20200021 Ver 1_field notes, January 21, 2020_20200121

DIMS post contract site visit
Field notes for Bull Shute site (DWR # 20200021), Randolph County
Visit on January 21, 2020
Axiom/Clearwater
Axiom -Grant L., Keenan J.
Clearwater- Kevin Yeats
DMS- Paul W., Matthew, Kirsten, Casey
COE-Kim, Todd
DWR- Erin, Mac (these are Mac's notes)
W RC- Travis
Started on Upper UT1 and UT2- they are capturing above the proposed stream credit. For upper UT1
there will be some question of flow as well as they probably need to do more channel work than E2. For
upper UT2 there was a discussion of the dam and whether to remove and where the stream started.
The channel did lose flow before it reached the confluence of UT1 (and there had been two inches of
rain in the prior 2 days). We prefer that the area is left in the easement, preferably with the pond
removed. The following three reaches can be defined by where they are split due to the crossings.
The first uppermost UT1 section, just below confluence of UT2 the channel showed some better
bedform and was not incised. One side of the buffer was good, the other basically in pasture/single
tree. They proposed to move it out into the field. I was somewhat hesitant about this however, due to
connecting to the lower reach it will probably be beneficial to keep as R.
"Middle" and "bottom" lower UT1 sections showed more incision and more stream bank instability. Ok
for R.
Walked up UT4- proposed as R, ok
Went up a short way on UT3 (bull shute area) looked at stream and proposed wetland area. Will need to
bring stream up some to affect wetland hydrology, the area was narrow and wooded. Stream ok for R,
wetlands will be a question of what the JD shows.
Bottom of UT4-proposed as R, ok
Discussed UT4C some, the need for a stream gauge was mentioned. Grant did not think gauges were
need for Enhancement, said it would not be cost effective. IRT maintained, if a channel is proposing
stream credit and IRT believes there is a risk for flow then we can require a gauge. Grant may remove
from project since they have some extra credit.

Discussed upper UT4 wetlands proposed as enhancement. IRT thought these wetlands should be
rehabilitation. These streams could be more wetland like than stream -like, watch for loss of channel
during monitoring.
Then crossed hill over to upper UT3- upper UT3 with wetlands ok, a lot of cattle impact. Reach below
wetlands and above crossing should probably be more like 7.5:1 than 10:1 given actions proposed.