20181274 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2021_20220224

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20181274 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/24/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/24/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Kelly Phillips [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20181274 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
County: Wilkes
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: LyonHills_100085_MY1_2021.pdf 20.51MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Kelly Phillips
Signature:*
Zeilpt P Ellis

- ..
`ma's
1C'�` A
x Y
, "" i. ',Yid yy + 'r "
10
�t { f
d�- � '•..-i 4 vie ', -- �b
1� ssx'' n bPr , # 1
01
s�e's"ti'x F 'kr. y�a*F � '` x • ega .�
` y t
- � � tea sj* ; '^' Ls '�'
MONITORING YEAR 1 LYON HILLS MITIGATION SITE
Wilkes County, NI
ANNUAL REPORT Yadkin River Basin
Final HUC03040101
DMS Project No. 100085
January 2022 NCDEQ Contract No. 7620
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01784
DWR Project No. 2018 1274 v1
Data Collection Dates: April November 2021
DMS REP No. 16-007406
June 19, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
AP
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
January 19, 2022
Mr. Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ- Division of Mitigation Services
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Subject: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site—Monitoring Year 1 Draft Report
Yadkin River Basin—CU#03040101
Wilkes County
DMS Project ID No. 100085
Contract#7620
Dear Mr. Phillips:
On January 14, 2022, Wildlands Engineering received comments from the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) regarding the Draft Monitoring Year 1 Report for the Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
dated December 3, 2021. The following letter documents DMS feedback and Wildlands' corresponding
responses and revisions to the Monitoring Year 1 Report.
Section 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern: Indicate the current status of the sediment source that caused the
aggradation along UTS. Did the pond function as a sediment sink and is the sediment source adequately
controlled?
Response:A statement has been added addressing the sediment source.
Section 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern: Please include discussion of the perched culvert on Hanks Branch
Reach 3 (Appendix A culvert photographs).
Response:A discussion of the perched culvert has been added.
Section 2.5 Hydrology Assessment: Indicate if the UT1 gauge has been repaired and is currently
operational.
Response: Text has been added to Section 2.5 on the status of UT1 crest gauge.
Section 2.6 Adaptive Management Plan: Please add discussion for the perched culvert repair plan for
Hanks Branch Reach 3 as indicated in the MVO report.
Response:A discussion of the perched culvert has been added.
Visual Assessment Tables: Please include the date that the project was visually assessed at the top of
each table.
Response: The date has been added.
WWildlands Engineering,Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Mil!brook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

Digital Deliverable:
Please review cross section calculations and ensure that all points outside of the main channel
(defined by the low top of bank elevation) are excluded using the omit bankfull boxes.This must be
done before adjusting the bankfull elevation to achieve the MYO cross sectional area. For example,
cross section 11 should have a BHR of less than 1 after the bankfull elevation is adjusted to achieve
the MYO cross sectional area.
Response:All necessary cross sections have been reviewed and updated.
Please include figures displaying the crest gauge and precipitation data.
Response:Crest gauge data is now included.
Thank you for your review and providing comments on this submittal. If you have any further questions,
please contact me at [phone], or by email ([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
7-----
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
Page 2

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
312 West Mil!brook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

LYON HILLS MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits 1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 1-3
1.3 Project Attributes 1-4
Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment 2-1
2.1 Vegetative Assessment 2-1
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 2-1
2.3 Stream Assessment 2-1
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern 2-1
2.5 Hydrology Assessment 2-1
2.6 Adaptive Management Plan 2-2
2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary 2-2
Section 3: METHODOLOGY 3-1
Section 4: REFERENCES 4-1
TABLES
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits 1-1
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements 1-3
Table 3: Project Attributes 1-5
FIGURES
Figure 1 Current Condition Plan View Key
Figure la-c Current Condition Plan View
APPENDICES
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data
Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Culvert Crossing Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Section Plots
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final i

Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Table 12 Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary
Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plots
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 14 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Additional Documentation
As-Built IRT Comments
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final ii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Wilkes County, approximately eleven miles northwest of
the Town of Elkin.The Site contains a network of streams that range in drainage area from five acres to
9.58 square miles.These include a portion of Sparks Creek, Hanks Branch (tributary to Sparks Creek),
five unnamed tributaries to Hanks Branch;four of which originate within the project limits, and two
unnamed tributaries to Sparks Creek. Sparks Creek and its tributaries are located within the East Prong
Roaring River 12-digit HUC(030401010600).The site is within a targeted local watershed (TLW) but is
not in a local watershed planning (LWP) area.The HUC is described in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee
River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document (NC EEP, 2009).
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits
A conservation easement was recorded on 20.72 acres. Mitigation work within the Site included
restoration, enhancement I, and enhancement II of 9,363 linear feet of perennial and intermittent
stream channels.The project is expected to provide 5,304.783 stream credits at closeout.
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
Mitigation Mitigation
Project Plan As-Built Mitigation Restoration Ratio Credits Comments
Segment Footage Footage Category Level (X:1)
STREAMS
215 Cool No buffer on right sid
For Credit
Fenced Out Cattle, Planted
Sparks Creek 405 405 Cool Ell 2.5 162.000 Buffer
Sparks Creel
Not For Credii Cool Ford Crossing
Fence lanted
Sparks Creek 332 332 Cool Ell 2.5 132.800 Buffer
Hanks Branch Localized Bank Repairs,
Reach 1 1,678 1,659 Cool Ell 2.5 671.200 Floodplain Bench at Upstream
End, Fenced Out Cattle
Fenced Out Cattle, Localized
Hanks Branch 1,065 1,012 Cool Ell 2.5 426.000 Bank Repairs, Planted Buffer,
Reach 2 Add Wood to Channel
Hanks B. n
Reach 2-Not Cool culvert crossin6
for Credit
Hanks Branch 581 585 Cool El 1.5 387.333 Fenced Out Cattle, Floodplain
Reach 3 Bench, Planted Buffer
CUIL
659 657 Cool R 1 659.000
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
T1 Not f 40 Cool ulvert Crossin
Credit
106 105 Cool R 1 106.000
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-1

UT2 78 78 Cool Ell 3 26.000 Fenced Out Cattle
UT3 Reach 1 655 652 Cool R 1 655.000
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT3 Reach 2 447 436 Cool Ell 2.5 178.800 Fenced Out Cattle, Localized
Bank Repairs, Planted Buffer
UT3 Reach 3 513 512 Cool R 1 513.000
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
F3 Reach Cool Culvert Crossin,
-it fro-rro
UT3 Reach 3 74 74 Cool R 1 74.000
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT3 Reach 4 272 271 Cool Ell 4 68.000 Fenced Out Cattle, Planted
Buffer
UT3A 253 252 Cool Ell 2.5 101.200 Fenced Out Cattle, Planted
Buffer
UT4 Reach 1 233 233 Cool R 1 233.000
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT4 Reach 2 323 319 Cool Ell 2.5 129.200 Fenced Out Cattle,Stabilize
Headcuts, Planted Buffer
UT4 Reach 3 140 139 Cool R 1 140.000
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
14 Reach.
of for Crec. 40 Cool :ulvert Crossin
Restore amen
UT4 Reach 3 100 100 Cool R 1 100.000
Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT5 Reach 1 437 437 Cool Ell 4 109.250 Fenced Out Cattle
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
UT5 Reach 2 220 221 Cool R 1 220.000 and Profile, Planted Buffer,
Removed Impoundment
F5 Reach
-It fro-rrP Cool .ulvert Crossiri
UT5 Reach 2 107 107 Cool R 1 107.000
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UTSA 318 318 Cool Ell 3 106.000 Fenced Out Cattle
Total 5,304.783
Stream
Restoration Level
Warm Cool Cold
Restoration 2,807.000
Enhancement I 387.333
Enhancement II 2,110.450
Preservation ---
Totals 5,304.783
Total Stream Credit 5,304.783
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-2

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin River Basin. While
benefits such as habitat improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, reduced nutrient
and sediment loading have farther reaching effects.Table 2 below describes expected outcomes to
water quality and ecological processes associated with the project goals and objectives.These goals
were established and completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives described in the
RBRP and to meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift
within the watershed.
Table 2:Goals, Performance Criteria,and Functional Improvements
Objective/ Likely Functional Performance Cumulative
Goal Measurement Monitoring
Treatment Uplift Criteria
Resu Its
Construct stream
channels that will
maintain a stable ER stays over 2.2
Reduce erosion and Minor deviations
pattern and profile and BHR below
Improve the considering sediment inputs; 1.2 with visual Cross-section from design due
maintain monitoring to in-stream
stability of hydrologic and assessments
stream channels sediment inputs to appropriate bed showing and visual vegetation.Will
the system; install forms and sediment progression inspections. be treated in
bank revetments and size distribution. MY2.
towards stability.
grade control; install
bank vegetation.
Reduce shear stress
on channel; hydrate Hanks Branch
adjacent wetland Reach 3, UT3
Four bankfull Reach 3, UT4
areas;filter events in Reach 3, and UT5
pollutants out of
Reconstruct stream separate years Crest gauges Reach 2 obtained
Reconnect overbank flows;
channels with within and/or bankfull events in
channels with appropriate bankfull provide surface monitoring pressure MY1. UT1 crest
floodplains and storage of water on
riparian dimensions and floodplain; increase period. transducers gauge had a
depth relative to the 30 consecutive recording flow gauge
wetlands existing floodplain. groundwater days of flow for elevations. malfunction. UT4
recharge while intermittent Reach 1 obtained
reducing outflow of channel. 259 days of
stormwater;support
water quality and consecutive flow
habitat goals. during MY1.
Install habitat
features such as
cover logs, log sills, Support biological
and brush toes into
communities and There is no
restored/enhanced processes. Provide required
Improve streams.Add woody
instream habitat materials to channel aquatic habitats for performance N/A N/A
beds. Construct a diverse populations standard for this
variety of riffle of aquatic metric.
features and pools of organisms.
varying depth. Fence
out livestock.
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-3

Objective/ Likely Functional Performance Cumulative
Goal Measurement Monitoring
Treatment Uplift Criteria
Resu Its
Reduce sediment
and nutrient inputs
Stabilize stream from stream banks;
banks. Plant riparian reduce sediment, There is no
buffers with native nutrient, and required
Improve water trees. Construct bacteria inputs from performance N/A N/A
quality BMPs to treat pasture runoff; keep standard for this
pasture runoff. livestock out of metric.
Fence out livestock. streams,further
reducing pollutants
in project streams.
Survival rate of
320 stems per One hundred
Provide a canopy to acre at MY3, 260 square meter
Plant native tree shade streams and planted stems vegetation All 9 vegetation
reduce thermal plots have a
species in riparian per acre at MY5, plots are
Restore/improve loadings;stabilizeo planted stem
zone where and 210 stems placed on 2/0
riparian buffers currently stream banks and per acre at of the planted density greater
floodplain;support than 320 stems
insufficient. MY7.Height area of the Site
water quality and per acre.
habitat goals. requirement is 7 and monitored
feet at MY5 and annually.
10 feet at MY7.
Ensure that Visually
development and inspect the
Permanently Establish agricultural uses that Prevent perimeter of
protect the conservation would damage the the Site to No easement
easement
project site from easements on the Site or reduce the ensure no encroachments.
harmful uses Site. benefits of the encroachment. easement
project are encroachment
prevented. is occurring.
1.3 Project Attributes
According to the RBRP, agricultural land use, including 30 animal operations, is a major stressor to
aquatic resources in the lower portion of the HUC. Degraded riparian buffers are also noted as a
significant stressor. Stressors described for the 8-digit CU include erosion and sedimentation (including
erosion from pasture lands), which lead to aquatic habitat degradation.Turbidity and fecal coliform
bacteria violations have been documented across the CU.The Site is located in DWR Subbasin 03-07-01.
The 2008 Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NC DWR, 2008) indicates that fecal
coliform concentrations often exceeded the maximum regulatory limit in the CU which creates a
potential health risk.The plan also notes major stressors in the Yadkin River Basin include excessive
sedimentation and changes in hydrology and geomorphology due to urban development and
agriculture.Agriculture was identified in the plan as the most significant stressor leading to water
quality degradation in the Yadkin River basin.
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-4

Table 3: Project Attributes
Project Name Lyon Hills Mitigation County Wilkes County
Site
Project Area (acres) 20.72 Project Coordinates 36.32924°N, 81.01018°W
Physiographic Province Piedmont River Basin Yadkin
USGS HUC 8-digit 03040101 USGS HUC 14-digit 03040101060030
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-01 Land Use Classification 66%forested, 28%
agriculture, 6%developed,
Project Drainage Area (acres) 6,131 Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
TRIBUTARY SUMMARY
Parameters Hanks UT1 UT3 UT4 UT5
Branch
Pre-project length (feet) 3,384 930 2,112 836 793
Post-project(feet) 3,298 802 1,990 831 800
Valley confinement(Confined, moderately confined, Unconfined Confined Unconfined
unconfined)
Drainage area (acres) 669 37 46 12 13
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
DWR Water Quality Classification C
Dominant Stream Classification (existing) C4 B4 B4 B4 B4
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) C4 B4 B4 B4 C4b
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable Stage I Stage IV
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27
and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes Certification No.4134.
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion in Mitigation
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Plan (Wildlands, 2019)
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA or CAMA) N/A N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-5

Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the project.The
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic
assessment are located in Section 1.2 Table 3: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional
Improvements.
2.1 Vegetative Assessment
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in September 2021. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem
density range of 324 to 607 planted stems per acre which is well above the interim requirement of 320
stems per acre required at MY1.Average stem density was 499 planted stems per acre. All 9 vegetation
plots exceeded the interim success criterion and are on track to meet the final success criterion required
for MY7.Along with a successful tree planting,the herbaceous vegetation is dense and includes native
pollinator species indicating a healthy riparian habitat.The riparian habitat is helping to reduce nutrient
runoff from the cattle fields outside the easement and stabilizing the stream banks. Refer to Appendix A
for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table and Appendix B for
Vegetation Plot Data.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
No vegetation areas of concern were identified during MY1.
',3 Stream Assessmer,
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in September 2021. All streams within the Site are
stable and functioning as designed. All 11 cross-sections at the Site show little to no change in the
bankfull area and width-to-depth ratio, and bank height ratios are less than 1.2. Refer to Appendix A for
the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and Stream Photographs. Refer to Appendix C
for Stream Geomorphology Data.
stream Areas of Concern
Dense in-stream vegetation was observed along UT5 Reach 2 and sporadically found along UT4 Reach 1
and 3 (Figure 1c). Before vegetation was established on the banks, excess sediment washed into the
channel from the surrounding areas after the pond was removed, causing aggradation along UT5 Reach
2.The in-stream vegetation continued to trap the sediment, preventing sediment from naturally moving
through the system. Once the in-stream vegetation is treated in 2022, it is expected the sediment will
flush through UT5. Dense vegetation has become established on the floodplain where the pond was
removed, preventing further sediment from entering the stream. See Section 2.6 for further information
on treating the in-stream vegetation.
Out of the six internal easement breaks, one culvert crossing became perched (Appendix 2 Culvert
Crossing Photographs) after a major storm event in MYO.The culvert crossing along Hanks Branch was
installed on bedrock, and material below the downstream invert washed away during the storm, thus
creating a perched but stable culvert.Wildlands will continue to assess the situation to determine if
there is a potential solution on fixing the perched culvert.
2.p Hydrology Assessment
Bankfull events were recorded on Hanks Branch Reach 3, UT3 Reach 3, UT4 Reach 3, and UT5 Reach 2.
The crest gauge on UT1 malfunctioned so no data was obtained, however, it has been fixed and is
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 2-1

operational. All channels are on track to meet the hydrologic success criteria of four bankfull events in
separate years.
In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on restored intermittent reaches (UT4 Reach
1)for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year. In-stream flow gauges
equipped with pressure transducers were installed to monitor continuity of baseflow. UT4 Reach 1
maintained baseflow for 259 consecutive days. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
L6 Adaptive Management Plan
As discussed in Section 2.4, in-stream vegetation will be treated along UT5 Reach 2, and UT4 Reach 1
and 3. A chemical and manual treatment will occur in the spring of 2022. Follow up treatments will be
conducted as necessary. It is expected the excess sediment along UT5 Reach 2 will naturally move
downstream once the in-stream vegetation has been treated.
After further review, adding in a log sill directly downstream of the perched culvert along Hanks Branch
did not appear feasible due to existing bedrock along the channel. Also, adding more material to the
downstream invert will likely not solve the issue because the new material would likely wash away with
the next major storm event. Wildlands will continue to reassess the culvert and try to determine a way
to fix the issue.
Z.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
All vegetation plots are on track to exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre,
and all streams within the Site are stable and meeting project goals. In-stream vegetation was noted in
UT5 Reach2, and UT4 Reach 1 and 3, and will be treated in the spring of 2022. Bankfull events were
documented on all stream reaches, except for UT1 which had a gauge malfunction. Greater than 30 days
of consecutive flow was recorded on the intermittent section of UT4 Reach 1 fulfilling MY1 success
requirement. Overall, the Site is meeting its goals of preventing excess nutrients and sediment from
entering the Yadkin River tributaries and is on track to meet final success criterion.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request.
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 2-2

Section 3: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration:A Natural
Channel Design Handbook(Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gauges and pressure transducers were installed in riffle cross-sections and monitored throughout
the year. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with
the United States Army Corps of Engineers standards (USACE, 2003). Vegetation monitoring protocols
followed the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT, 2016).
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 3-1

Section 4: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley,J., Harman, W.A.,Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy,John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2017.
Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance June 2017. Accessed
at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-vendors/rfp-forms-templates
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2008. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Plan.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-planning/water-resource-
pla ns/yad ki n-pee-dee-2008
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Yadkin_River_Basin/2009%
20Upper%20Yadkin%2ORBRP_Final%20Final%2C%2026feb%2709.pdf
North Carolina Geological Survey(NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=a8281cbd24b84239b29cd2ca798d4
a10
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilm ington-District-Mitigation-Update.pdf
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2020). Lyon Hills Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 4-1

. __ 4- ' g Aillirr I . .
, it : 11IF. . v j tr;,.-,..00 - , .4*--71-!
''i - .'. '' ' , .,;t 1 r . • ....,.
.: ` I 4 III t � '
b 1 III I � � _ _ x IT 41.�.
I.
1 �. i r II► it r Q . 1
y
iIIIII - Reach 9 -
4a ','.4 101114. 1..16.1 '1.I.4 3....
.
- + I � Ill III \�
c . 1 1
IIiIII
) I tt
,t1,,. ' UT31 + ill ..+ _
1-
. ig114.
I . x_ 1 � `ll Reach B 4 ' / +
4011.4 . ,
1 = — x —x - - 1 '0 Ill v� ����a
�\ Reach 9 I �, 1P •^ I y,% �a0
//'O �c'i 1 4' 'll Reachl3 r-•-�
! Reach . ,/ III yid,rs , -, Conservation Easement
1 'll 1 I�i �. '� •--
///� + ' , �z Internal Crossing
i ee • , Existing Wetland
. A•. +t; Reach B 11 —
1 "`, ti 'A *` A. I III • ' / Vegetation Plot Condtion- MY1
i + 2 �I' , � r , I , i' Reach 9 Criteria Met- Fixed
! - �� -
1 � � Reach� //,� + + % Criteria Met- Random
Niit,rv� Reach 4 ' i ;Ock i �+� I _ Restoration (1:1)
i - '_a
O I + I Enhancement I (1.5:1)
` ! + + I — Enhancement ll (2.5:1)
i ` 'S► I ..•,,ems' + + �° _ ' ,
- � a v ! i 1 Figure la — Enhancement II (3:1)
. . r' .r ! �� No°'' ,". ' . - ' ,fi t=--,: .. ,� �'rt 1 N , 1 + 0 fix 4+-.-----------.-------•---•---•---•---.---•--� — Enhancement ll (4:1)
6 r°, , of 1. 1 UT2 No Credit
',. t , • i �‘ i Hanks Branc - -
f ,�� 1
4.4(...-a• i.„f�}, I s ,.�% 'O I --' Non-Project Streams
,,- .� ,�_. 1 Reach LS I .. Fencing
' I a ..r Figure lb _ -
/ ! t e> -� \-- •--- --.- -.--- - - ---�--- --- --- -r L Cross-Section
• h• ;' � I .. _ - BMP
• al. I - � ' -�' Reach 3 .- , 4
- -` • ' s'• QQ Reach Break
Ng' •• . .
•
i Barotroll
Crest Gauge
i
! Figure 1c ! ., - Flow Gau e
_ 0 Photo Points
**, ..10
2018Aerial Photography •1igi - -
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View Key
a WI L D L IA NR D S Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
ENGNEEING 0 300 600 Feet DMS Project No. 100085
i I i I N Monitoring Year 1-2021
Wilkes County, NC

1r ' '' ► .. = ��� �' �, �� •-.*` ..4s'c .N� Via. j Conservation Easement
:, •y► !i ,I 1 r'! Internal Crossing
r4 ,_` id g:'. a i f ; I :M 1 iiti•j y , -- _, Existing Wetland
R ,i, t • ! • ' .. • • r r t, • 't •'4 Vr Ica . . • `1»l1 • Structure
1 :, .
' I - Vegetation Plot Condtion MY1
'. 0t .t - y r � .; i r / ) . A *� ,. Criteria Met- Fixed
' a. � _ - -•
Restoration (1:1)
,
: ► Enhancement II(2.5:1)
oJ. J' ;li. "VI '' 'A�, �� ' ►`h t { `F No Credit
A i ! �i'�'�t — Non Project Stream
. f - " �, > .
' � ,. , ,1� i 41 As-Built Top of Bank
r .� .? ;;, : g g Fencing
,' Jr : '4N, ` / Cross-Section
I. l- �_t
;^il ' '�. �. . 3p0*Ola • +i►. .` f OO Reach Break
�� ►: 4 ' 174 „ r... F Crest Gauge
i► J r' Ir
' ` ' Photo Point
• =�— <
_ 0:
II-
t
► 'N
. lb 4
• Ili 0r
A
/ PP15- ems•
• �, `= ir
' illIfy flit
H
_\ ; �
II► ,,� *
' kit Al,\\ ! i," !lb-* t
if
- II , -II '
// 0-
C 2
❑ -
• \\ - PP16 III ,
i3
Iii
= 06x00-rC
�O . , 0�*�j
f4
0
JV
4 ��
40 .., (,)
o, a '
`W
00 \�
I PP4 xoO %
liktz �� x
4 Iltifir
00
/
`y- ,/( PP5
4'
Y., , , Reach 9
' 'r
/// ,r ; � i, .
€.
fs ,
ipjag 7X00 , •• .
' 4
43
♦�O
/ x
i _ O°
c�
Vx
0,9
# j _ _. :
r `•2'SXO�1 s-.•,. . - - 2018 Aerial Photo. _...
Figure la. Current Condition Plan View
WI L D L A N D S Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet V DMS Project No. 100085
I I I I I N Monitoring Year 1-2021
Wilkes County, NC

16 j, w 1F;• a _:
' 4 ;,Ai-_ •. �+ r A•
1 - Conservation Easement
. ---
� ,o _�. • Internal Crossing
'14,4 , ,
j lu , VZ;ji Existing Wetland
i. t Structure
Mk
s
� ! J �t Vegetation Plot Condon-MY1
,, r /J „ Criteria Met- Fixed t
4 . • oo O Criteria Met Random
,
r Restoration (1:1) l
�� lli .' SO7x Enhancement I (1.5:1)
- 4 .' Enhancement 11 (2.5:1)
_,,, •.:4111., $4 1 t t• Enhancement 11 (3:1)
ya.V. ' 502 10
II Enhancement 11 (4:1)
` + y/ No Credit
$3+ fif�// Non-Project Stream
/( As-Built Top of Bank
Fencing
111
y` 4+0, Cross-Section4;--<° /� Stream Area of Concern-MY1
�' - « , iii • In-Stream Vegetation
sx a Reach 9
��, iii
41 * BMP
IV4'- _iii — XS6 (j Reach Break
er tat
\sue, ,o i +PP.19
o Crest Gauge.M °; sosx 0 Photo Point
N
��� +o i_ °QlI
4%1 ,'
' .. PP20i
11•
409+Oa I
:'r 1li ill
4 K v< Reach N
• III1,Xo�\\;
\\iv.; .4
_ A t.
'�PP21
\ + 4\
11; ` p0 .
z�
I r /y
\11 q .%Ill viz � ,.
l! €
Ea PP22 ' ,..i.),.3
'~ III '+ p0 -V / ,
•
III �j -*
IQ o PP5
1,1Ill ,2y00
k° t Reach&3 7/ °
•
-\l
-- Reach g aIIl �� illr 'oo
•
•
A 1 t /// P.P6 i_,
��� Reach k3 , % �r
• • oy Reach Q % ! � 4 •'� ''
�: „ / / i
p -. 0 *--, . . ' PP10 }
O
II+OCR= �,�� , +PP9'....::......... +� .-�= /
4 ° 226 \ Op..,. .• Z.
................. _
.o Reach B ,
o Reach B
- 2018 Aerial Photography
Figure lb. Current Condition Plan View
kliv, W I L D L IA NR D S Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
ENGNEEING 0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 100085
i I I I I N Monitoring Year 1-2021
Wilkes County, NC

, _ _ _ , T _ I Conservation Easement
72 Internal Crossing
Existing Wetland
, I "k
Structure
Vegetation Plot Condtion-MY1
Criteria Met- Fixed
0 Criteria Met- Random
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement I (1.5:1)
•
• Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (3:1)
�' Enhancement II (4:1)
,L - No Credit
' Non-Project Stream
- •
As-Built Top of Bank
- Fencing
`;.r '�" , . Cross-Section
Reach 9 Stream Area of Concern-MY1
, III In-Stream Vegetation
BMP
>'PP30 80� j0 Q Reach Break
>I t t, Barotroll
A =_v_—, PP34 _ -� , Crest Gauge
02+0 4- Flow Gauge
, Ao K Photo Point
\\ 7 _. _._--7r 7 '2--a ,A.:-A
�'x 4' III .a I ,
SAS A\\
%/ /0 III , ' l
% % 0 /,p II
' ? 6 it
ReachN lei/ •moo .fir '
- i s' Reach 9 III ! o
x
III \\ �s
tt_ -A D iu .:.;:04-*
w ow b 0°
P3 Sao
':q € III Q `003-
l -- E A� \ Reach B
0
NQ.N • .• *...-.,
\o2x0o�`� ,00� �
` °� A • "•-� ;� Reach n
A.
,i i • ,r •
`�' r O k00�\ Q� 1 L
.
y.
:-.. A .. . :., r . .. 0.,-• N _ _
L _ . . .
„.,
. .. .,e v
3 ... . .. ,,, :
;,,.. A‘,-. ,
.__J4„...... A - c
. �� '� IV . . ; , ;� ti+ . .:� •• o O Reach B
\% •
PP1 -�� wo 'S'°
-Ir I'*? �` `....-� Nan-
Ks Or
A
Appl -;{ "fia'be..4i '' (9 , 0
Ox
.-- Reach ic3
• . • + .
tiIf Di-111+00
r
At,,,,,
14171,
•. it '.
2018Aeria1 Photography i.
Figure lc. Current Condition Plan View
A WI L D L A N D S Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet V DMS Project No. 100085
I I I I I N Monitoring Year 1-2021
Wilkes County, NC

APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Hanks Branch Reach 3
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
ajor Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
as Intended As-Built Footage Intended
Assessed Stream Length 585
Assessed Bank Length 1,170
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 5 5 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 0 0 0%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.
UT1
Number
Stable, Total Amount of11jb
Major Channel Category Metric Number' Unstable
Performing
as Intended ootage
Assessed Stream Length 802
Assessed Bank Length 1,604
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 25 25 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 15 15 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT3 Reach 1
Number
11
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
ory Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
as Intended As-Built Footage Intended
Assessed Stream Length 625
Assessed Bank Length 1,304
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 36 36 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 11 11 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.
UT3 Reach 3
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
for C anne Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-Built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 586
Assessed Bank Length 1,172
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
Bank appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 31 31 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 10 10 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT4 Reach 1
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
for C tonne Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-Built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 233
Assessed Bank Length 466
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 14 14 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 2 2 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.
UT4 Reach 3
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
ajor Channel Category Metric Number' Unstable rforming as
Performing
as Intended otage Intended
Assessed Stream Length 239
Assessed Bank Length 478
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
Bank appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping, 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 11 11 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 4 4 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT5 Reach 2
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
jor C tonne Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-Built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 328
Assessed Bank Length 435
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 15 15 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection i 6 6 100%
nfluence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acreage 10.80
Mapping
Category Definitions Threshold Combined %of Planted
Acreage Acreage
(ac)
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 0 0%
Low Stem Density Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count 0.10 0 0%
Areas criteria.
Total 0 0%
Areas of Poor Growth
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard. 0.10 0 0%
Rates
Cumulative Total 0.0 0%
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.
Easement Acreage 20.72
%of
Category I 1.11 Definitions Easement
creage
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage.Include species with the
Invasive Areas of
potential to directly outcompete native,young,woody stems in the short-term or 0.10 0 0%
Concern
community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in summation
above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point,line,or polygon.Encroachment to be mapped consists of
Easement any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common 0 Encroachments Noted
none
Encroachment Areas encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no /0 ac
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

1. . I.*:,T.1',, .'.... ."...1'' .,:ire i .:,... ''';';'' 71*(;) ' ,. '''' . .,....'','2.#r4..::'''';'?':,,iiii: ...... :..,..„„,,,....:,;... „,,y. ........ ....
.. ,_....::: ,,,,,.... ..:-.:'.\,-,3.:,or 0i,' 10,Atti...•' ..„,„5.,,,-„,'.., --.,,,,,,-,, ,.: ..:.:,:. .., ,:., -
,-,-.`,. 41.- -.,-,-",,,,,. ,,,0:-:„ir..4 ,-..,..t••...,,,,,..v,. .,,,:::,.,•••• •.:.,:,.:..,••...,,,.., . .,.„ __.,..,„ ..,,,t„,,,,, ,,.4„.„, .,.. „._...... , ,,, ,.,, . , . ,
It
-•-•,;,itt-_-„-tr'-''' --'-'4,:-..i:'-:••••._ .
3 J ' s3 _-
••. 4
•
PHOTO POINT 1 Spark's Creek—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 1 Spark's Creek—downstream(10/12/2021)
j
,,,.„sow r.„..--14:*„...-------•-,,,,,-.,..-...:----.--' . .
•f
•
•
•
PHOTO POINT 2 Spark's Creek—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 2 Spark's Creek-downstream(10/12/2021)
li Kr'
y.,
iiir
z t
I '(\id ' - .
•
1 •
' _ ' ! .. ,tip.'t k. �` r
PHOTO POINT 3 Hank's Branch R1—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 3 Hank's Branch R1—downstream(10/12/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
tiiii Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

V: '.4*
r-
:. .i.4_,
PHOTO POINT 4 Hank's Branch R1—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 4 Hank's Branch R1—downstream(10/12/2021J
%x;
Kok ,5',.= -'il '.. � _ - 'ak 44
gs 'la. .3,
PHOTO POINT 5 Hank's Branch R1—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 5 Hank's Branch R1—downstream(10/12/2021)
— 4114/4.7:-.,40- -4/41: -t
:':,,,,, ._„17,.,1_,::*7.,,..1?:,.,`*:„%,..-...,:;r1;1...!'1.—^"ir.,- :.::::,.:' . ::-''''1'..t.' -.:115- Irli;t1;• 1,\ 'I'l
gyp Y l` 3 r
•
7 5 �
f - '�' ..� a r
f ,,,,,,, .... .,
,,,,,,,
1471
•
. �`ee• T - -- _.,- P : f ",- I'S';'-' y+i` yY3-. r Tk l 8y -.
PHOTO POINT 6 Hank's Branch R1—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 6 Hank's Branch R1—downstream(10/12/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

„,,,„,v,.,,,,,,t,,,,,,.,:.;,,,,,,,,,s,_,A„:,.,,,..,*,,,t,„„..„-_-,1,..:,,,-._•:,_,,,J.,:.e„_,,,:-_ . : ,,...,...:0,t. 4:::„,,i,,,,•,,,,,,
. e ' ..yam„ 'ai^' - w y ,, .
x _�� ig. �. .'x �
•
l - _ • - �
•
••• ."...'.-it.':.' ',''-'4tgrAss,„.4'‘.-',,,, 1
Ric�..�' ' y ''��`^s'' �v... Pq�4; h, `7
•
N
i
PHOTO POINT 7 Han
k's Branc•
h R1—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 7 Hank's Branch R1—downstream(10/12/2021)
•
{
•
, -
.\ f3 --, „F.am aC` -.�
lii ' S ry} v
.4P.-;:`,, , r /
P'.
PHOTO POINT 8 Y�\Hank's Branch R2—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 8 Hank's Branch R2—downstream(10/12/2021J
4.
r
__„.._..
,. : ,.,.„..„._._:_..,_ . . .
....., _, ........_„ " _
...,...., _.___ •
.. .„
... . . . , .: .. . .
..,,ee._ . • _ :....vit.:
.,.
7i°,��`t� v '`-i-` ' ram_ `”. _ ,. ._
_ ,,
.,...,.
.. ,...
....,
rr
•
PHOTO POINT 9 Hank's Branch R2—upstream(10/12/2021)� PHOTO POINT 9 Hank's Branch R2—downstream(10/12/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

r' r If ....T. 4 il ,i.it kiir 431 I, ' ,
w
s
y fi
, e z. a ', �4e
—�0 r
�'' F.' _ �`' ors a
PHOTO POINT 10 Hank's Branch R2—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 10 Hank's Branch R2—downstream(10/12/2021.)
y�,y+� gl
it t_ • F •-, ,
t
- .,,,,`',1 ., 0 V f " ,-. ' ,
i "r
ri y, 4 1�
}Yr.`:x' 'eS 4� '5 �'•_�
PHOTO POINT 11 Hank's Branch R3—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 11 Hank's Branch R3—downstream(10/12/202¢1J
VIrf°- wok*, -= .^1,
r. ., _
- j 4m .4 '4
. ...
..„.........
,,,,_.„.„... ....
,.... ,.. , 6.:' 1611 ,
%
'CC Y P ,.. ae •4 •-+ Z 'Ce '4 l6 Stti
1 re
'` " "EW ',. .,‘, •:.6't.*:- ' , .
..
....._.„ , ..,,,r,...f.,.. .
__Li...,.=4,.....,4:=,,z-,, ,,,4., -,- ..,,,e,,.. .oz,
, ,
+P99A`v+FK �A41:v4 _ `.. — _` ' LEre,
PHOTO POINT 12 Hank's Branch R3—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 12 Hank's Branch R3—downstream(10/12/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

.,,::,,,, ,•1,„;,-..-11;e"af,,,,::**„, ;4;f7,--,,„7, 'I .<,:' ,, ,,,,„*IIN
- s; d •
'i, r -. pis i
+ 4;
"0/
Zit_'''',.Z2-4'•;Qa,:i5 ,; s
N-. � err z....\_,..„ ,_....„..,,. ,. �.r= .TaaV . .,..... . -"+k(..
,_ _ ,,,,,, ,'44.t. ie, ,.., .'4:, -
ifre
• � qt . " I r -.r, €.fit '� r� 2 z
f r '` - tea” • 14 Y, ' '3.s�w"g�- -•il°�. +� 1 :.� X ,".°s�
,LIB: ., '` ..''�& ,, A,* "''�i It- - •, , n ?�, s._a
•
PHOTO POINT 13 UT2—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 13 UT2—downstream (10/12/2021)
-
,' alii .'..
4o : 9
`R - •w - - r
- - _ _
- , - .-.--..' 'Il'.-..,N't,. , -- --
y4' y '7
ta_, F -
PHOTO POINT 14 UT1—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 14 UT1—downstream (10/12/2021)
t 11it I 1 R l
y
4
r tax =r'4a �t I x ,�h ys,. -_� -
{.• '• '- f s - 1 :,.t. k" „fi e ? r 'r' L } u
r t .. N a rAV,
- 9F
y y
01.0x,.„ ..0.:,,k,"„,,,t.T. ,„-,-,1, -.•?,• ,,--,..,:,N ,, , 4,,,,„,‘ _,-,,,,,. •-, . 7_---,-, „ , , :,,,,, ,,v.., ,t_y_-z.,-.•-_,: .--- - ,.:, , ' ' .,,,,,,.: , ',,, .1 ';,` - '
4w.'S 4l �,psr '.-ram �' � ° ' ' _
PHOTO POINT 15 UT1—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 15 UT1—downstream (10/12/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

a
4
..
,,,,e0i... ..„ „... .,,„„._ s 4,
� h ,+ 5 3W ' Ja- ��, .iZ
�yy l $
Y',, [t%-+tc 21§,; f��s q�1 �y ' � \ •Y, y .
I..r.''''
'�1�aa.. :1-y '. �.."4;9�1 fy,f� L , ish r Iy L y S ' _ gyt= *3� y°'i'T1yy, , . = 1 yf 4p� PPS
,,f e ,,. n y J r c Ps .45 g 4 :mil
�, i i{ x .ram _ ja r w ��
4
,...„, . ..,......,,. •:,,,,,,w,,,, 41.-K"\\ . .L.,,,
H '
ill
o �' "� r ma a��6 1
PHOTO POINT 16 UT1—upstream(10/12/2021J PHOTO POINT 16 UT1—downstream (10/12/2021J
a.
• 1, 3
a_
b y` 4h ' , , --. _.-sf-7':--L--t----7.,°; -4.44— - — ' -'
xp� �" ¢ r} � y ``om s`_3 K Y � z y7�' fY�� - y{- „�l�'� ! ,_ „ , , ,-./-4,,,-,--,,,'____,,,,-...t.-- tgic,,,,, - ,.,„ 4, -_- ,,,,s i
-at
.+.-J -�Y A J 4� .•��y,A1� r`✓<q+(' � .r a Y �� 4- 4 s
Ili
PHOTO POINT 17 UT3 R1—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 17-UT-3 R1—downstream (10/12/2021J
k `- -fie.;
�- r � :''"�3� � � te
_..... ..,:-A—I:1r . , 4 _,.., .
s_ - -' ,'�, � i
... .
. -,, , . ,..,
.., .,.
, , .
.-0'
, .-4,,4*-7,11;1"‘„.„1::''' '
11
PHOTO POINT 18 UT3 R1—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 18 UT3 R1—downstream (10/12/2021)
141 Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

•
-'� _ i r"t i s '7D+ J' -.',. •� idi
-
Mir
,. :".4...4'. ,*-W.A 1 .'' '. ....v. -..'' ,' L, 'f• " • , ,• 'v ','; .. •-/'- .- 4%. ' ',"1'4 7U. r''''' r.'7,r'','4.',.4 -,-ptey,t, . ,
p 4
1.
r e - Q,yy p "" r.r. `a'� p ,���- -•g _ 'r si. - �`
a"4.z st 4', fir'e'' ro p ":: .!, y ... s,o. r '!a '_, • n,
+ i ,4;,� �' n } e�' +c k -` '.- , 'hl iii • 4 4 sad
'ri?:-.";,-,,'0'-_4'.1/4 k r,'.-,.„‘4,,4.,,'-,e;4_,.,,1.,.0-ii,
4.. , 1 + eck%' ,' x .,Er i z.r' - `4 T '-
5 Ar _ ,zsg y1i
4 y ��, _ > f = f �. �, �'
' ,.
PHOTO POINT 19 UT3 R1—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 19 UT3 R1—downstream (10/12/2021)
•`T F"' 4 N� 's , ,_ r Ate'
441a. / *7-,; IT-'7''''
.p. •
Fs
,.=f 7A a s -�' a_
P PHOTO POINT 20 UT3 R2—upstream (10/12/2021) HOTO POINT 20 UT3 R2—downstream (10/12/2021)
n •n � 9 r4 1 n4.�v h :+. +p"f , „y '1 e. 1 A rs a '- •
A'1
t 1 _ _y •▪ �f c°r '., \. r'Vre '4'r, 37� h� ,16
r �,4 : air ,s''3 x i� -„ a �d "� a. ,,:
itr. ;�`'f .'ZiStr . _ :er a r ;. � d_,:--, ,_� \ .,'`.':��` r s
�21 ► W4Ar 4,4▪ J �'� _ _ u� fTx 'r 1 5�� "` w.'.> �' ,r- ."
,- .,,,,,-', tArl...„.
. / 3R'1 4
$ t
ti r.
* n } 1 �r
•� - }r .- 4 �? r w-: x l h 4 t .may .,� ` �'"
rr• E x ;, a ;
- ;-�!r � �
M� ;
.� Li. `f:�' - • ram' .1L r•4.•11..'. rx. � ,q`,:
PHOTO POINT 21 UT3 R3—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 21 UT3 R3—downstream (10/12/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

a K F .%
°� f ,:. _ ��. Y a��� � t��"' } �F �,?���r 1 � � �`��w�}' � � �i�YsA� g •2� r�E °� ,�R d
r
,:
i a z '"»., z . •y _ .-, -s,. E4 Y �'4 r� .t t
4 P F y,"'4 t w ,f' if.! ..r o a 4 r•5 r;;-k. . t1 4
's ram, '� '. <� r ��9 'A.r .t� '_ "� ° " -- x a •k t {yg y+„: = ,,- ,—4 r`f
'-i .. { • )fir i &RcgLii: �'Si'. .qr 3 1 ,� y� "'t 7-..
,�Jv � �? Y:1F : ' �!- . `fN�s _, z1 -�x,�ep `` .�7 P's �. r �'
�'! �21- �r; 7'_��agJF �. 'J� .� fi ,� <:.. _ --•'9� � � s� '� fix ,• �'' 3. �' r r t:
a' s, � 1, Z 7rnt
T""
PHOTO POINT 22 UT3 R3—upstream (10/12/2021J PHOTO POINT 22 UT3 R3—downstream (10/12/2021)
- - - _
•
. . 9 ' ' .
•
__ 4 �� ! ae ., j%
,7d ill - - ��cr,� / * _ .� �,
PHOTO POINT 23 UT3 R3—upstream (10/12/2021J PHOTO POINT 23 UT3 R3—downstream (10/12/2021)
a
, � ` ,1
.,-,?,...-;',/a^."."f,:.; 4, '....f4.4.,.3,,,::-14,T,, , d, :t:,, ,
K yhp$.. ,ems 'j� 'am r '�" .--
"',-",..j A$aw *,,,1 �
.• .�,, \ i~ se z a *',' .,L. 6 . { of
, -
u1 , .,4,
, , r A;,, '.
� � // 9e fie-
, ,-, # ;*---- _, .1,41...,,;,,,;,,k*.iii: . - _ -,.,, :: _4!:G.i.,..,--;.,
s r amrt ''� .AFL-.
all"
� ?^i�r' P�ti.. '� _ ter � �' �:e�E��l�� _�tt..�t�'.. . `i. sw•� •.xi:
PHOTO POINT 24 UT3 R3—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 24 UT3 R3—downstream (10/12/2021J
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

Ty
•
•
Ala •
s .
c � �-
'� 7.
ty
� �A` H .
L p - a a '4 - s4' �y ' '�• "i �
i ,-t40 rp. c 4 f ,4C Y
•��'�-X�'� #- � I�' of i".,
PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 R4—upstream (10/12/2021J PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 R4—downstream (10/12/2021)
v. ;a S 4 4• Y -
. v - j it
"„�._ p`"" a .a - .- 0. Jam"`
-�..fit � � 4 � � �-a r
�� � .... �: � J $ia � � �_? ram s r S� '. ' _
{ -" - • ax'�xe 4 C 2 T
r `»z, e "cam'-`' -�. �, r .,i'a �f�` 4 -
pc '
PHOTO POINT 26 UT3A—upstream(10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 26 UT3A—downstream (10/12/2021)
! w
�� ' s_t ._ 4
} Sf � s d/ -
y
i
YLY
T ti
PHOTO POINT 27 UT4 R1—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 27 UT4 R1—downstream (10/12/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

til
t l_, ra ` ,. 1 ac" X g
% zy sip . _^i l , ?. c
.- ems. ,
,- ,Ali V ,l.. ,,4, -,� - r 4 1rs Y 'f' 3 �;.
ar
1.
4 a•
PHOTO POINT 28 UT4 R2—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 28 UT4 R2—downstream (10/12/2021)
;r,r
I
r�
PHOTO POINT 29 UT4 R3—upstream (10/12/202,1) PHOTO POINT 29 UT4 R3—downstream (10/12/2021)
I
r. may
ww
ill
1,- � ` ii 3� 7 yS - - �`.' i `%mac --., c ('-
/4
• _,4..- ...:, .....1,
,tc .,
�� C'..:„. It ‘44,;.I.:.°-.:1. -r s ,.d
:;,.....„ # ' : ---- - 41t, '''..
.-., ,,, .:. • -,-,4 4:4:...,ci, ..i•l--1....f.•\"---.. ,A.4. ih,
PHOTO POINT 30 UT5 R1—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 30 UT5 R1—downstream (10/12/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

•
q � Wl T v c ,rxP7r
tea' aP,, ✓ "�w .?,- I .. r�� • c,.
fi
\ .
i .
..,__,......„...„_ - ,-,
:s a bt'' � , �I / ` Jam' • ,„.. , .
�. ' .�
a
-,
yam, _ �tia, t_� ,! 5,� ' .. F .eR ��7x��'
.. � ' , �� � is — � ✓, ' .:�,.'�, .. '�" ` 1
PHOTO POINT 31 UT5 R1—upstream (10/12/2021J PHOTO POINT 31 UT5 R1—downstream (10/12/2021)
— y
:: ..
}
vies ;. �� �''.
PHOTO POINT 32 UT5 R2—upstream (10/12/2021) PHOTO POINT 32 UT5 R2—downstream (10/12/2021)
•
a
r a y& f-.
,..
4
/� 1 r 1 �3 d .v...:;,,,,, ..,'4,,l'A 4,.••r k • g
I t+ ! A'. v �` r,
PHOTO POINT 33 UT5 R2—upstream (10/28/2021) PHOTO POINT 33 UT5 R2—downstream (10/28/2021J
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

;
•
� ` #r..x• v c..vim` ) : .. ", ti, y �, 4 `i. . „ _�- v , .; ,.1'. 4 t xx� " _ j 1. , .?- 1.d -rat' 1 . ..'.4q *cc-t r . T--, a' s ►� .' "", ' w. e-
w � ��++- w: �k ++F -,`-mac s .` '�4 �,. °�'3yr t/ _ _
,-4-. - g+n • fi 'MrF �' , a' ' 4-sS4 -4. �i,3-"h 'F �j *, f' e_' „l ,r
:ji
- n ,
,..5.,..,,, ,:i.:_. ,-‘,.....i.---- ,..4... .„,„,___ „,-,z,,-; 4,- _
- 7 .,Sy fi. ;'.-- iS i `r''' :, '. . .,6.-/�,�L.t�.
PHOTO POINT 34 UT5A—upstream(10/28/2021) PHOTO POINT 34 UT5A—downstream (10/28/2021)
Illi Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

CULVERT CROSSING PHOTOGRAPHS

Yr v fi � wry `4- 4 n 7 may. t76
' ' ` �° } j4' - - µ-M S ,!' 9 y
a _ F
"ts`a. "
Wye I er +
sR. d tlL:ar� / - - .
Hanks Branch R3-Perched-Looking Upstream(09/27/2021) Hanks Branch R3-Looking Downstream(09/27/2021)
,..,,.:
h
•'' k, ." ' • '\ '.% 'L'...V.'''',- .:' 44;L';',"''''...;4.'''''.;'''.'',.1':„:4'..'&,..4;:c.-T;,-4..,-1,er., .. , .... ,.. ._„ ._,,,,, , _.,?,....34,......:„...r.,
Itale-
a
,:„....,,, .. iv,
�P' :.1��� A ; NmM } y _y�i''t�. J'a ' i 1 #p4V. .1� .1],,l ^js 4i k
r�A i1- :. ,,fir.mLa, x,, ' t z ,y !91,1 : +� ,,,,,r,i c ' y �[- f4,, c� 7.h S? 4 h �6
-C 1 4 Y ' 'S." G 'q1 d lk 3 ^�• N' p aR dA - yG
".--,-,,14-.0 N-
,s
'mil, , J,. tikj � � n� / ( � _ \ti-- 2�_' a°i sill tam �*,, 36i.4•ra s1'� '-� 4,.- r M .PaV.
14
/� l i ,' ' �t n i g j 4 ,J fj�r�s G + �_ • ‘44
- 1a: .,- 1� �t' ��.r r i'l� {��,fT Ke�,' 6�F.� - aIiv „P� �`,
'C'.*yam ,fin F' rM Y'. �S CAI , ti �, 4��r .4
tea Y r3 s� rs � Uit< 6'd€ �.r itjC��$il , woks,
UT1 Looking Upstream (10/12/2021) UT1 Looking Downstre (10/12/2021)
t < 4 s-. _ '
R. ' "fY' s4y_ ,,ma s _ - - ° ` am`l��'n L+ 5 r#�t x - F
'4'-q:ett•14.4,114's' .1"1!,.*:31;...-40';'. ''' ;. „ ''..,,kkel4",f41,:•:;.',,,..i i':C:Z1.:f", .:A ,`.;, 4.4,„1;•',7': > .4.'W-^;.,-;'.,,, -•,„, z.'7: '" . . ,.
''''' '-'11,1e °::';,i'../.41.4:4?::' ':)ttt".?:::...i*C,4ftrkk-vt.'XI''''''C'f':'`4';i:.i.#.0P,-,:rii ..',.. 9 .t.:".. ":1:-., ,f4, ,':,:'';''.:!.- ::;',I'.'.1.1:-'to''''••tr. t,-,. '-. "'',.. t , _: .:-=,- 12,
t.':..rf,41,:ii.4;t1Akl'i'.'t.-1!,:;:,':21k4,'"..OV:;:::?!':'' '1'.4*',t7;t1;04,4.,:At' ' ,:""*S\,;"-:,,' • _ 'ek,r_r_,7,:$•c:•I'''a'•-c-'-f:_--
' -,...k..41\:''':".t-'11',..'.-,f f'.'1:, 2"4"r4/44.441'. ,.., .....:,,, . ,.. ..3., i
° - ► z �� '� r . ��_
"'� - . -,x "'.°' �� 'l �'k .
r� �, i� � 11 ; t * ' " �: ",ate`': � Yw j r +'� �''� ''n + '
Y � .�'' z,
r ---$'� 5 - ti'Yv 'y "r° r'f'°K�" .�. '� x,'� �_'�°'p,+F'` y}i' 'a �A� ` # I
yyhh��
•
-ter' �� �: , "!' (r i }�Y It. . ��,i3 S;'ya�3�'° j
UT3 R3-Looking Upstream(09/27/2021) UT3 R3-Looking Downstream (10/12/2021)
aVIIL Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Nal Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data:Culvert Crossing Photographs

I} �4 r � ° ix et , �ar as ,, x . sit
..l i_'3a`4�,, ----, 4 ' f 4sl 1 . " 't ' k4° '1u� �1-, P "Y 4 , •1 j 4.• "
1 ,, sty
A ,� i r .3i` ,� 0 �', \ t 5 ��.�. . 1; ., \ tea".a ,," - �.. $
a ��Ja &.. *,rfi '' n i f p( 3 t'S. . >x�r �gk"g .: Sb rA'7
t Y�9 k•
Yc +'" PF
is d �,e� =4e 3 � � . r"\ ��y �y' :; � `p,
,- '� .y,,:-,Ca1' f x, 's ,1 r ▪ray ,,s
'Fi x' -„,- �°'i-rt��. ', `;„ -},,, - 1 41- -. ,i*', • `r` ° ., :, M '_ x ' „ t,s
FP' s i ' Z -
- '_'. ,,, - ,,,,i,!,,,iii-',,, :-.3,.,::;;-'.„-4- --it",--;:',..g.g,t-t-.. V-:=1".;;Aif 7, ,Ix,..':.,,,,,,.,..,.-..?i. ..,...i. -\-- ,:.•...,„;-=-...., ..-c.,
r ° 1= "`! PR p1 fie, } y P ,k,"1; ��2°'�',� t 't�:�-
.3Y ra s1 11 ", tik". k p✓ T • '` 3 R x' t ,.itit ' 3 ;' y �V�.i,. t
�i * � 11,'",2:,..4.:". 1.,..„,t74,,.-_-4
xa+y � ,dry '�� {. <' �i ' � �4 , Yd erp d• 6 �I,yF'" [;� � -�, � !�� }�`�
�(g;� 4 I°- s 5 f �9 -!^- , e' v )J.f +p* 1 .. '''A'F,3- y u'~7 9 _ *1, �.f4.,� - vimf,,r'.h 1F F'' { �,! 'yam`•+ 7 "' h "� l
f: = k .f� ',t ,- ,d-`cr ' ' a]LT +' ,„, '' {IAK�1111t��.\t `', sue - �i "`ir yl
UT4 R3 Looking Upstream(09/27/2021J UT4 R3-Looking Downstream (09/27/2021)
as i - , la- '' rel
J ! .L'0:Irmro 'i,':
4
,M-i"lt,• 1' elii
e.
f ti 3 fiiv:
\. h a Y.+7 �. 2 �� Imo,k
•
iii
�e` VV'' .e'• � �
� "` w- r c t4 i .1 E m ##T ✓f � 6�k ,, ,44 u ' , , ri ia i- e Y v1 4Pk,r w.t + fi+,.
,..- 't' t
x e
{
UT5 R2-Looking Upstream(09/27/2021) UT5 R2-Looking Downstream (10/12/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data:Culvert Crossing Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

7 /
r-
xaw€
,i...t
"- } .x.�a�NV
FIXED VEG PLOT 1(09/27/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 2(09/27/2021)
,.. .
. .4,._ ,
.. .
-.
, .;.;,, ,,,...,
_ , .
.._...
. ... ,,.
, ._
,.
..
_ . . ,
il
• UP
3
FIXED VEG PLOT 3(09/27/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 4(09/27/2021)
yy
r
ems.
1"', is#_4 .,'.,` fir
P1114 'se.
FIXED VEG PLOT 5(09/27/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 6(09/27/2021)
pLyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

r.
J,5 ' r ..�+ R k �t$
64:
�6 y@
. iii�: vim`
A. i �+� �,
a 4p s€
l'
FIXED VEG PLOT 7(09/27/2021) RANDOM VEG PLOT 1(10/28/2021)
ti ..:"
'4 ,. � r fir`' ;
RANDOM VEG PLOT 2(10/28/2021)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acreage 10.80
Date of Initial Plant 2021-03-22
Date of Current Survey 2021-09-27
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/S Indicator Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
Scientific Name Common Name hrub Status
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1
Species Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1
Included in Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1 1
Approved Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 3
Mitigation Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 5 5 3 3
Plan Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 1 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
Sum Performance Standard 14 14 12 12 15 15 15 15
Current Year Stem Count 14 12 15 15
Mitigation Stems/Acre 567 486 607 607
Plan Species Count 8 6 8 8
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 21 33 33 20
Standard Average Plot Height 2 3 2 3
Invasives 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 14 12 15 15
Post Stems/Acre 567 486 607 607
Mitigation
Plan 11
Species Count 8 6 8 8
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 2 33411133411120
Standard Average Plot Height 2 3 2 3
Invasives .IIIIII0A
1).Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,italicized species are not approved,and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2).The"Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan"section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan.The"Post Mitigation Plan Species"section
includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year(bolded),species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a
mitigation plan addendum(regular font),and species that are not approved(italicized).
3).The"Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan,whereas the"Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"includes
data from mitigation plan approved,post mitigation plan approved,and proposed stems.

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acreage 10.80
Date of Initial Plant 2021-03-22
Date of Current Survey 2021-09-27
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/S Indicator Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 1 Veg Plot 2
Scientific Name Common Name R R
hrub Status
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 3 3 2
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
Species Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1
Included in Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU
Approved Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
Mitigation Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 5
Plan Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 3 3 3 3 3 3 1
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FAC 2 2 2 2 1
Sum Performance Standard 12 12 14 14 12 12 8 9
Current Year Stem Count 12 14 12 8 9
Mitigation Stems/Acre 486 567 486 324 364
Plan Species Count 8 7 6 5 5
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 25 21 25 25 56
Standard Average Plot Height 3 3 3 2 2
Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 12 14 12 8 9
Post Stems/Acre 486 567 486 324 364
Mitigation Species Count 8 7 6 5 5
Plan
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 25 21 25 25 56
Standard Average Plot Height 3 3 3 2 2
Invasives 0.1111 0.1111 gab 0 0
♦
1).Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,italicized species are not approved,and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2).The"Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan"section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan.The"Post Mitigation Plan Species"section
includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year(bolded),species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a
mitigation plan addendum(regular font),and species that are not approved(italicized).
3).The"Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan,whereas the"Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"includes
data from mitigation plan approved,post mitigation plan approved,and proposed stems.

Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 567 2 8 0 486 3 0 607 2 8
Monitoring Year 0 607 2 Mr 0 607 3 0 607 2 Mr I.
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 607 3 8 486 3 8 0 567 3 7 0
Monitoring Year 0 607 2 8 526 2 8 0 607 2 7 0
Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot Group 1 R Veg Plot Group 2 R
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 486 3 6 324 2 5 0 364 2 5 0
Monitoring Year 0 526 2 6 445 2 9 0 607 3 9 0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot"groups".Random plots are denoted with an R,and fixed plots with an F.

APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 1-Hanks Branch Reach 3
229+39 Pool
1,164
1,162
1,160
1,158
c
0
'� 1,156
v
"' 1,154
1,152
1,150 ,
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
—MYO(2/2021) t MY1(9/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions i -
41.9 x-section area(ft.sq.) i • ,
18.1 width(ft) `_ r. •�. e
2.3 mean depth(ft) ' -� � ,�
3.9 max depth(ft) t~. fit •-+ ,"
20.9 wetted perimeter(ft)
2.0 hydraulic radius(ft) r ,1 t
7.9 width-depth ratio j z; '
Survey Date: 9/2021 L�
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering •
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 2-Hanks Branch Reach 3
232+64 Riffle
1,160
1,158
1,156
1,154
w
1,152
♦
1,150
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MYO(2/2021) - MY1(9/2021) Bankfull Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
30.7 x-section area(ft.sq.) •
16.4 width(ft)
1.9 mean depth(ft) '
2.9 max depth(ft) F ;y �;-
18.0 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.7 hydraulic radius(ft)
8.7 width-depth ratio
37.6 W flood prone area(ft) -
2.3 entrenchment ratio •
1.0 low bank height ratio --
Survey Date: 9/2021 "
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 3-UT1
303+17 Pool
1,232 1,231 t•
y 1,230
0
1,229
wv
1,228
1,227
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
-MYO(2/2021) t MY1(9/2021) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions 1111411111
4.3 x-section area(ft.sq.)
F_• :..
5.4 width(ft) ar"`
0.8 mean depth(ft)
1.1 max depth(ft)
6.1 wetted perimeter(ft) _
0.7 hydraulic radius(ft)
6.7 width-depth ratio
j.: •-:Mob r4a AS
Survey Date: 9/2021 .i si
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering _
it r
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 4-UT1
304+55 Riffle
1,227 l
1,226
1,225
o /
1,224 ———— ———— f` -- —
w /
1,223
1,222
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(2/2021) MY1(9/2021) Bankfull Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions 7PFv nth `Y, R,,;' :rr::y:.:•-?•r i . 1'
2.6 x-section area(ft.sq.) ; `
4.8 width(ft)
0.5 mean depth(ft) - '/-:- 4�
1.0 max depth(ft) .',-.`'5 ,�.} •1 �i.R
5.3 wetted perimeter(ft) >,'a;,• _ _ ',, .•`R
0.5 hydraulic radius(ft) °c;.. ��
8.9 width-depth ratio R'`
12.4 W flood prone area(ft) - 1,;
2.6 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio r y�` }- n'-
Survey Date: 9/2021 r' • •
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering 14-'-
kr: •,�:�/ ."r. yam:;. ''Y f -
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 5-UT3 Reach 1
503+72 Pool
1,233
1232
y 1,231
c
0
riii 1,230
wv
1,229
1,228 ,
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
-MYO(2/2021) t MY1(9/2021) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions '
8.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) ' ? • -.,
1r
9.6 width(ft) ` ij y i F. •- ..
0.9 mean depth(ft) ,
1.9 max depth(ft) a
11.1 wetted perimeter(ft) ' .s
0.8 hydraulic radius(ft) ..• i-i- a
11.0 width-depth ratio -
Survey Date: 9/2021 E
1
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering , I� 4,—
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 6-UT3 Reach 1
505+30 Riffle
1,227
1,226
1,225
1,224
v
w
1,223
1,222
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(2/2021) MY1(9/2021) Bankfull —— Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions ' f. -
1.6 x-section area(ft.sq.) '.3. astir
5.0 width(ft) - L k.
0.3 mean depth(ft) ►,� ••y
0.6 max depth(ft)
5.2 wetted perimeter(ft) - _- _ r�
0.3 hydraulic radius(ft) _ '
15.5 width-depth ratio
8.4 W flood prone area(ft) - •
1.7 entrenchment ratio
<1.0 low bank height ratio _
Survey Date: 9/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 7-UT3 Reach 3
513+94 Pool
1,188 -
1,187
1,186
0
1,185
w 1,184
1,183
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
-MYO(2/2021) t MY1(9/2021) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.4 x-section area(ft.sq.)
6.4 width(ft) �, , i-,..
Yt
0.7 mean depth(ft) -
1.4 max depth(ft) ? c :a•;
7.2 wetted perimeter(ft) ?.
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft)
9.3 width-depth ratio
•
Survey Date: 9/2021 f ti� -� Y •
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering =
' 'Y�r j ice: i ti •
•
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 8-UT3 Reach 3
514+88 Riffle
1,184
1,183
1,182
44401P—Ntietvr
1,181 .__ _ _
wv
1,180
1,179
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(2/2021) MY1(9/2021) Bankfull ——• Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
1.2 x-section area(ft.sq.) •
3.1 width(ft)
0.4 mean depth(ft) ' • • 'c'
0.7 max depth(ft)
3.5 wetted perimeter(ft) �.'.
0.3 hydraulic radius(ft)
8.2 width-depth ratio "'.
14.9 W flood prone area(ft)
4.8 entrenchment ratio i� ". r; ,:if3• ,
<1.0 low bank height ratio } :mot
Survey Date: 9/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ;,�`!'•. � v,��� ,;.r,,,::.:.,� , ��i._y:. - �,:.;,<.,:5�•a' '�:';
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 9-UT4 Reach 1
601+18 Riffle
1,207 I
1,206
1205
c w
1,204 —— -
w
1,203
1,202 ,
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(2/2021) MY1(9/2021) Bankfull ——• Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.0 x-section area(ft.sq.) •
•
4.8 width(ft)
0.4 mean depth(ft) •
0.8 max depth(ft) 3 �+ -
5.2 wetted perimeter(ft) °
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft)
12.0 width-depth ratio ; '•'
35.0 W flood prone area(ft) y •
7.2 entrenchment ratio
<1.0 low bank height ratio •
Survey Date: 9/2021 /
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering / •
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 10-UT4 Reach 3
606+39 Riffle
1,173 1
I
1,172
y 1,171 ♦ -0- -�
0
1,170
wv
1,169
1,168 ,
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(2/2021) MY1(9/2021) Bankfull Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions t ,'
2.0 x-section area(ft.sq.) `'-,�. :.,.
5.1 width(ft) - *'' r-
0.4 mean depth(ft)
0.7 max depth(ft)
5.4 wetted perimeter(ft) f,;
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) '4 r- .-- "'��
13.4 width-depth ratio . �:�''""' =''
35.0 W flood prone area(ft) �y '.
6.8 entrenchment ratio 1R _• yr'
1.0 low bank height ratio '''
Survey Date: 9/2021 . ' " r
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ' r '`CP yT
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 11-UT5 Reach 2
805+78 Riffle
1,166
1,165
1,164 -------- —i �------- -----------------
c
1,163
wv
1,162
1,161 ,
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(2/2021) MY1(9/2021) Bankfull Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
0.9 x-section area(ft.sq.)
4.9 width(ft)
0.2 mean depth(ft)
0.4 max depth(ft)
5.1 wetted perimeter(ft) -: •
' `s
0.2 hydraulic radius(ft)
26.3 width-depth ratio
35.0 W flood prone area(ft)
7.1 entrenchment ratio
<1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2021 '• ".:t:
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering '* =
View Downstream

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
ONDITIONS
Parameter Hanks Branch Reach 3
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 13 1 15.5 16 1
Floodprone Width(ft) --- 1 34 78 38 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1 1.1 1.9 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.2 1 1.7 2.7 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 13.4 1 17.7 30.7 1
Width/Depth Ratio 12.6 1 14.0 8.4 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1 2.2 5.0 2.3 1
Bank Height Ratio 4.8 1 14.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 95 79 93
Rosgen Classification C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 68.8 85.0 145.0 1
Sinuosity 1.06 --- ---
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0210 1 0.017 0.020 0.012 1
Other --- --
Parameter UT1
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 7 1 6.6 4.3 1
Floodprone Width(ft) --- 1 9 15 12 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.2 1 0.6 0.7 0.9 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.3 1 3.2 2.2 1
Width/Depth Ratio 13.5 1 14.0 8.4 1
Entrenchment Ratio 6.7 1 >1.4 2.9 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.7 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 54 99 117
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 13.2 13.0 10.0 1
Sinuosity 1.10 1.05 1.05
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.051 1 0.051 0.056 0.052 1
Other --- --

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
ONDITIONS
Parameter UT3 Reach 1
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 7.3 1 5.9 4.9 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 10.4 1 8 13 8 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 1 0.5 0.4 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.6 1 0.7 0.6 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.1 1 2.7 1.9 1
Width/Depth Ratio 17.5 1 13.0 12.5 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 1 >1.4 1.7 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.7 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 114 87 75
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 15.0 10.0 6.6 1
Sinuosity 1.02 1.10 1.10
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.056 1 0.036 0.040 0.042 1
Other --- --
Parameter UT3 Reach 3
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.0 1 6.8 4.7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 8.7 1 10 15 15 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 1 0.5 0.3 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.0 1 0.8 0.6 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.8 1 3.5 1.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 7.5 1 13.0 14.4 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 1 >1.4 3.2 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.6 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 128 102 64
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 27.5 15.0 4.8 1
Sinuosity 1.03 1.05 1.05
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.039 1 0.042 0.053 0.044 1
Other --- --

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
ONDITIONS
Parameter UT4 Reach 1
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.2 1 4.0 4.7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 7.4 1 6 9 35 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 1 0.3 0.5 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.1 1 1.3 2.2 1
Width/Depth Ratio 12.5 1 13.0 10.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1 >1.4 7.4 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.7 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 122 74 159
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 15.5 4.0 11.3 1
Sinuosity 1.10 1.05 1.05
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.053 1 0.054 0.059 0.073 1
Other --- --
Parameter UT4 Reach 3
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 7.3 1 4.9 4.5 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 9.0 1 7 11 35 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.3 1 0.4 0.4 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.4 1 0.6 0.9 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.8 1 1.9 1.9 1
Width/Depth Ratio 29.1 1 13.0 11.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1 >1.4 7.7 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.3 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 140 67 86
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 5.6 6.0 7.0 1
Sinuosity 1.00 1.05 1.05
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.044 1 0.045 0.049 0.046 1
Other --- --

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
'RE-EXISTING
ONDITIONS
Parameter UT5 Reach 2
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.4 1 5.0 5.4 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 11.0 1 11 25 35 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 1 0.4 0.2 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.6 1 0.6 0.5 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.2 1 1.9 1.3 1
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 1 13.0 21.6 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.1 1 2.2 5.0 6.5 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.7 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 79 49 39
Rosgen Classification C4b C4b C4b
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 9.0 6.0 4.9 1
Sinuosity 1.10 1.20 1.20
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.051 1 0.028 0.033 0.035 1
Other ---

Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 1(Pool) Cross-Section 2(Riffle) Cross-Section 3(Pool)
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 1,157.57 1,157.39 1,153.89 1,153.82 1,228.70 1,228.86
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 1,153.44 1,153.50 1,151.24 1,150.96 1,227.74 1,227.74
LT013'Elevation 1,157.57 1,157.39 1,153.89 1,153.82 1,228.70 1,228.86
LTOB'Max Depth(ft) 4.13 3.89 2.65 2.86 1.00 1.12
LTOB'Cross Sectional Area(ftZ) 44.10 41.91 30.70 30.69 3.20 4.30
Cross-Section 4(Riffle) Cross-Section 5(Pool) Cross-Section 6(Riffle)
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 1,224.06 1,224.15 1,230.54 1,230.60 1,222.82 1,222.79
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area 1.00 1.09 N/A N/A 1.00 0.90
Thalweg Elevation 1,223.19 1,223.27 1,228.40 1,228.75 1,222.18 1,222.17
LT013'Elevation 1,224.06 1,224.23 1,230.54 1,230.60 1,222.82 1,222.73
LTOB'Max Depth(ft) 0.90 0.96 2.10 1.85 0.60 0.56
LTOB'Cross Sectional Area(ft) 2.20 2.56 10.20 8.30 1.90 1.61
+ UT3 Reach 3
Cross-Section 7(Pool) Cross-Section 8(Riffle) Cross-Section 9(Riffle)
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 1,185.20 1,185.21 1,180.95 1,180.94 1,204.05 1,204.11
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area N/A N/A 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94
Thalweg Elevation 1,183.59 1,183.79 1,180.36 1,180.17 1,203.22 1,203.30
LT013'Elevation 1,185.20 1,185.21 1,180.95 1,180.98 1,204.05 1,204.06
LTOB'Max Depth(ft) 1.60 1.43 0.60 0.72 0.80 0.76
LTOB'Cross Sectional Area(ft) 4.90 4.45 1.50 1.20 2.20 1.95
if
Cross-Section 10(Riffle) Cross-Section 11(Riffle)
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 1,170.57 1,170.61 1,163.95 1,164.03
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area 1.00 1.01 1.00 0.84
Thalweg Elevation 1,169.68 1,169.89 1,163.47 1,163.52
LTOB'Elevation 1,170.57 1,170.62 1,163.95 1,163.95
LTOB'Max Depth(ft) 0.90 0.73 0.50 0.43
LTOB'Cross Sectional Area(ft) 1.90 1.96 1.30 0.92
'Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
'LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above.The difference
between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Hanks Branch Reach 3,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Hanks Branch Reach 3,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 III ��•—• •—• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0 90 Silt/Clay Sand >i< ravel Be
C bbie 14
Fine 0.125 0.250 0 80 S BoAyer Be(Bedrock�,
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 0
Coarse 0.5 1.0 0 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 0 i 60
a+
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 0 . 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 0 E• 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 0
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 3 3 w 30
J0, Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 3 6 a 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 4 2 6 6 12 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 6 11 11 23 0 • • • •
Coarse 22.6 32 6 4 10 10 33 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 8 7 15 15 48 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 14 2 16 16 64
MVO 03/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 12 2 14 14 78
oN($, Small 90 128 12 1 13 13 91
00V Large 128 180 7 7 7 98
Large 180 256 2 2 2 100 Hanks Branch Reach 3,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 100
# Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 70 30 100 100 100 w 60
a
tg 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm)
3 30
D16= 18.14 76
D35= 33.49 c 20
050= 47.0 10
D = 105.9 0 • I i 1 —• —• 1 1711 1 1 1 •
84D95= 155.5 . 14))oo otih o`' '. 1, ,ticb c< 49 9, yti y(o�,v<9 ,,ti 0 (0o co NI, 1�o v�� Doti yyti yotia ti4r,Dorn
Dloo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-03/2021 •MV1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT1,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 4 11 15 15 15 100 •—• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 15 90 Silt/Clay Sand >< Gravel )1(--).
Cobble
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 10 11 11 26 80 Bo Bedrock
Bedrock
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3 3 29
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 3 4 4 33 6,-,-, 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 33 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 33 . 50
3
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 33 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 5 8 8 41
Fine 5.6 8.0 41 w 30 • •
J0, Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 4 4 45 01 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 3 2 5 5 50 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 7 2 9 9 59 0
Coarse 22.6 32 3 3 3 62 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 6 1 7 7 69 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 10 1 11 11 80
MVO 03/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 6 3 9 9 89
i)\, Small 90 128 4 4 4 93
(01' Large 128 180 4 4 4 97
Large 180 256 3 3 3 100 UT1,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 100
# Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 60 40 100 100 100 w 60
a
tg 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm)
3 30
D16= 0.13 76
D35= 4.35 c 20
D50= 16.0 10
D95= 151.8 . 14))oo otih o`' '. 1, ,ticb c< 49 9, yti y(o�,v<9 ,,ti 0 (0o co 4, 1�o v�� Doti xi,yotia ti4,ao��
D100= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-03/2021 •MV1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT3 Reach 1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT3 Reach 1,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 4 19 23 23 23 100 III •--• •—• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 23 90 Silt/Clay Sand >l< ravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 2 2 25 Cobble BoJl er >.
80
Bedrock_
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 2 3 5 5 30
Coarse 0.5 1.0 5 5 5 35 6,-,-, 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 35 i 60
a+
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 6 6 6 41 '—°• 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 41 E• 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 4 5 5 46
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 2 2 48 w 30
.40, Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 6 6 54 01 20 ---•
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 3 2 5 5 59 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 6 3 9 9 68 0
Coarse 22.6 32 3 1 4 4 72 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 9 2 11 11 83 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 7 7 7 90
MVO 03/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 7 7 7 97
o.<$, Small 90 128 2 2 2 99
cr Large 128 180 1 1 1 100
Large 180 256 100 UT3 Reach 1,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 100
# Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 50 50 100 100 100 w 60
a
tg 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay 7 30
D35= 1.00 c 20I
050= 8.9 — 10
D84= 47.3 0 ' I J . J — • J ' . I
D95= 81.6 ootioytih otih o' '. 1, I, 0 40 % y,. y(0��4 ,1, a% �o �o yti% 1�o v�� ��ti yyti yotia tint%a�co
Dloo= 180.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-03/2021 •MV1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT3 Reach 3,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT3 Reach 3,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 9 9 9 9 100 �• •• •—• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 9 90 Silt/Clay Sand ravel "/
)1(--).
Fine 0.125 0.250 9 8014
bble Bo�l�lerBedrock
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 8 8 8 17
Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 2 19 6,-,-, 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 8 8 8 27 i 60
a+
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 27 . 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 27 u 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 27
Fine 5.6 8.0 27 w 30 /• • • _
.40,� Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 1 28 0 20 • •
GQ.P •�^Medium 11.0 16.0 6 6 6 34 10 •
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 3 37 0 �•/
Coarse 22.6 32 8 8 8 45 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 12 1 13 13 58 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 14 14 14 72
MVO 03/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 13 13 13 85
oN($, Small 90 128 8 8 8 93
00V Large 128 180 5 1 6 6 99
Large 180 256 1 1 1 100 UT3 Reach 3,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 100
# Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 70 30 100 100 100 w 60
a
tg 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm)
3 30
D16= 0.46 76
D35= 17.95 c 20
050= 36.5 10 1
D95= 143.4 . 14))oo otih o`' '. 1, ,ticb c< 49 9, yti y(o�,v<9 ,,ti 0 (0o co NI, 1�o v�� Doti yyti yotia ti4r,Dorn
Dloo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-03/2021 •MV1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT4 Reach 1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT4 Reach 1,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 20 17 37 37 37 100 < 1 1 1 I I I III • ~ ~• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 37 90 Silt/Clay Sand >i< ravel I- )1(--).
Cobble
Fine 0.125 0.250 10 13 23 23 60 80 BoJl�ler Bedrock
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 60
Coarse 0.5 1.0 60 6,-,-, 70Ole
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 5 5 5 65 i 60 /) 0
IP
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 65 =3 /
50 {
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 65 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 3 3 68
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 3 71 ...
30
J0, Medium 8.0 11.0 4 4 4 75 a 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 5 5 5 80 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 3 83 0
Coarse 22.6 32 6 6 6 89 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 5 5 5 94 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 4 4 4 98
MVO 03/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 2 2 2 100
�\� Small 90 128 100
00V Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT4 Reach 1,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 100
# Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 70 30 100 100 100 w 60
a
tg 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay 7 30
D35= Silt/Clay c 20
50= 0.2 10
0
D84= 23.9 0 �I �' M� �- gym . . I, �L II L ..,
D95= 49.1 . 14))oo otih o`' '. 1, ,ticb c< 49 9, yti y(o�,v<9 ,,ti 0 (0o co 4, 1�o v�� Doti yyti yotia ti4,Dorn
Dloo= 90.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-03/2021 •MV1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT4 Reach 3,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT4 Reach 3,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 13 20 33 33 33 100 • • •--• •—• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 2 2 2 35 90 Silt/Clay Sand >i< ravel )1(--).
Fine 0.125 0.250 4 7 11 11 46 80 Cobble Bo�l�lerBedrock
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 9 6 15 15 61 �• • •
Coarse 0.5 1.0 4 4 8 8 69 6,-,-, 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 5 1 6 6 75 i 60
a+
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 75 . 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 75 E• 40 /7 •
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 76 " 7-''...
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 2 78 ...
30
J
J0, Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 80 a 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 1 1 1 81 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 4 4 4 85 0
Coarse 22.6 32 5 5 5 90 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 3 3 3 93 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 4 4 4 97
MVO 03/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 3 3 3 100
oN($, Small 90 128 100
00V Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT4 Reach 3,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 100
# Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 60 40 100 100 100 w 60
a
tg 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm) To
D16= Silt/Clay • 30
D35= 0.13 c 20 I
050= 0.3 10 •
ja J -_ I I
D84= 20.7 0
D95= 53.7 . 14))oo otih o`' '. 1, ,ticb c< 49 9, yti y(o�,v<9 ,,ti 0 (0o co 4, 1�o v�� Doti yyti yotia ti4,Dorn
Dloo= 90.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-03/2021 •MV1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT5 Reach 2,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT5 Reach 2,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 30 30 60 60 60 100 < 1 I I • • • • • • ? • • • • • 1 , • • • • • • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 60 90 Silt/Clay Sand u
Gravel Cobble" 4 R �'
Fine 0.125 0.250 30 10 40 40 100 80 3oulder Bedrock
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 100
Coarse 0.5 1.0 100 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 100 i 60
a+
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 100 . 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 100 E• 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 100
Fine 5.6 8.0 100 w 30
J0, Medium 8.0 11.0 100 a 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 100 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 100 0
Coarse 22.6 32 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 100 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 100
MVO 03/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 100
�\� Small 90 128 100
cr Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT5 Reach 2,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 100
# Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 60 40 100 100 100 w 60
a
tg 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay v 30
D35= Silt/Clay c 20
D50= Silt/Clay 10 I ' I ' j
'
D84= 0.2 0 • •
D95= 0.2 . ,t)oo otih o`' '. 1, ti, c< 50 ro titi y`°�,v<9 3ti 0 (0o co .1", 1cbo ve0 Doti ytiti yo,,,a tio0 Dorn
D100= 0.3 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-03/2021 •MV1-10/2021

APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data

Table 10.Bankfull Events
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Reach MY1(2021) MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
Hanks Branch 2/17/2021
Reach 3 2/20/2021
8/18/2021
UT1
UT3 1/26/2021
Reach 3 8/15/2021
8/18/2021
UT4 8/15/2021
Reach 3
2/16/2021
2/21/2021
3/3/2021
3/20/2021
UTS 6/12/2021
Reach 2 7/26/2021
8/15/2021
8/17/2021
8/25/2021
9/1/2021
10/6/2021
*Gauge malfunction
Table 11.Rainfall Summary
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
MY1(2021) MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
Annual Precip *
Total 39.24
WETS 30th
Percentile 43.05
WETS 70th
Percentile 53.13
Normal
*Annual precipitation total was collected up until 10/16/2021.Data will be updated in MY2.

Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Crest Gauge for Hanks Branch Reach 3
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1.0 - - 4.0
0.5 - 3.5
I
0.0 — ` - 3.0
x-0.5 2.5
3 -1.0 2.0 w
" 'm
c
z
g -1.5 _I 1.5
........ .w'M ._.....
-2.0 1.0
-3.0 ' LIiiI, _� L■ . .J _ 1` . i ,, Y��I? I I I I I I 0.0
li v a a o z° o
Rainfall —Hanks Branch Reach 3 Water Depth — — Bankfull

Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Crest Gauge for UT3 Reach 3
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1.0 - - 4.0
- 3.5
0.5 - - 3.0
x - 2.5
i
3 0.0 — L 2.0 ,12
`-, 11 mow -- E
m
g - 1.5 1:
0.5 1.0
Lill' . , ., _ J I , b I . I 05
1.0 i i i i I . i i i 0.0
c a m c . a >
�° ii 5 Q 5 a in O z° a
Rainfall —UT3 Reach 3 Water Depth — — Bankfull

Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Crest Gauge for UT4 Reach 3
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1.0 - - 4.0
- 3.5
- 3.0
0.0
I - 1.5 1:
-1.0
- 1.0
LIiiI1 _ . , I ., _ J ] 1LU11i11 i i a >
�° 1i 5 Q 5 a in O z° a
Rainfall —UT4 Reach 3 Water Depth — — Bankfull

Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Crest Gauge for UT5 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1.0 - - 4.0
- 3.5
- 3.0
0.0 , _ _
- 2.5
w
- 2.0 �
w cm
g - 1.5 1:
1.0
- 1.0
LIiiI1 _,.11J . , I ., _ 11111J I . � ,I . 05
20 i i I i i I 0.0
c a m c on a >
�° ii 5 Q 5 a in O z° a
Rainfall —UT5 Reach 2 Water Depth — — Bankfull

Table 12. Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Max Consecutive Days/Total Days Meeting Success Criteria*
Reach MY1(2021)** MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
UT4 259 Days/
Reach 1 259 Days
*Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow.
**Data colleted through October 16,2021.

Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Lyon Hills:In-Stream Flow Gauge-UT4 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1208 - - 10
2 59 days of consecutive stream flow - 9
• •
- 8
r - 7
r - 6 c
-_Y'.y�,, c
c ,,iy11 .,-,.NlI�N�'wI�• m
12 1207 r �v 5 IP
.p
v I I a
w
w - 4 22
a
i i - 3
I I
2
I II l - 1
1206 I iii I •• • I I` •_-• _ 1l ••� i II + II l• Ili .I I _I I■ I i I I 0
C T C hO O_ >
Li Q ro
5 Q vvi O 0 0
Daily Precipitation Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Info

Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
•mp a ion or De were• -
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete
Submission
Project Instituted NA June 2018
Mitigation Plan Approved July 2020 July 2020
Construction(Grading)Completed NA January 2021
Planting Completed NA March 2021
As-Built Survey Completed Febuary 2021 Febuary 2021
Stream Survey February 2021
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) June 2021
Vegetation Survey March 2021
Stream Survey September 2021
Year 1 Monitoring December 2021
Vegetation Survey September 2021
Stream Survey 2022
Year 2 Monitoring December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
Stream Survey 2023
Year 3 Monitoring December 2023
Vegetation Survey 2023
Year 4 Monitoring December 2024
Stream Survey 2025
Year 5 Monitoring December 2025
Vegetation Survey 2025
Year 6 Monitoring December 2026
Stream Survey 2027
Year 7 Monitoring December 2027
Vegetation Survey 2027
Table 14. Project Contact Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100085
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Designer 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225
Nicole Macaluso Millns,PE Raleigh,NC 27609
919.851.9986
Wildlands Construction
Construction Contractor 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225
Raleigh,NC 27609
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring,POC
919.851.9986

APPENDIX F. Additional Documentation

November 23, 2021
Ms. Kimberly Browning
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Subject: IRT Comments on Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
As-Built Monitoring Report (MVO) and Record Drawings
Yadkin River Basin—CU#03040101, Wilkes County
DMS Project ID No. 100085, Contract No. 7620
Dear Ms. Browning,
On October 13, 2021, Wildlands Engineering received comments from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) regarding the As-Built Baseline Report dated July 28, 2021. The following letter
documents NCIRT feedback and Wildlands' corresponding responses.
USACE Comments, Casey Haywood:
Section 2.2 : "Vegetative performance for riparian buffers associated with the stream restoration
component of the project(buffer widths 0—30ft)will be in accordance with the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines" Should this be 0-50ft?The mitigation plan indicates that all buffers on the project meet the
minimum 50-foot requirement. Please adjust in future reports.
Response:Lyon Hills is located in Wilkes County which is a mountain county. The buffer width for
mountain counties is 0-30ft. This was a mistake in the Mitigation Plan.
Culvert photos: UT1 looking upstream appears to have a significant amount of rock in the channel. Is
Wildlands concerned with how the rock is placed in the channel and in front of the culvert?Was this
meant to be a constructed riffle with embedded material?
Response: Wildlands is not concerned with rock placement in the channel and in front of the culvert. This
was not meant to be a constructed riffle;however we do anticipate riffle material transporting through
the system at higher flow events.
USEPA Comments,Todd Bowers:
I have performed a cursory review of the As-Built/MY0 Report for the Lyon Hills mitigation site dated
September 2021. At this time I have no site-specific comments for corrective action at the Lyon Hills site.
I have noted the discrepancies noted in the report namely the perched culvert at the Hanks Branch
crossing and the three areas of fencing that required adjustment and Wildland's actions to repair and
monitor these areas appears sufficient. I concur with the proposed plan to monitor the crossing at
Sparks Creek that currently is without fencing due to the desire to avoid frequent repairs.
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

NCDWR Comments, Erin Davis:
DWR appreciates the level of detail provided in the Section 5 narrative and the redline drawings. Also,
thank you for including culvert crossing photos.
Response: Thank you.
There were multiple additional rock outlets installed.Were other non-hardening options considered?
Were live stakes or herbaceous plugs planted within outlet areas?What stone size was used?As
discussed at the WEI's Key Mill site, large stone created voids can become wildlife traps.
Response:A/B stone was used for the outlets. With the large amount of concentrated flow that was
occurring, Wildlands was unsure if proper vegetation would be able to establish fast enough to prevent
rills and headcuts. Future sediment will cover the rocks and native vegetation will become established to
avoid wildlife traps.
Looking at the photos, DWR was glad to see coir logs were utilized as a temporary sediment and erosion
control measure in steep slope areas.
Response: Thank you.
In photo point 9 upstream, is that a monitoring device behind the tree?
Response: This was a drum barrel leftover from the landowner. Wildlands plans to remove it within the
year.
With the additional rock outlet installations and new sections of stream realignments, please confirm
that you did not go over the project's 401 approved wetland impact total.
Response: The stream realignments did not impact any additional wetlands beyond the permitted
wetland impacts, however the additional rock outlet on Hanks Branch Reach 1 did impact part of a
wetland by an extra 0.0088 acres(384 sq.ft.). This rock outlet was installed to prevent future bank
erosion along Hanks Branch Reach 1. Since cattle have been removed from wetlands along the project
streams and wetlands have been replanted, it is believed that the wetlands on site are higher quality
than before construction and provide improved wetland functions.
Thank you for your review and providing comments on this submittal. If you have any further questions,
please contact me at [phone], or by email ([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609