HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181274 Ver 1_LyonHills_100085_MY3_2023_20240205
MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT
FINAL
January 2024
LYON HILLS MITIGATION SITE
Wilkes County, NC
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
DMS Project No. 100085
NCDEQ Contract No. 7620
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01784
DWR Project No. 2018-1274 v1
Data Collection Dates: January-November 2023
DMS RFP No. 16-007406
June 19, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Mr. Jeff Keaton, PE January 2, 2024
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site – Monitoring Year 3 Draft Report
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040101
Wilkes County
DMS Project ID No. 100085
Contract # 7620
Dear Mr. Keaton:
On November 22, 2023, the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) received the Draft Monitoring
Year 3 Report for the Lyon Hills Mitigation Site from Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI).
The report establishes the year 3 monitoring conditions on the project site. Anticipated mitigation
on the site includes recordation of a 20.72-acre conservation easement and 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. The following
are our comments on the draft report:
Section 2.2 - Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity: DMS is encouraged by
the successful reduction in the invasive plant community. Thank you for closely monitoring the
Murdannia in UT4 and UT5 and providing an interpretation of how the invasives should respond
over time.
Section 2.4 - Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity, Stream Repair: Please
indicate why the rip-rap reinforcement was scoured on the downstream side of the crossing. Did
the culvert become blocked increasing the stage upstream of the culvert or did another mechanism
contribute to the erosion? Please indicate any measures taken to reduce the chance for a
recurrence; was the rip-rap size increased or the grading geometry altered?
Section 2.5 Hydrology Assessment: Thank you for extending the data collection period through
October.
Appendix F. Additional Documentation: Thank you for including comparison photographs
showing the culvert before and after the repair.
Digital Deliverable:
• Please review and revise the steam areas of concern and structure repairs as submitted to
reflect the CCPV in the report. The report and stream visual assessment table indicates 1
structure on R 4 as problematic and no other areas of stream concern; the data submitted
indicates two structures repaired, one in the same location as the problem area identified,
and six areas of stream erosion/instability..
At your earliest convenience, please provide an electronic response letter addressing the DMS
comments. The comment response letter should be included in the Final MY3 revised report and
included after the report cover page.
Please submit two (2) final hard copies and an electronic copy on USB drive to my attention at the
address below (Mooresville Regional office). Please also include all final MY3 project support
files on the USB drive. The final electronic monitoring report with all attachments should be
named: LyonHills_100085_MY3_2023.pdf
If you have any questions, please contact me at any time at (919) 723-7565 or email me at
kelly.phillips@ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
Kelly Phillips
Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
610 East Center Avenue
Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
919-723-7565 cc: file
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. phone 704-332-7754 fax 704-332-3306 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 Charlotte, NC 28203
January 15, 2024
Mr. Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
610 East Center Avenue
Mooresville, NC 28115
RE: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site – Monitoring Year 3 Draft Report
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
DMS Project ID No. 100085
Contract # 7620
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services’ (DMS)
comments from the Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report, received on January 2,
2024. The draft report has been revised for the final submittal to reflect those comments. DMS’
comments are noted below in Bold. Wildlands’ responses to those comments are noted in Italics.
DMS’ Comment: DMS is encouraged by the successful reduction in the invasive plant community.
Thank you for closely monitoring the Murdannia in UT4 and UT5 and providing an interpretation of
how the invasives should respond over time.
Wildlands’ Response: Thank you for the comment.
DMS’ Comment: Please indicate why the rip-rap reinforcement was scoured on the downstream side
of the crossing. Did the culvert become blocked increasing the stage upstream of the culvert or did
another mechanism contribute to the erosion? Please indicate any measures taken to reduce the
chance for a recurrence; was the rip-rap size increased or the grading geometry altered?
Wildlands’ Response: In the summer of 2023, debris from several large storm events blocked the culvert
inlet. The blocked inlet caused water to flow over the crossing during a large storm event and erode the
rip-rap reinforcement on the downstream side of the culvert. To repair the culvert revetment, Wildlands
conducted some light grading and redressed the headwall with Class-1 and Class-2 stone size rip-rap. The
report text has been modified to include the additional repair and material details. Wildlands will
continue to monitor all internal crossings for signs of blockage and instability.
DMS’ Comment: Thank you for extending the data collection period through October.
Wildlands’ Response: Thank you for the comment.
DMS’ Comment: Thank you for including comparison photographs showing the culvert before and
after the repair.
Wildlands’ Response: Thank you for the comment.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. phone 704-332-7754 fax 704-332-3306 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 Charlotte, NC 28203
Digital Support File Comments:
DMS’ Comment: Please review and revise the steam areas of concern and structure repairs as
submitted to reflect the CCPV in the report. The report and stream visual assessment table indicates 1
structure on R 4 as problematic and no other areas of stream concern; the data submitted indicates
two structures repaired, one in the same location as the problem area identified, and six areas of
stream erosion/instability.
Wildlands’ Response: The report and CCPV Figures accurately reflect that there is only one stream area
of concern, and it is located on UT4 Reach 2. The geodatabase has been updated to correctly reflect a
single area of concern. However, the structure issue was inadvertently included on the Visual Assessment
Table (Table 4) for UT4 Reach 3. This is incorrect. There are no issues on UT4 Reach 3, so the table has
been updated to correctly reflect this. Since UT4 Reach 2 is an EII reach and EII reaches are not reported
in the Visual Assessment Tables, no other Table 4 updates are needed.
As requested, Wildlands has included two (2) hard copies of the final report, a full final .pdf copy of the
report, and a full final electronic submittal of the support files. A copy of the DMS comment letter and
our response letter have been included inside the front cover of each report’s hard copy, as well as the
.pdf version of the report. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
Senior Environmental Scientist
PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: 704.332.7754
Fax: 704.332.33
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL i
LYON HILLS MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 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 3 DATA ASSESSMENT .......................................................................2-6
2.1 Vegetative Assessment .............................................................................................................. 2-6
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity .......................................................... 2-6
2.3 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity................................................................. 2-7
2.5 Hydrology Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2-8
2.6 Monitoring Year 3 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-8
Section 3: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................3-1
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- 1c 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
Areas of Concern 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
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 Plot
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL ii
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 14 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Additional Documentation
Bankfull Photographs
Repair Photographs
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1
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 DMS, 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
PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES
Project
Segment
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
As-Built
Footage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments
STREAMS
Spark Creek –
Not for Credit 215 215 Cool EII 2.5 0 No buffer on right side
Sparks Creek 405 405 Cool EII 2.5 162.000 Fenced Out Cattle, Planted
Buffer
Sparks Creek -
Not for Credit 42 42 Cool EII 2.5 0 Ford Crossing
Sparks Creek 332 332 Cool EII 2.5 132.800 Fenced Out Cattle, Planted
Buffer
Hanks Branch
Reach 1 1,678 1,659 Cool EII 2.5 671.200
Localized Bank Repairs,
Floodplain Bench at Upstream
End, Fenced Out Cattle
Hanks Branch
Reach 2 1,065 1,012 Cool EII 2.5 426.000
Fenced Out Cattle, Localized
Bank Repairs, Planted Buffer,
Add Wood to Channel
Hanks Branch
Reach 2 - Not
for Credit
42 42 Cool EII 2.5 0 Culvert Crossing
Hanks Branch
Reach 3 581 585 Cool EI 1.5 387.333 Fenced Out Cattle, Floodplain
Bench, Planted Buffer
UT1 - Not for
Credit 60 57 Cool R 1 0 TCE to work above property
line
UT1 659 657 Cool R 1 659.000 Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT1 - Not for
Credit 40 40 Cool R 1 0 Culvert Crossing
UT1 106 105 Cool R 1 106.000 Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT2 78 78 Cool EII 3 26.000 Fenced Out Cattle
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2
PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES
Project
Segment
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
As-Built
Footage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments
STREAMS
UT3 Reach 1 655 652 Cool R 1 655.000 Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT3 Reach 2 447 436 Cool EII 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
UT3 Reach 3 -
Not for Credit 45 45 Cool R 1 0 Culvert Crossing
UT3 Reach 3 74 74 Cool R 1 74.000 Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT3 Reach 4 272 271 Cool EII 4 68.000 Fenced Out Cattle, Planted
Buffer
UT3A 253 252 Cool EII 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 EII 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
UT4 Reach 3 -
Not for Credit 40 40 Cool R 1 0 Culvert Crossing
UT4 Reach 3 100 100 Cool R 1 100.000 Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT5 Reach 1 437 437 Cool EII 4 109.250 Fenced Out Cattle
UT5 Reach 2 220 221 Cool R 1 220.000
Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer,
Removed Impoundment
UT5 Reach 2 -
Not for Credit 35 35 Cool R 1 0 Culvert Crossing
UT5 Reach 2 107 107 Cool R 1 107.000 Restored Dimension, Pattern,
and Profile, Planted Buffer
UT5A 318 318 Cool EII 3 106.000 Fenced Out Cattle
Total 5,304.783
Restoration Level Stream
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 3 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3
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
Goal Objective/
Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance
Criteria Measurement Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Improve the
stability of
stream channels
Construct stream
channels that will
maintain a stable
pattern and profile
considering
hydrologic and
sediment inputs to
the system; install
bank revetments
and grade control;
install bank
vegetation.
Reduce erosion and
sediment inputs;
maintain appropriate
bed forms and sediment
size distribution.
ER over 1.4 for
B-type and 2.2
for C-type
channels and
BHR below 1.2
with visual
assessments
showing
progression
towards
stability.
Cross-sections
will be
assessed
during MY1,
2, 3, 5, and 7
and visual
inspections
will be
assessed
annually.
Minor deviations
from design;
however, streams
are stable and
functioning as
designed. All riffle
XS BHRs are below
1.2 and ER are at
least 1.4 for B-type
channels and 2.2
for C-type
channels.
Reconnect
channels with
floodplains and
riparian
wetlands
Reconstruct
stream channels
with appropriate
bankfull
dimensions and
depth relative to
the existing
floodplain.
Reduce shear stress on
channel; hydrate
adjacent wetland areas;
filter pollutants out of
overbank flows; provide
surface storage of water
on floodplain; increase
groundwater recharge
while reducing outflow
of stormwater; support
water quality and
habitat goals.
Four bankfull
events in
separate years
within
monitoring
period.
30 consecutive
days of flow
for
intermittent
channel.
Crest gages
and/or stream
gages
recording flow
elevations.
Hanks Branch
Reach 3, UT1, UT3
Reach 3, UT4
Reach 3 and UT5
Reach 2 all
obtained one or
more bankfull
events in MY3. UT4
Reach 1 obtained
129 days of
consecutive flow
during MY3.
Improve
instream habitat
Install habitat
features such as
cover logs, log sills,
and brush toes
into
restored/enhanced
streams. Add
woody materials to
channel beds.
Construct a variety
of riffle features
and pools of
varying depth.
Fence out
livestock.
Support biological
communities and
processes. Provide
aquatic habitats for
diverse populations of
aquatic organisms.
There is no
required
performance
standard for
this metric.
N/A N/A
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4
Goal Objective/
Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance
Criteria Measurement Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Improve water
quality
Stabilize stream
banks. Plant
riparian buffers
with native trees.
Construct BMPs to
treat pasture
runoff. Fence out
livestock.
Reduce sediment and
nutrient inputs from
stream banks; reduce
sediment, nutrient, and
bacteria inputs from
pasture runoff; keep
livestock out of streams,
further reducing
pollutants in project
streams.
There is no
required
performance
standard for
this metric.
N/A N/A
Restore/improve
riparian buffers
Plant native tree
species in riparian
zone where
currently
insufficient.
Provide a canopy to
shade streams and
reduce thermal
loadings; stabilize
stream banks and
floodplain; support
water quality and
habitat goals.
Survival rate of
320 stems per
acre at MY3,
260 planted
stems per acre
at MY5, and
210 stems per
acre at
MY7.Height
requirement is
7 feet at MY5
and 10 feet at
MY7.
One hundred
square meter
vegetation
plots are
placed on 2%
of the planted
area of the
Site and
monitored in
MY1, 2, 3, 5
and 7.
All 9 vegetation
plots have a
planted stem
density greater
than 320 stems per
acre; therefore, the
Site has met the
MY3 performance
criteria.
Permanently
protect the
project Site from
harmful uses
Establish
conservation
easements on the
Site.
Ensure that
development and
agricultural uses that
would damage the Site
or reduce the benefits
of the project are
prevented.
Prevent
easement
encroachment.
Visually
inspect the
perimeter of
the Site to
ensure no
easement
encroachment
is occurring.
No easement
encroachments.
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 HUC include erosion and sedimentation, including
erosion from pasture lands, which had led to aquatic habitat degradation. Turbidity and fecal coliform
bacteria violations have also been documented across the HUC. In addition, data from the 2008 Yadkin
Pee-Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NC DWR, 2008) indicates that fecal coliform
concentrations often exceeded the maximum regulatory limits in the HUC creating a potential health
risk. The plan also notes that 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 3 Annual Report - FINAL 1-5
Table 3: Project Attributes
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Lyon Hills Mitigation Site County Wilkes County
Project Area (acres) 20.72 Project Coordinates 36.32924° N, 81.01018° W
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
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%
RESTORATION TRIBUTARY SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters Hanks Branch UT1 UT3 UT4 UT5
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) Unconfined Confined 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
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No.
27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 4134. Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion in
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,
2019) Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
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 3 Annual Report - FINAL 2-6
Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 3 DATA ASSESSMENT
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY3 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
assessments are located in Section 1.2 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional
Improvements. Methodology for annual monitoring is presented in the MY0 Annual Report (Wildlands,
2021).
2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Vegetation plot monitoring is being conducted in post-construction monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Permanent plots are monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the
Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008) and the 2016 USACE Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Guidance to assess the vegetation success. A total of 7 permanent vegetation plots
were established within the project easement area. All permanent plots were established as either a 10-
meter by 10-meter square plot or 5-meter by 20-meter rectangular plot. In addition, 2 mobile
vegetation plots were arbitrarily established in MY1 throughout the planted conservation easement to
evaluate the random vegetation performance for the Site. Mobile plots have been or will be
reestablished in differing and random locations in monitoring years 2, 3, 5, and 7. Mobile vegetation
monitoring plot assessments will document stems, species, and height using a circular or 100-meter
square/rectangular plot.
The MY3 vegetative survey was completed in July 2023. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a 100% of
both permanent and mobile plots individually meeting the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre at
MY3. Planted stem densities ranged from 324 to 607 stems per acre with an average planted stem
density of 445 stems per acre. The average stem height is 4 feet, and the average species diversity is six
species per plot. The survival rate among the planted stems in the permanent vegetation plots since as-
built (MY0) is 80%, and the tree/shrub species with the lowest survival rates include black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica), willow oak (Quercus phellos) and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Along with
successful tree growth, the herbaceous vegetation is dense and includes native pollinator species
indicating a healthy riparian habitat. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs, Current
Condition Plan View (CCPV) Figures 1a-c for vegetation plot locations, and Appendix B for vegetation
data tables.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
MY3 visual assessments reveal that over 99% of the conservation easement is unaffected by invasive
species populations. However, when found, they consisted of scattered patches along the existing
woody buffers of Sparks Creek, UT4, UT3, and UT3A. Targeted invasive species treatments that were
conducted in these areas consisted of mechanical invasive removal and herbicide applications in May
and July 2023, effectively treating the following species: tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinese), oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), honeysuckle (Lonicera
caprifolium), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Contractors are scheduled to further treat these
invasive species populations in late 2023, working alongside Wildlands.
After the removal and chemical treatment of in-stream vegetation in MY2, the establishment of marsh
dewflower (Murdannia keisak) in riffles along UT4 Reach 1 and Reach 3 and UT5 Reach 2 diminished in
MY3 and is no longer causing sedimentation in riffle beds or culverts. Wildlands anticipates that as
riparian woody vegetation becomes established along streambanks, the establishment of in-stream
vegetation will continue to diminish and no longer be an issue. Vegetation areas of concern will continue
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL 2-7
to be monitored in MY4, and additional areas of invasive species will be treated throughout the post-
construction monitoring period, as needed.
MY1 Visual assessments reveal that there were no easement boundary areas of concern. Wildlands staff
walked the easement boundary and determined that signage and easement markers are sufficient and
visible, the fencing is intact, and no encroachments have been identified. Wildlands will continue to
monitor the easement boundary throughout the monitoring period.
2.3 Stream Assessment
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area and width-to-depth ratio. Per NC IRT 2016 guidance for compensatory mitigation, bank
height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 1.4 for restored B-type
channels and 2.2 for restored C-type channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross-sections should fall
within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur,
these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability.
Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg, eroding channel banks and/or significant
deposition within the streambed. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability, or
an enhancement of aquatic habitat include a decrease in the width-to-depth ratio in meandering
channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a
movement toward stability.
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in July 2023. Cross-section survey results indicate that
channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed on all restoration and enhancement I
reaches with minimal adjustments. Changes occurring within some cross-sections include slight
variations in cross-sectional areas and bankfull widths due to natural channel processes, such as
vegetation growth along the top of bank and deposition in the floodplain. These adjustments have
helped keep the channels stable, bank height ratios no greater than 1.1, and entrenchment ratios of at
least 1.4 on B-type channels and 2.2 on C-type channels. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream
Morphology Stability Assessment Table, and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix C for Stream
Geomorphology Data.
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
The MY3 visual assessment revealed that more than 99% of the project reaches' bed and banks are
stable and performing as intended with only minor instances of scour and/or localized structure issues.
On UT4 Reach 2, a log sill at station 604+40 is piping and exhibiting minimal scour on the right bank.
Although not performing as intended, this structure issue currently has no negative impact on overall
stream function. To address this issue, Wildlands will add herbaceous plugs along the bank to increase
structure stability. Wildlands will continue to monitor the structure's stability, as well as the remainder
of the project reaches and make additional repairs as needed. Refer to Appendix A for stream stability
tables, Stream Areas of Concern Photographs, and CCPV Figures 1a-c.
Stream Repairs
Continuous storm events, occurring between June and July 2023 and resulting in a culmination of 12.54
inches of precipitation, resulted in the loss of most of the rip-rap protection on the downstream side of
the culvert crossing on Hanks Branch Reach 3. To keep the crossing stable and minimize any additional
erosion around the culvert, Wildlands conducted some light grading and redressed the headwall with
Class-1 and Class-2 stone size rip-rap in August 2023. Wildlands will continue to monitor all the culverts
within the project area, for continued stability. Refer to Appendix F for Repair Photos, and CCPV Figures
b and 1c for the location of the repair.
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL 2-8
2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Six automated pressure transducers were installed on restoration and enhancement reaches across the
Site and are used to document stream hydrology throughout the seven-year monitoring period.
Automated transducers are programmed to record every 2 hours. Five gages document bankfull events
and are referred to as “crest gages” (CG). The remaining gage documents both baseflow and bankfull
events and is referred to as “stream gage” (SG).
Re-Installations
Due to a barotroll logger malfunction in MY2, Wildlands installed a new barotroll in February of MY3
located on UT4 Reach 3. As previously discussed in Section 2.4, multiple large storm events caused crest
gage 1 (CG1) on Hanks Branch Reach 3 to be washed away; therefore, no data was recorded from April
21st to July 20th. A replacement gage was installed on July 20th; however, no data was recorded from
July 20th to October 10th due to a gage malfunction. CG1 was replaced on October 10th and is functioning
as intended. Refer to CCPV Figure 1c, Appendix F for Bankfull Photographs and Appendix D for
hydrological data.
Bankfull Events and Baseflow Monitoring
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, four or more bankfull flow events must have occurred
in separate years within the restoration and enhancement level I reaches. In MY3, at least 1 bankfull
event was recorded on all the monitored project reaches (Hanks Branch Reach 3, UT1, UT3 Reach 3, UT4
Reach 3, UT5 Reach 2). Therefore, the performance standard for bankfull events has been partially met
for the Site. Though the crest gage on Hanks Branch Reach 3 was washed away and a bankfull event was
not recorded by an automated pressure transducer in MY3, bankfull indicators, such as wrack lines were
observed and documented in June and October 2023 (Appendix F). In addition to receiving at least one
bankfull event in MY3, the stream gage on UT4 Reach 1 documented 129 days of consecutive stream
flow thereby exceeding the consecutive 30-day requirement. Refer to Appendix D for hydrologic data
and Appendix F for Bankfull Photographs.
2.6 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY3 and is
on track to meet the final success criteria. With an overall average planted stem density of 445 stems
per acre the Site has met and exceeded the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre. Geomorphic
surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions closely match the baseline monitoring with some
minor adjustments, and streams are functioning as intended. At least one bankfull event was
documented on 100% of project reaches since the completion of construction. Greater than 30 days of
consecutive flow was recorded on the intermittent section of UT4 Reach 1 fulfilling MY3 success criteria.
The MY3 visual assessment documented a few small patches of invasive plant species and minor
instances of in-stream vegetation, neither of which are negatively impacting the Site; however, they will
continue to be treated as necessary in MY4 to maintain the condition of the project. Adaptive
management activities will continue to be implemented as necessary throughout the seven-year
monitoring period to benefit the ecological health of the Site. 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.
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Draft 3-1
Section 3: 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.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved:
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Applied Climate Information System (ACIS).
2023. Elkin. Accessed October 2023.
NC DMS. 2020. Vegetation Data Entry Tool and Vegetation Plot Data Table. Raleigh, NC.
https://ncdms.shinyapps.io/Veg_Table_Tool/
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale 1:500,00, in color.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2017.
Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance June 2017.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2008. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 2017. NCGS Publications
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-
geologicalsurvey/interactive-geologic-maps
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. Accessed at:
https://sawreg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-Mitigation-Update.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2021). Lyon Hills Mitigation Project Monitoring Year 0. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2020). Lyon Hills Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
FIGURES
APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Hanks Branch Reach 3
585
1,170
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 5 5 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 0 0 N/A
Visual assessment was completed October 1, 2023.
UT1
802
1,604
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 25 25 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 15 15 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 1, 2023.
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
UT3 Reach 1
652
1,304
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 36 36 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 11 11 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 1, 2023.
UT3 Reach 3
631
1,262
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 31 31 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 10 10 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 1, 2023.
Totals:
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Totals:
Bank
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
UT4 Reach 1
233
466
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 14 14 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 2 2 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 1, 2023.
UT4 Reach 3
279
558
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 11 11 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 4 4 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 1, 2023.
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
UT5 Reach 2
363
726
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 15 15 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 6 6 100%
Visual assessment was completed October 1, 2023.
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Planted Acreage 10.80
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(ac)
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 0 0%
Low Stem Density
Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
criteria.0.10 0 0%
0 0%
Areas of Poor
Growth Rates
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance
Standard.0.10 0 0%
0.0 0%
Easement Acreage 20.72
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(ac)
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of
Concern
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 potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term
or community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary.
0.10 0 0%
Easement
Encroachment
Areas
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists none
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Total
Cumulative Total
0 Encroachments Noted
/ 0 ac
Visual assessment was completed October 1, 2023.
STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 1 Spark’s Creek – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 1 Spark’s Creek – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 2 Spark’s Creek – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 2 Spark’s Creek – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 3 Hank’s Branch R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 3 Hank’s Branch R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 4 Hank’s Branch R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 4 Hank’s Branch R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 5 Hank’s Branch R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 5 Hank’s Branch R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 6 Hank’s Branch R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 6 Hank’s Branch R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 7 Hank’s Branch R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 7 Hank’s Branch R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 8 Hank’s Branch R2 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 8 Hank’s Branch R2 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 9 Hank’s Branch R2 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 9 Hank’s Branch R2 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 10 Hank’s Branch R2 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 10 Hank’s Branch R2 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 11 Hank’s Branch R3 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 11 Hank’s Branch R3 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 12 Hank’s Branch R3 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 12 Hank’s Branch R3 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 14 UT1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 14 UT1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 16 UT1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 16 UT1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 17 UT3 R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 17 UT3 R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 18 UT3 R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 18 UT3 R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 19 UT3 R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 19 UT3 R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 20 UT3 R2 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 20 UT3 R2 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 21 UT3 R3 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 21 UT3 R3 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 22 UT3 R3 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 22 UT3 R3 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 23 UT3 R3 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 23 UT3 R3 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 24 UT3 R4 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 24 UT3 R4 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 R4 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 R4 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 26 UT3A – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 26 UT3A – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 27 UT4 R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 27 UT4 R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 28 UT4 R2 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 28 UT4 R2 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 29 UT4 R3 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 29 UT4 R3 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 30 UT5 R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 30 UT5 R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 31 UT5 R1 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 31 UT5 R1 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 32 UT5 R2 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 32 UT5 R2 – downstream (4/21/2023)
PHOTO POINT 33 UT5 R2 – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 33 UT5 R2 – downstream (4/21/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 34 UT5A – upstream (4/21/2023) PHOTO POINT 34 UT5A – downstream (4/21/2023)
CULVERT CROSSING PHOTOGRAPHS
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Culvert Crossing Photographs
Hanks Branch R3 - Looking Upstream (4/20/2023) Hanks Branch R3 - Looking Downstream (4/20/2023)
UT1 - Looking Upstream (4/20/2023) UT1 - Looking Downstream (4/20/2023)
UT3 R3 - Looking Upstream (4/20/2023) UT3 R3 - Looking Downstream(4/20/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Culvert Crossing Photographs
UT4 R3 - Looking Upstream (4/20/2023) UT4 R3 - Looking Downstream (4/20/2023)
UT5 R2 - Looking Upstream (4/20/2023) UT5 R2 - Looking Downstream (4/20/2023)
VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs
FIXED VEG PLOT 1 (07/12/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (07/12/2023)
FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (07/12/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (07/12/2023)
FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (07/12/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 6 (07/12/2023)
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs
FIXED VEG PLOT 7 (07/12/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 1 (07/12/2023)
RANDOM VEG PLOT 2 (07/12/2023)
AREA OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Area of Concern Photographs
UT4 Reach 2, station 604+40 – Log sill piping (10/1/2023)
APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
10.8
2021-03-22
NA
NA
2023-07-17
0.0247
Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 2 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 1 3
Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1
Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
Sum 13 13 9 11 15 15 12 12 11 11 9 9 12 12 8 8
Acer rubrum red maple Tree FAC 1 3 1
Juglans nigra black walnut Tree UPL 2 1
Sum 13 13 9 11 15 15 12 12 11 11 9 9 12 12 8 8
13 11 15 12 11 9 12 8 8
526 445 607 486 445 364 486 324 324
8 6 8 6 8 6 6 5 5
23 18 31 25 21 18 21 38 38
4 6 2 5 4 3 4 3 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 11 15 12 11 9 12 8 8
526 445 607 486 445 364 486 324 324
8 6 8 6 8 6 6 5 5
23 18 31 25 21 18 21 38 38
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
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.
Performance Standard
Proposed Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Summary Data
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
526 4 8 0 445 6 6 0 607 2 8 0
526 3 8 0 364 5 6 0 607 2 8 0
567 2 8 0 486 3 6 0 607 2 8 0
607 2 8 0 607 3 6 0 607 2 8 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
486 5 6 0 445 4 8 0 364 3 6 0
567 4 7 0 364 3 7 0 405 3 6 0
607 3 8 0 486 3 8 0 567 3 7 0
607 2 8 0 526 2 8 0 607 2 7 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
486 4 6 0 324 3 5 0 324 6 5 0
486 4 6 0 445 2 5 0 405 3 6 0
486 3 6 0 324 2 5 0 324 2 5 0
526 2 6 0 445 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.
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot Group 1 R Veg Plot Group 2 R
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data
CROSS-SECTION PLOTS
Bankfull Dimensions
48.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
19.5 width (ft)
2.5 mean depth (ft)
4.1 max depth (ft)
23.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.8 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
Cross-Section 1-Hanks Branch Reach 3
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
View Downstream
1150
1152
1154
1156
1158
1160
1162
1164
0 10 20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
229+39 Pool
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
33.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
15.4 width (ft)
2.1 mean depth (ft)
2.8 max depth (ft)
17.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.2 width-depth ratio
45.5 W flood prone area (ft)
3.0 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 2-Hanks Branch Reach 3
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1150
1152
1154
1156
1158
1160
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
232+64 Riffle
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.5 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
6.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
5.7 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 3-UT1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
303+15 Pool
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
2.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.9 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
5.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.0 width-depth ratio
15.8 W flood prone area (ft)
3.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 4-UT1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
304+54 Riffle
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.9 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
10.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 5-UT3 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
503+64 Pool
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
1.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.6 width (ft)
0.2 mean depth (ft)
0.4 max depth (ft)
4.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
19.5 width-depth ratio
6.3 W flood prone area (ft)
1.4 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 6-UT3 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
505+29 Riffle
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.5 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
7.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.1 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 7-UT3 Reach 3
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
5 15 25 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
513+90 Pool
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
1.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.8 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
4.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7 width-depth ratio
16.8 W flood prone area (ft)
4.4 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 8-UT3 Reach 3
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
514+87 Riffle
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.7 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
6.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6 width-depth ratio
25.5 W flood prone area (ft)
4.5 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 9-UT4 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
5 15 25 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
601+18 Riffle
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
1.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.6 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
5.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6 width-depth ratio
28.1 W flood prone area (ft)
6.1 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 10-UT4 Reach 3
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
606+37 Riffle
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
1.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
2.8 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
3.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
6.7 width-depth ratio
34.2 W flood prone area (ft)
12.2 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:7/2023
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 11-UT5 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Cross-Section Plots
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
805+72 Riffle
MY0 (2/2021)MY1 (9/2021)MY2 (5/2022)MY3 (7/2023)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
DMS Project No. 100085
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 34 78 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 1 0.017 0.020 1
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 9 15 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 0.6 0.7 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 1 0.051 0.056 1
Other
0.5
3.2
1.06
7
---
0.5
1.2
3.3
0.0210
145.0
10.0
4.3
12
0.5
0.9
2.2
8.4
2.9
1.0
117
>1.4
54 99
6.7
1.7 1.0
14.0
---
1.10 1.05 1.05
B4 B4
13.0
0.051
B4
13.2
14.0
13.5
------
---
UT1
6.6
---------
2.7
4.8
C4 C4
68.8 85.0
95 79 93
C4
1.1
1.2
13.4 17.7
13 15.5
---
1.7
1
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
16
38
1.9
PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
Hanks Branch Reach 3
12.6 14.0
1.2
0.052
0.012
30.7
8.4
2.3
1.0
---
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
DMS Project No. 100085
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 8 13 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 1 0.036 0.040 1
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 10 15 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 1 0.042 0.053 1
Other
4.7
15
0.3
0.6
1.5
14.4
---------
0.039
64
B4 B4
1.03 1.05 1.05
128 102
1.0
4.8
B4
27.5 15.0
7.5 13.0
1.4 >1.4
2.6 1.0
3.2
6.0 6.8
8.7
0.8 0.5
1.0 0.8
4.8 3.5
0.056
---------
UT3 Reach 3
6.615.0 10.0
1.02 1.10 1.10
114 87 75
B4 B4 B4
17.5 13.0 12.5
1.4 1.7
2.7 1.0 1.0
>1.4
0.6 0.7 0.6
3.1 2.7 1.9
4.9
10.4 8
0.4 0.5 0.4
0.042
0.044
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
UT3 Reach 1
7.3 5.9
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
DMS Project No. 100085
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 6 9 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 1 0.054 0.059 1
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 7 11 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 1 0.045 0.049 1
Other
0.9
1.9
11.0
7.7
1.0
0.044
1.05 1.05
1.2 >1.4
---------
86
B4 B4 B4
6.0 7.0
1.00
2.3 1.0
140 67
5.6
0.4 0.6
1.8 1.9
29.1 13.0
UT4 Reach 3
7.3 4.9
9.0
0.3 0.4
4.5
35
0.4
1.10 1.05 1.05
0.053
---------
B4 B4 B4
15.5 4.0 11.3
1.7 1.0 1.0
122 74 159
12.5 13.0 10.2
1.2 >1.4 7.4
0.7 0.5 0.8
3.1 1.3 2.2
4.7
7.4 35
0.5 0.3 0.5
0.046
0.073
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
UT4 Reach 1
6.2 4.0
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
DMS Project No. 100085
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 11 25 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 1 0.028 0.033 1
Other
1.10 1.20 1.20
0.051
---
0.035
C4b C4b C4b
9.0 6.0 4.9
1.7 1.0 1.0
79 49 39
13.0 13.0 21.6
2.1 6.5
0.6 0.6 0.5
2.2 1.9 1.3
5.4 5.0 5.4
11.0 35
0.4 0.4 0.2
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
UT5 Reach 2
DMS Project No. 100085
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-Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,153.89 1,153.82 1,153.78 1,153.47 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.10 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 1,153.44 1,153.50 1,153.52 1,153.66 1,151.24 1,150.96 1,151.00 1,150.80 1,227.74 1,227.74 1,227.76 1,227.64
LTOB2 Elevation 1,157.57 1,157.39 1,157.29 1,157.74 1,153.89 1,153.82 1,153.81 1,153.62 1,228.70 1,228.86 1,228.90 1,229.13
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)4.13 3.89 3.77 4.08 2.65 2.86 2.81 2.82 1.00 1.12 1.14 1.49
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)44.10 41.91 39.27 48.80 30.70 30.69 31.26 33.00 3.20 4.30 4.53 5.28
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-Bankfull1 Area 1,224.06 1,224.15 1,224.15 1,224.23 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,222.82 1,222.79 1,222.78 1,222.94
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.10 1.03 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.70
Thalweg Elevation 1,223.19 1,223.27 1,223.27 1,223.33 1,228.40 1,228.75 1,228.56 1,228.65 1,222.18 1,222.17 1,222.15 1,222.37
LTOB2 Elevation 1,224.06 1,224.23 1,224.18 1,224.26 1,230.54 1,230.60 1,230.60 1,230.35 1,222.82 1,222.73 1,222.72 1,222.77
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.90 0.96 0.91 0.93 2.10 1.85 2.04 1.71 0.60 0.56 0.57 0.39
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.20 2.48 2.32 2.39 10.20 8.30 10.18 6.73 1.90 1.61 1.57 1.08
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-Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,180.95 1,180.94 1,180.91 1,181.08 1,204.05 1,204.11 1,204.05 1,204.01
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 0.94 0.96 0.97 1.00 0.94 0.97 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 1,183.59 1,183.79 1,183.77 1,183.92 1,180.36 1,180.17 1,180.12 1,180.28 1,203.22 1,203.30 1,203.22 1,203.11
LTOB2 Elevation 1,185.20 1,185.21 1,185.15 1,185.11 1,180.95 1,180.98 1,180.88 1,180.96 1,204.05 1,204.06 1,204.03 1,204.04
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.60 1.43 1.38 1.19 0.60 0.72 0.76 0.68 0.80 0.76 0.81 0.90
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.90 4.45 3.82 3.82 1.50 1.20 1.39 1.01 2.20 1.95 2.08 2.20
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 1,170.57 1,170.61 1,170.59 1,170.69 1,163.95 1,164.03 1,164.12 1,164.32
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.74 0.90
Thalweg Elevation 1,169.68 1,169.89 1,169.77 1,169.90 1,163.47 1,163.52 1,163.54 1,163.52
LTOB2 Elevation 1,170.57 1,170.62 1,170.58 1,170.65 1,163.95 1,163.95 1,163.97 1,164.27
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.90 0.73 0.81 0.75 0.50 0.43 0.43 0.73
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.90 1.96 1.87 1.71 1.30 0.92 0.73 1.16
UT4 Reach 3
Cross-Section 10 (Riffle)
UT5 Reach 2
Cross-Section 11 (Riffle)
UT1
UT3 Reach 3
1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
2LTOB 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.
Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Hanks Branch Reach 3
Cross-Section 1 (Pool)Cross-Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross-Section 4 (Riffle)Cross-Section 5 (Pool)Cross-Section 6 (Riffle)
UT4 Reach 1
Cross-Section 3 (Pool)
UT1
Cross-Section 7 (Pool)Cross-Section 8 (Riffle)Cross-Section 9 (Riffle)
UT3 Reach 1
APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data
Reach MY1 (2021)MY2 (2022)MY3 (2023)MY4 (2024)MY5 (2025)MY6 (2026)MY7 (2027)
Hanks Branch
Reach 3
2/17/2021
2/20/2021
8/18/2021
---6/18/2023**
10/5/2023**
UT1 *8/6/2022 6/20/2023
8/7/2023
UT3
Reach 3
1/26/2021
8/15/2021
8/18/2021
1/3/2022
2/28/2022
8/6/2022
8/15/2022
8/25/2022
8/28/2022
3/4/2023
6/20/2023
8/6/2023
UT4
Reach 3 8/15/2021 ---6/18/2023
UT5
Reach 2
2/16/2021
2/21/2021
3/3/2021
3/20/2021
6/12/2021
7/26/2021
8/15/2021
8/17/2021
8/25/2021
9/1/2021
10/6/2021
1/3/2022
2/4/2022
2/18/2022
5/26/2022
7/5/2022
7/8/2022
7/13/2022
7/18/2022
8/6/2022
8/15/2022
3/4/2023
4/28/2023
5/17/2023
6/22/2023
7/5/2023
7/9/2023
7/16/2023
7/23/2023
8/4/2023
8/6/2023
8/28/2023
9/17/2023
MY1 (2021)MY2 (2022)MY3 (2023)MY4 (2024)MY5 (2025)MY6 (2026)MY7 (2027)
Annual Precip Total 41.71 48.23 48.04*
WETS 30th
Percentile 43.05 42.70 43.17
WETS 70th
Percentile 53.13 52.76 53.13
Normal Low Yes Yes*
Table 10. Bankfull Events
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
--- - No Bankfull events
*Annual precipitation data was collected from 1-1-23 to 11-1-23. Based on current data, precipitation is deemed 'Normal' as the sum of the annual precipitation falls with the Wets 30th and 70th percentile
totals.
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
*Gage malfunction
**Crest gage 1 (CG1) on Hanks Branch Reach 3 was washed away after mutilple large storm events. Though a bankfull event was not recorded by an automated pressure transducer in MY3, bankfull indicators, such as wrack lines were observed and documented in June and October 2023.
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Multiple large storm events caused crest gage 1 (CG1) to be washed away. The replacement crest gage was installed on July 20th; however, no data was recorded from July 20th through October 10th due to
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
malfunction. CG1 was reinstalled on October 10th and is functioning as intended.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
1149.5
1150.5
1151.5
1152.5
1153.5
1154.5
1155.5
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Lyon Hills: Hanks Branch Reach 3
Gage reinstalled on
October 10th.
Gage washed away; therefore no data was
recorded from April 21st to July 20th.
Gage installed on July 20th; however,
no data was recorded from July 20th
to October 10th due to malfunction.
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
1208.0
1208.5
1209.0
1209.5
1210.0
1210.5
1211.0
1211.5
1212.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Lyon Hills: UT1
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
1179.0
1179.5
1180.0
1180.5
1181.0
1181.5
1182.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Lyon Hills: UT3 Reach 3
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
1169.0
1169.5
1170.0
1170.5
1171.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Lyon Hills: UT4 Reach 3
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
1161.5
1162.0
1162.5
1163.0
1163.5
1164.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Lyon Hills: UT5 Reach 2
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
MY1 (2021)MY2 (2022)MY3 (2023)**MY4 (2024)MY5 (2025)MY6 (2026)MY7 (2027)
UT4
Reach 1
365 Days/
365 Days
130 Days/
365 Days
129 Days/
297 Days
**Data colleted through October 24, 2023.
*Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow.
Table 12. Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Reach Max Consecutive Days/Total Days Meeting Success Criteria*
Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
129 days of consecutive stream flow
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -1
1
3
5
7
9
11
1205.0
1205.5
1206.0
1206.5
1207.0
1207.5
1208.0
1208.5
1209.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Lyon Hills: In-Stream Flow Gage - UT4 Reach 1
APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Data Collection Complete Task Completion or
Deliverable Submission
NA June 2018
July 2020 July 2020
NA January 2021
NA March 2021
February 2021 February 2021
Stream Survey February 2021
Vegetation Survey March 2021
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey May 2022
J-Hook and Perched Culvert Repair
In-stream Vegetation Treatment
Vegetation Survey
Invasive Treatment May, July, and November 2023
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Culvert Repair August 2023
December 2024
Stream Survey 2025
Vegetation Survey 2025
December 2026
Stream Survey 2027
Vegetation Survey 2027
Table 14. Project Contact Table
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100085
Monitoring Year 3 - 2023
Designer
Nicole Macaluso Millns, PE
Construction Contractor
Monitoring Performers
Monitoring, POC
June 2021
Year 2 Monitoring
September 2021 December 2021Year 1 Monitoring
Construction (Grading) Completed
Mitigation Plan Approved
Activity or Deliverable
Project Instituted
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
As-Built Survey Completed
Planting Completed
August 2022
704.332.7754
Kristi Suggs
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27609
November 2022
December 2025
July 2023 November 2023Year 3 Monitoring
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Wildlands Construction, Inc.
704.819.0848
Year 4 Monitoring
Raleigh, NC 27609
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Year 7 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
December 2027
APPENDIX F. Additional Documentation
BANKFULL PHOTOGRAPHS
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Bankfull Photographs
Hanks Branch R3, station 232+61 – Right Bank Wrack Line
(6/18/2023)
Hanks Branch R3, station 232+61 – Left Bank Wrack Line
(10/5/2023)
Wrack on bank
REPAIR PHOTOGRAPHS
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Appendix F: Additional Documentation - Repair Photographs
Hanks Branch R3 – Culvert Outlet (6/21/2023) Hanks Branch R3 – Repaired Culvert Outlet (10/17/2023)