20181694 Ver 1_Dudley Mill Pond - Monitoring Year 0 Report_20220512

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
March 16, 2022
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attention: Jordan Jessop
Subject: Action ID No. SAW-2016-02160
Wildlands Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Second Credit Release (Monitoring Year 0/As-Built Completion)
Dear Mr. Jessop:
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 second release of credits (Year 0/As-Built Monitoring Complete) for this
mitigation site.
Revisions were made to Cedar Creek Reach 2 design after the final mitigation plan was approved. A
memorandum was provided to the USACE and NCDWR on February 5, 2021 describing these alterations to
design and the corresponding changes to stream and wetland impacts. As the total stream and wetland impacts
decreased from the original design and approved permit, no updated 401/404 was required.
In the updated design, Reach 2 of Cedar Creek was split into two separate reaches with new channel dimensions
and varying restoration approaches. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of Cedar Creek and T2 and gently
meanders through the old pond bed with an average slope of 0.2%. A priority 1 restoration approach through
this reach allows the stream to remain hydrologically connected to the existing floodplain and wetlands while
minimizing earthwork in sandy soils. Reach 3 begins approximately 550 LF upstream of the original dam and has
a slightly steeper slope of 1%. This short reach was designed with a priority 2 restoration approach where a new
floodplain was graded through the old dam to allow the reach to connect to Cedar Creek downstream. This
design shortens the overall length of priority 2 restoration on Cedar Creek Reach 2 by almost 1,500 LF. The
revised design also significantly reduced the amount of earthwork and limited the overall total disturbance to
natural systems on Site.
Below are the credit release schedules from the approved mitigation plan (Table 1) and the as -built (Table 2)
with description of changes.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Table 1: Credit Release Schedule from Approved Mitigation Plan
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity
Interim Release
Total Released
15%/ 1126.8
15%/ 1126.8 credits
1
Site Establishment
credits
Completion of all initial physical and
15%/1126.8
biological improvements made pursuant to
30% / 2253.6 credits
2
the Mitigation Plan
credits
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%/ 751.2 credits
40%/ 3004.8 credits
3
performance standards are being met
Second year monitoring report
demonstrates performance standards are
10%/ 751.2 credits
50%/ 3756.6 credits
4
being met
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%/ 751.2 credits
60%/ 4507.2 credits
5
performance standards are being met
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%/ 375.6 credits
65%/ 4882.8 credits
6*
performance standards are being met
(75%* / 4225.5 credits)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
75%/ 4225.5 credits
performance standards are being met and
10% / 751.2 credits
(85%' / 6385.2 credits)
7
project has received closeout approval
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%/ 375.6 credits
80%/ 6009.6 credits
8
performance standards are being met
(90%* / 6760.8 credits)
Seventh year monitoring report
demonstrates performance standards are
10%/ 751.2 credits
90%/ 6760.8 credits
being met and project has received closeout
(100%* / 7512 credits)
9
approval
Table 2: Credit Release Schedule for As -Built/ MYO
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity
Interim Release
Total Released
15%/ 1126.8
15%/ 1126.8 credits
1
Site Establishment
credits
Completion of all initial physical and
biological improvements made pursuant to
15%/ 1107.00'
30%/2,233.8 credits
2
the Mitigation Plan
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%/ 744.E credits
40%/2,978.4 credits
3
performance standards are being met
Second year monitoring report
demonstrates performance standards are
10%/ 744.6 credits
50%/ 3,723 credits
4
being met
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%/ 744.6 credits
60%/ 4,467.6 credits
5
performance standards are being met
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%/ 372.3 credits
65% / 4,839.9 credits
6*
performance standards are being met
(75%** / 5,584.5 credits)
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met and
project has received closeout approval
10%/ 744.6 credits
75%/ 5,584.5 credits
(85%.. / 6,329.1 credits)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%/ 372.3 credits
80% / 5,956.8 credits
8
performance standards are being met
(90%** / 6,701.4 credits)
Seventh year monitoring report
demonstrates performance standards are
10%/ 744.E credits
90% / 6,701.4 credits
being met and project has received closeout
(100%.. / 7,446 credits)
9
approval
* The second credit release has deducted 9.90 credits based on the difference between the credit total at Mitigation Plan
and the credit total at As -Built.
** 10% of credits will be reserved for the site that can be subsequently released after four bankfull events have occurred in
separate monitoring years, provided that the channel is stable and all other performance standards are being met.
Credits at as -built do not match the calculations in the Mitigation Plan or the Revised Wetlands Impacts Memo.
Constructed streams match final design closely and credits were re -calculated using the final design centerline
footage. As -built footage was not used for calculations because the thalweg chosen by surveyors often varied
from the centerline causing streams to appear longer. Additionally, there was a miscalculation in the Revised
Wetland Impacts Memo which has been corrected.
Repair work on a pond dam along the western edge of the property resulted in a portion of the pond
embankment being within the conservation easement. A maintenance area was added within the easement
which is shown in the As -Built plan set and MYO report. This maintenance area will be periodically mowed, and
trees were not planted. The maintenance area was deducted from the easement area when running the
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator. The total credits in the approved Mitigation Plan were
7,512.00. The total credits submitted with this As -Built MYO report is 7,446.00. This is an overall project
reduction of 66 credits between Mitigation Plan and As -Built.
Monitoring year 0 (MYO) site assessments were conducted between August 2021 and March 2022. Overall, the Site is
exceeding performance standards and on track to meet MY7 success criteria. All vegetation plots exceeded MY3
interim success criterion of 320 stems per acre on an individual basis and herbaceous vegetation is establishing itself
across the site. Invasive species were treated prior to construction and lime was added to areas of acidic soil. Invasive
species and acidic soils will continue to be assessed and treated as necessary.
All project streams are stable, functioning as intended, and meeting project goals. Streams show only minor
deviations from design. Groundwater well and stream gauges are installed and collecting data. Hydrology data will be
included in the MY1 annual monitoring report. No easement encroachment or stream crossing issues have been
identified in MYO.
Pursuant to the Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and the site -specific Dudley Pond Final Mitigation Plan,
successful completion of monitoring year 0 activities and demonstration that interim performance standards are
being met for all parcels within the bank grants fifteen percent (15%) of the mitigation site's total stream credits be
available for sale. Therefore, we are requesting 1,107.00 stream credits be released, constituting 15 percent of the
total stream credits (7,446.00) minus the 9.9 credit overpayment in the first credit release due to the reduction in
overall site credits at as -built.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x106 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
,�ii`?I2FF
Angela Allen, Project Manager
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

0
Ln
aj
E
cn (�
a
t
❑�
E
E
LU
u
o
V
w
aJ
�
aj
❑
r
aj
J �
y
aoq
0
oq
�p
w
fV
c-I
_
f0
c-I
Q
C
3
o �
Y
V &
Y
m
a
E �
_ cr
m V
a
E _
c
0
C V
i t
V '^
m
V
co
r lO0 O
m
CO N N O
r y N O M
Y O � O e1
Q
l+ H N 0 V
a v
o txo O N 2 M
0
t
O
W
J O
mo
~
m Y f0
VI
G1 L1 ate+ o m G1
Y
'p
l0
N
-0 V t0 Z d m
a
i
E o E p R
V
ma
T L c A
O Gl Y 41
f
-p LAJ
m Q C i
IL f0 W
Gl
m
,aY-'
a N �o
a F
a
O
y
fV
O
Y
Q
4
0
O
I
C
w
V_
Q
V
D
C
�c
c
T

N
a
Y � N
N Y
—
+
a
a
LL a
O
z
z
c u
3
u
O
z
m
a
a
a
c
z
z
6
O
„
z
u
a
a
a
6
o
a
z
p c
p j
z
z
C �
u
u 3
o m
a
z
a
z
0
m
e
m
o
F
a
N
3 3
N
�
1
N
3
c
o
'^
u
v
�
v
N
U
d
U
d
U
1
1
a
m
o
a
as
a
�o
�
o
a
y G
N
O
O
N
O
N
O O
N N
O O
N N
O
N
a
a a
¢
z
m
.10•
¢
a
a
a
a a
a a
a
a
a
3
c
u
z
z
z
z
z z
z z
z
z
� Y
a
�
N
O
Z
L N
�
�
m
0
z
a
c
10
a
a
a
a
a a
s a
s
a
a
a z
z
z
z
z
z z
z z
z
z
a-°
�
o
z
a
3
m c
¢
a
a
a
a a
a a
a
a
a
a
10 ¢
z
z
z
z
z z
z z
z
z
a
z z
LL
v
a N
L
i
C
to
U
3
z
z
z
z
z z
z z
z
z
o d
a
z
a
z
a
z
a
z
a a
z z
a a
z z
a
z
a
z
a
u`
m
a
`m m
N
o
a
a
a ni
a ni
a
a
M
ti
ti
N
a
3 N
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
O y�M
L
0
0
0
�
{n
a
N
L
An
co
$
$
° °
° $
0
a
£
•£
•£ •£
•£ •£
•$
N
ey
N
M a
N T
I�
C
d
N
M
a
N tD
w
Dl
d
U
co
N
F

�.M
MONITORING YEAR 0
ANNUAL REPORT
March 2022
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 2016-02160
NCDWR Number 2018-1694 v1
Data Collection Period: August 2021 - March 2022
Submission Date: March 16, 2022
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT)
USACE Project Manager: Jordan Jessop
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

DUDLEY MILL POND MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 0 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.......................................................................................................................1-3
Section 2: As -Built Condition (Baseline)..........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Changes in Design and Grading After Mitigation Plan Approval...............................................2-1
2.2 As-Built/Record Drawings..........................................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Cedar Creek Reach 1..........................................................................................................2-1
2.2.2 Cedar Creek Reach 2..........................................................................................................2-1
2.2.3 Cedar Creek Reach 3..........................................................................................................2-1
2.2.4 T1........................................................................................................................................2-2
2.2.5 T2........................................................................................................................................2-2
Section 3: Monitoring Year 0 Data Assessment...............................................................................3-1
3.1 Vegetative Assessment..............................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern.....................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Stream Assessment....................................................................................................................3-1
3.4 Stream Areas of Concern...........................................................................................................3-1
3.5 Hydrology Assessment...............................................................................................................3-1
3.6 Wetland Assessment..................................................................................................................3-2
3.7 Adaptive Management Plan......................................................................................................3-2
3.8 Monitoring Year 0 Summary......................................................................................................3-2
Section 4: METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................4-1
Section 5: REFERENCES...................................................................................................................5-1
TABLES
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits.....................................................................................................1-1
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements......................................................1-2
Table 3: Project Attributes.........................................................................................................................1-4
FIGURES
Figure 1 Current Condition Plan Overview Map
Figure la-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
Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 7a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Table 7b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report i

Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross -Section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 10 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 11 Project Contact Table
Appendix E Record Drawings
Appendix F Revised Wetland Impacts Memo — February 5, 2021
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report

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, 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.
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
PROJECT•
QUANTITIES
Project
Final
As -Built
Mitigation
Restoration
Mitigation
Segment
Design
Footage
Category
Level
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Comments
1
Footage
Stream
Cedar Creek
Full Channel Restoration, Planted
Reach 1
2,564
2,567
Warm
R
1.0
2,564.000
Buffer, Extended Buffers
Cedar Creek
Full Channel Restoration, Planted
Reach 2
1,748
1,824
Warm
R
1.0
1,748.000
Buffer, Extended Buffers
Cedar Creek
Full Channel Restoration, Planted
Reach 3
751
775
Warm
R
1.0
751.000
Buffer, Extended Buffers
Full Channel Restoration, Planted
T1
86
86
Warm
R
1.0
86.00
Buffer, Extended Buffers
Full Channel Restoration, Planted
T2
1,381
1,396
Warm
R
1.0
1,381.000
Buffer, Extended Buffers
Tota 12 :1
6,530.000
'Design was changed after Mitigation Plan submittal, footage does not match Mitigation Plan. See explanation in Section 2.1.
'Revised stream credit totals in the Revised Wetland Impacts Memo included a miscalculation. The error was corrected at As -Built.
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report 1-1

Restoration Level
Stream
Warm
Cool
Cold
Restoration
6,530.000
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Preservation
Additional Credit from
Extended Buffers'
916.000
Totals'
6,530.000
0
0
Total Stream Credit
7,446.000
'A maintenance area was added and was deducted from buffer credits.
zRevised 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.
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements
Goal
Objective/ Treatment
Likely Functional
Uplift
Performance
Criteria
Measurement
Cumulative
Monitoring
Results
Entrenchment
Cross-section
ratio over 2.2
data will be
Cross -sections
Construct stream channels
show streams
Improve the
that will maintain stable
Reduce sediment
and bank height
collected during
are stable and
stability of
cross -sections, patterns,
inputs from bank
ratio below 1.2
MYO, MY1, MY2,
functioning as
stream
and profiles overtime.
erosion. Reduce
with visual
MY3, MYS, and
designed. ERs
channels.
Restore profile to remove
shear stress on
assessments
MY7 and visual
are over 2.2 and
dam breach headcut.
channel boundary.
showing
inspections will
gHRs are below
progression
be performed
1.2.
towards stability.
annually.
Install habitat features
Increase and
such as constructed riffles,
diversify available
lunker logs, and brush toes
habitats for
into restored/enhanced
macroinvertebrates,
There is no
Improve
streams to promote
fish and amphibians
required
instream
habitat variability and pool
leading to
performance
N/A
N/A
habitat.
formation. Add woody
colonization and
criteria for this
materials to channel beds.
increase in
Improve aquatic organism
biodiversity over
metric.
passage by removing
time. Add
vertical headcut at dam
complexity including
breach.
LWD to the streams.
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report 1-2

Cumulative
Goal
Objective/ Treatment
Likely Functional
Performance
Measurement
Monitoring
Uplift
Criteria
Results
Reconnect
Allow more frequent
Four bankfull
channels with
Reconstruct stream
flood flows to
Crest gauges
Data will be
floodplains
channels with designed
disperse on the
events in
and/or pressure
collected
and to allow
bankfull dimensions and
floodplain. Support
separate years
transducers
throughout the
a natural
depth based on reference
geomorphology and
within the
recording flow
year and
flooding
reach data.
higher -level
monitoring
elevations.
reported in MY1.
regime.
functions.
period.
Survival rate of
One hundred
Reduce sediment
210 planted
square meter
inputs from bank
vegetation plots
Plant native tree and
erosion and runoff.
stems per acre at
are placed on 2%
Restore and
understory species in
Increase nutrient
MY7. Interim
of the planted
All 26 vegetation
enhance
riparian zones and plant
cycling and storage
survival rate of
area of the Site.
plots have a
native
native shrub and
in floodplain.
planted
Data will be
planted stem
floodplain
herbaceous species on
Provide riparian
stems
stems per acre at
collected during
density greater
and
streambanks. Treat
habitat. Add a
MY3 and 26i at
MYO, MY1, MY2,
than 320 stems
eamban
invasive species within
source of LWD and
MY5. Trees
MY3, MY5, and
per acre.
vegetation..
ve
project area.
organic material to
each plot must
MY7 and visual
stream. Support all
average 7
inspections will
stream functions.MY5
0 ft
and 1at
be performed
MY7.
annually.
Protect Site from
Visually inspect
Permanently
encroachment on
the perimeter of
protect the
Establish conservation
the riparian corridor
Prevent
the Site to
No easement
Site from
easements on the Site.
and direct impact to
easement
ensure no
encroachments.
harmful uses.
streams and
encroachment.
easement
wetlands. Support
encroachment is
all stream functions.
occurring.
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 0 Annual Report 1-3

Table 3: Project Attributes
PROJECT•• •
Project Name
Dudley Mill Pond County
Cumberland County
Mitigation Site
Project Area (acres)
45.9
Project Coordinates
34°57'25.9"N 78°45'06.1"W
PROJECT,•Y
INFORMATION
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Cape Fear River
USGS HUC 8-digit
03030005
USGS HUC 14-digit
03030005010010
30% wetland, 29% forested,
DWR Sub -basin
03-06-15
Land Use Classification
29% agriculture, 7%
developed, 5% shrubland
Project Drainage Area (acres) 4,211
Percentage of Impervious Area 0.4%
RESTORATION TRIBUTARY
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Cedar Creek
Parameters
T1 T2
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Pre -project length (feet)
2,622
21511
233
1,260
Post -project (feet)
2,567
1,824
7 55
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
Moderately
Dominant Stream Classification (existing)
entrenched
C5
G5c
G5c
G5
Moderately
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)
entrenched
C5
C5
C5
G5
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 DWQ401 Water Quality
Water of the United States Section 401
Yes
Yes
Certification No. 4134.
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 0 Annual Report 1-4

Section 2: As -Built Condition (Baseline)
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed in August 2021. The survey included
developing an as -built topographic surface; as well as, surveying the as -built channel centerlines, top of
banks, structures, and cross -sections.
2.1 Changes in Design and Grading After Mitigation Plan Approval
Revisions were made to Cedar Creek Reach 2 design after the final mitigation plan was approved. A
memorandum was provided to the USACE and NCDWR on February 5, 2021 describing these alterations
to design and the corresponding changes to stream and wetland impacts from the approved 401 and
404 permits (Appendix F). As the total stream and wetland impacts decreased from the original design
and approved permit, no updated 401/404 was required.
In the updated design, Reach 2 of Cedar Creek was split into two separate reaches with new channel
dimensions and varying restoration approaches. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of Cedar Creek and T2
and gently meanders through the old pond bed with an average slope of 0.2%. A priority 1 restoration
approach through this reach allows the stream to remain hydrologically connected to the existing
floodplain and wetlands while minimizing earthwork in sandy soils. Reach 3 begins approximately 550 LF
upstream of the original dam and has a slightly steeper slope of 1%. This short reach was designed with
a priority 2 restoration approach where a new floodplain was graded through the old dam to allow the
reach to connect to Cedar Creek downstream. This design shortens the overall length of priority 2
restoration on Cedar Creek Reach 2 by almost 1,500 If. The revised design also significantly reduced the
amount of earthwork and limited the overall total disturbance to natural systems on Site. See Table 8 in
Appendix C for final design parameters.
2.2 As-Built/Record Drawings
A sealed half-size set of record drawings are in Appendix E which includes the post -construction survey,
alignments, structures, and monitoring features. No significant field adjustments were made during
construction, modifications to design were made after the Mitigation Plan but before construction as
explained in the previous section. The adjustments made during construction were minimal, where
necessary, and were based on field evaluations. These adjustments are listed below.
2.2.1 Cedar Creek Reach 1
• STA 102+67 — Floodplain outlet added to help direct natural flow and connect to the channel.
• STA 107+77 — Rock outlet added to ditch tie in for stream bank stabilization.
• STA 107+90— Log sill with root wad was adjusted to accommodate ditch tie in.
• STA 110+31— Log vane changed to log sill for grade control.
• STA 118+52—118+73 — Riffle material added entire riffle length for stability.
2.2.2 Cedar Creek Reach 2
• STA 127+19 — Floodplain outlet added to help direct natural flow and connect to the channel.
• STA 131+37 - 132+36— Brush toe added to stabilize stream bank.
• STA 133+03 - 134+09 — Brush toe added to stabilize stream bank.
• STA 137+13 - 138+10— Brush toe added to stabilize stream bank.
2.2.3 Cedar Creek Reach 3
• STA 148+44—149+09 — Floodplain outlet added to help direct natural flow and connect to the
channel.
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report 2-1

• STA 150+59 — Rock installed to stabilize existing floodplain drainage.
2.2.4 T1
• Constructed riffle was added upstream of conservation easement to stabilize stream before
entering the project area.
• STA 200+01— Log sill was added but silted over.
• STA 200+36 — Confluence stabilized with riffle material where ditch ties in.
2.2.5 T2
• STA 300+00 - 300+09 — Left bank —The embankment was stable so rock was not necessary.
• STA 300+00 - 300+18 — Right bank —The embankment was stable so rock was not necessary.
• STA 300+29 — Boulder sill replaced with log sill embedded in rock.
• STA 309+53 — Per direction of engineer in field. Riffle did not require additional stability.
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report 2-2

Section 3: Monitoring Year 0 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MYO to assess the condition of the project. The
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic
assessment are located in Section 1.2 Table 3: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional
Improvements.
3.1 Vegetative Assessment
The MYO vegetative survey was completed in March 2022. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem
density range of 445 to 688 planted stems per acre which is well above the interim requirement of 320
stems per acre required at MY3. Average stem density across all vegetation plots is 627 planted stems
per acre. All 26 plots met the interim success criteria individually and are on track to meet the final
success criteria required for MY7. Refer to Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data.
3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Vegetation management and herbicide treatments were applied prior to construction in areas of
existing forest to prevent the spread of invasive species that could compete with planted native species.
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and kudzu (Pueraria
montana) were treated with herbicide below the mill pond dam at the downstream end of Cedar Creek
in September 2019 and retreated in August 2020. Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle were also
treated in the upstream end of T2 in September 2019. The kudzu was treated again in April 2021.
Wildlands recognizes that multiple treatments are typically needed for effective invasive plant control.
These areas will be monitored and treated as necessary.
Soil testing was conducted in areas where herbaceous vegetation was sparse in September 2021. Soil in
the areas that were once submerged by Dudley Mill Pond along Cedar Creek and by a beaver pond for
many years along T2, were found to have more acidic soils than the remainder of the Site. Twenty-five
tons of lime were applied to the areas with acidic soils along Cedar Creek and on the south side of T2 in
October 2021. An additional 3 tons of pelletized lime was spread over half an acre of acidic soils along
the north side of T2 in February 2022 to help support the establishment of herbaceous vegetation and
planted trees. Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas.
3.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MYO were conducted in August 2021. All streams on Site are stable and
functioning as designed. Streams show only minor deviations from design and visual assessments
following construction indicate that streams remain stable. Cross -sections show entrenchment and
width -to -depth ratios within an acceptable range of the design parameters, and bank height ratios are
less than 1.2. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and
Stream Photographs. Refer to Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data.
3.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified, all streams are stable and functioning as intended.
3.5 Hydrology Assessment
Two crest gauges were installed, one on Dudley Pond Reach 2 and the other on T2. Hydrologic data will
be collected and results reported during MY1.
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report 3-1

3.6 Wetland Assessment
Four groundwater gauges were installed within an existing wetland zone along Cedar Creek at locations
requested by North Carolina Division of Water Resources. These gauges will be monitored with the
purpose of assessing potential effects to wetland hydrology from the construction of the restored
stream channel through this area. The results of this data are not tied to a success criterion.
Groundwater gauge data will be collected and reported during MY1.
3.7 Adaptive Management Plan
No adaptive management plans are necessary at this time.
3.8 Monitoring Year 0 Summary
Overall, the Site looks great, is performing as intended, and is on course to meet success criteria.
Vegetation plot data shows an average density of 627 planted stems per acre across plots. All vegetation
plots are on track to exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. Herbaceous
vegetation is establishing itself across the site and the floodplain is anchored. All project streams are
stable, functioning as intended, and meeting project goals. Stream and wetland hydrology data will be
included in the MY1 annual monitoring report. Invasive species were treated prior to construction and
lime was added to areas of acidic soil. Invasive species and acidic soils will continue to be assessed and
treated as necessary in future monitoring years.
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 0 Annual Report 3-2

Section 4: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcPro.
Pressure transducers were installed in riffle cross -sections and monitored throughout the year.
Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers standards (USACE, 2003) and the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT, 2016). Vegetation
monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report 4-1

Section 5: 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
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw-
reg.usace.army.m i I/PN/2016/Wilmi ngton-District-M itigation-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. DIMS,
Raleigh, NC.
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report 5-1

Figure 1, Current Condition Plan Overview Map
W I L D L A N D S Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 300 600 Feet USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
I I I I I Monitoring Year 0- 2022
Cumberland County, NC

Figure 1a, Current Condition Plan View Map
W I L D L A N D S Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet � USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
I I I I I Monitoring Year 0- 2022
Cumberland County, NC

Pa lleh Nor
1
v
v N
v
fV YO W �D
O — V
E O
w 17 Q O � O X 3
W 7
'4 0 y0 Z 0 a
O - W W Y
3
m w > O E ° = vl O a O m
w
2
LL Z a u a(D a m
O B O N V
D N z
V O
N
U 'G O j
lb
0
> o w u
`
R _
a �E o c
I Z o
o a 0 a
= o _
O U
u T Q
c W
0 �
V
v
o'n
V) 0
Qz
zw
40
�.{ w
i
4

Figure 1c, Current Condition Plan View Map
W I L D L A N D S Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet � USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
I I I I I Monitoring Year 0- 2022
Cumberland County, NC

APPENDIX A. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cedar Creek Reach 1-3
rNM7.j.r Ch.onnel Category Metric Performing Number in Unstable
FootageNumber Total Amount of
as Intended As -Built A Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
5,166
Assessed Bank Length
10,332
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
Bank
Toe Erosion
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
0
100%
habitat.
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
Structure
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%.
26
26
100%
Tl
Number Total Amount of
Stable, Number in Unstable
Major Channel Category Metric Performing As-B Footage
as Intended U�AL
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
86
Assessed Bank Length
172
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
Bank
Toe Erosion
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
0
100%
habitat.
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
1
1
100%
Structure
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
T2
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable
FootageNumber Total Amount of
Performing As -Built
as Intended AL
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
1,396
Assessed Bank Length
2,792
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
Bank
Toe Erosion
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
0
100%
habitat.
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
Structure
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%.
8
8
100%

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Planted Acreage 28.44
Feget.t7n Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.10
0
0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.10
0
0%
criteria.
Total
0
0%
Areas of Poor Growth
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance
0.10
0
0%
Rates
Standard.
Cumulative Total
0.0
0%
Easement Acreage 45.91
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with the
Invasive Areas of Concern potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term or 0.10 0 0%
community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists
Easement Encroachment of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common 0 Encroachments Noted
Areas encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no none /0ac
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO POINT 1 Cedar Creek R1— upstream (712112021) PHOTO POINT 1 Cedar Creek R1— downstream (712112021)
PHOTO POINT 2 Cedar Creek R1— upstream (712112021)
PHOTO POINT 3 Cedar Creek R1— upstream (712112021)
PHOTO POINT 2 Cedar Creek R1— downstream (712112021)
PHOTO POINT 3 Cedar Creek R1— downstream (712112021) J
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 4 Cedar Creek R1— upstream (712112021)
PHOTO POINT 4 Cedar Creek R1— downstream (712112021)
PHOTO POINT 5 Cedar Creek R1— upstream (7/21/2021) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 Cedar Creek R1— downstream (7/21/2021) 1
PHOTO POINT 6 Cedar Creek R1— upstream (7/21/2021)
PHOTO POINT 6 Cedar Creek R1— downstream (7/21/2021)
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 7 Cedar Creek R2 — upstream (7/21/2021) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 Cedar Creek R2 — downstream (7/21/2021) 1
I
PHOTO POINT 8 Cedar Creek R2 — upstream (7/21/2021) 1 PHOTO POINT 8 Cedar Creek R2 — downstream (7/21/2021) 1
PHOTO POINT 9 Cedar Creek R2 — upstream (7/21/2021)
PHOTO POINT 9 Cedar Creek R2 — downstream (7/21/2021)
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 10 Cedar Creek R2 — upstream (7/21/2021) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 Cedar Creek R2 — downstream (7/21/2021) 1
PHOTO POINT 11 Cedar Creek R2 — upstream (7/21/2021)
PHOTO POINT 12 Cedar Creek R3 — upstream (7/21/2021)
PHOTO POINT 11 Cedar Creek R2 — downstream (7/21/2021)
PHOTO POINT 12 Cedar Creek R3 — downstream (7/21/2021)
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 13 Cedar Creek R3 — upstream (7/21/2021) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 Cedar Creek R3 — downstream (7/21/2021) 1
PHOTO POINT 14 T1— upstream (7/21/2021) I PHOTO POINT 14 T1— downstream (7/21/2021) I
PHOTO POINT 15 T2 — upstream (7/21/2021)
PHOTO POINT 15 T2 — downstream (7/21/2021)
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 16 T2 — upstream (7/21/2021) 1 PHOTO POINT 16 T2 — downstream (7/21/2021) 1
PHOTO POINT 17 T2 — upstream (7/21/2021) 1 PHOTO POINT 17 T2 — downstream (7/21/2021) 1
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 1(31112022) 1 FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 2 (31112022) 1
FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 3 (31112022) 1 FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 4 (31112022) 1
FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 5 (31112022) I FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 6 (31112022) I
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs

FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 7 (31112022) 1 FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 8 (31112022) 1
FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 9 (31112022) 1 FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 10 (31112022) 1
FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 11(31112022) I FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 12 (31112022) I
IIk Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
kZOF Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs

FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 13 (31112022) 1 FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 14 (31112022) 1
FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 15 (31112022) 1 FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 16 (31112022) 1
FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 17 (31112022) 1 FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 18 (31112022) 1
IIk Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
kZOF Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs

FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 19 (31112022) 1 FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 20 (31112022) 1
FIXED VEGETATION PLOT 21(31112022)
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs

RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 22 (31112022) 1 RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 23 (31112022) 1
RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 24 (31112022) 1 RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 25 (31112022) 1
RANDOM VEGETATION PLOT 26 (31112022)
IIk Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
kZOF Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs

APPENDIX B. VEGETATION PLOT DATA

(1)
a
10
0
O
O
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
N
M
Ln
lD
O
N
M
I
Ln
lD
I-,
oo
m
O
I
N
N
N
N
N
c-I
N
M
Lfi
lD
I�
00
mc-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
}'
}'
}'
}'
}'
}'
}'
}'
}'
+-'
+-'
+-+
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
d
d
d
d
d
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
. ao
ao
ao
ao
ao
ao
ao
ao
uotLotLotLotLotLotLotLotLotLotLo
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
>
>
>
>
>
X
X
X
X
X
�
X
�
X
�
X
�
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
O
O
O
O
O
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
0
0
0
0

�
E
0
E
I
/
�
13
k
\
2
2
/
§
�
w
m
r4
r4
__
r4
N_
r$
eLn
\
_
@
9
r
_
_
_
�
e
_
e
%
>
a
e
)
In
It
e-
e
e§
w
r4
m
w
w
r4
m
r4
r$
_\
@
9�
m
w
N
r
N
N
e_
_
_%
>
0.w
a
e
LA
0�
r
r4
r
e
=§
§
§
w
w
�
«
_
_
r
r
/
»
\
®
r4�
e
®
m�
-
2
2
0#
e@»
o
>
a
z
k#
-
_
®
r
«
-
>
2
{
I
z
)
w
I
m
r4
r4
m
r-
r$
_\
rq 0
-I
r4_
#
_
r4
r4
r
�
-I
�
e
%
>
LA
0
_
r
_
e
=
§
w
r
_
�
_
�
_
r
r
$
_
\
e@a
\
m
e
m
m
e_
_
%
>
e
}
m
�
e
e
r
r
e
=§
g
E
§
S M 5 8CL
8
8
8
\
\
\
m � b
2 7 e j
k E
§
§
/
/
/
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
e
e
z
z
z
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
)
/
z
>
\
*
&
_
0
/
2
2
E
».e
\
®2
:
/
°
3
&
3
()
/
u
\\
u
»
»
®
u
u
»
=
_
j
}
/
\
ƒ
]
/
j
/
\
\
)
§
2
\
E
z
/
/
--a
\
/
$
o
a
\
\
/
a
2
a
§
@
'
\
2
A
2
2
«
,
2
�
\
±
E
±
=
E
°
\
e
,
2
\
=
\
»
§
\
y
t
t
t
\
\
/
/
/
ƒ
/
/
0. w

�
E
0
E
I
/
�
-0
k
\
2
2
/
§
�
w
_
_
_
r
$
e
\
@
9
e
r
e-_
e%
>0.a
e
}
_
It
inh
e
§
w
m
w
w
r4
r4
#\
»Lo
\
�
-
@
9
r
_
_
#
#
®
»
2
>
a
z
CA
0
r
_
�
_
»
2
Ln
w
m
_
It
1-4
�
r4
r
$
»
\
§
ƒ00
e
e
�
�
�
e
»
\
cc
e
r4
$
ke
^
#
_
�
r4
�
a
1-1
>
%
C
I
e
)
w
#
r4
r4
r4«\
z\
@
\
m
r4
r4
#
#-
z
2
>
®
a
z
C
m
-
m
2
�
z
w
e
�_
r
r4
�$
e\
e
@
\
e
�
e
m
�
�
e
_
e
%e
>
�
a
}
e
e
r
e
e§
s
E
§
S M 5 8 k
U
\\\
2 7 e$ CL
k E
§
§
/
/
/
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
e
e
z
z
z
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
)
0
/
`
z
\
*
>
\
c
2
r
0
&
2
_
m
\
m
:
0
/
2
°
3
&
».e
LE
}
/
/
3
7
»
»
®
f
()
u
»
\
\
j
\
u
u
\
-
_
}
/
ƒ
]
/
j
/
\
)
2
\
E
§
z
$
/
\
C,
/
\
a
\
2
2
\
,
2
a
±
§
@
'
A
2«,
2\±
E=
E
°
\
e
,
2
=
»
§
§
§
§
\
Cc)\
\
\
p
\
\
t
t
t
\
/
/
/
ƒ
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
0. w

�
E
0
E
I
/
�
_0
k
\
2
2
/
§
�
w
_
r4
_
r
�
-
-
Q
=
\
9
e_
_
m
e
Q_/=
2
\Ln
=
e
}
-
-
-
Q
=
§
w
w
m
-I
m_#
»\
-
@
9
_
r
_
z
e
#
»
»
I
>
_
a
e
k
-
--100
j
§
w
�
-Im
w
z
r_$
»\
§
ƒ
-
\
m
cc1-1
CM
-
\
>
0
�
e
r
_
z
r
_
e
_
>
%
C
I
e
)
w
r4
m
®---
w
r4
r$
e\
,-
9
z
-
-
-
-
-
r4
r
e_@
e%
\
�
_
a
e
}
�
z
e
e
§
w
e
m
w
��_
zT
r$
_\
e
@
#
_
m
w
r4
r4
e
#
a
_
%
\
_
a
e
CA
0
e
e
«
a
=
§
g
E
§
$
\
\
\
2 7 e CL
k E
§
§
/
/
/
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
e
e
z
z
z
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
)
E
`
\
z
\
*
>
&
2
_
0
/
2
/
3
»
»
®
j
\
u
u
»
\
-
_
}
/
ƒ
]
/
j
/
\
C.
2
\
E
§
z
$
2
/
\
/
o
a
/
\
a
\
2
2
\
\
u
a
±
§
@
'
A
2«,
2
\±
E=
E
°
\
e
,
2
=
»
§
§
§
§
\
y
\
\
\
/
\
\
t
t
t
\
\
/
/
/
ƒ
/
/
/
/
/
/
0. w

�
E
0
E
I
/
�
-0
k
\
2
2
.25
§
�
\ j
� Q
/5'
& z o
} � /
_
S # s
t%2
COD\ k
w
�
N
-
-
�
-
-
$
_
\
B
_
/
\
_
_
_
e
_
\
>
0._
-
c
e
)
°
\
-
r4I
9
�
�
-
#
#
-
-
-
-
»
-
e
>
a
e
LA
0
�
e
zT
#
-
-
-
1-1e
\
§0.
�
N
N
Q
e
\
0
2
2
e
e
e
Q
e\
e\
>
-
0
#
e
e
e
e�
r4
r4Q
e
2
I
Lo
{
)
w
r
-
N
m
-
N
-
#
$
_
\
_
@
9
IN
�
r
-I
�
e
#
e
_
%
\
a
}
�
r4
r
_
r4
_
e
=
§
w
e
m
r
r4__
r4
r$
_\
e
@
#
_
m
m
e
e
m
e
_
_
%
\
a
e
LA
0
e
�_
e�
r
e
=§
M
E§
4) Lu
8 k 5 S /
$ b
\
\
\
2 7 e CL
k E
CL
t
§
§
/
/
/
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
e
e
z
z
z
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
)
0
/
`
z
\
*
>
&
2
E
».e
_
\
®2
:
0
/
/
2
°
3
&
'w
}
/
3
7
»
»
°
®
u
()
u
»
\
\
j
\
u
u
\
-
_
}
/
ƒ
]
/
j
/
\
)
§
2
\
E
z
.2
$
/
/
--a
\
/
o
a
/
a
\
2
2
\
\
u
a
±
§
@
'
A
2«,
2
\±
E=
E
LA
°
\
t
t
t
\
\
/
/
/
ƒ
/
/
/
/
/
/
a ©k (
\ / \ \
e % -
\ / u
o ( ( E
ac c \ \ \ £ \
/ E E k
6 { §
) ro 2 3 / «
0. w

�
E
0
E
I
/
�
13
k
\
2
2
/
§
F-
®
G
2
«
«
$
Q
$
/
$
§
§
y
§
qrq
\
_
Q
2
G
2
«
«
$
Q
$
/
$
§
§
y
G
~
7
G
\
o
-
e
E
2
G
y
#
«
$
Q
$
/
$
§
§
y
§
q
\
�
w-
N-
r4
z
»\
2
a §
E®~_
e
r
g»
—
r4_
r4
z
-
Ln
»
o
\
c
e
z
mF
\
�3
E
§
k 3
8
8
8
S 8/
� m
\
\
\
a
2 7 \ CL
E E
CL
e
e
z
z
z
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
&
E
`
0
z
>
\
*
c
E
_
0
/
7
2
E
»
c
\
®2
:
/
°
3
&
3
7
.e
'u
°}
f
()
/
u\\
u
»
»
c
u
u
j
}
/
\
ƒ
]
/
j
/
\
\
)
E
2
\
E
z
$
o
a
/
/
/
--a
2
\
/
\
2
2
\
\
C)
\
2
±
a
E
±
§
@
A
2
«
,
2
=
E
�
\
y
[
\
\
t
t
t
\
\
/
/
/
ƒ
/
/
0. w

/
r
m
rj
z>
z
co
>
ID
m
@
>
_
a
A
r
_
r
zLn
co
§
»rq
rq
rq
rq
ctD
%
Ln
>
-
§
e
}
§
rn
rn
Ln
>
2
ID
m
a
rq
f
_
g
§
a
-
>
2
tD
k
FI'
j
}
cn rq
0
>
-
§
§
§
Ln
_
2
-
\
>
A
r
r4
m
§
_
§
LU
ƒ
k//\�
e
e
e
m
E m«$
k
Ln
E
�
!
e
!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
7 u
/
0
}
ra
k
z
>
m
\
0
w\
E
u�
E\)
a
u\/
3CO
f
[
}
\
\
J
\
j
j
\
\
\
\
/
)
\
}
\
\
m
\
c
@
-
\
2
d
a
f
J
j/
a
6
o
7
2
®§)
3
2
2\
a/§
5�$
Ln
!
(
{
)
\
j
\
j
\
Ln
§
§
§
m
/
/
/
/
/
f
Cr
Cr
/
/
\ \ \
\
e
®
\
aj 2 /
a
\�\j
© Z S E
�
((�
c ® ®j
o
0 \ \
/ %
\
\ \ \ \ m
\

m
c
z>-
c
m
m
e
r
/
z
_
°
\
$
_
c
m
c
-
c
$
lr]m�
k
ƒ
-
W\j
a)
a)
a)E
m«$ m
;
/
5 7 � CL
k
Ln
E
!
e
/
/
7 u
e
e
m
m
m
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Ln
E
j
0
k
z
>
G
\
�
\
/
Eu
�
E
\
)
a
u
\
/
3
CO
f
[
}
\
\
J
j
j
\
\
\
\
\
/)
\
}
\
\
m
\
c
@
-
\
2
d
o
a
f
J
j/
a
2\
6
-
2
®§
z
3
2
a
2§
2%
f
2
5$\±
E
E
�
\
\
/
/
/
/
/
/
§
/
§
/
§
/
/
\
\
\
\
®
e
\
2
/
m
-o
j
j
©
Z
S
E
,5
((cy
r
®
®
j |
) o
/
/
!
® %
I
)__
±}
6
=(j
u
2

APPENDIX C. STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA

Ln
O
v
Q
O
a
0
0
v
L11
0
L
�
�
m
CD
�
o
N
0
N
O
O
O
iD
O
W
O
ti
V
O
c-i
N
O
.ti
(�})
O
O
ci
uoi�enal3
Ol

Ln
Ln
I,
i m
KR -
Ln
' 3
CD
V
J
d
bD
M
a _ W
"• `�
c
V
o
� Y VI •Y (b
m
�
_ W my bD
d
Q/ _� Y C L
@ Y L m Q m
CL
y
m
C O_ Q •V N cy >
i
m
o to
c m p o x p C
m
Ex3EE3=3 oa
u
— Q) 3
m
m m v y
m n o 00
w C)
N
N M N N o6
C
Qo
oom
m
2
n
d
VI
In
N
O
U
a
0
a°
c
m
m
O
N �
O
N
O
O
O
(�})
O
uoiIenal3
O)

Ln
Ln
v
- 3
0
a
3
1 �
i
;t
L'
r
{ Y
V
J
d
bD
ti
M
aw
N
V
� Y VI •Y (b
�
bD
Q/ _� v C L
�
m
L @ Y T
@ Y L v Q v
y
C N Q a N cy >
i
o
:..)
o to
c v o b x O C
Ex3EE3=3 oa
m
m V v
w b0
M
4 W
lD N N V N N 00 T '6
L
Q
N
m LL
V
d
VI
N
N
O
U
a
0
a°
m
M
lD
L
m
�
-6
N
0
N �
O
N
O
rl
O
c-I
O
rl
(�})
D)
uoi�enal3
Ol

Ln
O
a

Ln
O
v
Q
O
Q
O
O
v
0
�
L
Y
t
ci
O
O
N
O
O
O
rl
O
O O
c-I
O
c-I
(3})
uoi�enal3
T
D)

i
v
r
3
0
� 3
T
>
i
} ,
V
J
d
bD
N
M
N
�
L @ Y T
@ Y L v Q v
y
C N Q Q• V N cy >
CO
i
,2 N 'O 7 N 7
"6
N N L O to
V C
c v o b x c c ��
'a
Ex3EE3=3 oa
u
p 3
N
7 V ^ 1D N 'n v
O V
lD
O M Nj lD N N
O am m m .--i -O
L
Q
m T
V
n
d
VI
N
N
O
U
O
O
0
a°
m
o
v
O
t
c-I
O
cM-I
L
N
0
o �
m o
0
O
N
O
rl
O
O
O
c-I
W
Ol
(4)
lD
D1
uoiIena13
V
Ol

N
3
0
a
3
v
rn
J
d
bD
C
C
N
O O
V
C
N
N 7 L
N C
L
a'
L O N O
Y N Q E N
d
LL
00
i
.� '6 N 'O 7 O C (0 114 7
'6
N to Y O N Q O N
v m v
3 o
E x 3 E E 3 t 3 v o a
d
O N
Y
lD lD V Q) O @
w m .� m o 00 0 �
C
M N c-I N N
N
m LL
V
3
d
N
N
0
U
O
v
Q
O
Q
O
O
v
0
�
t-i
-O
O
C
O
N
O
O
O
rl
O
V
m
N O
O O
c-I
o0
Ol
(a})
uoiIenal3
ID
Ol

E
N
3
0
o

Ln
O
v
Q
O
Q
O
O
v
L11
0
L
ci
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
m
W
� �n
m m
m
m
(a})
uoiIenal3
.�
m

Ln
Ln
v
3
3
a,DO
{
V
J
d
bD
M
u
N O C
m
@ bD
E 'O C
Y
@ Y L Y T
N Q N
i
C C N Q •V N cy >
`—
.21 '6 N '0
O In
EX3EE3=3 oa
u
o u 3
_ Y
N
O
7 w� Qt n o n � 0 V
v
ti
Y m r "i c-i -4 Sri
O Ln N mco
L
•Q
v
m LL
V
d
VI
N
U
a
0
a°
Y
M
ci
-6
ci
N
O
N �
O
N
V
m
N
m
O
m
W
W
ID
ao

Ln
o
o
o
/
/
y,n
\ • ` wQ
/
\ \ % ( \ \ 2 { \
-
` f t
' \ §
\ } . \ 0 2 k
r Q_ m- A t t 7 t\ \/
ExE E\±$aEg _
§
/ w
m&
§
_ /7
In
\
/
\
+
\
\
�
\
&umD
8

Ln
O
a
O
d
J
C
m
o
m
�
lD
L
ci
m
-6
�
0
O �
N �
O
O
O
a
0
O
-I a
-I
(�})
O O
rl .--I
uoi�enal3
Ol

Ln
a@i
i+
C
3
0
a
3
v
v
J
d
bD
C
C
bD
oO O
a v ° m c
O C
N
i
�..v1 •a+ N (b
7 (b 'D Y bD
m CN
D) C C '�
L
Y @ Q O t
w• Q
V N
'6 O C (b N 7
•� V L C
N (b L ° v 4 o 'Av m v 5�
3 oo
E x 3 E E 3 t 3 a, o o a
N
r
o 3
(v
cn
Y
m Ln o � o @
o o o
L
.`nn .`nn ID Ln o
N f^
v 'c
Oco
coLL
V
In
Ln
U
O
a
v
Q
c
0
a
O
O
a!
0
�Q
L
Q
m
�
0
m
0
N
O
O
O
0
O O
O
O

0
0
0
�
o
o
0
�
0
m
0
0
�
0
� H
00 �
�
� o
y
�
o m
o �
0o u
�
0 7
� F
O •
n
O
�
�
O
� O
ZSX
O
�
�
I
y
�
o �
m
O
O
O
I,
'
O
O
O
N
o w a
o — g
`^ c
�
o ° m o
m
Y
O m
O
�
O
O
O
~ O
o °D
m �
0
I
3
«
o
0
m
44
0
44
N
44
O
M
�
�
o ?
N
O
44
44
IT
�
o I
0
v
44
o
�
o
.
O
•a
o
�
yaeaa
YT
o
�
�a aA7AePa7
�
ul8ag
o
0
0
0
o
O
O
O
(laa;) uollena13
m
m
0
0
0
0
0
ti
o
� o
.y Y
o �
� F
H
O
� 0
O
O
_
.y H
m
o g
m
N o
Y
O �
N
O
O
a m
O w o
o — y
ti c g
°
'a m
O
VI �
� m
a
o �
�n m
ti a
.y y
0 3
0
ti
0
•N-I
� O
o y
O
�1
0 1 ti
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
m
O o
m
m
(laa;) UO!Iena13
N
45X
�
£SX
III
N,
a
•
r

0
0
0
N
N
0
N
a0
�
a
o y
i
N
o m
� N
N
rl O
O
N
0
o �
� a
N �
0
C
O y
o m
ti z
0
44
ti
m o
m
o = m
ti o
a —
N m
O
O
�
� Y
rl m
4.4
O
N
o Na
m p
� a
0 3
0
m
N
N _
r
O
W
14
O �
O �3
eN-I F
O
O
Oo
m
c14
m
0
Y
O
O
O
N
14
a
kn
N
o
O
c
o
14
L
m
o
N
C
o
�
m
.beo
y O
m ry
m m
m
m m
V
m
(;aa;) uol;ena13
v
V
a
i
c
0
�
16
�
YZ
yaeaa
�aaa3aepa3
ul8ag
It
0
0
0
N
m
0
m
O
� O
a0
m
c-I �
a
o �
`N u
H
0
n �
N
O
O
n
m
m
a
o g
� m
o
rc
Y
O C
N
0
w
=
o �
N o ?
'a m
O
O y
� m
ti
O
m
0
�n m
m c
0 3
0
m
N
N
rl ei
O
O �
O
N �1
1
O
O
O
ti
�
!`I
Y
O
0
O
M
a -I
H
o
N
u
@
o
N
�
o
m
Y
y o
O
O
oo
m
�
m
a
m
ry
m
V
�p
95X

O
O
Ln
14
0
a
N
Y 0 Q
N
O M
O
d N ' N m
N bp N N
,+_ N
0 Z u
M O_ O to Y
o
v
w
C 6 Q C
0
0
0
N
m
v
0
m
v
v
� a
o a
i
N
OTSX
0
0
0
N
m
N
0
m
N
0
`^ o
00
N � m
0
i
O �
`N u
H
0
n �
N
0
0
m
a
voi ?
'o m
N o
rc
Y
O �
rl �
O
N �
O O O
O � �
ti O
'a m
O
O y
� m
r-I ,
O
O
O
m
i
0 3
0
m
N
N
rl ei
N
O �
O
O 1
O
O
0
ti
m
�
�
o
o
0
m
m
o0
00
00
00
(;aa;) uoilena13

0
0
0
N
O
Ol
O
O
O
01
O
O
00
O
O
W �
O
N m
O
H
rc
� m
O �
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O �
O m
N O
F
Y
O m
O
N
O N
O
C
O G
VI
O
V
O C
N
W
O
T
O
OLL
O
T
O
O
O
T
O
O
O aD
� O
N �
O
O
O I♦
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
.
o
�
0
K
� �
o
0
0
0
•-I
0
e-I
0
ti
o
'-I
0
.ti
0
m
(laa)) U011ena13

0
0
0
m
0
m
m
0
m
0 0
m �
o a
z
ap U
O >
m H
O
m
O i
O
n
O N
m �
T
� O
m �
m
O �
O
O �
m
0
m
0
m
0
m
o m a
o = g
m
a
�
Y
O m
C
O
m
0
0
m
0
o °D
o �
m
3
0
0
m
0
m �
0
N
O
m H
Y
O �
O
0 3
m �
0
0
0
O
0
o
O
-I
a
M
a0+
o
O
O
0
0
M
Q
(;aa;) uol;enal3
N
H
Jr
v
V
1�
w
N
N
w
N
N
T TSX
S
0
�
I
0
0
0
m
N
m
m
m
0
`^ o
m m
a
o �
O] F
m j
V~i
O
c^-I
O
O
m O
T
o �
m
N m
m OF
rc
Y
O C
m �
0
m
ti
m
0
w
o = �
ti c g
m °
'a m
� O
O y
� m
m
0
�
N
m
o
0
�n m
N o
m �
�
0 3
�
m
m
r
0
�+
N
m
�
N
O �
O
•
m �1
1
0
ti
m
0
0
m
�
0
m
ZTSX
o
0
0
o
m
m
0
(;aa;) uol;ena13

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Parameter
PRE-EXISTING
• •
DESIGN MONITORING
Cedar Creek Reach 1
Riffle Only
Min
I Max
n
Min I Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.2
1
16.3
15.5
18.0
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
17.1
1
>40
>100
2
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1
1.5
1.4
1.5
2
Bankfull Max Depth
2.2
1
2.2
2.1
2.2
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftz
20.6
1
27.9
22.4
27.1
2
Width/Depth Ratio
8.3
1
12.0
10.7
12.0
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1
>2.2
5.6
6.5
2
Bank Height Ratio
2.5
1
1.0
1.0
2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
47.6
9.9
10.3
Rosgen Classification
Moderately incised G5c
C5/E5
C5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
47.3
1
52.0
41.8
51.3
2
Sinuosity
1.04
1.18
1.19
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0020
0.0015
0.0016
Other
---
---
Parameter
Cedar Creek Reach 2
Riffle Only
Min
Max
n
Min I Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.8
19.9
2
25.0
21.5
25.6
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
60.3
64.0
2
>100
>100
2
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5
1.7
2
1.5
1.2
1.4
2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.9
2.7
2
2.0
1.8
2.1
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftz
26.5
29.3
2
38.0
27.0
35.3
2
Width/Depth Ratio
9.4
13.5
2
16.4
17.1
18.6
2
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
4.1
2
>2.2
3.8
4.6
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.3
2
1.0
1.0
2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
24.6
10.7
13.4
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5/E5
C5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
36.5
49.0
2
73.6
53.6
75.2
2
Sinuosity
1.10
1.23
1.22
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0016
0.0022
Other
Parameter
Cedar Creek Reach 3
Riffle Only
Min
Max
n
Min I Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
17.4
1
20.0
17.6
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
27.0
1
>100
>100
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.3
1
1.2
1.2
1
Bankfull Max Depth
2.0
1
1.5
1.7
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftz
22.6
1
23.3
21.0
1
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
1
17.2
14.7
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
1
>2.2
5.2
1
Bank Height Ratio
1.9
1
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
24.6
49
49
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5/E5
C5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
67.5
1
89.4
80.9
1
Sinuosity
1.00
1.20
1.19
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0040J
0.0090
0.0090
Other
---
---
--.

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Parameter
PRE-EXISTING
•
•
DESIGN
T2
MONITORING
Riffle Only
Min I
Max
n
Min I Max
Max
Min
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.5
1
14.0
13.0
15.5
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
12
1
>30
>50
2
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.1
1
1.2
1.0
1.2
2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.4
1
1.8
1.8
2.1
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftz
1.84
1
17.1
15.3
15.8
2
Width/Depth Ratio
8.3
1
12.0
10.7
15.7
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1
>2.2
3.2
3.7
2
Bank Height Ratio
2.1
1
1.0
1.0
2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
48
10.4
10.4
Rosgen Classification
G5c
C5/E5
C5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
33.4
1
31.5
31.3
1 28.2
2
Sinuosity
1.01
1.27
1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0050
0.0020
0.0019
Other
--
---
---

E
E
Ln
m
C
O
r
CO
C
0
O
Q
O
O
kn
kn
IA
O
V
Oi
(D
�
T
v�
o�
�
o
v
}
a
}
O
N
N
y
u
y
Vf
N
�
T
u�l
O
V
c-I
l0
¢
Owl.
CO
�y
O)
c-I
01
01
01
c}
C
c}c
C
O
�
}
}
M
C
�
O
O
p
N
N
y
u
Vf
y�
p
O
U
c}
C
U
c}c
C
1�
¢
�
n
a,00
a --I
O
N
M
O
0
N
N
M
rl
ID
CO
C
(D
Z
t0
p
V
f�
N
V1
n
N
M
N
Ql
�
Ol
Ol
Ol
a
a
a
O
O
O
a
O
_
o
o
N
N
N
y
U
V?
Vf
}
N
VI
T
u
lu
N
}
O
U
U
U
o
¢
o
'4
C)o}
a
m
o}
vO
¢
vO
oZ
o
`^
m
z
m
m
aOi
Q~1
Z
coIn
�
n
�
C
O
C
O
C
O
N
N
N
V
U
U
Vf
>c
C
L
>c
C
L
>c
C
Vf
O
O
O
U
U
U
>.
O
O
W
N
`�
7
O
lO
V
00
CD
N
O
ID
In
ID
N
n
ti
N
N
G}
C)
N
m
H
a -I
N
ca
N
m
N
c
O
c
co
ca
c
.m
c
O
m
m
c
O
.m
c
O
^
Q
~�
Q
.75
��
aO
m
s
m
Q
Q
a-
m
s
@
Y
Y
w
W
w
W
L
v
a
-FoY
--
Y
w
W
w
W
fl
m
a
-
75
Y
5
Y
w
W
w
W
n
w
Q
C
ry
C
ry
m
X
f6
C
C
C
f0
C
f6
CO
f6
m
C
c
f6
m
C
f6
N
m
f6
m
@
C
m
m
3
f6
0�
o
m
m
3
f6
02
o
m
m
3
f6
�2
o
m'
¢¢
m
t
J
m
U
Cl
m
Q
m
Q
t
J
m
V
w
m
a
m
a
t
J
m
V
w
O
O
O
~
cn
C
O
C
O
O
J
vP
,
O
,
O
O
J
v�
O
O
v
O
m
m
m
m
O
O
O
C
O
OC
H
C
O
OC
J
C
O
K
J
O
@
wv
W
L
h0
Y
O
@
wv
W
—
L
h0
Y
O
i
wv
—
L
b0
Y
3
Y
C
m
c
p
m
3
Y
C
m
c
p
m
3
Y
C
m
c
m

1
aJ
}
Ln
}
a
g
M
M
e-1
C
O_
}
N
O
�y
V
}
ti
\
ti
ti
}
_
O
O
a
N
e-1
C
uO
N
H
w
O
iy
V
}
}
N
Q
N
00
0)
ti
ti
Ln
d
�
m
�
C}
a'i
C
O
t'j
}
VI
O
ei
V
}
}
O
O
o0
O
N
Qt
ti
N
N
N
aJ
a]
aJ
C
O
C
O
Q
Q
a
M
L
>
a
>
a
Q
a
>
Y
>
Y
w
w
0
Q
C
C
I
m
X
a
—
m
m
m
3
A
0
J
o
m
a
m
a
V
i
F
o
O
O
J
aaj
°
aaj
n
M
V
m
m
O
m
O0
C
C
O
>
>
L
bA
'v
w
Y ai
7
m
m
=
Y
�
a]
v
o v
� v
v v
0 3
N
v �
Q U
o
O N
v
n v

APPENDIX D. PROJECT TIMELINE AND CONTACT INFO

Table 10. Project Activity and Reporting History
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Activity or Report
Project Instituted
D.
NA
Delivery
October 2018
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
September 2019
Mitigation Plan Approved May 2020
May 2020
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
August 2020
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
April 2021
Construction (Grading) Completed
NA
June 2021
As -Built Survey Completed
August 2021
September 2021
Lime application in areas of acidic soils along Cedar Creek and south side of T2
October 2021
Lime application in areas of acidic soils along north side of T2
February 2022
Planting Completed
February 2022
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
August 2021
March 2022
Vegetation Survey
March 2022
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey
2022
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2023
December 2023
Vegetation Survey
2023
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2024
December 2024
Vegetation Survey
2024
Year 4 Monitoring
2025
December 202�
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2026
December 2026
Vegetation Survey
2026
Year 6 Monitoring
2027
December 2027
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2028
December 2028
Vegetation Survey
2028
Table 11. Project Contact Table
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02160
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Abigail Vieira, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring, POC
919.851.9986

APPENDIX E. RECORD DRAWINGS

llm�
S Cl;IV4"ITT IAl
eullOILD u}zoN ' f}unoD puopaquinD
s2u',"L'zQ p.IoaaN a}ts uOl4Li? ; W puOd IIIW .falpnQ
(114
Zi
1�
tlz
O
+J
cJ�,rq
1
u^
)
-~
—i
v�J
O
U
Zi
� c
O
51�
•�
P—,
i
U
O
�
w
O
�
CU
a�
�
Q
U
N ti
O
a
O O
O
ti
ci
N m
-i y
z�
O U O O
x
°
m uz
v
a w
U
2> c Cz x o50
t
��
G
=ooRa
-
w6� aa=
NAPw�a
� RmoJ6=Q ,, � mmm
Omow � � � �✓ ew.S:
Z�tu¢inou�io> �' BmBBem
G cAll
-
VG
> - uF0
u _ t�a�xoa z00 ¢o
¢¢O
QOd
wpm
O
NOd� a
00�
��OO¢o
tlU
�o�no Dtiw -

I Z0MaLAIaAO 1J010I,1
dOYp -
sQn�x3�Q�3i� '
eutiozL'D u}zoN ' f}unoD pueizaquinD
b'H` 9T w ,�,,• sou?MezQ pzoaaN a}?g uo?}e$?}?y� puO�I ii?Y�I XaIPnQ 7707
S
o
SS
S
SI
S
Si S
S
S
Sao
9 S
o
z
g9a
q�gWo
a
eQ€g
00
oM
p�m�0
¢�uwwi U�Q6 /
a owoQg
m�m
I
I
I
I
I
M/ll
ooM o d�oaao
� o
Jlir _
I J
z
00
Qom

"FJOId puL, trey uieaz}S
r
m Px n� �, :«: °�'a a a�' >jaasJ atipa,)
SQ; V4jTI Al ? 0
;\ euliozL� u}zoN 'XiunoD pueizaquinD
sou?MezQ pzoaaX a}?g uo?}e$?}?W puOd ii?W XaIPnQ --- 9Tlob
2 �6
\
\
\
ti
Ri J
b
r sor o
as
oh �
Q�.
� o
Y
ar �r
0
L
104
A of ,
XB I
ICT

w=zy Ali
K�d
®®
a_0
,gig
PUI IO.' L'D �;o % un o pu pp qenD
d "e'U 2mA 7Gm7$I1W PuOd @wXal pno
,
_« ,
.
73ia" �^
� aIS _ -
/
- -
^ \
0

at!JO'd puL, trey ulsaz}S
r
>jaasD atipa,)
SQN V'I Q'I3I Al ? 0
;\ eUIIO.' ?D 41-TON 'XiunoD puppaquinD
s2utMezQ paoaaN a}tS uOPL2141W puOd II?W XaIpnQ --- 9T-
=Th
i t H1S - 3NIl kJl yw o° ;.

at!JO'd puL, trey ulsaz}S
r
>jaasD atipa,)
SQN V'I Q'I3I Al ? 0
;\ eUIIO.' ?D 41-TON 'XiunoD puppaquinD
s2utMezQ paoaaN a}tS not}e2I}1W puOd II?W XaIpnQ --- 9T-
00
oz
\ 92
Fly
alp
,I
�o
I87
1
56
I
v
Q: I
-r
S
IC)
I I
I
I I
Ui_ti
I
,.�k2itid 15.

at!JO'd puL, trey ulsaz}S
r
>jaasD atipa,)
SQN V'I Cl -I Al
;\ eUIIO.' ?D 41-TON 'XiunoD puppaquinD
s2utMezQ paoaaN a}tS not}e2I}1W puOd 111W XaIpnQ --- 9T-
00
oa
�6
N

at!JO'd puL, trey ulsaz}S
r
>palD jupaD
SQN V'I Cl -I Al ? 0
;\ eUIIO.' ?D 41-TON 'XiunoD puppaquinD
s2utMezQ paoaaN a}tS not}e2I}1W puOd 111W XaIpnQ --o- 9T-
00
oa
�6
N
I I A o 0
��_ t
�-
I
V
16 1 1
DIA
Y
I o
Y
u
J
l.J�{
0 -
T/oOT g
`DOT
O
A'O5
OS+OZT H1S-3N17 t+
S
�
0

ajiJoxd puL, trey ulsaz}S
r
>jaasD atipa,)
SQN V'I Cl -I Al ? 0
;\ eUIIO.' ?D 41-10N 'XiunoD puppaquinD
s2utMezQ paoaaM a}tS not}e2I}1W puOd 111W XaIpnQ --- 9T-
- o
o7 oc�
-
Zl �

ajiJoxd puL, trey ulsaz}S
r
>jaasD atipa,)
SQN V'I Cl -I Al ? 0
;\ eUIIO.' ?D 41-TON 'XiunoD puppaquinD
s2utMezQ paoaaN a}tS not}e2I}1W puOd 111W XaIpnQ --- 9T-
00
oa
o I

xa11JOld
«gym a n� �� :«:
v
puL, tmjd uieaz}S
°�'a a a�'
>jaasD at?pa,)
SQ; V4jTI Al
;\
a,H,,,
euljoze� u}zoN 'XiunoD puelzaquinD
00
s2utMeJU pzoaaX a}tS not}e2141 I puOd II?W XaIpnQ
-709, 7 _ w
00
oa
I
0
a
O
LOB
�8w Y
I
'. F
too I ' I , a
��Vv off. A 6
\

"FJOId puL, trey uieaz}S
r
«gym Px n� �, :«: °�'a a a�' >jaasD atipa,) 011
SQ; V4jTI Al ? 0
;\ euliozL'D u}zoN 'XiunoD pueizaqulnD
sou?MezQ pzoaaX a}?g uo?}e$?}?W puOd ii?W XaIPnQ --- 9T_
00
oa
m �
j�
r�
<I
jti
i 1

at!JO'd puL, trey ulsaz}S L
r
>jaasD atipa,)
SQN V'I Cl -I Al ? 0
;\ eUIIO.' ?D 41-TON 'XiunoD puppaquinD
s2utMezQ paoaaN a}tS not}e2I}1W puOd 111W XaIpnQ --- 9T-
00
oa
�6

at!JO'd puL, trey ulsaz}S
r
>laasD atipa,)
S Cl [♦I V 'I Cl -I Al ? 0
;\ eUIIO.' ?D 41-TON 'XiunoD puppaquinD
s2utMezQ paoaaN a}tS not}e2I}1W puOd 111W XaIpnQ --- 9T-
00
oa
�6
_0£+8bZ d15 - 3NIl H
—'-,J
s+
A
A
a
--
-`
_ 4-ee--4
----------- I
_
♦
r
— -� ,. —o ++bbZ
d1S - 3NIl
HJ1tlW-Lz�
%

at!JO'd puL, tmjd ulsaz}S
r
•��m � x n� �, :«: °�'a a a�' >jaasD at?pa,)
SQN V'I Cl -I Al ? 0
;\ eUIIO.' ?D 41-TON 'XiunoD puppaquinD
s2utMezQ paoaaN a}tS not}e2I}1W puOd 111W XaIpnQ 77091- -
00
oa
�6

alyox� pue ULId meax}S
SQN V'I Q'I Ir41 ?show =
;- eutiort;D 41-TON ' f}uno� pueizaquin�
a'H" 9, w sou?MezQ pzoaaN a}?g uo?}e$?}?Y\I puO�I ii?Y\I XaIPnQ -707 -
�o
00
0
Q
h
/
/ a
�y0
p0
NPj

7�PUL za _,114S §{.{
® ' s
zyAli
/Pul t 4;o % o qe
7 ' du',"eJU 2mA 7Gm7$I1W PuOd @wXajpno -707 9T. ©
�
e
i
a",
7
, y--y
'OD J
EDT
2�#
�'j \ ,

a�yox� pue ULId meax}S .
SQN V'I Q'I IAl ?show =
;- eutiort;D 41-TON ' f}uno� pueizaquin�
sou?MezQ pzoaaN a}?g uo?}e$?}?W puOd ii?W XaIPnQ -707 9,-
ap
00
0 0 ;gym po�
o12
I
w
�
zux'
wog
zoa
off-
o0
po
°o A1
�
�
l
M
9

f. �.jYj✓✓ uL'IJ 2IIL}LTL'ICI
S Cl;V4"jT I Al
;\ euliort?D ti}zoN ' f}unoD pugiaquinD
sou?MeaQ paoaaN a}?g uo?4e2?;?W puOd ii?W XaIpnQ
i
I
I
I
i

APPENDIX F. REVISED WETLAND IMPACTS MEMO - FEBRUARY 5, 2021

WILDLAND5
FNC:JNFFRIN(7
February 5, 2021
Jordan Jessop
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Subject: Action ID No. SAW-2016-02160
Wildlands Cape Fear 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site
Revised Wetland Impacts
Dear Mr. Jessop,
This letter is in reference to the Dudley Mill Pond Mitigation Site (Site), part of the Wildlands Cape Fear
05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The 47-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 outline changes that were made to the design and subsequent
changes to wetland impacts at the Site. There were no changes to stream and open water impacts.
The original pre -construction notification (PCN) form was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineering (USACE) on June 4, 2020 seeking approval for the Section 404 permit for impacts to streams
and wetlands. The 401 and 404 permits were approved on August 3, 2020 and July 17, 2020,
respectively. The PCN documented a total wetland impact area of 9.493 ac. Impacts were due to
channel relocation, floodplain grading, haul roads, and spoil areas. Wetland impacts mostly occurred
along Cedar Creek Reach 2 where a priority 2 stream restoration approach was proposed for
approximately 2,200 linear feet (LF). This approach involved gradually dropping the stream through an
old pond and grading out a new floodplain where a failed dam used to be.
The revised design splits Cedar Creek Reach 2 in two separate reaches with new channel dimensions and
varying restoration approaches. Reach 2 will begin at the confluence of Cedar Creek and T2 and gently
meander through the old pond bed with an average slope of 0.2%. A priority 1 restoration approach
through the reach will allow the stream to remain hydrologically connected to the existing floodplain
and wetlands while also minimizing earthwork in sandy soils at the cut depth. Reach 3 will begin
approximately 550 LF upstream of the dam and will have a slightly steeper slope of 1%. This short reach
was designed with a priority 2 restoration approach where a new floodplain will be graded through the
old dam to allow the reach to reconnect with Cedar Creek downstream. Shortening the priority 2 section
by almost 1,500 LF in the revised design has significantly reduced the amount of earthwork and limited
the overall total disturbance to natural systems on the Site. The updated channel dimensions and
grading can be found in the revised plans attached to this letter.
In addition to stream design changes, a temporary channel diversion system is proposed along Reaches
2 and 3 during construction, instead of a pump around system. This will allow the 6.5 square mile stream
to be built in the dry and prevent damage to the newly built stream during construction should there be
severe storm events. The location of the channel diversion can be found in the revised plans.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

A reduction in the floodplain grading footprint eliminated the need for one of the two originally
proposed spoil areas, therefore reducing both permanent and temporary wetland impacts. Table 1
below compares the original and revised temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands at the Site and
Table 2 itemizes the revised wetland impacts. All proposed stream, wetland, and open water impacts
are displayed in Figure 1. There were no changes to stream and open water impacts, so those impacts
have not been provided int the tables below.
Table 1. Wetland Impacts Comparison Table
Design
Temporary Impacts (ac)
Permanent Impacts (ac)
Total Wetland Impacts (ac)
Original
7.280
2.216
9.496
Revised
5.288
2.102
7.390
Difference
-1.991
-0.114
-2.106
Table 2. Revised Wetland Impacts
Impact
Type of
Wetland
Type of
Impact
Site
Reason for Impact
Forested
Type
Wetland
Name
Jurisdiction
Area (ac)
W1
Access Path
T
Floodplain Pool
A
Yes
Both
0.054
W2
Haul Road
T
Floodplain Pool
B
Yes
Both
0.002
Access Path/Floodplain
W3
T
Floodplain Pool
C
Yes
Both
0.061
Grading
W4
Channel Relocation
P
Floodplain Pool
C
Yes
Both
0.017
W5
Channel Relocation
P
NA
Linear
Yes
Both
0.009
Conveyance
W6
Floodplain Grading
T
Riverine Swamp
E
Yes
Both
0.008
Forest
Riverine Swamp
W7
Channel Relocation
P
E
Yes
Both
0.028
Forest
Floodplainding/Haul
Riverine Swamp
W8
T
F
Yes
Both
0.379
Road
W9
Channel Relocation
P
Riverine Swamp
F
Yes
Both
0.641
Forest
W10
Floodplain Grading
T
Riverine Swamp
G
Yes
Both
0.033
Forest
W11
Channel Relocation
P
Riverine Swamp
G
Yes
Both
0.031
Forest
Channel Diversion/Haul
Riverine Swamp
W12
T
H
Yes
Both
2.282
Road/Floodplain Grading
Forest
Riverine Swamp
W13
Channel Relocation
P
H
Yes
Both
0.676
Forest
Staging Area/Haul
W14
Road/Floodplain
T
Riverine Swamp
I
Yes
Both
2.469
Grading/Channel Diversion
Forest
W15
Channel Relocation
P
Riverine Swamp
I
Yes
Both
0.700
Forest
Total Temporary Impacts
5.288
Total Permanent Impacts
2.102
Total Wetland Impact
7.390
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

With the re -design, there is a loss of 20.64 stream credits in comparison to the Final Mitigation Plan. Table
3 shows a comparison of credits. All Credit loss is in stream length on Cedar Creek (initially Reach 2, now
Reaches 2 and 3). A copy of the most up to date Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator is
attached.
Table 3. Stream Credit Comparison Table
Total Baseline
Credit Loss in Buffer
Additional Buffer
Total Credit
Original
6,623.79
-134.89
1,018.99
7,507.89
Revised
6,556.37
-79.14
1,010.02
7,487.25
Difference
-20.64
With this letter, we are seeking a permit modification to the 401 and 404 should one be required by USACE
and NCDWR based on these design updates. Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x106 if you have any
questions.
Thank you,
Angela Allen
Project Manager
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

r
S1 - Relocation
Wetland D
/ Linear Eonveyance
W4-Channel -
Relocation
W3-Floodplain /W7-Channel ocation
Grading
Wetland c W6 -Floodplain Grading
W3-Access Path - - T1 Wetland
I
_ YVetla";nd B'f '� S2-Relocation r.>
W2 - Haul Road
W9-Channel Relocation
W8-Haul Roa W8 - Floodplain Grading
OA
' �
i ," -•.` W3 Access Path
Wetland F
,.�. wetlandA �#j Y W8- Floodplain
Grading W9-Channel
q
u:%A WT,Relocation
.v
Beaver lmp�oundment WetlandG
W10-Floodplain
Grading
st
tee, f
- -': - W14-Haul Road � ��> T2I
W11-Channe
Wetland 1 01 - Dewatering Relocation +1 -
W15-Channel �•�� . 1
Relocation W12 - Floodplain
Grading W13-Channel
l
W12 - Haul Road Relocation
II S3 - Reloca i
e
'WI
W13-Channel
Relocation
W14-Stagin-
I Area W12 -Channel '
Diversion
4
Wetland L 1 --
W14-Ha-
TI ► I
W14 - FI • \ WetlanPd H -
G ra
W14-Ch
�r i1
f Divers! t, y
ri ,o k..
rial Photography `F i .. ... `' tl�;.. . Fj • 'si i y? .. _

E
a
\ )
@� w k —}&m
/(§)\k(((((-
}\�
!!,&' s § !§§!!leeeeea