20181694 Ver 1_Comment response 05292020_20200731

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
May 29, 2020
Jordan Jessup
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington
RE: Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan IRT Comments
Dear Mr. Jessup,
Thank you for compiling and providing comments on the Dudley Mill Pond Site Draft Mitigation Plan
dated April 21, 2020 and the Draft Conservation Easement. For your convenience, the comments have
been repeated below, with Wildlands responses in italics.
NC Division of Water Resources Comments (Mac Haupt):
1. Service Area -in the introduction the verbiage states that this project will provide credits for
use in the Cape Fear 05. It is assumed this means the entire CF 05 catalog unit. There were
discussions previously which talked about including a couple of smaller
watersheds/catchments and not allowing this project to use the lower portion of CF 05. In
addition, there is an email in the Mitigation Plan that refers to these discussions. DWR's
understanding, based on the Mitigation Plan and the UMBI is that the proposed service area
is the entire CF 05. Please verify this assertion.
The Introduction has been edited to clarify that the GSA includes the Upper Cape Fear 05
(0303000501 and 0303000502) as well as HUCs 030300050405 and 030300050303. This has
been updated in Figure 2.
Section 6.6-Project implementation-DWR would like more information as to the depth of
the excavation for the Cedar Creek 2 floodplain. In addition, it would be helpful to have
more soil information regarding the textures for the area which would have the most legacy
sediment.
A paragraph has been added to Section 6.6 under Cedar Creek Reach 2 heading that better
describes the cut as you move downstream through the floodplain, where you intercept the
probable historic floodplain, and what the soil textures are at the depth of cut. The figure
accompanying the soil report has been updated to show additional soil borings taken in the
cut area and the depth of cut at each boring.
The soil report included does not give enough information (there are not enough cores in
the area to eb excavated).
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 •Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Additional soil borings were taken on 5/19/2020 to amend the soil borings previously
taken. Borings were also added upstream in areas where there is no cut to compare the
soil textures in different areas.
a. Moreover, when providing a soil report with boring, please include soil colors on
each boring.
The original soil borings were only taken to identify soil texture and the potential
depth to the historic floodplain. They were not taken to identify hydric features of
soil that would require soil colors. However, colors were added to the additional soil
borings taken on 5/19/2020.
b. Does Wildlands have any concerns with plant survival and/or streambank stability
given the nature of the soil texture in some of the soil borings (sandy textures)?
The sandy textures of the soils are not unlike other coastal plain projects that
Wildlands has constructed. Matting, Seeding, and planting of herbaceous plugs will
improve stability of the banks. If any instability is encountered during construction,
the banks can be top dressed in a loam layer harvested during floodplain excavation.
c. DWR would like to see more soil cores across the pond/lake bottom.
Additional soil cores have been added as described above and shown on the soil
boring map in Appendix 4.
4. Section 9.1- Monitoring Requirements -Given the excavation on Cedar Creek Reach 2 and the
extensive presence of wetlands where channel construction will occur, DWR will require
some wetland monitoring gauges. The number and placement will be recommended in the
review design sheets.
Wildlands has added wetland monitoring gages to the site according to the comments
below.
5. DWR would like wetland monitoring gauges placed in the following areas:
a. Design sheet 1.5-streem left, approximately station 12+00, outside of excavation (if
there is any in this reach).
b. Design sheet 1.7-stream left, station 126+50inside of excavation area.
c. Design sheet 1.10-stream right, station 141+50, inside of excavation area.
d. Design sheet 1.11- stream left, station 144+00, 75 feet away from channel.
Wetland gages described in a-d above have been added to Figure 13 —Monitoring
Components Map. There will not be any excavation at 120+00 beyond digging the new
channel.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 •Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
6. Design sheet 1.12-will the entire dam footprint be removed?
The existing dam is approximately 675 feet long, spreading the length of the valley.
Wildlands is planning to remove approximately 345 feet of the dam in the center of the
valley. Of the 345 feet, 150 feet will be the newly constructed floodplain of Cedar Creek
and the remainder will be sloping back of the bank slopes to create an overall
trapezoidal notch in the dam.
7. Design sheet 3.1- DWR recommends increasing the percentage of Bald Cypress planted. In
addition, we recommend planting Nyssa aquatica in the similar percentage as well.
The percentage of Bald Cypress has been increased to 15%. Although there are a few
isolated Nyssa aquatica on site, Wildlands thinks this is due to conditions present before the
dam was breached and while the site was ponded. Habitat descriptions for Nyssa aquatica
include the preference for some or much standing water in saturated floodplains and along
rivers where waters are slow moving. Descriptions note slow growth in areas where the soil
does not remain saturated to the surface the entire year. The existing wetlands on site have
not exhibited these habitat conditions since the breach of the dam and the restoration
reaches are not anticipated to after restoration. Wildlands has not used Nyssa aquatica and
has concerns about its growth in this environment. For these reasons it has been left off the
planting plan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments (Kim Browning)
1. The title page has a different plan name than page 1.
This has been corrected.
2. Table 15: Please add a column to show how the 2% buffer credit is calculated by reach.
The current tool uses GIS and analyses the entire site. The tool does not provide a
breakout of credits by individual stream reach. The results of the buffer tool have been
provided in Appendix 7-Credit Release Schedule.
3. Include the GOS buffer maps that show the ideal and proposed buffers.
A buffer map has been added as Figure 14 in the mitigation plan.
4. Will the shallow ditch on the NE side if the easement be filled? Or is that a potential
encroachment area by an adjacent landowner?
Our survey/Lidar data indicates that the shallow ditches at Stations 102+00 and 107+50
do not extend onto the adjacent property and are relic ditches from farming the
floodplain. These will be cut off from the proposed Cedar Creek and partially or fully
filled.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 •Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Numerous invasives, such as kudzu, multiflora rose and Chinese privet currently exist in the
easement area. There is potential for these species to jeopardize buffer vegetation
establishment. Recommend adding a performance standard for invasive species control. An
example would be: The sponsor will locate invasive vegetation. It will be visually assessed,
photographed, and mapped. These areas will be treated by mechanical or chemical
methods, so that invasive species are no more that 5% of the easement acreage, and zero
tolerance for kudzu. Any vegetation requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.
Section 8 now includes an expanded definition for success criteria for invasive species in
Table 16 and in text below the table.
6. More specific performance standards should be listed in Section 8, similar to those in Table
16. Categories to address include Stream Restoration Success Criteria (Bankful events, Cross
Sections, Digital Image Stations), Vegetation Success Criteria (vigor, density), and invasive
Success Criteria.
Table 16 has been created to include more information on success criteria.
7. Even though there are no wetland credits being sought, it is recommended that wetland
gauges be installed and monitored in order to demonstrate no functional loss and/or
acreage loss of wetlands with this project (to compare pre and post data).
Wetland gauges have been added to Figure 13 according to DWRs comments above.
However, it is important to note that gauges have not been on site during the
development of this project, so existing conditions data will not be available for
comparison to post -construction data.
8. Table 16: Entrenchment ration (ER) must be above 2.2 for all measured riffle cross -sections
on a given reach (for C and E streams).
This has been corrected to 2.2. This metric is now located in the table in Section 8.0.
9. Figure 2 appears to show the GSA to be entirely of Cape Fear 05. The email from Mickey
Sugg, sent Feb. 19, 2019, stated that we are accepting the (2) 12-digit HUC's for Dudley
Pond, but not the entire Cape Fear 05 and not any of the Cape Fear 04. Please verify that
this is the proposed GSA and specify this in Sectionl.
The Introduction has been edited to clarify that the GSA includes the Upper Cape Fear 05
(0303000501 and 0303000502) as well as HUCs 030300050405 and 030300050303. This has
been updated in Figure 2.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 •Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
10. Section 10.3, Table 19: Is the legal fund included in the minor/major violation categories?
Typically, a separate legal fund is specified. Please include the spreadsheet provided by
UP2S that shows the cost breakdown.
The table has been replaced with the one provided by UP2Save. The table has a line item for
staff time for violations as well as legal counsel.
11. Table 20: Consider adding funds for supplemental planting or replanting.
.$1,200 in supplemental planted has been added to Monitoring Years 1-4.
12. Project Risks and Uncertainties should consider such things as adjacent land use
development, easement encroachment (road widening, culvert maintenance, ditching,
potential utilizes), hydrologic trespass, Invasive/Nuisance Species (beaver, vegetation), and
include methods to address that may be presented as adaptive management.
Section 6.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties has been expanded on to include the items above.
Invasive species and other monitoring and maintenance activities are expanded on in
Sections 6.7.2 Land Management, Section 10.2 Long Term Management Activities, and
Appendix 6 Maintenance Plan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments (Jordan Jessup)
1. On Table 17 (pg19) you list pebble counts as being part of the monitoring plan, elsewhere in
the document it specifically stated that pebble counts will not be done, given the naturally
sandy substrate. Given the ecoregion and naturally occurring sand, this is not appropriate,
please correct.
This line item has been removed from Table 17.
2. Please provide additional information regarding the proposed sinuosity for Cedar Creek
(1.3), while reference reaches are 1.2.
The sinuosity for Cedar Creek reported in Table 11 and Appendix 4 of the Draft
Mitigation Plan represent a target design sinuosity of 1.3. The table and appendix have
been updated to reflect the actual design sinuosity. The actual design sinuosity of Cedar
Creek Reach 1 and Cedar Creek reach 2 are 1.18 and 1.23, respectively. These align well
with the reference reaches for Cedar Creek.
3. Please use the latest version of the Mitigation Banking Instrument Template, which is
attached.
The Mel has been edited to use the latest version of the template.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 •Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Please provide additional details on the potential for boundary encroachment, and how it
may be handled, particularly from the agricultural fields in the northeast section of that
project.
Boundary encroachment has been discussed further in Section 6.8. Wildlands will
coordinate with the Stricklands (adjacent landowners) prior to project implementation to
discuss crop rotations on the field. If tall growing crops are to be planted, 6' PVC maybe
installed at easement corners and high visibility horse tape may be strung in between
markers as a clear boundary for mowing and clearing. There is low risk for encroachment
along the project boundary where the existing tree line is serving as the easement line.
5. Please submit a draft policy of the casualty insurance for review.
A draft policy of the casualty insurance has been included in Appendix 8 —Financial
Assurance.
6. The proposed contingency amounts for monitoring appear to be insufficient and should be
closer to 8-10%. For example, the re -grading contingency amount would likely only cover
the mobilization of the necessary equipment to the site.
The re -grading contingency has been increased to $8,000. Additional funds have been
added for replanting, as discussed in previous comment. The line item for monitoring
year contingencies range from 8% in Monitoring Year 1 to 56% in Monitoring Year 7.
7. Please provide additional details on the current state of beaver activity on -site and
proposed management.
Additional information on beaver presence and management has been added to Section 6.8.
Beaver have been removed from site once, in June 2019 and a second removal is scheduled
for Summer 2020 prior to construction. The site will be monitored quarterly for beaver
activity. Our contract for beaver trapping will remain on -going throughout the monitoring
years and is considered part of our Maintenance Plan in Appendix 6.
8. In addition to the above comment, more detail is needed in the Adaptive Management Plan.
This should include an identification of the potential risks (beaver, invasive species,
boundary encroachment) and some detail on how they would be handled.
These risks and remediation activities are described in Appendix 6 Maintenance Plan.
9. Please see attached conservation easement comments from Carl Pruitt (Corps Office of
Counsel)
Conservation easement comments have been addressed and are included in this
submittal.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 •Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments (Jordan Jessup)
1. I assume that the following was removed because there are no internal crossings:
"Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its successors
and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as "Internal Crossing" on the plat
[insert plat name and recorded plat book page number] in the Conservation Easement Area:
vehicular access, livestock access, irrigation piping and piping of livestock waste. All Internal
Crossings that allow livestock access will be bounded by fencing and will be over a culvert."
Please verify that this is not appropriate.
The language was removed because there are no crossings for this project.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 919-851-9986 x 106 or via email at
[e-mail]
Sincerely,
��r
Angela Allen, PE, Project Manager
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 •Raleigh, NC 27609