20170922 Ver 1_Mac's-Screech Owl- RES.July 25, 2017_20170725

Screech Owl (RES) Field Notes- July 25, 2017
DWR #-20170922
COE-Todd, Kim
WRC- Travis
RES- Daniel, Brad
DMS- Melonie, Lindsay, Jeff S.
Soil Consultant -George Lankford
1. Reaches G2 and Gla proposed as Ell and the uplift would be minimal. This is a classic example
of the proposed Ell which does virtually nothing from an ecological uplift standpoint.
2. Some comments from Todd regarding upper reach of G2 as being ephemeral, however, I think it
would be ok to include, except not sure about appropriate credit as yet.
3. Planting plan did call for natural recruitment, that is why you need to read what they propose...
4. Area fenced, no cattle in stream. Daniel they fenced out "recently", seems longer...
5. Large wetland ok, talked about 8-10% on slope and 10-12% lower down
6. Proposed wetland at confluence of G3 and Gla was preservation not restoration, wetland above
confluence that went out in field may be some enhancement, wetland in upper portion of G3
along EI ok for restoration
7. Todd's notes: RES to submit modified basic concept plan for review and to justify proposed
ratios. Will probably ask for 5:1 on all E2 reaches but this would be too high in my opinion due to
current conditions which are relatively high functioning.
8. IRT needs to address the Ell issue.
9. Ell proposed here is not 2.5:1, agree with Todd's notes #7