20150414 Ver 1_IRT Field Review Memo - Sandy Bridge - 5-26-15_20160510

Memoranda
ENGINEERS ♦ SURVEYORS ♦ SCIENTISTS ♦ CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
KCILANDMARK CENTER II, SUITE 220 ♦ 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD ♦ RALEIGH, NC 27609 ♦ 919-783-9214 ♦ (FAX) 919-783-9266
TO: Harry Tsomides, NC DMS, PM
Todd Tugwell, USACE
FROM: Tim Morris, KCI
DATE: May 27, 2015
SUBJECT: Sandy Bridge Farm
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
IRT Site Review Meeting
KCI Project Number: 20157877
EEP Contract Number: 96920
Present:
IRT: Andrea Leslie (NCWRC), Todd Tugwell (USACE), Todd Bowers (EPA), Zan Price
(NCDWR), Kevin Barnett (NCDWR), Tim Fox (NCDWR), Marella Buncick (USFWS), and
Ginny Baker (NCDWR)
NCDMS: Harry Tsomides and Paul Wiesner
Mitigation Provider (KCI): Steven Stokes, Tim Morris, Joe Pfeiffer, and Kristin Knight -Meng
Meeting Notes:
- Todd Tugwell recommended installing wetland gauges in the stream buffer (both pre and
post -restoration) to monitor for potential wetland restoration or creation credit. The
mitigation plan will propose the well monitoring network including wells located within
the stream buffer.
- KCI needs to demonstrate the lack of hydrology in the drained hydric soils.
- Todd Tugwell stated that documentation should be received from the airport and/or the
FAA indicating that they are ok with the mitigation site and there is no conflict with the
airport. Steve Stokes said that he had contacted them over the phone and they said they
did not foresee any issues with birds since the elevation of the mitigation site is much
lower than their runway. Paul Wiesner suggested including documentation from the
airport in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) material.

Memorandum
Page 2 of 2
May 27, 2015
- Todd Tugwell brought up the risk of Chewacla soils. Many USACE project managers
may not consider wetlands with Chewacla to be jurisdictional. Hydrology monitoring,
ideally with transects, would cover some of this risk. A 10% hydroperiod is proposed for
Sandy Bridge.
- William Elliott is the county project manager for USACE and should be brought out to
review the site and approve the wetland delineation with a formal JD.
- Todd Tugwell asked if there were any records of tile drains. Tile drains were noted in the
channel near the bottom of the wetland area although it was unclear if they were
functioning. If tiles are uncovered during construction they will be removed and/or
plugged. Paul Wiesner mentioned that on a nearby site in the same county they'd looked
for NRCS drainage records and hadn't found any.
- Todd Tugwell questioned why the stream was located in an area with non -hydric soils.
KCI explained that the soils in this area did contain redox features and additional soil
analysis post proposal indicated that a there was restoration potential within the stream
buffer that was not shown on the proposal schematics. The location of the stream is also
generally supported by the LIDAR topography as shown in the proposal. The group
looked at a soil pit located along the stream corridor and noted the redox features
(mottles and manganese masses) within the soil profile.
- Todd Tugwell mentioned the potential of BMP credits to treat incoming ditch flow; these
structures would ideally be outside of the 50' buffer to receive credit. KCI would
consider the use of BMP's in design and offered a potential location option during the
meeting.
- Todd Tugwell recommended finding a reference wetland with similar soils to the Sandy
Bridge Site.