20201841 Ver 1_Adjacent Property Owner Labels_20210201

Strickland, Bev
From: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 5:02 PM
To: Eric Neuhaus
Cc: Reid, Matthew; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B
Subject: [External] RE: Bridgefork Dairy Adjacent Property Owner Labels
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Eric,
Thanks for sending the address labels. I will send you a confirmation email once the PN has been posted. Also, thank you
for the detailed notes from the site visit. Some additional comments are listed below. Please reach out if you have any
questions or concerns.
19. The proposed best management practice (BMP) at the upstream extent of UT4A was noted. Wildlands will
confirm the jurisdictional stream call location to ensure the extent/length of the BMP and develop a design to
promote treatment from adjacent terraced agricultural fields. Please note Wildlands discussed creating a BMP
that held water (stormwater/wetland type approach); IRT requests Wildlands to provide a detailed summary of
the BMP approach in the MP.
• 21. The group returned to Bridgefork Creek and continued downstream. The Reach 2/Reach 3 break,
associated crossing 7 location, and existing bedrock grade control features were observed and
generally it was agreed that this location was appropriate for the crossing and corresponding reach
break. Wildlands proposed a ford crossing for horse farm. Todd stated that it may not be necessary
because it is a recreational use (not ag) and also the streambed is bedrock here. Landownerjust wants
the ability to cross. Wildlands would discuss further with the landowner.
• 22. UT5 was proposed as preservation in the proposal at a 5:1 ratio. However, discussions in the field
were that a portion of the reach would likely need to be restored based on an existing headcut and the
associated restoration of Bridgefork Creek Reach 3. Additionally, it was noted that the credit ratio
originally proposed (5:1) for UT5 would need to be increased where no work is being performed on the
stream outside of invasive vegetation management based on the current stream condition. Wildlands
agreed and noted that they would address these issues in the mitigation plan and update the approach
and associated credit ratios based on the discussions in the field. It is anticipated that a very short
downstream section of UT5 will end up as restoration at a 1:1 ratio and upstream of the existing
headcut, the ratio will be evaluated and increased above 5:1 based on the corresponding level of work
and discussion with the IRT. During the site visit IRT noted that this area (145 LF) was not appropriate
for 5:1. Wildlands proposed to drop the credits for the preservation area but requested 10-30 LF of
restoration where they would address a headcut and tie UT5 into Bridgefork Creek. IRT agreed with
this approach but requests a gauge in this area to monitor flow. If Wildlands moves forward with this
approach, IRT requests that this be discussed in the MP.

• UT6/UT6A: DWR requests Wildlands to confirm if fencing will be in this area in the MP.
Ell Section below the second power -line crossing on Reach 2: Todd discussed the option to possibility bench the
left bank (left side- looking upstream) for the length of this section through the power -line break. Right side
steep but overall the section wasn't in horrible condition. Mature veg in this area.
• Wetlands: Some areas of wetland could be expanded. Ultimately this will be driven by the JD, it will also
determine what will be reestablishment and rehabilitation. IRT also discussed with Wildlands the potential to
add wetland pockets after the project has been constructed but also stated it could hold up monitoring by a
year. It was recommended that if Wildlands anticipated an area to be a wetland pocket and wanted to request
credit, to determine the soil type and put in gauges to help monitor- this will help determine if wetland is
possible and the mitigation type. If additional wetlands are requested an amendment to the MP would be
required.
• Please note that IRT prefers gauges to be installed in the upper length of the reach, usually within the first 100
LF depending on the length of the reach and topography.
• Please note that credit ratios are not approved during the draft review of a site.
Thanks,
Casey
From: Eric Neuhaus <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 11:23 AM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)<[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Bridgefork Dairy Adjacent Property Owner Labels
Casey,
In the field at the Post -Contract IRT walk for Bridgefork Dairy you had requested I send the adjacent property owner
list/address labels for the project. They are attached. Let me know if you have questions or comments on these.
Thanks!
Eric Neuhaus, PE I Water Resources Engineer
0:828.774.5547 x105 M:
865.207.8835
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806