20120774 Ver 1_Jacobs Ladder Meeting Notes 2019_20190611

Mitigation Site Meeting Notes
Date: April 15, 2019
Project Name: Jacob's Ladder
Prepared By: Kim Browning, USACE
Type of Site: NCDMS Stream Site
Meeting Type: Year 5 Monitoring Review
Sponsor/Provider: KCI
USACE AID: SAW -2012-01007
County: Rowan *Denotes County w/ 30 -foot Buffer
NCDWR ID:
HUC and Basin: Yadkin - 03040105
Weather:
Coordinates: 35.5530 °N -80.6531 °W
Attendees:
USACE: Todd Tugwell, Kim Browning
NCDWR: Mac Haupt, Erin Davis
NCDMS: Melonie Allen,
Project Review Checklist - (provide additional detail in notes section on next page)
General Site Issues/Concerns:
❑
Vegetation Composition or Density
❑
Inappropriate Credit Ratio Proposed
❑
Planted Stem Vigor (due to soil, browsing)
❑
JD Needed to Confirm Approach
❑
Invasive/Exotic Species
❑
Continuity/Fragmentation
❑
Beaver/Feral Hogs (management plan)
❑
Easement Issues (existing farm, CE, NRCS funding)
❑
Soil (manipulation, compaction, fertility)
❑
Easement Encroachments (livestock, clearing)
❑
Livestock Present/Evidence of Livestock Access
❑
Easement Marking/Signage
❑
Crossings or Utility Lines
❑
Insufficient Project Size
❑
BMPs or Alternate Approaches
❑
Adjacent Property Owner
❑
Fencing Issues or Fencing Needed
❑
T&E Species
❑
Ponds Within Project Area
❑
Section 106 (historic listing/tribal issues)
Stream Issues/Concerns:
❑
Incised/Entrenched
❑
Insufficient Stream Drainage Area
❑
Headcuts Present/Forming
0
Insufficient Hydrology (if raising channel bed)
❑
Stream Structures Failing/Piping
❑
Vegetation in Channel (stream vs wetland)
0
Excess Sediment/Aggradation
❑
Flow Obstructions (undersized pipes, fords)
❑
Cross -Sections Missing/Indicate Problems
❑
Substrate Concerns (embeddedness, particle size)
❑
Bank Instability/Failure
❑
Live Stakes Absent/Failing
❑
Bench Rills/Erosion (constructed bench or P2 valley)
❑
Evidence of Water Quality Issues
❑
Excess Sinuosity (lack of flow)
❑
In -stream Habitat Weak/Missing
❑
Braided/Anabranch Channel
❑
Stream Buffer Width Inadequate
Wetland Issues/Concerns:
❑
Evidence of Excessive Hydrology
❑
Missing Gauge Data (preconstruction or monitoring)
❑
Evidence of Insufficient Hydrology
❑
Gauge Location/Placement
❑
Hydric Soil Indicators/Soil Series
❑
Gauge Maintenance
❑
Surface Roughness or Bedding
❑
Drainage Ditches/Swales Present
❑
Channel Relocation/Riparian Connectivity
❑
Field Tiles/Subsurface Drainage
❑
Hydroperiod Length or Start/Stop Date
❑
Continued Ag Use Adjacent to Wetland
Page 1 of 2

Date: April 15, 2019 Project Name: Jacob's Ladder
Notes, Sketch, Action Items, etc.:
OFFICE REVIEW:
**DMS requested a site visit
Credits: 523.1 SMU from 2018 + 784.65 SMU from 2019 = 1307.75 requested (The Final Mit Plan 4953 SMUs and As -
Built 5231 SMUs--difference is due to T2 being switched from EI to R, approved by IRT). Total credits released to date
are 3138.6
Streams: A drainage tile was located on T2 and reported to Jeff Horton
-Table 5 shows Riffle condition and meander pool condition (depth and length) concerns on both reaches.
-XS-5 shows some downcutting (BHR 1.4, Bankful W/D Ratio went from 13.3 MYO to 8.3 MY5)
-XS-6 and 7 shows some aggradation. (XS -7 Bankful W/D Ratio went from 14.1 to 42.7)??
-XS-9 pool shows aggradation
My field notes from May 2018:
J Ladder MY4 out of 5. Streams T1 and T2 appear to have filled with sediment problem with pool depth and spacing.
1.6 ac low stem density on site border. XS5 onT1 looks like it has incised 1 foot. Have fescue on site but haven't
treated. T1 has a dry section they want IRT to check out.
XS5 looked ok. No visual incision. T1 is dry, they have a camera on upper 1/3. They left a small wetland pocket per
Todd's recommendation. (Verify this) Flow above the wetland. Veg is not as good on this reach, but was replanted 2
weeks ago, about 100 trees. Total of 250 trees on this site. Replant area looks good on other Trib. Aggrading area still
had flow and looked stable.
Ok to release except HOLD credits in bottom of T1 A below wetland. Put a camera to document flow this last year for
close out. Wait to get updated ledger from Adam. I asked them to document the wetland mid channel because it's not in
the plan. Mac suggested a possible reduced ratio, 2:1, on that reach. I commented that no flow would likely result in no
credit for that area, unless they can provide evidence with cameras.
11 June 2019 Field Notes:
UT1 A reach we agreed to extend E1 down through pond to first structure below the pond at a 1.5 to 1 ratio.
The rest of UT 1 looks very stable and high functioning.
UT2 has a high load of course sediment throughout the reach but it is from off site and appears to be passing through
the site successfully without causing problems.
Very few invasives noted.
Closeout with credit adjustment for UT1 A
Credit Release/Site Closeout Information (for monitoring or closeout reviews only)
Stream Credits
Wetland Credits
Warm Cool Cold
Riparian Riverine Riparian Non-Riverine Non -Riparian Coastal
Requested
1307.75
Approved*
TBD
Result of Monitoring Report or Closeout Review Close Out Approved
Project Manager Signature
N\J-
Date
June 11, 2019
*The updated credit ledger for the project/which includes this release, must be approved by the Project Manager.
Page 2 of 2 Form Updated 03/20/2019