The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181694 Ver 1_Dudley Mill Pond - Monitoring Year 2 Report_20231212 MONITORING YEAR 2 ANNUAL REPORT December 2023 WILDLANDS CAPE FEAR 05 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK DUDLEY MILL POND MITIGATION SITE Cumberland County, NC Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030005 USACE Action ID Number 2018-02160 NCDWR ID Number 2018-1694 v1 Data Collection Period: January - November 2023 PREPARED FOR: North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) USACE Project Manager: Todd Tugwell Regulatory Division 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587 Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 919-851-9986  312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225  Raleigh, NC 27609 December 12, 2023 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587 Attention: Todd Tugwell Subject: Action ID No. SAW-2018-02160 Wildlands Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Fourth Credit Release (Year 2 Monitoring) Dear Mr. Tugwell: This correspondence is in reference to the Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site, part of the Wildlands Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The 45.9-acre bank site is in the Cape Fear 05 Cataloging Unit (03030005) and is located along Stedman-Cedar Creek Road and John Hall Road in Cumberland County, North Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to request the fourth release of credits (Year 2 Monitoring Complete) for this mitigation site. Wildlands has been working with Duke Energy throughout MY2 to have the utility pole that was moved away from the stream, but not out of the easement, relocated as close to the road as possible. This has been a slow process. Duke Energy finally received approval for the change in angle of their thirty-foot wide vegetation maintenance corridor from the landowners whose property the corridor crosses. As of the writing of this letter, Wildlands has paid the invoice and Duke has scheduled their work order completion date for January 2024. Wildlands will continue to work on the issue until the matter is fully resolved and all streams and riparian areas are returned to a fully functional state. Any impact to riparian areas from equipment used in moving the pole will be addressed. The area currently overlapped by the maintenance corridor within the easement is credited stream restoration. Credits will be adjusted once the utility pole and its accompanying maintenance corridor are relocated. MY2 site assessments were conducted between January and November 2023. Overall, the Site is meeting performance standards and on track to meet MY7 success criteria. Planted trees across the site are exceeding performance standards and twenty-five of the twenty-six vegetation plots are on track to achieve the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems per acre. While a few bare areas remain, great progress has been made in vegetating the acidic and nutrient poor soils. Wildlands plans to continue exploring ways to create more hospitable soil conditions for plant growth. The vehicular access easement encroachment was pre-emptively supplementally planted in January 2023 and vegetation has grown back well. It is no longer an area of concern. The mowing encroachment along T2 has been greatly reduced and Wildlands is working to stop it entirely. The project stream reaches are stable, functioning as intended, and meeting project goals. Cross-section entrenchment ratios are over 2.2 and bank height ratios are below 1.2. At the end of August a large rain event caused damage to two brush toe meander bends. Wildlands secured permits and completed the Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 919-851-9986  312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225  Raleigh, NC 27609 repairs in November. Beaver dams have been removed, there is no lasting damage, and no new activity has been observed. Two bankfull events were recorded on both Cedar Creek and T2. Invasive and aggressively competitive species are sparse and will continue to be assessed and treated as necessary in future monitoring years. Pursuant to the Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and the site-specific Dudley Mill Pond Final Mitigation Plan, successful completion of MY2 activities and demonstration that interim performance standards are being met for all parcels within the bank grants ten percent (10%) of the mitigation site’s total stream credits be available for sale. Therefore, we are requesting 744.60 stream credits be released, constituting 10 percent of the total stream credits (7,446.00). Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x116 if you have any questions. Thank you, Tasha King, Project Manager and Environmental Scientist Type Jurisdiction Date Permittee Credits Permits (SAW #) Credit Classification Impact HUC Impact Quantity Total Withdrawn Available Comments SMU USACE 10/9/2020 1,126.80 Warm 1,126.80 Initial Release - Site Establishment- 15% SMU USACE 5/19/2022 1,107.00 Warm 1,107.00 Second Release - Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan - 15% SMU USACE 2/27/2023 744.60 Warm 744.60 Year 1 Monitoring Release - 10% Totals:2,978.40 - 2,978.40 Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank: Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Stream Credit Ledger Date Last Updated: 11-10-2023 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02160 Upper Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030005) Total Credits Released To Date: 2,978.40 Project Name: Sponsor Name: USACE Action ID: NCDWQ Action ID: Non‐Forested Wetland Credits Warm Water Cool Water Cold Water Riparian Riverine Riparian Non‐Riverine Non‐Riparian Coastal 7,512 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7,446 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Scheduled Releases Warm Water Cool Water Cold Water Scheduled Releases Riparian Riverine Riparian Non‐Riverine Non‐Riparian Scheduled Releases Coastal 1 (Bank/Site Establishment)1, 2 15% 1,126.80 N/A N/A 15% N/A N/A N/A 15% N/A 10/9/2020 2 (Year 0/As‐Built)3 15% 1,107.00 N/A N/A 15% N/A N/A N/A 15% N/A 5/19/2022 3 (Year 1 Monitoring)10% 744.60 N/A N/A 10% N/A N/A N/A 10% N/A 2/27/2023 4 (Year 2 Monitoring)10% 744.60 N/A N/A 10% N/A N/A N/A 15% N/A January 2024 5 (Year 3 Monitoring)10% 744.60 N/A N/A 15% N/A N/A N/A 20% N/A January 2025 6 (Year 4 Monitoring)5% 372.30 N/A N/A 5% N/A N/A N/A 10% N/A January 2026 7 (Year 5 Monitoring)10% 744.60 N/A N/A 15% N/A N/A N/A 15% N/A January 2027 8 (Year 6 Monitoring)5% 372.30 N/A N/A 5% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A January 2028 9 (Year 7 Monitoring)10% 744.60 N/A N/A 10% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A January 2029 Stream Bankfull Standard4 10% 744.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Varies4 Total Credits Release to Date 30% 2,233.80 Date Wilmington District Mitigation Bank Credit Release Schedule 4 ‐ A 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met. 1 ‐ The first credit release milestone is based on the potential credits stated in the approved mitigation plan. 2 ‐ The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria: 1) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE; 2) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan; 3) Mitigation bank site must be secured; 4) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan; 5) Recordation of the long‐term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE; 6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required. 3 ‐ The second credit release is based on the credit totals from the as‐built survey, and may differ slightly from the credit totals stated in the mitigation plan. Contingencies (if any): None Signature of Wilmington District Official Approving Credit Release Cape Fear 05 UMB ‐ Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC 2018‐02160 2018‐1694 v1 Potential Credits from Mitigation Plan Forested Wetland Credits Total Potential Credits Projected Release Date Actual Release Date Potential Credits from As‐Built Survey Stream Credits Credit Classification Non‐Forested Wetland CreditsForested Wetland CreditsStream Credits Current and Future Credit Releases Credit Release Milestone Cumberland 03030005 2016 12‐Dec‐23 County: 8‐Digit HUC: Year Project Instituted: Date Prepared: PREPARED BY: 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Jason Lorch jlorch@wildlandseng.com Phone: 919.851.9986 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report i DUDLEY MILL POND MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 2 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 ..................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Project Attributes ....................................................................................................................... 1-4 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 2 DATA ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Vegetative Assessment .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management ....................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management .............................................................................. 2-3 2.5 Hydrology Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2-4 2.6 Wetland Assessment .................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.7 Monitoring Year 2 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-5 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 Current Condition Plan Overview Map Figure 1a-c Current Condition Plan View Map APPENDICES Appendix A Visual Assessment Data Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs Vegetation Plot Photographs Stream Area of Concern Photographs – Stream Bank Erosion and Repairs Stream Area of Concern Updated Photographs – Beaver Dams Vegetation Area of Concern Updated Photographs – Conservation Easement Encroachments 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 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report ii Appendix D Hydrology Data Table 10 Bankfull Events Table 11 Rainfall Summary Recorded Bankfull Events Plots Table 12 Groundwater Gauge Summary Groundwater Gauge Plots Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 14 Project Contact Table Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-1 Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the township of Cedar Creek in Cumberland County, approximately eleven miles southeast of Fayetteville and 7.3 miles north of the Bladen/Cumberland County line. The Site includes Cedar Creek and two unnamed tributaries (T1 and T2), which drain to the Cape Fear River approximately 2 miles downstream of the Site. There are no current local or state watershed plans associated specifically with this subbasin. The project watershed is dominated by forested land and agricultural land but suburban sprawl from Fayetteville, Hope Mills, and Raeford contribute to a higher proportion of urban area than the remainder of the Cape Fear 05 subbasin. Three Carolina Bays drain to the project streams. Refer to Table 3 below for specific information on project location and attributes. 1.1 Project Quantities and Credits The Site is located on one parcel under one landowner and a conservation easement was recorded on 45.9 acres. Mitigation work within the Site included restoration of three perennial stream channels. The Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator (updated (1/19/2018) was used to determine final crediting for the “Additional Credit from Extended Buffers” shown in Table 1 below. A utility pole that was slated to be removed from the conservation easement during construction was moved away from the stream but unfortunately not out of the easement. Wildlands has been working with Duke Energy throughout MY2 to have the utility pole relocated outside of the easement. This has been a slow process. Duke Energy finally received approval for the change in angle of their thirty-foot wide vegetation maintenance corridor from the landowners whose property the corridor crosses. As of the writing of this report, Wildlands has paid the invoice and Duke has scheduled their work order completion date for January 2024. Wildlands will continue to work on the issue until the matter is fully resolved and all streams and riparian areas are returned to a fully functional state. Any impact to riparian areas from equipment used in moving the pole will be addressed. The area currently overlapped by the maintenance corridor within the easement is credited stream restoration. Credits will be adjusted once the utility pole and its accompanying maintenance corridor are relocated. Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES Project Segment Final Design Footage1 As-Built Footage Mitigation Category Restoration Level Mitigation Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments Stream Cedar Creek Reach 1 2,564 2,567 Warm R 1.0 2,564.000 Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Extended Buffers Cedar Creek Reach 2 1,748 1,824 Warm R 1.0 1,748.000 Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Extended Buffers Cedar Creek Reach 3 751 775 Warm R 1.0 751.000 Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Extended Buffers Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-2 PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES Project Segment Final Design Footage1 As-Built Footage Mitigation Category Restoration Level Mitigation Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments Stream T1 86 86 Warm R 1.0 86.000 Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Extended Buffers T2 1,381 1,396 Warm R 1.0 1,381.000 Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Extended Buffers Total2: 6,530.000 1Design was changed after Mitigation Plan submittal, Final Design Footage does not match Mitigation Plan. See MY0 Report for explanation (Wildlands, 2022). 2Revised stream credit totals in the Revised Wetland Impacts Memo included a miscalculation. The error was corrected at As-Built. 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits. Table 2 below describes expected outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives. Blue = Restoration Restoration Level Stream Warm Cool Cold Restoration 6,530.000 Enhancement I -- Enhancement II -- Preservation -- Additional Credit from Extended Buffers1 916.000 Totals2 6,530.000 0 0 Total Stream Credit 7,446.000 1A maintenance area was added at As-Built. It was deducted from buffer credits. 2Revised stream credit totals in the Revised Wetland Impacts Memo included a miscalculation (Wildlands, 2022). The error was corrected at As-Built. Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-3 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 stable cross- sections, patterns, and profiles over time. Restore profile to remove dam breach headcut. Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion. Reduce shear stress on channel boundary. Entrenchment ratio over 2.2 and bank height ratio below 1.2 with visual assessments showing progression towards stability. Cross-section data will be collected during MY0, MY1, MY2, MY3, MY5, and MY7 and visual inspections will be performed annually. Cross-sections show streams are stable and functioning as designed. ERs are over 2.2 and BHRs are below 1.2. At the end of August, 1.5 meander bends with brush toe were washed out. Repairs were completed in November. Improve instream habitat. Install habitat features such as constructed riffles, lunker logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced streams to promote habitat variability and pool formation. Add woody materials to channel beds. Improve aquatic organism passage by removing vertical headcut at dam breach. Increase and diversify available habitats for macroinvertebrates, fish, and amphibians leading to colonization and increase in biodiversity over time. Add complexity including LWD to the streams. There is no required performance criteria for this metric. N/A N/A Reconnect channels with floodplains and to allow a natural flooding regime. Reconstruct stream channels with designed bankfull dimensions and depth based on reference reach data. Allow more frequent flood flows to disperse on the floodplain. Support geomorphology and higher-level functions. Four bankfull events in separate years within the monitoring period. Crest gauges and/or pressure transducers recording flow elevations. Two bankfull events were recorded on both Cedar Creek and T2. Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-4 Goal Objective/ Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results Restore and enhance native floodplain and streambank vegetation. Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zones and plant native shrub and herbaceous species on streambanks. Treat invasive species within project area. Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion and runoff. Increase nutrient cycling and storage in floodplain. Provide riparian habitat. Add a source of LWD and organic material to stream. Support all stream functions. Survival rate of 210 planted stems per acre at MY7. Interim survival rate of 320 planted stems per acre at MY3 and 260 at MY5. Trees in each plot must average 7 ft in height at MY5 and 10 ft at MY7. One hundred square meter vegetation plots are placed on 2% of the planted area of the Site. Data will be collected during MY0, MY1, MY2, MY3, MY5, and MY7 and visual inspections will be performed annually. Twenty-five of 26 vegetation plots have a planted stem density greater than 320 stems per acre. Permanently protect the Site from harmful uses. Establish conservation easements on the Site. Protect Site from encroachment on the riparian corridor and direct impact to streams and wetlands. Support all stream functions. Prevent easement encroachment. Visually inspect the perimeter of the Site to ensure no easement encroachment is occurring. The easement encroachment observed at the upstream end of T2 is improved but small areas of mowing along edge continue. Wildlands is working to resolve the issue. 1.3 Project Attributes The Site includes lands that have been historically used as a mill pond, for row crop production, and for silviculture. Three sand bed, perennial streams are located on site: Cedar Creek, T1, and T2. Both T1 and T2 drain to Cedar Creek. The majority of Cedar Creek within the project limits was impounded since pre- 1951. The dam, now removed, was an 18-foot-tall earthen dam which failed during Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and again during Hurricane Florence in 2018. The drained pond bed developed riparian wetlands, similar to the rest of the site. T1 enters the site from an agricultural field and was a straightened and ditched channel. T2 flows through an in-line pond upstream of the project site and enters the conservation easement through a culvert on John Hall Road. The riparian buffer to the right of the stream was in row crop and the buffer to the left of the stream was sparsely vegetated until the confluence of Cedar Creek. Land use at the site had remained essentially unchanged since at least 1951 based on review of historic aerial photographs. The watershed has not changed significantly in land use or riparian buffer extents. Table 3 below and Table 8 in Appendix C present additional information on pre-restoration conditions. Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-5 Table 3: Project Attributes PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site County Cumberland County Project Area (acres) 45.9 Project Coordinates 34°57'25.9"N 78°45'06.1"W PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION Physiographic Province Coastal Plain River Basin Cape Fear River USGS HUC 8-digit 03030005 USGS HUC 14-digit 03030005010010 DWR Sub-basin 03-06-15 Land Use Classification 30% wetland, 29% forested, 29% agriculture, 7% developed, 5% shrubland Project Drainage Area (acres) 4,211 Percentage of Impervious Area 0.4% RESTORATION TRIBUTARY SUMMARY INFORMATION Parameters Cedar Creek T1 T2 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Pre-project length (feet) 2,622 2,511 233 1,260 Post-project (feet) 2,567 1,824 775 86 1,396 Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined Drainage area (acres) 2,707 4,211 102 1,178 Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial DWR Water Quality Classification C Dominant Stream Classification (existing) Moderately entrenched G5 C5 G5c G5c Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) Moderately entrenched G5 C5 C5 C5 Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable I I VI I I 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 Regulatory Correspondence in Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020) 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 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-1 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 2 DATA ASSESSMENT Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY2 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 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements. Methodology for annual monitoring is described in the Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report (Wildlands, 2022). 2.1 Vegetative Assessment The MY2 vegetative survey was completed in August 2023. Vegetation monitoring resulted in an average density of 450 stems per acre of project planting list species across all vegetation plots, which is well above the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. Planting list stem densities for each plot range from 121 to 688 stems per acre. Twenty-five of the 26 plots met the interim success criteria individually. Vegetation Plot 20 did not meet the performance standard, however there are multiple winged sumac (Rhus copallinum) volunteer stems growing in the vegetation plot. Please see Section 2.2 below for more information on the area around Vegetation Plot 20. Although winged sumac cannot be included in MY2, these stems will bring the stem count above the MY3 interim density standard. Other desirable volunteer species such as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) have begun to establish themselves across the site. Refer to Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data. On January 25, 2023, trees were planted in the tractor path encroachment (see Section 2.2 below for more information on the encroachment). In December 2022, when the encroachment occurred, it was difficult to tell which trees would survive. Wildlands did not want to lose a growing season or wait a year to replant during winter if the trees did not seem to recover. Eighty bare root trees and twenty tublings were planted in total. This included 70 bare root trees from the approved as-built planting list: 25 river birch (Betula nigra), 10 sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), 10 American sycamore, (Platanus occidentalis), and 25 bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The original intent was to plant only tree species from the as-built planting list but we realized it could be an opportunity to experiment with a small number of trees known to grow in the area to see how they survive if planted on site, given the tough soils in some areas. An additional 10 water oak (Quercus nigra) bare root trees and 20 tublings were also planted. Tubling species included 10 swamp titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), 5 inkberry (Ilex glabra), and 5 fetterbush lyonia (Lyonia lucida). Once supplemental trees were spread along the path of the tractor encroachment, any extra were scattered within the conservation easement. As a part of this supplemental planting in the tractor path, a total of six new trees were planted in vegetation plot 1 and four in vegetation plot 2 where the tractor drove through. Of the trees planted in the vegetation plots, five ended up being experimental species – one water oak, one swamp titi, and three fetterbush lyonia. These newly planted trees are included in Table 6 and 7 (Appendix B). The experimental species are included in Table 6 as Post Mitigation Plan Species we would like to propose for approval to count toward success standards in the future. Currently, Wildlands does not have any concerns about the swollen bladderwort (Utricularia inflata) that has been observed in-stream during previous monitoring years on the lower reaches of Cedar Creek. When found, stems have been few and far between and have not affected flow. Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-2 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management In March 2023, sporadic Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) vines were treated along Cedar Creek with herbicide including a foliar spray or cut stump application of triclopyr. Another round of honeysuckle treatment is planned for winter 2023/2024. Blackberry (Rubus sp.) that had grown thick enough to compete with planted trees was also treated through an herbicide foliar spray at that time. Three kudzu (Pueraria montana) sprouts were observed below the old dam location throughout the growing season and were removed via cut stump as soon as they were discovered. Wildlands recognizes that multiple treatments are typically needed for effective invasive plant control and will continue to monitor for resprouts. Significant progress has been made on the areas of acidic soils along Cedar Creek and T2 that were limed to help encourage plant growth. Areas where herbaceous vegetation is struggling are significantly smaller. To continue encouraging tree growth, soil amendments were added to the base of planted and other desirable trees across the entire site in April 2023. In addition, amendments were broadcast in areas where herbaceous vegetation seemed sparse. More lime, phosphorus, and winter cover crop were spread across more persistent bare areas in September and November 2023. Wildlands will continue to monitor and take further action as necessary. The remaining concentrated bare areas are along T2 and where the old dam of Dudley Pond used to be. Soil was graded down as much as 13 feet during construction to tie the stream into Cedar Creek at the bottom of the project. Even eight months after an initial treatment of lime, the soil pH tested at 3.7 and the sulfur index was over 1,100. This indicates the presence of sulfuric acid in the soil. An ideal pH for herbaceous vegetation is 5-6, and ideal sulfur index is 26-50. There is nothing we can apply to remove the excess sulfur. Lime applications are slow to penetrate the soil because they break down by weathering. Even powdered lime, which is what was applied, only penetrates the soil of a depth of about 1 inch per year. Phosphorus is also a limiting factor in these soils, with the last soil test showing a phosphorus index of 2. An ideal range is 26-50. Anything below 25 is insufficient for optimal plant growth. Soil amendments in both topdressing and broadcast applications contained lime, rock phosphate, an extended-release N-P-K fertilizer, Azomite, biochar, and composted manure. While we may not be able to change these soils entirely, we are hoping to improve them. Soil in areas that seem to be struggling to grow vegetation will be tested again in MY3. These updated soil test results will inform future management actions but most likely a blend of appropriate amendments will be applied to continue to make soil conditions more hospitable to plant growth. Species tolerant of acid and nutrient poor soils, such as little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), will be seeded into the persistent bare areas. Wildlands will continue to explore solutions such as seeding with acid tolerant plants and trying other soil amendment products. The herbaceous vegetation around vegetation plot 20 has grown especially thick in some areas and seems to have nutrient poor soils in others. Some combination of soils and herbaceous vegetation competition may be the cause of the low stem density in vegetation plot 20. Wildlands plans to investigate the area and tree survival during MY3. Wildlands is aware that a replant with tree species that are more tolerant of these nutrient poor acidic soils may be necessary. However, more time is needed to make the soils more hospitable, investigate more tolerant species, and to see the extent of the die off from the original tree planting. The small mowing encroachment on the southside of the upstream end of T2 seems to be much better. Vegetation is filling back in and even though the neighbor does not seem to be mowing across the corner, they still seem to be pushing a mower beneath the polytape and slightly into the easement. The easement encroachment is now very minor but still seems to occasionally reoccur during the growing Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-3 season. Wildlands is working on a way to make it more difficult to mow the edges under the polytape. Wildlands will continue to monitor and communicate with the landowner until the situation is resolved. As was reported in MY1, the landowner drove a tractor through the easement to remove one of the beaver dams in December 2022. He drove through vegetation plots 1 and 2, cross-section 2, and across Cedar Creek and a drainage channel. To improve drivability, the landowner spread gravel across the stream crossing area and placed logs in the drainage ditch. In January 2023, bare root trees were planted in the tractor path because it was difficult to tell which trees would survive and Wildlands did not want to wait another year (until the next winter) to replant if necessary. In February 2023, the logs were removed from the drainage channel and much of the gravel removed from the streambanks where the tractor crossed Cedar Creek. Herbaceous vegetation has grown over the summer months and trees seem to be surviving. This area is no longer an area of concern and no management actions specific to this area are currently proposed. See Appendix A for the vehicular access update in the Vegetation Area of Concern Updated Photographs – Conservation Easement Encroachments. As noted by USACE in the MY1 Report comments, there is a maintenance area that runs along the pond near the confluence of T2 and Cedar Creek. The maintenance area was added at as-built after repair work on the pond dam resulted in a portion of the embankment being within the conservation easement. This area will be periodically mowed and trees were not planted. Credits for this area were deducted at as-built. This change was explained and included in the credit release letter submitted with the Monitoring Year 0/As-Built Report on March 16, 2022. 2.3 Stream Assessment Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in March 2023. Streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. Two meander bends in Cedar Creek Reach 3 were damaged by a large flow event at the end of August 2023 when Hurricane/Tropical Storm Idalia passed through. However, repairs were completed in November 2023 returning stream stability to the reach. For more information on the damage and repairs please see Section 2.4 below. Cross-sections show minimal change in max depth and bankfull cross-sectional area. Bank height ratios are less than 1.2 and entrenchment ratios are over 2.2. Specific entrenchment ratio numbers are not included in this report template but are available upon request. Cross-sections show slight deviations from as-built due to sediment deposition and establishment of vegetation. Some sediment deposition in pools is natural and expected. The nature of the bed material is not expected to change over time because the streams are sand bed systems. Pebble counts are not required and there is no performance standard set for channel substrate. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and Stream Photographs. Refer to Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data. Cross-section data was collected in March and damage to the two brush toe meander bends did not occur until August. Cross-section 10 is just downstream of the damage on the second meander bend (station 148+14). The cross-section plots, photos, and collected data do not reflect the damaged brush toe or the repairs. The cross-section may have changed slightly now that repairs are completed. MY3 data will be collected in March 2024 to confirm stability. See Section 2.4 below for more details. 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Beavers and dams discovered in MY1 were removed in winter 2022/2023. Wildlands has been monitoring the stream throughout MY2 and no beaver activity has been observed. Sediment from previous dams seems to have passed through the system, vegetation on streambanks looks healthy, and no permanent damage is apparent. Beavers are no longer a concern, and no management actions are Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-4 currently necessary. For current photographs of previous beaver dam locations, see Appendix A for Stream Area of Concern Updated Photographs – Beaver Dams. Primarily native in-stream vegetation is growing in parts of the T2 channel and some riffles on Cedar Creek Reach 3 causing minor sedimentation. While waiting for the live stakes to grow and shade the stream channels, the in-stream vegetation was treated with glyphosate in June 2023. In order to help shade the stream, live stakes will be planted in winter 2023/2024 along streambanks where the original live stakes planted after construction did not survive. In-stream vegetation will also be monitored in summer 2024 and treated if it is restricting flow or causing issues. At the end of August 2023, Hurricane/Tropical Storm Idalia passed through the Carolinas. After the storm had passed, it was discovered that the brush toe protecting the outer streambank on a meander bend, at station 144+26 of Cedar Creek Reach 3, was scoured out completely (approximately 94 feet). This caused the vegetation and bank above the brush toe to slump into the stream. Wildlands suspects the erosion was caused by overland flow, possibly from the main channel upstream getting out of bank. Vegetation was not well established above the brush toe, and it is suspected this is because poor soils were used above the structure. Just downstream, half of a second brush toe and the bank above it were washed away near station 147+60 (approximately 61 feet). It seems that the outside of the meander bend scoured more than was anticipated and hit a layer of sandy soil that was mobile beneath the brush toe. Once the sandy layer was scoured away, the brush toe and bank above it were left unstable and washed away as well. Once the damage was discovered, Wildlands immediately began coordinating the applicable permits to conduct repairs and stabilize banks as soon as possible. Permits were acquired and repairs were conducted in November 2023. Wildlands typically builds brush toes from a depth of 0.5 to 1’ below designed pool depth. For the repair, the brush layers were set 1’ below the max depth of scour caused by recent high flow events. Brush toe material that had washed downstream was salvaged from stream banks and reused. Additionally, nearby pines and sweetgums were used to add more brush material and then capped with soil hospitable for vegetation growth. Banks were protected with coir matting and all disturbed areas were covered with seed and straw. Live stakes and bare root trees will be replanted in repair areas in winter 2023/2024. Refer to Figure 1b for repair locations and Appendix A Stream Area of Concern – Stream Bank Erosion and Repairs for before and after repair photographs. Cross-section 10 data will be collected in the spring and should help determine the stability of the repairs. 2.5 Hydrology Assessment By the end of MY7, four bankfull events must have occurred in separate years on Cedar Creek and T2. A bankfull event was recorded on both Cedar Creek and T2 in both July and August 2023 during MY2. Refer to Appendix D for Hydrology Summary Data and the Recorded Bankfull Events Plots. 2.6 Wetland Assessment Four groundwater gauges were installed within existing wetland zones along Cedar Creek at locations requested by North Carolina Division of Water Resources. These gauges are monitored with the purpose of assessing potential effects to wetland hydrology from the construction of the restored stream channel through this area. The monitoring results are not tied to performance standards. All gauges were downloaded and maintained quarterly. Data was last collected on November 2, including 246 of the 269-day growing season. The measured hydroperiods ranged from 0.4% (1 day) to 4.1% (11 days). According to the National Integrated Drought Information System, most of Cumberland County was abnormally dry November 2022 through January 2023 and at the beginning of the growing season from March through the beginning of April 2023. Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-5 Approximately 40% of the county was in moderate drought mid-November 2022 to mid-January 2023. These abnormally dry months at the end of the previous year and beginning of the current year affect the groundwater levels at the start of the growing season when groundwater gauges are most likely to show levels within 12 inches of the surface. Groundwater levels are expected to rise during periods of normal rainfall. Refer to Appendix D for the groundwater gauge summary table and plots. 2.7 Monitoring Year 2 Summary Planted trees across the site are exceeding performance standards and twenty-five of the twenty-six vegetation plots are on track to achieve the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems per acre. MY2 data shows an average density of 450 project planting list species across all vegetation plots. While a few bare areas remain, great progress has been made in vegetating the acidic and nutrient poor soils. Wildlands plans to continue exploring ways to make soil conditions more hospitable to plant growth. The vehicular access easement encroachment was supplementally planted in January 2023 and vegetation has grown back well. It is no longer an area of concern. The mowing encroachment along T2 is greatly reduced and Wildlands is working to stop it entirely. The project stream reaches are stable, functioning as intended, and meeting project goals. At the end of August, a large rain event caused damage to two brush toe meander bends on Cedar Creek Reach 3. Wildlands secured permits and completed the repairs in November. Beaver dams have been removed, there is no lasting damage, and no new activity has been observed. Two bankfull events were recorded on both Cedar Creek and T2. Invasive and aggressively competitive species will continue to be assessed and treated as necessary in future monitoring years. Wildlands will continue to work with Duke Energy to remove the utility pole from the conservation easement until the issue is resolved and credits are adjusted appropriately. 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 Wildlands Engineering. Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 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, C.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. Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., & Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. Accessed at: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf NOAA. 2022. National Integrated Drought Information System. Drought Conditions for Cumberland County. Accessed at: https://www.drought.gov/states/north-carolina/county/cumberland 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/Wilmington-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. Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages 12-22. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC. United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2020. Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site - Final Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2022. Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site - Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC. APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Cedar Creek Reach 1-3 5,166 10,332 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.155*98% 155 98% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 22 22 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 24*26 92% Visual assessment was completed November 2, 2023. *Two brush toe meander bends were damaged in August and repaired in November 2023. T1 86 172 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. 1 1 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 1 1 100% Visual assessment was completed November 2, 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 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 T2 1,396 2,792 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%. 8 8 100% Visual assessment was completed November 2, 2023. Structure % Stable, Performing as Intended 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: Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Planted Acreage 28.44 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (ac) Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 0.25 1% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.0.10 0 0% 0.25 1% Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.0.10 0 0% 0.25 1% Visual assessment was completed November 2, 2023. Easement Acreage 45.91 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 of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement.Common encroachments are mowing,cattle access,vehicular access.Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area. none Visual assessment was completed November 2, 2023. Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Total Cumulative Total 1 Encroachments Noted / 0.01 ac STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 1 Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 1 Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 2 Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 2 Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 3 Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 3 Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (03/30/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 4 Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 4 Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 5 Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 5 Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 6 Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 6 Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (03/30/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 7 Cedar Creek R2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 7 Cedar Creek R2 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 8 Cedar Creek R2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 8 Cedar Creek R2 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 9 Cedar Creek R2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 9 Cedar Creek R2 – downstream (03/30/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 10 Cedar Creek R2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 10 Cedar Creek R2 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 11 Cedar Creek R2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 11 Cedar Creek R2 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 12 Cedar Creek R3 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 12 Cedar Creek R3 – downstream (03/30/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 13 Cedar Creek R3 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 13 Cedar Creek R3 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 14 T1 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 14 T1 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 15 T2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 15 T2 – downstream (03/30/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 16 T2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 16 T2 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 17 T2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 17 T2 – downstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 18 T2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 18 T2 – downstream (03/30/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 19 T2 – upstream (03/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 19 T2 – downstream (03/30/2023) VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 1 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 2 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 3 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 4 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 5 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 6 (08/18/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 7 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 8 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 9 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 10 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 11 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 12 (08/18/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 13 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 14 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 15 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 16 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 17 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 18 (08/18/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 19 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 20 (08/18/2023) FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 21 (08/18/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 22 (08/18/2023) RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 23 (08/18/2023) RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 24 (08/18/2023) RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 25 (08/18/2023) RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 26 (08/18/2023) STREAM AREA OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS Stream Bank Erosion and Repairs Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Area of Concern Photographs Cedar Creek R3 – Damaged Brush Toe – Approximate Stations 144+26 to 145+20 (11/02/2023) Cedar Creek R3 – Repaired Brush Toe – Approximate Stations 144+26 to 145+20 (11/30/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Area of Concern Photographs Cedar Creek R3 – Damaged Brush Toe – Approximate Stations 144+26 to 145+20 (11/02/2023) Cedar Creek R3 – Repaired Brush Toe – Approximate Stations 144+26 to 145+20 (11/30/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Area of Concern Photographs Cedar Creek R3 – Damaged Brush Toe – Approximate Stations 147+60 to 148+21 (11/02/2023) Cedar Creek R3 – Repaired Brush Toe – Approximate Stations 147+60 to 148+21 (11/30/2023) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Area of Concern Photographs Cedar Creek R3 – Damaged Brush Toe – Approximate Stations 147+60 to 148+21 (11/02/2023) Cedar Creek R3 – Repaired Brush Toe – Approximate Stations 147+60 to 148+21 (11/30/2023) STREAM AREA OF CONCERN UPDATED PHOTOGRAPHS Beaver Dams Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Area of Concern Updated Photographs Cedar Creek R1 – Previous beaver dam location near Station 100+05 (11/02/2023) Cedar Creek R1 – Previous beaver dam location near Station 116+00 (11/02/2023) VEGETATION AREA OF CONCERN UPDATED PHOTOGRAPHS Conservation Easement Encroachments Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Area of Concern Updated Photographs Easement Encroachment – Mowing Update Photo taken September 21, 2023 looking west down boundary line. Easement is to photo right. Photo taken October 3, 2023 standing at corner of Easement looking west. Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Area of Concern Updated Photographs Easement Encroachment – Vehicular Access Update Photo taken November 2, 2023 showing the area where the tractor had driven north through vegetation plot 1. Photo taken November 2, 2023 showing the area where the tractor had driven south across Cedar Creek and through vegetation plot 2. APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 28.44 2022-02-27 2023-01-25 2023-08-18 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 3 3 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 4 4 1 1 2 2 5 5 Ilex opaca1 American holly Tree FAC 1 1 Ilex verticillata1 common winterberry Tree FACW Magnolia virginiana sweetbay Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 2 2 1 1 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 2 2 Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC 2 2 1 1 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 1 1 2 2 2 2 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 1 1 Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree OBL 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sum 8 8 16 16 11 11 11 11 15 15 10 10 Cyrilla racemiflora swamp titi Tree FACW 1 1 Lyonia lucida1 fetterbush lyonia Shrub FACW 2 2 Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 Sum 12 12 17 17 11 11 11 11 15 15 10 10 8 16 11 11 15 10 324 648 445 445 607 405 5 8 6 6 8 4 38 25 27 27 20 50 2 3 2 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 17 11 11 15 10 486 688 445 445 607 405 8 9 6 6 8 4 38 25 27 27 20 50 2 2 2 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Species not subject to monitoring height requirement due to species growth habit. 2Subcanopy tree species not subject to the height requirement have been removed from average height calculations. 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. Proposed Standard Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Species Count Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.)2 Average Plot Height (ft.)2 % Invasives % Invasives Indicator Status Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Veg Plot 6 FVeg Plot 5 F Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/ Shrub Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 28.44 2022-02-27 2023-01-25 2023-08-18 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 2 2 1 1 1 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 3 3 Ilex opaca1 American holly Tree FAC Ilex verticillata1 common winterberry Tree FACW 1 1 Magnolia virginiana sweetbay Tree FACW 2 2 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 1 1 2 2 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree OBL 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 Sum 9 9 13 13 8 8 11 11 11 11 9 9 Cyrilla racemiflora swamp titi Tree FACW Lyonia lucida1 fetterbush lyonia Shrub FACW Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC Sum 9 9 13 13 8 8 11 11 11 11 9 9 9 13 8 11 11 9 364 526 324 445 445 364 4 7 5 8 7 5 44 23 38 18 27 33 4 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 13 8 11 11 9 364 526 324 445 445 364 4 7 5 8 7 5 44 23 38 18 27 33 4 3 3 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Species not subject to monitoring height requirement due to species growth habit. 2Subcanopy tree species not subject to the height requirement have been removed from average height calculations. 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. Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Veg Plot 7 F Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/ Shrub Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species % Invasives Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 FVeg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 FIndicator Status Proposed Standard Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Species Count Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.)2 Average Plot Height (ft.)2 % Invasives Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 28.44 2022-02-27 2023-01-25 2023-08-18 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 4 Ilex opaca1 American holly Tree FAC 1 1 Ilex verticillata1 common winterberry Tree FACW 1 1 Magnolia virginiana sweetbay Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 5 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 5 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree OBL 1 1 4 4 1 1 3 3 4 4 2 2 Sum 12 12 17 17 12 12 14 14 15 15 13 13 Cyrilla racemiflora swamp titi Tree FACW Lyonia lucida1 fetterbush lyonia Shrub FACW Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC Sum 12 12 17 17 12 12 14 14 15 15 13 13 12 17 12 14 15 13 486 688 486 567 607 526 6 7 8 7 8 8 42 29 25 21 27 31 3 3 3 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 17 12 14 15 13 486 688 486 567 607 526 6 7 8 7 8 8 42 29 25 21 27 31 2 3 3 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Species not subject to monitoring height requirement due to species growth habit. 2Subcanopy tree species not subject to the height requirement have been removed from average height calculations. 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. Current Year Stem Count Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Species Count Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.)2 Average Plot Height (ft.)2 % Invasives Proposed Standard Performance Standard Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 F Veg Plot 17 F Veg Plot 18 FVeg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/ Shrub % Invasives Indicator Status Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 28.44 2022-02-27 2023-01-25 2023-08-18 0.0247 Veg Plot 22 R Veg Plot 23 R Veg Plot 24 R Veg Plot 25 R Veg Plot 26 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Total Total Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 2 2 1 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 Ilex opaca1 American holly Tree FAC Ilex verticillata1 common winterberry Tree FACW 2 Magnolia virginiana sweetbay Tree FACW 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4 4 5 5 1 1 2 Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC 3 3 1 1 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 1 1 1 4 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 4 3 1 3 2 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree OBL 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 Sum 14 14 4 4 10 10 11 6 9 12 9 Cyrilla racemiflora swamp titi Tree FACW Lyonia lucida1 fetterbush lyonia Shrub FACW Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC Sum 14 14 4 4 10 10 11 6 9 12 9 14 4 10 11 6 9 12 9 567 121 405 445 243 364 486 364 8 2 5 4 4 5 7 4 29 75 50 36 50 33 25 44 4 2 5 5 3 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 4 10 11 6 9 12 9 567 121 405 445 243 364 486 364 8 2 5 4 4 5 7 4 29 75 50 36 50 33 25 44 4 2 5 5 3 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Species not subject to monitoring height requirement due to species growth habit. 2Subcanopy tree species not subject to the height requirement have been removed from average height calculations. Indicator Status 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. Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/ Shrub Veg Plot 20 F Veg Plot 21 F Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Veg Plot 19 F Proposed Standard Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Species Count Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.)2 Average Plot Height (ft.)2 % Invasives % Invasives Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives 324 2 5 0 648 3 8 0 445 2 6 0 324 2 5 0 607 2 7 0 445 2 6 0 648 2 8 0 648 2 8 0 567 2 7 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives 445 4 6 0 607 4 8 0 405 3 4 0 486 3 7 0 607 2 8 0 607 2 6 0 648 2 8 0 648 2 8 0 648 3 6 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives 364 4 4 0 526 3 7 0 324 3 5 0 526 2 5 0 567 2 7 0 567 2 7 0 567 2 5 0 648 2 7 0 567 2 7 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives 445 3 8 0 445 3 7 0 364 2 5 0 526 2 9 0 607 2 8 0 486 2 7 0 648 2 9 0 648 2 8 0 648 2 9 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives 486 3 6 0 688 3 7 0 486 3 8 0 567 1 6 0 688 2 7 0 607 2 8 0 648 2 7 0 688 2 7 0 607 2 8 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. 1Subcanopy tree species not subject to the height requirement have been removed from average height calculations. 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 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 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 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 8 F Veg Plot 9 F Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Veg Plot 15 F Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives 567 2 7 0 607 3 8 0 526 3 8 0 648 2 8 0 648 2 8 0 607 2 9 0 648 2 8 0 648 2 8 0 607 2 9 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives 567 4 8 0 121 2 2 0 405 5 5 0 688 3 9 0 607 2 8 0 526 2 6 0 688 2 9 0 648 2 8 0 607 2 7 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives 445 5 4 0 243 3 4 0 364 4 5 0 486 3 7 0 324 3 5 0 607 2 8 0 567 2 4 0 405 2 6 0 607 2 7 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)1 # Species % Invasives 486 2 7 0 364 4 4 0 445 2 6 0 729 2 6 0 648 2 9 0 688 2 5 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. 1Subcanopy tree species not subject to the height requirement have been removed from average height calculations. 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 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 Veg Plot 16 F Veg Plot 17 F Veg Plot 18 F Veg Plot 19 F Veg Plot 20 F Veg Plot 21 F Veg Plot Group 22 R Veg Plot Group 23 R Veg Plot Group 24 R Veg Plot Group 25 R Veg Plot Group 26 R APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data Cross-Section Plots Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 103.06 103.10 103.11 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.05 1.05 Thalweg Elevation 100.86 100.86 100.83 LTOB Elevation 103.06 103.22 103.23 LTOB Max Depth 2.20 2.36 2.40 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 27.01 29.21 29.27 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 99.01 99.03 99.16 LTOB Elevation 102.68 102.85 102.81 LTOB Max Depth 3.67 3.82 3.65 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 44.90 48.25 46.86 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 96.87 96.66 96.79 LTOB Elevation 101.75 101.89 101.74 LTOB Max Depth 4.88 5.23 4.95 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 66.18 74.30 70.47 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 101.54 101.69 101.69 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.01 1.01 Thalweg Elevation 99.46 99.55 99.56 LTOB Elevation 101.54 101.71 101.71 LTOB Max Depth 2.08 2.16 2.15 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 24.72 25.15 25.11 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 99.43 99.39 99.34 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.13 1.12 Thalweg Elevation 97.63 97.59 97.53 LTOB Elevation 99.43 99.62 99.55 LTOB Max Depth 1.80 2.03 2.02 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 27.02 32.22 31.87 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 94.92 94.88 94.93 LTOB Elevation 99.62 99.52 99.58 LTOB Max Depth 4.70 4.64 4.65 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 91.32 90.65 91.79 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 97.32 97.36 97.39 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.96 0.96 Thalweg Elevation 95.26 95.32 95.41 LTOB Elevation 97.32 97.28 97.32 LTOB Max Depth 2.06 1.96 1.91 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 35.60 33.49 33.80 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 92.95 93.05 93.07 LTOB Elevation 97.61 97.64 97.59 LTOB Max Depth 4.66 4.59 4.52 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 95.55 95.18 93.11 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 92.26 92.32 92.36 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.95 0.98 Thalweg Elevation 90.56 90.65 90.62 LTOB Elevation 92.26 92.24 92.32 LTOB Max Depth 1.70 1.59 1.70 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 21.15 19.69 20.38 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 87.89 87.97 88.03 LTOB Elevation 91.56 91.39 91.42 LTOB Max Depth 3.67 3.42 3.39 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 54.64 46.86 46.86 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 104.08 104.09 104.08 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.00 1.01 Thalweg Elevation 101.88 101.84 101.78 LTOB Elevation 104.08 104.09 104.10 LTOB Max Depth 2.20 2.25 2.32 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 16.92 16.96 17.19 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 99.06 99.36 99.23 LTOB Elevation 102.21 102.62 102.49 LTOB Max Depth 3.15 3.26 3.26 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 19.94 24.76 23.05 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (3/30/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 102.44 102.65 102.67 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.95 0.95 Thalweg Elevation 100.66 100.77 100.78 LTOB Elevation 102.44 102.56 102.57 LTOB Max Depth 1.78 1.79 1.79 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 15.45 14.16 14.04 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)1 15.5 18.0 2 Floodprone Width (ft)1 2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1 1.4 1.5 2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 2.1 2.2 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 22.4 27.1 2 Width/Depth Ratio 1 10.7 12.0 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1 5.6 6.5 2 Bank Height Ratio 1 2 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1 41.8 51.3 2 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)15.8 19.9 2 21.5 25.6 2 Floodprone Width (ft)60.3 64.0 2 2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.5 1.7 2 1.2 1.4 2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.9 2.7 2 1.8 2.1 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)26.5 29.3 2 27.0 35.3 2 Width/Depth Ratio 9.4 13.5 2 17.1 18.6 2 Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 4.1 2 3.8 4.6 2 Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.3 2 2 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs)36.5 49.0 2 53.6 75.2 2 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)1 1 Floodprone Width (ft)1 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other 14.7 5.2 16.3 0.0016 --- 2.0 38.0 1.5 2.2 27.9 9.9 Cedar Creek Reach 1 1.2 PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS DESIGN 1.18 10.3 C5 1.19 MONITORING BASELINE (MY0) 1.04 C5/E5 52.0 1.0 47.6 >100 1.0 >40 12.0 >2.2 25.0 24.6 10.7 1.0 Cedar Creek Reach 2 0.0020 --- 0.0015 13.4 C5 C5/E5 C5 73.6 16.4 >2.2 ------ 1.10 1.23 1.22 0.0010 0.0016 0.0022 21.0 17.6 >100 1.0 >100>100 1.5 20.0 >100 Cedar Creek Reach 3 C5 C5/E5 C5 1.2 1.5 23.3 17.2 >2.2 1.0 1.7 --------- 89.4 1.00 1.20 1.19 0.0040 0.0090 0.0090 13.2 17.1 1.6 2.2 20.6 8.3 17.4 27.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.5 47.3 --- --- Moderately incised G5c 1.0 80.9 22.6 13.3 1.6 1.9 67.5 24.6 49 49 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Max Min n Bankfull Width (ft)1 13.0 15.5 2 Floodprone Width (ft)1 2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1 1.0 1.2 2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 1.8 2.1 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 15.3 15.8 2 Width/Depth Ratio 1 10.7 15.7 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1 3.2 3.7 2 Bank Height Ratio 1 2 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1 31.3 28.2 2 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE (MY0) 1.8 17.1 12.0 14.0 >30 >50 1.2 31.5 1.01 1.27 1.30 >2.2 1.0 48 10.4 1.0 10.4 T2 0.0050 0.0020 0.0019 --------- G5c C5/E5 C5 33.4 9.5 12 1.1 1.4 1.84 8.3 1.3 2.1 Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 103.06 103.10 103.11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 101.54 101.69 101.69 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.05 1.05 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.01 1.01 Thalweg Elevation (ft)100.86 100.86 100.83 99.01 99.03 99.16 96.87 96.66 96.79 99.46 99.55 99.56 LTOB2 Elevation (ft)103.06 103.22 103.23 102.68 102.85 102.81 101.75 101.89 101.74 101.54 101.71 101.71 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.20 2.36 2.40 3.67 3.82 3.65 4.88 5.23 4.95 2.08 2.16 2.15 LTOB2 Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)27.01 29.21 29.27 44.90 48.25 46.86 66.18 74.30 70.47 24.72 25.15 25.11 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 99.43 99.39 99.34 N/A N/A N/A 97.32 97.36 97.39 N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.13 1.12 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 0.96 0.96 N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation (ft)97.63 97.59 97.53 94.92 94.88 94.93 95.26 95.32 95.41 92.95 93.05 93.07 LTOB2 Elevation (ft)99.43 99.62 99.55 99.62 99.52 99.58 97.32 97.28 97.32 97.61 97.64 97.59 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.80 2.03 2.02 4.70 4.64 4.65 2.06 1.96 1.91 4.66 4.59 4.52 LTOB2 Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)27.02 32.22 31.87 91.32 90.65 91.79 35.60 33.49 33.80 95.55 95.18 93.11 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 92.26 92.32 92.36 N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.95 0.98 N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation (ft)90.56 90.65 90.62 87.89 87.97 88.03 LTOB2 Elevation (ft)92.26 92.24 92.32 91.56 91.39 91.42 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.70 1.59 1.70 3.67 3.42 3.39 LTOB2 Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)21.15 19.69 20.38 54.64 46.86 46.86 Cross-Section 8 (Pool) Cross-Section 9 (Riffle)Cross-Section 10 (Pool) Cedar Creek Reach 2 Cross-Section 5 (Riffle)Cross-Section 6 (Pool)Cross-Section 7 (Riffle) Cedar Creek Reach 3 Cross-Section 1 (Riffle)Cross-Section 2 (Pool)Cross-Section 3 (Pool) Cedar Creek Reach 1 Cross-Section 4 (Riffle) 1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-Built bankfull area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. 2LTOB Cross-Sectional Area and Max depth 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 recorded and tracked above as LTOB max depth. *Entrenchment Ratios for each cross-section available upon request. Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 104.08 104.09 104.08 N/A N/A N/A 102.44 102.65 102.67 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.00 1.01 N/A N/A N/A 1.00 0.95 0.95 Thalweg Elevation 101.88 101.84 101.78 99.06 99.36 99.23 100.66 100.77 100.78 LTOB2 Elevation 104.08 104.09 104.10 102.21 102.62 102.49 102.44 102.56 102.57 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.20 2.25 2.32 3.15 3.26 3.26 1.78 1.79 1.79 LTOB2 Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)16.92 16.96 17.19 19.94 24.76 23.05 15.45 14.16 14.04 T2 Cross-Section 11 (Riffle)Cross-Section 12 (Pool)Cross-Section 13 (Riffle) 1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-Built bankfull area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. 2LTOB Cross-Sectional Area and Max depth 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 recorded and tracked above as LTOB max depth. *Entrenchment Ratios for each cross-section available upon request. APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data Reach MY1 (2022)MY2 (2023)*MY3 (2024)MY4 (2025)MY5 (2026)MY6 (2027)MY7 (2028) 7/4/2023 8/31/2023 7/4/2023 8/31/2023 7/4/2023 8/31/2023 *Data was collected 1/1/2023 to 11/02/2023. Data from the remainder of MY2 will be updated in MY3. ^Additional crest gauge installed March 2023. Cedar Creek Reach 2 is the original Cedar Creek crest gauge. MY1 (2022)MY2 (2023)MY3 (2024)MY4 (2025)MY5 (2026)MY6 (2027)MY7 (2028) Annual Precipitation Total 32.25 in 33.45 in* 30 Year Average Precip WETS 30th Percentile 38.39 in 37.96 in 30 Year Average Precip WETS 70th Percentile 48.17 in 47.72 in Annual Precipitation Compared to Normal Low * 30 Year Average Precipitation Source: Fayetteville Regional AP Grannis Field Station, Cumberland County, NC, AgACIS (Approximately 7.7 Miles from Site) *Annual precipitation was collected 1/1/2023 to 11/02/2023. Data from the remainder of MY2 will be updated in MY3. Cedar Creek Reach 2 T2 N/A N/A Annual Precipitation Source: Fayett Regional/Grannis Field Airport (KFAY) Station, Cumberland County, NC, State Climate Office (Approximately 7.7 miles from Site) Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Table 10. Bankfull Events Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Table 11. Rainfall Summary Cedar Creek Reach 1^ Installed March 2023 Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( f t ) Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Dudley Pond: Cedar Creek R1 Crest Gauge Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( f t ) Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Dudley Pond: Cedar Creek R2 Crest Gauge Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( f t ) Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Dudley Pond: T2 Crest Gauge Table 12. Groundwater Gauge Summary Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 MY1 (2022)MY2 (2023)*MY3 (2024)MY4 (2025)MY5 (2026)MY6 (2027)MY7 (2028) 1 0 Days (0%) 4 Days (1.5%) 2 0 Days (0%) 1 Day (0.4%) 3 0 Days (0%) 1 Day (0.4%) 4 13 Days (4.8%) 11 Days (4.1%) *Data was collected 1/1/2023 to 11/02/2023, including 246 days of the growing season. Data from the remainder of MY2 will be updated in MY3. Gauge Max. Consecutive Hydroperiod (Percentage) USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Growing Season: 3/1/2022 to 11/25/2022 (269 Days) Performance Standard: None Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 3 4 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #1 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Dudley Pond Groundwater Gauge #1 Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 3 1 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #2 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Dudley Pond Groundwater Gauge #2 Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 3 1 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #3 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Dudley Pond Groundwater Gauge #3 Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 3 11 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #4 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Dudley Pond Groundwater Gauge #4 APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Info USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Supplemental Planting in Easement Encroachment January 2023 Invasive Vegetation Treatment March 2023 As-Built Survey Completed August 2021 September 2021 June 2021Construction (Grading) Completed NA Lime application in areas of acidic soils along Cedar Creek and south side of T2 March 2022 Year 1 Monitoring March 2022 Additional seeding in areas of acidic soils April and June 2022 August 2021 Easement Encroachment - Vehicular Access February 2022 May 2022Stream Survey Vegetation Survey December 2022August 2022 Easement Encroachment - Mowing October 2021 In-Stream Vegetation Treatment July 2022 September 2019Invasive Vegetation Treatment Invasive Vegetation Treatment August 2020 May 2020Mitigation Plan Approved May 2020 April 2021Invasive Vegetation Treatment Vegetation SurveyBaseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)Stream Survey Soil Amendments and Tree Boosters April 2023 Lime, Phosphorus, and Winter Cover Crop (where necessary)September/November 2023 In-Stream Vegetation Treatment June 2023 Stream Bank Erosion - Brush Toe Failure August 2023 December 2028 2024 2024 Stream Survey Year 6 Monitoring 2026 December 2027 December 2026 Vegetation SurveyYear 3 Monitoring 2025 March 2023 December 2025 Stream Survey December 2024 Year 4 Monitoring 2028Year 7 Monitoring Vegetation Survey 2027 Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey 2026 2028Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery Project Instituted NA October 2018 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 October 2021 Planting Completed February 2022 December 2022 Lime application in areas of acidic soils along north side of T2 Year 2 Monitoring Vegetation Survey August 2023 Stream Bank Erosion - Repairs December 2023 November 2023 USACE Action ID No. 2018-02160 Table 14. Project Contact Table Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Construction Contractor Willow Spring, NC 27592 780 Landmark Road 919.851.9986 Designer Abigail Vieira, PE 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Monitoring Year 2 - 2023 Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. 919.851.9986 Jason Lorch Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Monitoring, POC