go 0.3 mi
3. Turn on 5TATESVILLE RD - go 1.6 mi
4. Turn on ALEXANDERANA RD - go 0.2 mi
5. Turn on TWIN LAKE5 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 BLVDIREAMES RD - go 0.3 mi
2. Turn on W WT HARRIS BL VD - go 0.3 mi
3. Turn on STATESVILLERD - go 0.8 mi
4. Turn on TWIN LAKES PKY - go 0.5 mi
5. Turn on VANCE DA V15 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 A
A 5E SME6 0Z Twin Lakes - Stream Project
R ?r,° " Twin Lakes Business Park Figure 1. Location and Driving Directions 03/09/06
TOPO! map printed on 03/05/06 from "North Carolina,tpo" and "Untitled.tpg"
8t?.88 0 1?`,? WGS84 80,816671D YV

o ?.
W+
(Y)
• ?. r
i
r i n.?
i tfY'
1 ?.
R
805
+?w^- 1 J'I -1
i . 6}
e TTjj
. r1 t'
t .15 rni2 _
a.
Reference Reach
Restoration Reach ??` ' ;'? l
-° ?? -
Z if
%
• r± ? i ? ?, r w .
'G t !r + _ t f
F ? ` 1
1 "
u
f -.
r
/7' as
f? •?.$ \. ?,.,ii... '\csJ ?y .,+ Ogg ?. ??se'-.R- "'"?.+.r.-?lr?.
80,8333L 1'G` 84 B i,81b 7 +
MN TN g 1 MILE
71i'' ®![? BEET 11 ? ??Eti:i"?S
Printed from TOPO! @2001 National Geogaphir Holdings (i=nkvv.topoxom)
7
1L••
[? I
CO
HA3J-A-
Ass 5SM dTA%P Twin Lakes - Stream Project I Figure 2. Twin Lakes Restoration and
t
F7t? ??? "
Twin Lakes Business Park Reference Reach Drainage Basins t/07/05
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

w
®r - ,
x?

O
0
O
0
M
O
y
cv Z
J
C 4- '
c

i ? U
O
}' ?
-
O
CL C
? U
O U
d ?
I

O Y

N C
cn
L C
N
2
Li CD
N

O
O N
ii U
N
D
D
D

as
G N
? N
Q) c
C
i co
N N
X -Y
J J
? C C
4w,
Z
4
? 7 K
U1 O
17<mC.
Legend
Symbol Soils Name and Class slope
Ad: Ala,ao sandy load 2 to 6 percent slopes
APB Appling sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes
ApD APPling sandy loam B tO IS percent slopes
Ar Armenia loom
BOB Badin channery silt loam 2 to B percent slopes
BOB Bailin channery sill loam a to 15 percent slopes
BaF Badin chancery sill loam 15 to 45 percent slopes
(e82 Cecil sandy day loam 2 to B percent slopes, eroded
(eD2 Cecil sandy day loam 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
CuB Cecil-Urban land complex 2 to 10 percent slope
Ch Cheeado sandy loam frequently flooded
COB Comnam day loom 2 to 8 percent slopes
COD Corona'. day loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
CuB2 Cullen day loam 2to8percent slopes, emded
CuD2 Cullen day loam 81o 15 percent slopes, eroded
EnB Enon sandy loam 2 to 8 percent stapes
EnD Enon sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
Ed Enon-Urban land complex 2 to 10 percent slopes
GeB2 Geargerille silly toy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
GoC Goldston very chancery sill loam 4 to 15 percent slap",
GoF Goldslon very chancery sill loam 15 to 45 percent stapes
Has Herndon silt loom 2 to a percent slopes
HWB HiaWassee clay loam 2 to 8 percent slopes
HWD Himassee day loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
IdA fredell loom 0 to 2 percent slopes
IdB Iredell loam 2 to 6 percent slopes
HkB Hirksey silt loom I to 6 percent slopes
M.8 Mecklenburg loam 2 to 8 percent top.,
MeD Meckenburg loam B to 15 percent slopes
All Mecklenburg-Urban land complex 2 to 10 percent slopes
MsA Mlsenh"imer channery sill loam 0 to 4 percent slopes
PoF Pacolet sandyloom IS to 35 percentslopes
P(E3 Pacolef-Udod ents complex 12 to 25 percent lopes, Bullied
Poo Poindexter loam 2 to B percent slopes
Poo Poindexter loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
POF Poindexter loam 15 to 45 percent slopes
SIB Sedgefield sandy loam 2 to B percentstopes
TOB Tatum sill loam 2 to 8 percent slopes
TaD Tatum sill loam a to 15 percent slopes
TbB2 Tatum sill day loom 21. 8 percent slopes, eroded
TbD2 Tatum sill toy loam B to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Ud Udodhents, loamy
Ur Urban land
VaB Vance sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes
VaD Vance sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
We W"hndkee loam fmalmally flooded
W Water

1#tg:

Scale
0 5 1 0 mile
'
V"a@fy
f
V.a
r ).
1
t
r'
HABITAT r
Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 4. Vicinity Soils Map - Twin Lakes
03/09/06
Pr T? ° Twin Lakes Business Park Business Park, Mecklenburg County, NC

1
I
1
1
n

1
Fl,

1
a w

c x . • E
Y
k
¦ • Y tl V • ! i w • V y >
a ¦ a
Y ` W • ?
~
?
?
?

N
• Y O
•
•
O
e :. -. as = a • e ?•, ?n ¦ l7 ,. , y ¦ y
14
!
k y
0
+'
A
L •a7 i q .`R i n w• L
s•
i .'
1 w` `
• 4 i
Q • • N • v
J a i q e a + f i ." a i a s c
•
F ? f F ? m f y o m

\ ?, fry f

41

v °` ..- -? ? 1 t O C

v
1 c) 2
7
4 G
O)o
U) 0

i47• l\ l\ •tl?" f Z p rf` ? ? ? ,, f `

-jm
`l
1'1 \ P
1
'
.
"
s
v mm
O

?.

ja '4E
.
....,

.
--'??•
•,?
- -+a"
W
p
_`?`
" i cu

.
_
`
ly x
b
".-•-.t.1 co ob
'At
'i4••
41
^ n' /C 1' ya.._f ,-i, L f • _- 1 , ..
C ? x J
;k, -
Y'
?
gip.,D '
a

x a.

N
v 3
O `-O Q
N F 3: Q
C n O
N U
C Q)
w ?}:4 y 1 x
LLj
0) 0
1 3a s ? ? m „?
L
v
Nk,
-sM f z o- Y / N N
v c ??: m r
o
o x
ffiffi
? o. ghp'"? \a I N C B S_ ? 'y K L ,a z ? y
w cu
Q a)
?, _ m"' ?J v u 2 >w- JJ
. tit '? '^? a•., N .. '?° ?/ "O ? ? r ?'-
x / o t'
A
N
A
? "^.;{' Q
2
Q

L
U
H
O
U
Z
r
C
O
U
a?
U)
O
U
M
O
O
T-
0
00
O
GO
a)
C
GOO N
O N
w
O O
f[f U
Gn a)
O N
d Cl)
U
4-
ci
N
I1')
O
N
O
N
C
m
om
CD Lo
07 00 00 f? ? J
(1001) UO1}enO13
0
0
C
O 44
O
(Q
Gn
u

c
m
0 co
O LO O In O
O) 00 00 ? I- a)
ti ti I` ti r-- J
(19OI) UO1JeA@13
C
O
U
a)
c
M
C
O
U
m
O
U
O
0
T
N
0
U
i a)
Gn
N
V7
O
00 0
U
(D
cv
J
I ?
C
V)
C
O O

O
II 70
CC
O ? C
U U
a) r?

C L
C (n
O X
LL W
C?
O
V
0 L
lie
a`a
N
? N

C
?•
N j
0 t m
N
In rn
a) 0

f0 fC
J J
C C
.? 3

C -- -

o cu
co

C In O cn O
O co 00 Il- J
(1Oaj) UOIJeAG13 +? I
¢z;
o
a IE
C. r_
w ? J
a n iw z
_ Q m a.
0 50 100 ft
Scale
Stream Length = 385.3 ft \
Ni
a
50.7 ft
34.6 ft ` - .. 23.8
\p 37.5 ft \ 35.3 ft
X
37:9.ft
29.5 ft
33.9
Avg. Bkf Radius of Curvature = 11.1 (n=17)
Meander Belt Width = 46.9 ft
Avg. Meander Wavelength = 35.8 ft (n=8)
Sinuosity = 1.42
\ HA .
A ` "l Twin Lakes - Stream Project Figure 8. Reference Reach
R ,
Twin Lakes Business Park UT to Long Ck., Mecklenburg Co. 03/04/06
Bankfull Width = 7.76 ft
Cross Section # 1 (inflection) Bankfull Max Depth =09;ft
102
i
100
c 98

96
94
92 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1
Station (feet)
' Bankfull Wdth = 7.36 it
Cross Section # 2 (inflection) Bankfull Max Depth = 1 ' ft
102

P 100
i 98
o
96

'
a
? 94
' w 92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Wdth = 10.21 ft
Cross Section # 3 (meander) Bankfull Max. Depth = 1 'S ft
Bankfull Area= 6.72 ft2
? 102
i w 100
c 98

96

i (D 94
LL 92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
i Station (feet)
Bankfull Width = 8.78 ft
Cross Section # 4 (meander) Bankfull Max Depth = 1.75 ft
y 102
1 (D
100

' 98

96

a 94
w 92
i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
Bankfull Wdth = 7.59 ft
Cross Section # 5 (inflection) Bankfull Max Depth = 1.35 ft
' 102

? 100
98
o
96
a) 94
U'
92 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Station (feet)

Bankfull Indicators Bankfull Dimensions (Inflection Areas; n=3)

Stage (ft) Average Bankfull Width = 7.57 ft
i
.94 Average Bankfull Max Depth = 1.13 ft

1.16 Average Bankfull Area = 6.45 ft2

.99 Average Bankfull Mean Depth = 0.78 ft
1.26 Average Bankfull W/D Ratio = 9.02
i
Average = 1.1 (n=4) Average Floodprone Width => 42.37 ft
Average Entrenchment Ratio => 5.56
Averge Wetted Perimeter = 10.73 ft
' HABr.A-

Ass s-nMFN-Ahr I ---r-_ -?
Figure 9. Reference Reach -?
'
,
}
Arl
'R
l
c
•
? Twin Lakes - Stream Project i

Cross Sections 03/07/06'
es
u
t.
or
I
#t
PROCRAP, I<. ==- Twin Lakes Business Park
UT to Long Creek
1
U
a
LU
w
w
U (1)
Z :
W^°
w LL
W F
LL C:
LU -0
Lu o
Y J
Q
J
Z

c
r'.0
?Q
`V >
4} W
W '-
m
I
0 O
O
O
I M
I O

?Ct-I tf)4t- N? LOCO
? M ?
0

LO

O 0 .0 O LO

LO000O00O0 1
CB
m
O
M II II II II O II

CL II N N II O
(D C: m -0 m O
Q) 71
ru L N L C Nof m
O
L ctf E O O J U O
-
0 m U

O
n m _ O O
CL
Oa) 0 0,
C
O
co
? L .•
? (n a) a)
O ?
O
O
LO
(14
a?
O ?-
O c
N O
m
U)
0
LO
T-
0
O
0
LO

(b
6

O
CD 0 LO 4 LO co
O
? d' M
(Wn}ep rjej1pe :laal) U01lena13
0) 0) O W W_ i :3 J
7?3 C Rf tB O O O .4J
L L L O
w, J 0 0 0 0 0 0
QQQQ U- J D
O
+,+
U
L f0
0. 0-
E N
m N
m
V CO
I O
N N
Y Y
J J
z
z '?
L ?
a
i ?x1 r
T U; 7 'J
Q V) J T
Q w CL
2.? 3a,1o aac?¢u?33 mmo m°o"a"m
z x m g S T
,moo 03.. J :y. oG
W 3
m
"` uu .nd3c5 ,:m?nc??3au=3auux'??n `4' =a' -m az s m aw¢ 3Y
LL - - ?
o
`? t 4l '•l' S
v ?
i _
\\ pi \.. '? .'pe v LV a o ;
rz C,
w?
CL.
JJ? N ?a y` b,.F Y g tp ?a ?
NU Q
L7 A
Z7 Lu
? u e m
Beay t+ 4C .\
77
io,
o o - r??
?r oa
n ? ? \ c . ?t ?• ?/01 Y.. 1 $. ? `ems
E
E p` 0 2 w t T+t t ?
> F .
tl W '
ay
Al.
LL _ ? ? U
?aa t
Ilado,Fl g"IZ
Ill '4i?
??al I I .; :??I 3^
? zn
I
?
.I
I
a,,
I .s
I - e ',
II
as I
Is ell ? - sl Ir j
I I
I I ; ?
? I'• = I''.
?
I ;I? $
? IylY I
!?; I
I ?
IIa S
E ? I
e
i k` ? o

d
d
?
Z.
N
i 8 FIB?
o
`I
o, ?
, I
p
v
I
i
?? CIE I ;
N
'0 aI D 3
-
a
r-
m 'm
xx
9 N
s N
c N
7 ?p
m y
3
11 W
O
I F
i LL
Q T
Y? v
CL 0
d L
? n
O- o
_ N
A m
'o n
y O
O ?
v
? O
a
D
m
v
j ?
I ?
O
t
1
t
!
I
I
1
i
T
i?
lv
t.
I
w I
o
I
I
V Y
Z
In R
F=' F
-t-
j d
j
a
50
?Sr
6r ;

IJ -
a
N
7
(D
III
p- ? a Elevation B)
n
?y
a s o s o m o U
m !? ? o
? T
a
- m
m
Q
m
r
o'
m
m
P
N'
O
O

2 ?
d d
a
F
ooN
L3 0
any
3 0
? W
O

Nyc=.? oN n
'
'J
a,m ? mn J
ryai O G D
»
m

-d?m'? RN a
A 3
WO

O (D

< -
n?
a?, as ?F y
m o'
=a QF cn _

0
0?_3 a
?o

=o

I
U A

D i
' f

/

r

i N
?n
m
g,
I T
~
O

o f m
O EM
N
a
s? J rn V
o z
Z
:n C7 0) T
{
4{ ?
? Z
4
m m {1 '•I
a 3 li
0
OCL 0!O
N
3a? I ,
3 0
m
? r
C
a
o?
d
3
m

O
to
m
Cl)
(D
a
3 7

E

n? D
c+
0
N
0
ti
0
I ?
c
O OoOMOt
? ?000?06 +J
M

L
CY3 ?t II II II II II II C
II N N O O

7C3 'Z; -i
- -0 -0
U fL 0) ca 5(a (6 C d

ID 4?- O O
D

N
o
ca tr- r OO a s
U) 4)
w co v' cL-CU C
>

0 o Q CD
> Q
Q Q ii
m
U
Q Y
ci a
®
U E N
N
co N
C
4- U)
V)
? CO

_ U U)
V) U)
O f6
n. N J J
O
C C

.e
i
? Q
O
n <5

G?
N r4a
N

a

O
00 N n L 0 N

(4) U01IM913
C)
C)
0
0

a
0
N
E o
y N
X
? O
Y
c
y 0'
a
m N
_ m a) ?
O U
N N
o

C \

1? cu
I ?
N
w
Y
m
m

w o
F-
Y

m

0
?
a
m
Q

r
a
H
m
a
Z
a
U
J
a
K
0
J <
LL a
LL
Y ?
U
O
L
W (n
m
J ?
Q N
U U
LL
CL
Q a
E- W
J
Z ~
0 W J
n Z =
0 ON c
7
a) Y
O C
? m
al
Q
O
O p
LL a
Q
a
w
J
LL
O
U
i
a
k
i
O_
3 ~
w
Z N
Y
U
0
c a)
>
in
L O O
N 0 m a0.+ T y a) s
E N '- 0 E N ? C? C
N-0 m
m
I N O
m E a? U

o f a> U

i -o o

Q> 5?
Q -O
O co
O 0 N
N
O O -O
a) N i
Q y
a) 3 y O
y
ID Y X ++ N
a) p
-6 O o
m o O O
a? E 'O N a) m C N N
a
-0
o
N
a) O N
m
y

U
N C N ,_ y

O_ m 3 N
u
E w e

N

L
:3

-0
N Y N
: c
C
u -C Q) t
m N ?+ ?+ a) E N U w
U a,
c
O Q
'O U m 00 N i a) 'O ` O N m .?
+0? cya U 0 -0
0 3 N m 0
- O. N m 'O O 'J ca

N
m N E C Fn
0_ (U
O N m w
a) N
(n .O 3 a)
.
+'' y
+
+ o U c 7
m N
> `O N C w U m in
:
(v
N a)
E
0 i
0

N V 'C

O
m
N c O m

L a)
"
3 N .
-
m
O N O
_

V Y

O 0
a) B E N
:3
0 CL
0
U H e
C: 0 m
'0 M - >
0
S
T
L N U N LU m W a) ?'
N 0 C N
Z -6 N m `7 LL E Q 0 cn 0 LL c a Y L= m
" E o

Q O C O L N
m
z° a >
3
N
a a? aa)i a° o ai U ,a cn = m Y E N
m 0 E w
' `
Q? c m
0- m v 0 0
cr

?+
CL
N m 7 M
U
V' m
0
LO a) -0 w U
E
O
?v w
y N
a c
T C
CD
? E
? a)
N N
Z O
C
C m
o >
N
V N
O
O U
N
U C
? m
c E
O O
y ? U
N C j,
m aj O
? a) -d
T
cc
LL >
E N N
O
O
BYO
m N
N C
m N
a cyn ?
O
C
O
U
O
53
cv
C7
?Y
a)
LM
LL.
v
? Y
O ?
a`a
E ur
N
c
y 7
c m
N N
Y Y
f0 m
J J
c c
z
? u1 f. C

UM t9
J
?

F__ ) *
4NOW
S
TE
i-

7%- rC =1ax I, ?S ScCJI
3-REAMBANK ^RADI-
304. SURrACE -,-XHENNG
- .. aHOING ;IF R?; ,.;V%R ::RCP
SrRE N "Lv 1P „_ N"F1 P I: F'IE0 u:z
h,T?, IA }ti OF F 1 If"v I'ttTt` i AfA;'2,i_
A .:r.?F>t v , rc oaf ac t:R=R 4 tr..cFI Ar:.o±;?
r-I- -;^.T: 7N VS'TALLA'ICM1
? R?'?
>
?-i AIN VI
3 '..A-STAK'NC
;teTA n.°ft3?p MN"A;uEr Imo" Aff„ :r..= ROOT UOL,N(.'

IOTEF!AL? A-

S.--S Ur ",E-
•.ti - G;,Rv i WINI-0vM TA"Es. M 'J: At sCv.s
-
<J
??° If >yEQ

.
G"iaf.'C EX.c ilhr'
C
I-.ANhcL
!
t=? -- t; .
ERCS JN CONMAT R' L 3h gCMM ---:
T- z
^? ?F $ER
/,
?
(
/ ? i
'tiCRyAL
?.n 1 T WA I"x.R :?E_

i P
l. T ;A:, 1 3ASEC 4 ;/
_
r _,?• 1;2 1G s 4
E C 1?IT:GNS i / . t..

DETAIL SEQZ NA-A
KA13-AT
A9C ?iC? A'eD - Twin Lakes - Stream Project I'!
RsrRA n Figure 15. Planting Details
? Twin Lakes Business Park
03/09/09
EM 1110-2-1418
31 Oct 94
70
50
0
DEPTH
f i F FLOW
20 ox
? E ? Rax
ac
's 1o r
LU 7
>
2 5
L 4
f
2 E
1
0 1 0.2 03 05 L f 2 3 5 10 20 30 5U 100 ? 2t,}(; 3; 5CC mm
0.01 0 02 not 0.10 1 is O. SC 1 2 1'
BEd MATERIAL GRAIN SIZE, D50
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.
HAa a, -- - ---- -- -- ?-
a„ Twin Lakes -Stream Project Figure TL-16. Velocity Sediment Stability 03/09/06
P-STOR"ION Twin Lakes Business Park Curves
Ills
I
II
II
I
' "AB'A' Figure TL-17. Shield Curve with Range
As M `I ANC Twin Lakes - Stream Project
R CTORA CIN Twin Lakes Business Park of Conditions for Twin Lakes Restora- 03/09/06
tion Reach
Tables

1
17,

1
1

p. 16 - HARP

t
1
I!
I

11
11

1
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
1
N
co
m n r?
O O?
o o
«+ w
N ?Oin
- w m m
m m ? E N O
d ?
LO 7
U C ?` O7
0
LL
U
N5 ti
N N n
r N L
70 )( Q
V OLOLn
N M M O1
7 0 E O
L LL
C
Y C ? Ln ? Ln
U ? y? M f? O
N N N
41
N ?
C N d m
? X Q
a
03 ""?n;?m
v LO
m m N
C l0 y O (D O
.? Q m
D
N M N 00
w m q
f?0 O `- O
c m 'E o
•? L
O Q "
N U
m
V) O
L ?
U U 0)
M U
N C
C ? N
O N N
y u U
M m c
N N
O
U N C
a
Y Y N
(9 J
J J p
C C ?

1

M
d
H
of
a
? l0 M N
N ? fh
v o O v
N N
0 0
0 0 0 0
Vl O O O
N p p p
?I O O O
I
C O O O
O C O

? ? O
R cpp
O O O
O
3 1
i p
? m
I
m?
C L p ^ N C O
td ; C ?
X m m ?

E E v
o y E
C
_
N U

m
n E E
m q d
J J U U j d

1
u

L

0

1
p. 17 - HARP
Appendix A
Photos of Restoration Site

r„

}
y • . ,r'

40
n R ??
it 1
_ y ». w
'lot
r
Existing DOT headwall, 2009

TL-l, Existing DOT headwall, 2006
u?G
N
ridgy. .
4
Atli
ilt #
r, r
?R l?r
M414M
q„
y
j
sa
V
r
{?
yy S °?- taw' ? Y
+. rt X w v
! U
F79 i'"1 S 1°'r"`'-. ( 'P 2
? ' .? ?
}? },°k k 5.f _ Y M
15.'.£}1
G`r rr ? r.z" rt j l? L` 1 ?3

,w
41

Aw L A
-et.• yy?, ?,., R? r 1?? k? .•,:?r.,+??.ZrYi'? u,..?' ° ?tq?.rp.?k9' ? r err.. ..?,
w
40
O
DOT ditch, looking up, 2009

TL-2, DOT ditch, looking up, 2006
e
1I
a h t sn? tl
16,
4a.;2y?
a e ' .r
- x p w.
`?? y? ? Vii.. ?,??? ?? .? a• ? ?°o°ai
.01
.

,py i

r 13.
a

M i?A?t rink ;*?€ , P j'

y a
iv?

Cross section 4 1, looking up, 21009
TL-7, Cross section #1, looking up, 2006
*>
1-1 1w,
W
A 7
??i1]j?Frr4
_ ¢v
. W y'a`- `?y_ '4)r yps?0a.-

sl Yr + ". 1 h Z
` ,a 4s "?:: k •? ? is
Y II
i Y' f 3
S 4 a 5N. S , Y"x '. tea. i
Saf'^ f.. rw t r4 r, .a:^?.r #.? $?, ,d? :Z e
, If
+ys l
t ?R r"` r Y #!?. d?fi S P w der`
Vc u ?.
F ?N
34
m _ ".v1
4N V,
x P_
Cross section #3, looking up, 2009
TL-6, Cross section #3, looking up, 2006
Appendix B
Photos for Reference Reach
p. 18 - HARP
?y
as M % >. n Twin Lakes - stream Project Appendix 1 _ Reference Site Photographs,
RE P.
on Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TLR-1 03;'09/Q6
( pper) and TRL-2 (lower)
Photo TLR-1 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 up3er end of the approximately
385 ft long reference_ reach.
77
I
Photo tLR-4. View looking up stream at meander bend with older'ree rooted at bed level in
riffle zone demonstrating long term stability of Bode and plan form of reach.
HaBtTa-
ASSE E4 ;r Twin Lakes -Stream Project Appendix 1. Reference Site Photographs,
RI z' O" 'cu Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TLR-3 (upper) and TLR-4 (lower) 03'09/06
PR ..nFM1t . = _
Photo TLR-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.
A Twin Lakes - Stream Project Appendix 1 _ Reference Site Photographs,
RES ?r, °or,n Twin Lakes Business Park Photos TLR-5 (upper) and TLR-6 (lower) o3io9io6
PROGE.4K -- - -
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,
HAeT.A-
Asr_setiii;k .WO Twin Lakes - Stream Project
RES-ORA7ON j ` Twin Lakes Business Park
Appendix 1. Reference Site Photographs,
Photo TLR-7 (upper) and TLR-8 (lower)
03/09/06
Photo TLR-7 coarse sand and gravel form meander bend inner point bar deposits.
Photo TLR-8 Clay and silt deposits from recent over bank flow event lie jest over the bankful stake
on inner meander bend berm.

1

1

Appendix C
Tables of Survey Data
p. 19 - HARP
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH PLANFORM DATA
JTS, RF

1
1
r

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
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

ITS IFM

1
1

TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 1
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 1
N.C.D.O.T. Ditch
31-Oct-05
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 1 781.69 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 Wooc HUB, TBM # 2)
TBM #1 2.08 751 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
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 2
Meander
.ITS IFM
31-nrt-o5
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
TIP #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
1
1
1
1
1
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section # 3
TWIN LAKES
Cross Section t? 3
Inflection
JTS. JFM
31-Oct-05

STA

feet
BS

feet
HI

feet
FS

feet Water

Depth
feet Bed/Ground

Elevation
feet Water

Elevation
feet
Notes/Comments
TBM 42 3.91 78622 782.31 Wood HUB
TP #2 7.05 788 50 4.77 781.45 To cs 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 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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 3
JTS, RF (Meander) 26-Feb-06
Station BS H.I. FS Water Water Elevation
Depth Elevation
TBM # 1 3.06 103.06 100 Man"oie 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
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 4
JTS,RF (Meander)
Station BS H. 1. FS Water
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
Depth
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 Prcperty Corner
26-Feb-06

TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH
Cross Section # 1
JTS, RF (Inflection)
Station BS H. 1. FS Water
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
4.27
4.15
4.18
3.98
4.91
5.47
5.56
6.17
6.41
6.41
4.90
4.94
4.86
5.15
5.40
5.28
5.11
5.10
4.96
4.98
6.51
Depth
26-Feb-06
Water Elevation
Elevation
100 Manhole Rin-
96.32
96.44
96.41
96.61
95.68
95.12 Back of Bankfull Bench
95.03 Top of Bank, Front of Bankfull
94.42 Back of Lateral Bar
94.18 Edge of Water, Front of Bar
94.18 Edge of Water, Toe of Bank
95.69 Top of Bank
95.65
95.73
95.44
95.19
95.31
95.48
95.49
95.63
95.61 END
94.08 Long. Station ;+00
TWIN LAKES REFERENCE REACH (LT 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
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

1
p. 17 - HARP
Appendix D
Enlarged Color Versions of Figures

n

1

1

i

Appendix D
Enlarged Color Versions of Figures
p. 20 - HARP
rn
am
Q
rl_
0
is
C
O
-0 ?
N
? C
"f
C C2
C N
M U
x
UJ
a?
o
4-1
N U
m m
J 70
C 0
O
~ C N
M U
?j U
E C
?- M N
C) L- C2
Li t1 Q
+r
U
N Y
O L
L M
as
E N
t0 0
Q)
L C
W
1 m
J J
C C:
tal ? F
r71 'u? w
!Y t 1 Lll ?.

m
U
x
O
Q
Q..
Q

I ?
F
w

`
yygg
I i7
d
LLI

Z

F ?,
3

g

b

?

N r

?

O ?

1
M r

E

N r
I i

L

?

7

I i

p

fZ

° I

0 ?

-
p

U

N I

a

8

b E

I

>

3i K

fn

a Cr
b
? y
7
3

- N

- 'C

c? s
y
p
f--

ro x
9_ ?

cn p?

c? 10

_

m

-

y
fo
E I

'aj

D

Y

I '
ix
? o
?

'

E I

g
a
?

A

N
n

`Q-?
E'
fn l 1w of Ri o S
J

`S
J

?
IL
L
U

'll

Gi

la

1
I
Q U
+. .r o
rn
a
0
m

o.
o? a
N?o
I
_
c CJ
0 a-0

o c

I
1

3
e 1 c[t c0 v a
I ri 1 __ N f0
a
cv
Ctf z

F_ E ro $ c

E C51 'C7
I U
W LO
LO o c0
?m ?
3o ?m M
D

- O CO W Oj L

o to Y N

m a •mO.O c'O"o

et ro
>
ao.+
c?i
t
f W
in
cD in
0
0 .,
_ CA N7
ui y CN
?C
E 3
N
N W N II ia7 ,? j N S- c mo cap a? >

!
W
,. M .00
E ?m .0
cD cmm
9
H

U
C: CL

N

o
a
N v `=
d
Z
d a U m m?
10)
'

l J

LL ?' $$ NO
U)
0 >1.0
CL 7
.`

?,

E N
f0
_ I I Co a N]

cu
t O E
E
o co

i

_.1 L ?i I i o E.o _X
m J
I r too O
3

?
C
`
$
1
I
i
ttS tLf l- F_
?

l

®

I i
f!I

U
` ?
o s

I
M
W

O 4-

cn

`I
4"

N

Z

2

l-
4

py

h

O O
..
? ? A
w ° i !- ?i

y
•

u
y
ci

=

8

t

& m
1 C C. N '
i I J I Z:
f aE?? I
I
S
I
OC ?

a ?
yu?
Q

a

H9
U 4
o ° tc' c n lI
o O
I II a3il
cli a ~ o

3'

-
la
t C]
4 a
au i
?? ID
t I `
?il riR y
M
''
-J
b

a 3
O
e

0 8v
E -a
t
`
I p?
In p a f2? L2
m d.

1
O
- m
mn mn* ?
.. w
?
r
W _ i

qyi
+ *
n
E 2 x

E ., u
l O r
0.' i y
I ?LL' m
`
_ u W Ir
% , a E
?
! ? ro ca ..1 o I? " i ? ?y ?p I ? u ug E t m
N Vat {
? I ?? I 1 g
- 1 4

' 11 1 w U7 , _
c
I ,
I

?1

I z 1

I 1

•..I $ I 3

w

b 0

?

?

.?i

W

_

v

Section

s le
cf
co
a

J
I
C
?a
og
I
?1
i
Y
c
?
?
?
m
E= E.

c E
E
g
M
_
15' I
U") O t
6
7 O'j O o
p O O N
D O N $ C _ r ? ?'? r
? m a 8
p
^ ^ N _
Cc r I
J ` ?? F1 i
1
? ? o m o E N ? ? H a
(4) U Oil ena 13 a o ? ? ..._ ? e ?
r
?
r
?. )i ?? }
v ? o
U o
a ?
o' ?
v, ?
] o
i = I
E S Y
SN $
Oda r
w
GO
m m m
Appendix E
Jurisdictional Mapping Report (Ridner)
Site Vegetation Assessment Report (HARP)
I p. 21 - HARP
' Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
' Please provide the following info:
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
1. Project Name 5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #200
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: CHARLnTTE, NC 28209
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
-Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s):
5. Site Address: Twin Lakes Parkway
b. Subdivision Name:
7. City: N/A
8. County: Mecklenburg
' 9. Lat: 035.3665211° N Lou: 080.8391.319° W (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Derita (NC) Quadrangle
' 11. Waterway:
12. Watershed: HUC = 03050101° Upper Catawba
' 13. Requested Action:
Nationwide Permit #
General Permit #
r ? Jurisdictional Determination Request
- Pre-Application Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
' AID:
Prepare File Folder
Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Begin Date
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
' Keywords:
LEONARD S. RINDNER, PWS
Environmental Planning Consultant 3714 Spokeshave Lane
Professional Wetland Scientist Matthews, NC 28105
Land Planning Tele: [phone]
Fax [phone]
Tune 16, 2009
Mr. Steve Chapin
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Reg. Field Office
151 Patton Avenue - Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 - 5006
Re: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed. Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Chapin:
On behalf of my client, I am requesting written confirmation of the wetland/stream determination and
delineation for the subject property.
' Project Name: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed
AcreaiZe: 5.35 Acres
' Ci !County: Mecklenburg County
Lone/Lat: 035.3665211° N 080.8391319° W
Developer: PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
Contact: Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
General Wetland Classification and Description
The site is located on the west side of Twin Lakes Blvd, south of Alexanderana Road and is located in the
' Upper Catawba River Basin. The site contains wetlands and relatively permanent waters in an old, drained
pond bed. The current land-use is a former pond and an adjacent woodland area.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional explanation. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
' Leonard S. Rindner, PWS
Professional Wetland Scientist
' APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 06-16-09
' B. DISTRICT OFFICE., FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
' US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Applicant:
' PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #200
' CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed
' State:NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: N/A
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 035.3665211 ° N, Long. 080.8391319° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Dixon Branch of Long Creek
' Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 06-04-09
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
' There Pick List "navigable waters ojthe U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
' ? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
Bores checked below- shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
` For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g.. typically 3 months).

' b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 7001inear feet: 3width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.50 acres.
' c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
' 2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and'or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Supporting documentation is presented in Section II1T.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a T NW, complete Sections IILAA and 2
and Section HI.D.1., otherwise, see Section HI.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
' (perennial) flow, sldp to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary, with perennial flow,
sldp to Section IH.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
1 EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
' If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary • and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section HI.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IILB3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HLC below.
' 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 2350square miles
Drainage area: 40 acres
Average annual rainfall: 44 inches
Average annual snowfall: 3 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
' Project waters are 10-15 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1(or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are l (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
' Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identifv flow route to TNW': Unnamed RPW to Dixon Branch to Long Creek to Catawba River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 1st.
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
' s Floe: route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial ("man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 2 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
® Cobbles ® Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ®Vegetation. Type/% cover:
RPW's are 100% covered with herbaceous material through the old pond bed.
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability Le.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Some riffle complexes exist in RPW A.
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0.5 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 11-20
Describe flow regime: All RPW's on site flow after rain events and +48hours after an event. The upper section of
RPW A might have some dry runs during drier conditions.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM" (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? sediment deposition
? water staining ?
? other (list):
F1 Discontinuous OHWNI.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: The water color is clear. A slight petroleum-like smell was noted at the upper section of RPW A.
Identify speck pollutants, if known: Road and parking lot run-off (oils, grease, etc).
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM doe, not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g... where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbodv's flow
regime (e.g... flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
Jbid
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): All RPW's have an intact herbaceous/sapling riparian cooridor.
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: An herbaceous fringe exists through the old pond bed adjacent to the RPW's.
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
® Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: See stream worksheets for details.
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: See stream worksheets for details.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:0.5acres
Wetland type. Explain:Old pond bed wetlands.
Wetland quality. Explain:; he wetland areas are high quality wetland habitats.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined
Characteristics:
' Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
' ? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 15-28 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
' (ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: Water color is clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: None known, however road/parking run-off is likely to contribute oils/greases.
' (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):All RPW's have an intact herbaceous/sapling riparian cooridor.
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
® Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: See stream worksheets for details.
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:See stream worksheets for details.
' 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 6
Approximately ( 0.50 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the folloNN ing:
Directly abuts? (YIN)
L (yes)
MN (yes)
E/F (yes)
H (yes)
I/J (yes)
B (yes)
Size (in acres)
C'.2
0.01
C.08
C.05
C.15
0.01
Total: 0.50
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: The wetlands on site are contained in an
old pond bed that has been drained (except for wetland B, which is a wetland seep at the upper reach of RPW A. The wetlands
contribute to wildlife habitat and have an excellent filtering capacity.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary, and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands Of any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into'TNW's. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width ift), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly- or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: See attached stream forms for RPW A.
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: See attached stream forms for RPW D.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 700 linear feet3width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: The wetlands directly discharge into the RPW's.
' ? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.50acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
' ? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
' Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
' ? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters .9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above 0-6), -6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
sSee Footnote # 3.
y To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining OVA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CW'A Act Jurisdiction rollowing Rapanos.
I ? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreis>rt commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
' Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
' ? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
' Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
' ? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams). linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
0 Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
' Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
' SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
' and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
' ? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 Derita Quad.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): 2007 Polaris (Mecklenburg County GIS).
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
' ? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
' R. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
1
1
1
1

' TWIN LAKES OLD POND BED
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. STUDY
06-04-09
APPROXIMATE MAP -WATERS OF THE U.S
FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc
Z
z
Z
80.1±f W 1 80. 33333° W 80. 006000° W
;u
� o
,
e` SITE LOCATION "'" z
CO
CO
r r
qq f.
ot
,• a i,,f*
�"' `'',_' Y`, Fes, •�_ ,
M
M
� t r�'4� g�'"z- •1 e _ _-
s
r'
7'W
80. 66666 W, f 80. 333333' W 80. 00000 W'
TWIN LAKES
Name: DERITA Location: 035.3667282° N 080.8391739° W OLD POND BED
Date: 6/16/2009 HUC: 03050101
Scale: 1 inch equals 4000 feet
APPROXIMATE SITE
LOCATION

t
61f
L1- 37:
WETLAND
B1 - 3: WETLAND SEEP ti
(DOES NOT CLOSE - CONTINUES OFFSITE) At. BEGIN RPW AT CULVERT
Cl - 3: RPW THRU
RIP/RAP
l
9
l`
ti
M1-4&N1-4:
WETLAND

CULVERT WITH
Sg HEADWALL
(OLD/DEGRADED) '
FOOTBRIDGE .

K1- 3: RIP/RAP
LINED LINEAR
WETLAND
C?
El-7&Fi-7: Al-29:RPW
RIP/RAP LINED
LINEAR WETLAND
WITH BRAIDED
STREAM FLOW iL
H1- 7: WETLAND ?A
FOOTBRIDGE
RIP/RAP
PIPE -?
RIP/RAP
I
,N" "° 8 L D1- 4: RPW FROM SEDIMENT POND
w
A28 - END RPW
UPI-5: UPLAND POCKET
' 11- 11 & J1- 5: WETLAND BOUNDARY
¢ Q?` (DOES NOT CLOSE - CONTINUES OFFSITE)
to a
CULVERT
4
•ss f
G1- 5: WETLAND BOUNDARY
(DOES NOT CLOSE - CONTINUES OFFSITE)
+..I
11
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. STUDY
06-04-09
APPROXIMATE MAP - WATERS OF THE U.S
*FOR SURVEY AND STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
SUBJECT TO U.S.A.C.E. VERIFICATION
35* 22' 16'
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35' 21'49'
Soil Map-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
?o 0
514400 514

' Map Scale: 1:4,030 d printed on Asize (8.5"x 11') sheet. TWIN LAKES
OLD POND BED o
N nnaters
m° 0 35 70 140 210 0
A o tso 300 X10 -FFeet APPROXIMATE SITE
' LOCATION
115U"? Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 6/16/2009
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
35°22'16'
35'21'49'
m
c_
0
C13
U
L
0
O
z
T
C
7
O
U
m
c
m
Y
U
a,
m
O
CD
N
a?
w
O X
Q C
N
N
® a
O
LL C
Z
Q d
O
O
V'
a)
m _
Q
2 F

a 0 rn
c
? m o

l0

U ?

? L
tn
3 C Q

Z ni
a
c 7
a o c
Q jinn

O p

0 0
C coE

- Y
O
L L
° C
o
` y
o f
U N
N .O U
d
a o
m Z co U o
0) m £-C w;
ic
(n co
N Z 0 Z z 0 U L N

m
E

o z
N
L)
Q

O
N

of
c a

m
L O

L
m
.
3

U
n
O

m c
WO
md U
Q
Q
o
m-°o
n
c ?
N 3 0 3 rn
D m o

C .
E? o
a
0
m mQN

L Eo
° a) cc
a 0 Emo
w-0 O T
U ?
<6 a .o U N N ? E. E
lC (a J m N > to
L C .?
m Z7 E C ° °"

.L..
N
T w
a) ?
O m
N
m O
f0 ?
N Q
m aa
? ? a) C
O a 7
C
O C
- _
,
m =3 Cn
(n a) U
C Q m f0 O 'O Q a
r
0-
a) O- m '0.0 ZQ m N 0
0-, 7
4f N
m m U -O
? `o d m
N> Uj N
-_ Z N
m p a)
m E
E
al 01
a E 09 O
cnU L O
P:s O
co (D m
o m
L p
t o o

d) N
m m
>

a

m CL
?° C
U
a m
z
rn

N
a y S a a a
O O O N m
N a) 2 p m0
o

o
.
U)

, c

m
E

m

m
o
2`
g
> S N W ?
_
O c U O

fn
L
O `

A U
y
° V
N
to N

OIr
y

0 O m
U
J
' O
LL .?. m
m
fu y
LL 0

IL° F r
W
J

o a
c
5 El)
15 _
m
E

?
m
d
m ? n ° `° 0 `° a o
a

C

m A 5

a

G

a '-

-

-° °

S3 d

m

-° °

CO

cn w

>

m o

n m

w
p
O
Q O LL ° fn W N C
C L O (p?? = O N
C T N O O Q
h

Q O

m 'Q m

m m

U G

U i`0 m

C7 U'

J >

J C_ yl
a)

a U

d'

w C

co >

UJ 'Y

(n a_

65 a

(n
O
CL
u7

0
V)
m a
c m

Q w
0)m
0?
0 0
N
m 0
m
a
m
Z
N p
d U
Z >
O ._
N
(A o
? o
mU
O
Z
ar
U
N Z
U a!
7 ?
O r
ayi 0
d
7 H
t6 O
ZU
f,,
Soil Map-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (NC119)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
ApB Appling sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent 6.4 8.5%
?--- slopes
CeI B2 -
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent --- -
24.5 I----- --
32.4%
slopes, eroded
CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 21.2 1 28.1%

EnB percent slopes, eroded
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent -- ?
4.7 ,, -
62%
slopes
' HeB Helena sandy loam
2 to 8
ercent 3
8
,
p
slopes I . 5.0%
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent 2.8 3.7%
slopes
VaD Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent 1.8 2.3%
slopes
W j Water 6..0 7.9%
WkD Wilkes loam
8 to 15 percent slo
e -
s 4
4 ?
,
p . 5.9%
Totals for Area of Interest
- - -- - 75.7',
-_ 100.0°
L
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 6/16/2009
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
k

t„
"A"- SERIES RPW NEAR CULVERT UNDER TWIN LAKES BLVD
WETLAND "B" LOOKING UPSLOPE FROM RPW "A"
RPW "A" AND RPW "C"
WETLAND "H" LOOKING UPSLOPE FROM RPW "A"
WETLAND "H" LOOKING AT RPW "A"
RPW "D" LOOKING UPSLOPE TOWARD FOOT BRIDGE
is
ri

T
P

UPl - S a.

? F° -y r< rwv area` „° ?.? y
I

i n
?
I.:-W 4 -#` d91 ti`s
t'
w
v
L
y?
F
?
,

WETLAND "I/J/ G" LOOKING DOWNSLOPE
WETLAND "L & K" LOOKING UPSLOPE
LINEAR WETLAND "E & P" LOOKING DOWNSLOPE
WETLAND "L & K" LOOKING UPSLOPE
WETLAND "M/N" LOOKING UPSLOPE
EXITING CULVERT B/W WETLAND "L" AND WETLAND "M/N"

1

Applicant: DATA FORM
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
T%VLN LAKES BUSINESS PARK (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD #1200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
Project'Site: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed Date: 06-0"9
Applicant/O\,vner: see above county: Mecklenburg
Investigator: Todd warren State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? ? Yes No Community ID : upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No ? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No ? Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Corunus florlda Tree FACU C1
2. Quercus phellos Tree FACW- 3 C1.
Pinus eNlottli Tree FACW 1.
4. Uimus alata Tree/Shr FACU+
E'. Ilex opaca Shrub FAC- :3,
E. Juniperus virglnlana Shrub FACU_ i4
7 Elaeagnus umbeilata Shrub NI ; c
g.Lonicera japonica Vine FAG ;g
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). a:s, or 50^16
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Weiland hydrology indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
? Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Alarks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface 4Ndater: N/A (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free \Yater in Pit: N/A (in,) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A fin.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
1

1
1
1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): CeB2, Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded Drainage Class: Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy {,Subgroup}: Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type? /Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretion s.
inches Horizon (Munsell Mojst) (Munsell Moisty Abundance.,'Contrast Structure. etc.
0-8 A 10YR 5/4 Sandy Loam
8.15 B 7.5YR 5/6 Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor -. Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ .Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydre Soils Present? Yes
II Remarks:
No (Circle) (Circle)
No ?
No ,/ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No,(
1
1

Applicant: DATA FORM
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
LAKES
5935 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
5935 CARNARNEGIE CIE BLVD 'D # #208
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
Project;Site: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed Date: 0s-o4-09
Applicant/Owner: See above County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: Todd Warren State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: WETLANDS
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No ? Transect ID: I/J; H
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No ? Plot ID: (similar)
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Salix nigra Tree OBL
Acer rubrum Tree FAC
?_Sambucus nigra var. canadensis Shrub FACW-
'_ Ulmus rubra Shrub FAC
Carex crlnita Herb FACW+
F._ Impatiens capensls Herb FACW
7 Sesbanla punicea Herb FAC+
p Leersia oryzoides Herb OBL
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
;4.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAG-). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Welland hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake. or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0-6 (in.) ? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
y/ PAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
These wetlands exist In an old pond bed.

1

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): W, Water (old pond bed location) Drainage Class: N/A
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): N/A Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretion s.
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell__Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-8 A 10YR 3/1 10YR 6/8 20% Silty Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol V Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Solis
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gieyed or Lo-v -Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks;
Remarks:
These wetlands exist In an old pond bed. Soil survey data shows "w" indicating the location of water. Solis are Indicative of an old pond bed
and are limited In their usefulness.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? /Yes No (Circle.) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Welland? /Yes No
II Remarks:
Approved by 101LISACE 3!Q

Appliunt
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC INC
TWIN LAKES BUSINESS PARK
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD 9200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1907 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project./Site: Twin Lakes Old Pond Bed Date: 06-04-09
ApplicanUOwner: See above County: Mecklenburg
Investigator: Todd Warren State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the site? ? Yes No Community ID: WETLANDS
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No ? Transect ID: L; E/F; M/N
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No ? Plot ID: (similar)
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Salix nigra Tree OBL G.
2 Acer rubrum Tree FAC
3_ Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+ < i
4. Comus amomum Shrub FACW+
Leersla oryzoides Herb 0131-
E,. Impatiens capensis Herb FACW _ q
r. iG
8. in
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
11
J1
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs ?[_ Inundated
_ Other _ V Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Amiable ? Water Marks
Drift Lines

Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0-6 (in. ? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
V FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
These wetlands exist in an old pond bed.

n
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase is W, water (old pond bed location) Drainage Class: N/A
Field Observations
Taxonomy {Subgroup): N/A Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix. Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions.
(inches) Horizon (Munseil Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance?Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10YR 3/1 10YR 6/8 20% Silty Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol V Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfa ce Layer Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Lowy-Chroma Colors -. Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
These wetlands exist In an old pond bed. Soll survey data shows "w" Indicating the location of water. Soils are Indicative of an old pond bed
and are limited In their usefulness.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? /Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydre Soils Present? Yes
11 Remarks:
No (Circle) (Circle)
No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? (Yes No
Approves by -iOUSAC-E t +2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
- ----------
Cate: June 2, 2009 project: Twin Lakes J ~ - --- ----
-W Latitude: 35.36799 N
(NAD83)
Evaluator; 7L, PK Site; perRPW Al Longitude: 80.83758 W
Total Points:

:ray r a, re ,rte tl-"! 30
75 county:
Mecklenburg County Other Derita, NC quad
. E 7
A. Geomorphoio iSuotota. = 14.5 Absent Weak Moderate S trong
1'. Contmucus bec and barb 0 1 2 3
2 Siruosity C t ? 3
3. In-cnamel structure. riffle-poo sequence C - - - t o _
4. So'texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Act've'relrc floodola r C 1 - 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
'. Braidec channel 0 1 2 3 - ~
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
5" Natural levees 0 1 2
10. !ieadcuts 0 1 '' 3 .
t?. Grade contra s 0 5 1 ,

12 Natural valley o• drama ev.ay 0
13. second or greater order channe: on ex sUrta
JSGS or NRCS map or other documented No Q Yes
evidence _
I,'Ar n a? dr ne a??'a ? r.?°Fa sE? ?sc.,??s _rz (r mmu3! ? ??
B. Hydrology iSuototal 6.5
14. Groundwater flow discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channe' and = 48 Mrs since rain. or
!"Dater in channe -- da or rom-i season
16. Leafli;ter 1.5 1 0.5 0
1?. Sedvnwr on plants or debris 0 - 1 5
18. Organic debris lines or piles ttNrack lines) 0 0,S 1 < 5
IS. -"ric soils (redoximo,phic features_ p esen:? No= 0 Ves t.5
C Biology Subtotal = 975
20 . Fibrous roots (r channe' 3 , 0
2' . Rootec plants !n channe - - - 3 l 0
222. Crayfish __ e__ 0
. _ 0.5 Q r 5
23. Bivalves p 1 2 3
24, Fish 0
_ 0.5 1 c
25. Arnphib an9 0 u c t . c
26. f tacrobenthos (not- div.-?rr h anc atxrndanr.? 0 c
27. Filamentous algae, periphytor C Z _ 3
2E, Iron ox+dlzln bacter+aluneirs.
?`
s 0 0.5
_
- - _
5 '. Wetland F arts in streambed ?-
rAC = 0 5-. FAC\1 = 7 OBL 5 SAV = 2 0: Other = 0
hint anc f jw u tI a' KJ- n c vi op ai :1 ?lanl_ tc^i _:, a.-ttar_ on tix V"u r;( o' aauati-- c wtAmid plant_
:U_E Jj.i SJE 3` 11-i:1 CJfRt r:S U33tll+'ia l'-5ic'.
4k=tEM.
- - - - --- Crayfish, salamanders : common
T- 6' wide,.l' - 2' deep CHAN; 8'- 1 Uwide, 5'- 8' deep @T.O.B.
Beetle (Coleoptera): rare
Sand, gravel, few cobble; few riffle/pool
Cranefly larvae (Diptera) :rare
Sinuous, incised, some eroding banks
Adult damselfly observed
Abutting spring/wetland
I rSAC E AID* S1tf n_ (Indlcale oil attached iitry)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT I'VORKSHEET
Priv0de the foNlttsing, infwaintion far the stream reach under assessineut:
1, Applicant s uaule: Len Rindner 2. Evaluator s thine Jeff Levi, Patrick Kealy
3. Date of m aliiauott June 2. 2009 4. Time of et:atuatimi 1:00 PM
S, tiaux of stteam' perRPW Al C Ravel basil: Upper Catawba X050101 }
'
- 8. Sextant oz'derYlst -
A)lproxullatedrainaeeama _0 1 acre^____._........
9.l_eurthefnarb ec lhiated +1-1.50' 10. Comity Mecklenburg
1 11, Site coo?'duiatr5 (if knowti), pnefcl in decaw! ilere s I2. sulA vmon itatar (if auv)
Latltuck (ear 34 97231?): 35.36799 N Louptude (ex -" 'twi'g 80.83758 W
Mertiod locaum. d¢tetiuuted (circle) GPS <51 Ordw (Aerial) P!u to GN thlur GTS Utller __
Is. Lwatzon of reach undet evaluation (wie nealt - mads and landtnari;s and attach map ideitaf"vle siveanv,0 lxatlmil-
' I 77 / 1485, Alexanderana Rd. Twin Lakes Py
14. Prclpned chatuel iron. (if aiiv)
I"?. Recelzt tcPedlet ctnidshrnis Dry last 48 hrs
' I& Site coudttmn at time of visit Drv last 48 hrs
f'. Identify am- special u'atenvay classifacattom kwnvii. -Section 10 --Tidal Waten -Essential }aslrenes Habitat
__ Z Arilr tr3'RtetS (?ULStRndltlit RYSMIrI'e ?T'8ten _ wlltnY tilt $etlsrtit'ft Waters wSlet' Sitlt)l%I Wat<nslwd - (1-11'')
I& Is illete a pond or Ue kcared upsveaitl of die ei aluatiolt pOtli' YES G ff sees tsti1ilaw the ii'atet ultwe Area
19. Does chain( appein oti t SGS gwid slap? 1'ES \O 20. Does chatuiel appear on USDA Sail Stuvev" 1'ES CO
21. Estutlated watershed landrise - _°'o Residential
a4 Conimercial 90 'k" Indusnul _°R Aericultn al
' =
1Q_`'^ Forest rd °a Cleared Longed ° t}dlec ( )
2.8taakfuli it idth 8' - 10' 23 Batik height tf -otu bed to top ol'baink) 5' - 8' --
' 24. Ci=wl slope clown center of stream - X -Flat (13 to 2%) Caentle (Z' to 44o) Modeilte (4 lo 10% -Steep (',I 01,v',
25.. Channel atttuosity -Straittht -Occasional lands X Frequent nwandei ,t"en' sttltious Arairietl cllaiwlel
In-ti-actions for completion or warksheet (iocated an page 2): Begun 1xv detentumrat the most approlmaie evomt(Al bav,4 on
location ten-Am veRetanoti Stevan( classlilcation.. etc Fveiv clinmrlenstlc must be scored usinP the same ecorriiion AvStan points
' to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregron Pave ; plnlides a brief description of how to renew the
rliat-ainetistics identified in the wnti:sheet Scorers should reflect an overall asseisnient of tie- stream react lzuM. evaluation if a
cliatactenstic cannot be evaluated due to site or wpatller conditiom. enter 0 in the sconlig box and proitde an exptaa rim in the
collltllelll serum. Where there are otwwus chaam m the character of a stream undo revimv (e,e- the stream flows final a pasture
"
' into n forest), the stream may be divided into sinatler reaches that display maze mriihmaty, wad a w
Imate fowl used to evaluate each
reach The total were assigned to a stream reach anise range benvem 0 and 100 with a scorn of 100 representing a stream of the
luehest qua h"
Tott1 Scare (from IMTrse): 51 Comments: perRPW AI was evaluated from upper culvert down to wallcing
brims.

rvalnator's Sigwture
Date Jtzrre 2.2009
This. chaallef evaluation i11f7n Is iuteu tied to be used outs' as it guide to asskt landowilel'e And en11i'ounlental fi10fl'4;fonals in
gatheting the data required by the United States xiiii Corps of Engineetl b3 make a piviilnlnarZ' asieSSlnent of ?heal((
gnaf tA.. Tie total %cum resulting from the completion of this form is Subject to US_tiCE approval and does. not iniph it
pat'ticulat mitigation Patio 91' regnti-emenl. Eu?LTL' snh1ecl to challee - venrilov.. (1/ (a: To Conimeiil, p!easr Call = 19,Z:0-,.44l x _16

1

? -'SEE:` _ :.SSESS-i' E T 1VORKSHEET
Twin Lakes perRPW Al
ECORECION POINT RACE
CHARACTERISTICS
CoaAtal 1 ---
Piedmont -
j Mountain SCORE
j
- Pm,.wnce of flow pcrsi5tcn( prwis in strcuni (! P+? _ L y 2
i 1rlo >,+N 111 Nituration -R: strone flou =max pomUl
Evidence of past human ulterahtm
ld - ft ?
r d? 9
•?
2
t , tcxlrn.ltr alicritiun 0: nealteration -max ants: ---
j Riparian zone 0-
2

? - my buflzr d'. contiguous. wide buffer = max pUintst
Evidence of antrieni or chemical discha
rges

j

tr ;tensile eiwfurnes - 0: no dischMFLS mas pu 7Gi 4
q_
!i_
dt 1

3

i Croundw ater discharge
n-?
d1
t)
2
mo tit cluir ,e u; sprines, weps_ wetlands. et = max Itioultt
C, P
f
d
fi
d
l
i
resence o
a
jacent
oo
a
p
n 1
.
?, 1 nu Ian 41?t18131 U: a\lettalt'e il(as[?tlam - iTL1X polntsJ
j Entrenchment t fioodplain access
I
j
i de nh cnxenched = U: f3reuueni ilixxiing - rnax point i tl d) 1
j Presence of adjacent wetlands 0

?_?
;rn t+ctlurd, G lar; s adtaccm %%vtlands ntax t4onud u a 2 2
Channel simmshv it
dd
t3
3
.Gktr[Wi,&c channelimlion - U: natural trteandcr -teen%rAliAtSI
Itr Sediment input (1-4
2
iexten n c dcpu i,icm= ti_ hole or no sediment -- max rcrtnt p
I I 1 Size K diversity of channel bed substrate N AI U -1 df - 5
2
i tlini hotno- lou, U: large, diverse sizes tnzx,ind=i
- - j

t
' Evidence of channel incision or widening
!
4
i
di
I _
?? F
td nt. inci+cc 0" stable bd X banks max tx,int;l II -
[ -- 2
, Presence of major bank failures
I I t,ettl ciosiun n_ no crown. stable banks - maa_ tlww i 2
Root depth and denslty on banks
I:u. t 1 l ie n+vs, itdense roots tbmtehotn
max fmint+)
-- 3
f 1 f nipart by agriculture. irvestocL- or timber production

1`

1 uh.tantiat impact --d) no Lvidenec = max pointy
fl
CI-d
dt.- { 3

i,+ Presence of riffle-pool1rippie-pool complexes ??-

L
__
n +rid l? 'ripples trprKrfs U: well-&-veinped - nt:t* -+intsi n u
-- U n 3
habitat complexity

?'
i
t role ti: no hubita. = U: ft aucu., vanedhabitats -- I; puint:i 11 _ n U n (i 6 3

I
' Canopy coverage over streambed
E
.. ,
?_ _ w °
n? _:audtr? ce ctutinn = 0. Continuous canopy - max oinv i 11-5 n u
4
I+t Substrate embeddedness
deepiy embedded _0: loose structure masi_
,tt Presence of stream invertebrates (sec page •t)

r, t--
LLo_` ti iden?r = tt: cumtrmn, nutnerottc hjc .pax paint<i fir
?- -- 0 0 -
a
2
X , ! Presence of amphibians

.. -
no c1dclici a: comtrx>n. numtxutr tv •, Hoax >znnis) 11 n -f 0 4
3
Presenccoffish
v- »
r? ._ .. -? 'noc4i&r..ce 0. t
._-COInlIktn. naint7nliS 1 •ti .: nUx point,-•. fl --= n a 0 4 0

Evidence of wlldlife use .,
;:x+ w, idcr,ec = ti: abundant evidcncc = max points; 11 - f 2
Total Points Passible itl(t Iflti j 11 Kt
,
1 Cis i w:e! ..?l :I,ti Ian- ,tiC?:+SCt. ?; i tC:.;liil -:L(sattb.
TOTAL SCORE ialso enter tin first pag,el
100
51
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: June 2, 2009 Project Twin Lakes Latitude: 35.36682 N (NAD83)
Evaluator: JL, PK Site; perRPW A2 Longitude: 80.83820 W
Total Points: Other Derita
NC quad
;raa r , ar,es ,r, a 7t: r r,! 32.5 county: Mecklenburg County ,
t <r ';:ar..f ^;c+ x

A. Geomor bolo r iSuotota' = 12.5 y Absent Weak Moderate Strong
t`. Continucus bed and bank. , 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3 In-channel structure: riff le-poo sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soi. texture or stream substrate sorting 0 i 3
5. Actwe?relic toodp? 0 t 2 3
6. Depositioha! bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 t 3
8 Recent alluvial deposes 0 1 2 3
5' Natural levees C031 t 2 3-

10. rieadcuts
0
1 -
3
1'. Grade contro s 0 ? 1 i .5
I^. Natura valle or dra,na Ya• 0 ?.5 t ' 5
I 3 Second or greater order chanriv on ex stina
JSGS or NRCS map or other documented No Q Yes =
ev dence
' hear,-r acre di -hes arr rayed st:.(- dKrtt sQn, it rnallual
B Hydrology -Subtotal = 7.5 1
14. Groundwater fio Aischa 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channe' and > 48 hrs since rain or C 1 2 3
Water in channel - d y or ro%,A i season
16. ?.eaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
i?. Sediment on plants or debris C 0.5 t 5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 ?.5 1 : 5
15. ?ydric soils tredoxmforphic features present' No = 0 `'es 1.5
C Biology Subtotal 12.5 l
20` Fibrous roots m channe 3 2 1 0
. Rootw plants +n channe, 3 1 0
-2 :Crayfish - 0 n a I
23. Bivalves 0 t 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 5
25. Amphlb ans 0 0.5 1 5
26. Macrobenthos mote dive rsar, anc ahu-t:ianrr, • 0 2.5 1 ? 5
Filamentous algae, penphytor 0 1 3
25. Iron oxiclong bacteha,'f,tagus. 0
l G_5 1 K -
29T. Wetlanc plants in streambec _
-
FAC = 0 5; FACY. = 0.75; OBL t 5 SAv = 2 0; Other = 0
itrne Z an, L t nw: o Ih,: pr:„n L vl uH and Diann. 1!k; !!l vr, Itri p rosurct a uiuatr. a '.%rXIard 0ant_
U;( bJC; 9dt ]` 11 ).i_ `_ll fif f0' il•AilC.'ia li7l•_- ?xet(h'
Crayfish, salamanders, fish : common
2'- 3' wide, .6'- 2' deep CHAN; 2'- 3' wide,.6' - 3' deep @T.O.B. Beetle (Coleoptera): common
Sand, few gravel, few cobble; old rip-rap
Midge (Diptera) :common
Fish
Damselfly, dragonfly (Odonata): common
Abutting springs/wetlands, old pond bottom (some braided chan.)
_ Cranefly adults(Diptera); larvae expected
U" AE F A?D 13??' • e Sttr x_ +;utdicate m :attached mnp
,•a•' STRE -%I CAL--ALI-rY .iLS:.SES_SN,IE\T N'.'%-()RKSHEET
I e-Mde the faMmaiur., infortaation far tke stream r-rach und". assessttieut:
1. Appitcatit s ratite Len Rindner *. Evromam s tiante. Jeff Levi. Patrick Kealy _
1. Bate of evautatrott Jtme 2, 2009 #, Ttn? ert d?valratt xt 2:00 PM
5, laue of strs!.._y erRPW A2 G. Ras°et Lastu Upper Catawba ?0305(110?_?_?_a
". Apptoxumite dramuarre a•pa +/- 0.14 acre k Stream order
P. L-enytl' of rezwli F Valuxt'dl +/- 150' 10. Cotni!t- Mecklenbure
III- Silt romdtuatc., (ifktuAvri) trefet mderimAdegcen. &?, Salidetxsaxnatta?x (16 attvl
;.,uuuie ret ii vntz) 35.36682N laatditttude tee _"'."Sdst? d} 80.83820 W
Ntettwd.la:au:m. dettYUauedl (ern le) GPS <? txOW iAcx al, Pium (yvi cYtGx (?tS oilmr_--_
13. Ldx-atton of track under evaluation (Rote taeaat7N• rd vkh acrd 'kaudtttart s and attach nvq( sdinmA-uie snv riv s) locattoit)
1 77 / 1485, Alexanderana Rd, Twin Lakes Py
14_ Pnrpasedt, cyuvxt4 trorl !if env)
' 15. Recent n ea[aer condttu-m, Dry last 48 hrs
t6-. Sur cinid:ttdxu at tittx tit trot Drv last 48 hrs
11. ldeuttfr arx Special %vaterwav classiftcat%otis. Lxtowu -Seddon 10 _Tid"al'li'ater. _L-sseMal FtsheneS Habstat
+ro.tt t1'aTt". __iXmIauditw R.e.;xave Warm., --- tiutm at `ants girl' 'at,n ti' trs Strjrtrly Watershed (•i-IV)
1& 2% there a pottdi or lake localwl tgnnemm of cite e valuaturtt p me I IT-.S- ;-o" If ves emumte the mater surface area -_--?--
14, Does cluumel appear on GSGS quad map" YEc. \O 20. Does chanuel appear ou USDA Soil Su ev„ VFS .VQ
2'3. Esuutaied %%-atetmhed laud use ,_4'i Resrdezutd _° c Comuerctal 90 htdustttal _'v Agnc ultusal
_jLka im-sted `Ar Ct,-AWj LO.Smo t _°a O'lv-r {
2. llauki4i uAtclth _ 2' - 3' _ 2.r Burk: height (fiuut itdad w tc..fi of bdmd:)
24.. Carmel slope down ceute< of strewn -_X Flat (0 to 2%) Cteutle t_ to 40?e) -:Moderate (4 to 1006) ----Sleep C 10°c1
15.. tliaunel suiuo-.m•Straight X r'1rca%torml bends ?Firqueru rae^,ndn Vefv saxaom _liraialecl rhaunel
[nstructfoas I compkitotl of uvrk%bem (fo ated an pagr 2):: Begut ti, di-Imminuattx the uxnt alrlrrolrnate eca anon based nn
lxation, teat= vevetation stream cla%%tficetum, etc 1.1•tt-% c1mractenstic mum be scared usmg the serer ecoresnon Assign "acs
to each characiensttc ccttlun the range show-rr for the ecum pore Page 3 prv des a brief do-wMtiou of how to review the
chg. meristics ideutifird in the wrtrtshem Scotts should mflem as m-mall au %werg of t1r -orate rftcb tinder evahsatim If a
chamtenstic camiat be evaluated due to site ix vveathet cotAlrous niter 0 ut the see mtm box atwi ptrtyde an explanation to tlas
routmens sections Where, there are obvious chmges tit EL' Characiet of a streattt tinder re vm. (e.Q.. the Stream flfmw fm m a ))astute
' into a forest}, the strramr nri be divided rato unailer readies that display wore com uwty, mind a u-parate forty used to evaltiate cacti
reach The total ware asu_vned to a stream reach marst ranee lx Rvrea 0 acid 100 it.itli a scm, of 1 OC ieptrseatimp it strea-ru of the
Welukt qualit-
Total Scott (from resrrse):_ 53 Cauments: tteIRPW A2 was Surveved below walking bridge.
Esahuiar's, Si wturr^?"? amte_e )lure 2. 2009 -------
3his eliaWtef evaluation form is tetradari to tie rased atiiv as ri Ktatuir to ovA57 insdnnoers howl evi lronmertat prateisioaa& to
gntherurg tie alata required ire We Ungedl SWes _U-jav Corps. of Eug€ueenx W rnta4:e a: piriiirauarA- Assessment of ti-itram
' c(ro)ne. The total score I)Kttltfng irate the tnmpletion at this favm b, vabjeJt to L"5k1.E alrprovat and dom not tMP1%, a
girt ticulat mitiga"On ratio 01 ' requitetnrat. Fo'.Ir! subp-rl IC. change - t:e 5 um e-fi W Te a m u,?rtu. glean ;:al! S 1?-8 - 6-:,:441 x _t;
ST'RE_:M QUAL F1' kSSkSSMFXT WOitKWEET

Twin Lakes perRPW A2 ---
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS 1
Coastal - r- - i SCORE
Picdttant ?Nountaio
j ^
Presence of fION' ! persistent pools in sheallt 0 I (+ 3
' t no fow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max Paint,; ??
Evidence of post human alteration i
lC%lcn,ive alteration - 0: no alteration --rn x pointy
j Riparian zone 0_ 6 j (1 4 (t S 2
I lu hnfler 0, cntjuuolzti. K idc buffer = mninL?l I
.
Evidence of nutrient or chemical d13chargm to to ti Y 3
texten ive discha es - W npdischnrg -s =mesa pol,L i
--

5 Crouudvrater discharge
0-3
0 4
0 3
3
I
Q t no duchar ge 1): , rinds, tiecps. wetlands. etc. = max paints I
'
r. Presence of adjacent floodplain 0 4 0 ; o - ' 2
_ a na lloodplain 0: cxwnsive floodplain °- max points) `
Entrenchment I tloodplain access 0 0 4 t. -- 3
4 ideeply entrenched = 0: frequent ilkloding -- max points)
fl
1 k Pretence of adjacent wetlands u t 0 _ 3
tno tsetlanclti = 0:lark atliacent wetlands Haut twtnut
_-
.a ? Channel sinuosliv 0 -. ¢ U - a 0 ? 2
1 twxteruive c1tanneli7ation - 0: ttattual meander = max Paints)

IU ? Sediment input
tl ?
0-4
tf-a
2
(cxt(T,tve deposition= 0. little or no sediment - max rxiints)

Ii Size & diversity of channel bed substrate

(line. homogcnvus - 0: large. diverse stns max lnnmtst _ j
_

NA'

0 4

O-5

2

12 ! Evidence of channel ineltaioo or Nidenin>;
(1 5
O 4
0->
2
? .? tda.•cpiy ian:iscd.= U: stable bed & Walks - nwx pain>tl

I3 Presence of major bank failures j
(I S
0 5
2
_ isevare Crnsion - 0. txi erosion. stable banks = max ointsa

la Root depth and density on banks
0 s'
0 4
O- s
-

2
tsu, visible nwtc (l; dense mots throughout -1r1ax pomts) -- - _--._
J
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production (1
- ; 0-4 0- 5 2
i sa bstantial impact =0; no evidence = max txaints)
! I n Presence of rattle-pooUripple-pool complexes - -u 0 5 0-11
(m, riffles ri lc. or pools -- 0: well-develop d m:ax vints) 2
'
I; Itabitat complexity
0-h
(i 6
n b

3
i _ ( tittle or no habitat = 0: frcyucnt. varied habitats rnaxlxamts 1 - _
? -
Cl
Canopy coverage over streambed

5
0

tt j
t no shg4j%%c cmtion = 0- continuous canopy - max points)
2
Substrate embeddedness
NA'
! 0 -4
0--4
2
(deeply embedded -0; loose Suwon: _
_.--
I ,0 Presence of stream invertebrates (sec page 4) (
a 0 r ; 0
5
1 no evidence = ti: common. numerous - max points) I
- - _ ? - 3

I Presence of amphibians
(+
(I 4 j
t( 4
X i? (no evidence = 0: common. numerous tv •, max in(s) 3
Presence of fish
2
- no a vidcncc = ti: cottutxnn nutttemus t - tram
iris)
_

' , Evidence of wildlife use (1-6 0 -- 5 0 5
- (no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = max twins) , 2
-
Total Points Possillik IW 106 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first pate) 53
hl'rc char ,:!L*Tl. llc a:c Iles. i:19[°S?CI? Ili Cu"oital ita n i.s.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form: Version 3.1
Date: June 2, 2009 Project Twin Lakes Latitude: 35.36675 N (NAD83)
Evaluator: JL, PK Site; seaRPW D Longitude: 80.83886 W
Total Points:
s
enra ,
a
75 County:
rtan' 20
rI p
Mecklenburg County Other Derita, NC quad
+?
;
_
.
r
N a E g (ileac Nana:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal _ 7 , Absent Weak Moderate Strong
t'. Continuous bed and bane; 0 1 2 3
Sinuos 0 1 2 3
3. in-channei structure: ri sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Sot: texture or stream substrate sortho 0 1 2
5. Active7,reic ftoodplair. D 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or bencnes 0 1 2 3
'. Bratded channel 0 1 2 3
9 Recent alluvial deposfts 0 1 3
9" Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. t•ieadcutE 3 _ _-
1 ' . Grade contras
' 0 0. 1 ' S
12 Nature valle or drains m 0 0.5 i 1.5
15 Second or greater order channe! on ex.stino
USGS or NRCS map or other cixurlrlented No(D Yes =
evidence
mar,-irate dltzhw are rx)t rated scc 3KCi>cs <_ tr. rrl Huai
B Hydrology (Subtotal = 5.5
14. Groundwater flow'disch R -.- 0 t 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain. or
0 O
1
3
Water to channel - d1 or rowven season -
16, Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 t.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles twrack lines) 0 0.5 1 S
19. Hydric soils (redoximorPhic features p esen:' No = 0 Yes t.5
C. Biology , Subtotal = 8.25 ,

0 . Fibrous-roots tr. channe
2(T._
3
2 1
2't. Rooted plants in channe 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 ..5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish CO 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibans 0
26, Mambelhos Inntc divemit% arc abiMaIr., 0 0. 1 ! c
27. Filamentous algae, periphpor 0 1 3
26. Iron oxidizing bactenatfunaus.
-
— ------ 0 0.5 1.?
I
P _ __
_. . Wetland cants in streambed _ -
>=AC = 0 5: FA" Vv - --
_ .75 OBL S SAS = 20: Other = 0
IlCllk w at1N }U6UL Jr ilk: fir i"?dtl:?f. GL U(_aifNii Jlil;ll_ . Item Ai ic-kr-4:_ on the j7usOne4L v a,4uahc (r• wa'iantl plant
.
N.%tc; ir_e uarr ;iJC Y thi, rorrr, fo. aYjflcna' r:ate:.
Sketch.
- - Crayfish, salamanders : common
2'- 4' wide, 0' - .5' deep CHAN; 3'- 5' wide, 1'- 4' deep @T.O.B. Beetle (Coleoptera): common
Sand, few gravel; few cobble; old rip-rap
Midge, mosquito (Diptera) :common
Incised, low sinuosity
Damselfly (Odonata): common
Below detention basin
Craneflyadults(Diptera);larvae expected
r
t7%AC'F AIDS DW * Site > fca ideate at attichei tng1')
r STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT I'4'glRKSHEET
N-m.idr the follaind Woe-mahout fm the stream reach uuder mwv-.nwut:
1. APPhcatat s main. Len Rindner 2, l;n attrattn s haute Jett- Levi, Patrick Kealy
r
'. Iaate of eralnrttttoa June 2, 2009 4. Ttute of m-akoattau 3:00 PM
5. tiaule of stteam.seaRP W D 6, Rzvex Uas.u Upper CatawbaI03050101)
' i. Approxtruate drainage area _±/- 0.0.6 acre. S. Stream order __ 1st
C. Lenstli of reach et ahrated +/-,-),0' N. County Mecklenbure
r 11. Sue m ndxttates (tf kttcnxt) Inefet m dretmid degsera I Z. Sird#lnt'xston ratan (tf au,) 35.36675 N Loagttude(m -7'..)566et) 80.83886 W
Ntrtttod to auou deter coned (curk) GP-S ao .She CAdW (AM- a) PtWIa'GTS E-AhM GIS tkhrt _
13. Uratton of reach uadet evaluation (Rote uemby rvm& anal landtturks and attach oW. tdento u iz St"uVs) l -ahou).
r 177 / 1485, Alexanderana Rd, Twin Lakes Py
14.1rn>Cx?setl chatutrl a c>dl (tf aivv)
15. Recent v eatlm conditratts Dry last 48 hrs _
' 16. Site rtxtdutorts at time of ttsu Dry last 48 hrs
17. IldetxttfN- am' special tcaG!ttt ay ciasstficahous, laxon,.?t -Section IG _Itdal Waters -Essential 11,hexre, I3atvol
'imut C\'atfn'i Oursundum R.evnWi a Watrts _ Ntttr'a?Lrt Senstm-f- Lt'ater S Supply Water,ited ._.___Ci -S'
' 18, is dtete a Posui or lake 3t><^ar-ed tg?,>TC am of be eralttatiors P,axs' YES (D It ves. estanate tIW tx atea surface asra
19. Does chantrei appear ou liSGS. quid snap" YES. _ rU 20. Doe, chaursxel a}?rr a on t SI?A Seil Stun e?'' YES :\ U
r 21, E,stumated u-atetstnd laud arse _k6 Resytkluual -® Commerrtal 90 % Indusixtal Agricultutat
_jQ_t F(xwted a Cleats-d LoM?etd •c Crt". ",
'.I. Raul fall width 3' - 5' Saul: height (f out tied to top of bark:) F - 4' _
r 24. Cl atmel slope dourzt cettte of streatu X Flat (0 to '?6)Gentle (2 to 4%) 'Moderate (4 to ?__._.Ste r i C1°o1
25. C-iraattel sutuostty ,Straurtht ?UcrastorA4 bends _Frequetu ttremdet Wert' sttn(ous Rraided channel
Instructions. for campietlun of ttorksheet (located an pagr Z)-. l egg by dete'Untautug the ttrest approtnnate erfAmott basxxt. ou
location terrain, veRetatton sirmm classificattoo, etc Every chzmtctenstic nu4st be ,cored m-ma the same erorrmon k%%itm points
' to each chaxactensix withun the rxmge sh(mrr for the ecore on. Palle 3 ptctr;des a brief description of hoa- to. renew the
clww-teristics identified in dtr %v(x :.slr?et. %rores 4wuld reflect an ovin-Z as,essaretnt of the stivara teach under et-shu-ition if a
cltaractensttc cannot be, en•aluat!d dne to site or n:ekhet ct nftotts. Mitenr 0 tR the w7.m Ix)x and prosule an explamatxm to the
corn uemt section Where tbeae are obvious chatupes in the character of a suea m order trs:uru• (e R. the stream flows fiotri a pastatx
r into a foteso the stream euty be dr6ded into su aller reaches fhat drsplanv amre cortintvtc. and a separate form. used to evaluate each
reach The total score asstg[xd to a streazu teach nnrsz raure taert+evu 0 aid 100 meth a ,cote of l00 tepresentutp a stre-Am of she
luehest quah"
Total Scare (fMM rererse): 40 Cammeats: seaRPW D was surveved below a small detention pond and a
' F.tatrtatar's 5igrtaturr-?° _-_- _-----_-_? _ --Date June 2. 2009-
Than channel eivitiatfun ftum l5, Itttettded IX, lae rased ottlc as a gu-id-to as,it laadartmev; surd entirunimutxt Prufesstonals• in
gathetitig the data required be the United States At-Mr (-air of Engineer. hL make a Prriirniuati: assesiment of •'treatn
r gtta6tt. The total snore resulting item the toraple on of IIth lotm h. subject to US_>LCL apprmval and does, aat inapt.: a
pattliculat mitigation ratin or requitetnrat. I-ormt subj. t lc dhaixee - vitniou D6 n_ -fe Coritnuuu. please call 519-E r_ _44L x 'G
4TRE'A N QUA ll'y 11,SSESSNIENT WORKSIIEF
Twin Lakes seaRPW D

i
ECOREGION POINT RANGE _._._._
CHARACTERISTICS l` : SCORE
CDastxi f'iccimuat .
Mountain
Presence of fIvw i persistent pools in Stream - tl _ i i! y? -_-?{I 5 'Z
' nay : sa?K I,f U/tllratllln - n; ?Iil1RL' lb,w' = maX jltlliltn } I
Evidence of past human alteration
i I ratrnaw aherminn - 0: no alteration = ma.X point? }

- Riparina zone 0-h ! (1 tl 5 2
' ? __
_ I
. _ I rn? htdlzl 0, cnnu?uotc;, u•ilk huffcr = max?nmttil_ _._ I
.

T
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges ?_
?_
I
Icxiemi%c ikeharees - 0: no dischnrgc'S _[iNIX pumtsf
-
(1-5
it
2
i Groundwater discharge

I iw uiilwi u,
. -Wep,_uetlands. ett = max p nnt; i- tl _ ; tl iJ
- 1
Presence
Presence of adjacent Itoodplatn

it
a u -
t! --
1
Inu Ilo'xJI_lam 0: extensive iloodplain - max point,;)
- _ -?---
i_
_ Entrenchment I Iloodplain access
U
n
n- 1
,
i
!do pl} entrruchcd - U: frruuent flooding -max points! -
Presence of adjacent wetlands U t, ti o
1
:no wctlnluis= n: lgc:gllaccni wetlands mm twint,l

a, Channel sinuosity
a-5
(1-t
a .
1
I_ teztetun. channeh7ation - 0: natural meander = mw t. puint )

lit 1 Sediment Input
u
(1-4
fl-4

1
icxtu•-t it dgtusition= 0: tittle or no sedunent prix point;) i t

II Size & diversity otchaanel bed suhstrale

NA*

U 4

U-5

1
i I !fine. ho,nugennu. (I: large. diverse sizes -- max Points) t

I _ f.vidcrKv or channel incision or widening

l
5
it
n a
n-;

2
' - 1 do p
y inched -- U. stable bed do banks - ntax arimst
E" Presence of major bank failures

1

Lets w erosion -4). no erosion. %table banks -max oinlsi
!t .
rl 5
n 5 3
- Rout depth and density on banks

'
1
I ao s utblemoth n: dense mots thr ouchout - max Points)
0;
U 4
n-5 2
1 Impact by agriculture, livestock. or timber production 0 -
it
:1 c
tt

1 xuh:tantial impact 1): tx, evidence = mm twin!.+•{
-
-_ 2
I n Presence of riffle-pool/t ipple-pool complexes II 5
tl
U h
ink, nftl.•s'nnplc. ur pools 0: well-deveinred m:tx pnint.) 2
E
1 I tabitat complexity

(little or no hablta; = 0. ticyucn:_;•anW haMlatz max -intsl If _n (I h 0 6
2
I) Canopy coverage over streambed II i p 0

nu ;hu iin tic nation = 0: continuous canom max PQ1nts I _
3
Substrate emlivIltictiness
NA•
11 A
(1- 4

deeply embedded - tr loose structure - ntaX 2

,(! Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) o g 0

7•
no cridence =.0. comttxtn. numerous ty7101 - 117ax Hints)
---

-r 0- 5

-----
3
I Presence of amphibians 4 n 4
_
tnq ?l tcl ore 0: common. numerous types max ants) n (1 4 3
Presence of fish

no evidence °0: conttnun. numerous t
pcs tttaX iris) tl - y 1! i
I! a
0

t Evidence of wildlife use
' -
m o evidence _ ti: ablm:l:tnl lt'kdCtlL'l' = max Points) t) - h II- S 11 j

2
Total Points Possible 1(NI ItNit 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (al%o enter on first page) 40
hc?•,• ua .1_'CI1 ul :rl• n ? :'scsse. If t(c1a411 ?t*?•a:ns-
H % i !""
i
RE1_=TC,R,-F T ON
' Twin Lakes
Pond Bottom Vegetation
(see attached map for location of areas)
' Area 1. This character of this wetland area is shaped by the stream outfall. There is considerable
deposition of sand in this area, much of it appears recent. The vegetation is not dominated by any one
' species at this time but does contain Jewelweed, Soft rush, Knotweed, Sedge, Water horehound, and
Goldenrod.
' Area 2. This upland area is the slope just above the old pond bottom. It is dominated by Blackberry
and small trees and shrubs. These are Black willow, Sweet-gum, Yellow poplar, Loblolly Pine, and
Baccharis.
' Area 3. This is an isolated upland island of Blackberry.
' Area 4. This wetland area is dominated by Tearthumb, but also contains Soft rush, Jewelweed,
Goldenrod, and Blackberry.
Area 5. This is another isolated upland island of Blackberry.
Area 6. This is a small upland area containing Fescue, Blackberry, Lespedeza, and Curly dock.
Area 7. This wetland area is dominated by what is tentatively identified as Rice cutgrass. Also present
are Soft rush, Jewelweed, Tearthumb, Softstem bulrush, Rush, Woolgrass, and seedlings of Red maple,
' and Black willow.
Area 8. This is an upland area dominated by Lespedeza, Tearthumb, with Blackberry, Pokeweed,
Ragweed, Goldenrod, Johnson grass, Burnweed, Curly dock, and Woodsorrel.
Area 9. This wetland area is dominated by Jewelweed and Rice cutgrass, but also contains Cattail,
' Goldenrod, Soft rush, Blackberry, and Spikerush. Also present are seedlings of Sweet-gum and Green
ash.
Area 10. This is a small isolated wetland area is dominated by Softstem bulrush.
Area 11. This wetland area is dominated by Rice cutgrass with Jewelweed, Water horehound, Sedge,
Blackberry, Tearthumb, Soft rush, and sapling of Sweet-gum, Red maple, and Winged elm.
' Area 12. This wetland area is the DOT riprap channel and its side channels. The main channel is silted
in above the riprap. The vegetation is dominated Rice cutgrass with Soft rush, Jewelweed, Softstem
bulrush, Sedge, Hempvine, Goldenrod, Knotweed, and saplings of Black willow, Sycamore, and
' Cottonwood.
The remaining non-wetland pond bottom is dominated by a dense growth of Blackberry, with
' Goldenrod, and Black willow also being common.
RE'ST"DF47
Species List
Common Name Scientific Name

1 Baccharis Baccharis hahmi olia
2 Black willow Salix ni ra
3 Blackberry Rubus s p.
4 Burnweed Erechtites hieracii olia
5 Cattail Tv ha lati olia
6 Cottonwood Po ulus deltoides
7 Curl dock Rumex crisp us
8 Fescue Festuca s p.
9 Goldenrod Solida o s p.
10 Green ash Fraxinus ennsylvunica
11 Hem vine Mikania scandens
12 Jewelweed Impatiens capensis
13 Johnson grass Sorghum hale ense
14 Knotweed Pol ovum s p.
15 Les edeza Les edeza cuneata
16 Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda
17 Pokeweed Ph tolacca americana
18 Ragweed Ambrosia artemisii oha
19 Red maple Acer rubrum
20 Rice cut grass Leersia o ,:oides
21 Sed e Carex s p.
22 Soft rush Juncus e usus
23 Softstem bulrush Schoeno lectus tabernaemontana Stir us validus
24 S ikerush Eleocharis s p.
25 Sweet-gum Li uidambar s raci ua
26 Sycamore Platanus occidentahs
27 Tearthumb Poly ovum sa ittatum
28 Water horehound L yco us vir inicus
29 Winged elm Ulmus alata
30 Woodsorrel Oxalis s .
31 Wool grass Scir us c erinus

Map of Vegetation Areas Referenced Above
8