ࡱ>    >+ !"#$%&'()*M=-./0123456789:;<@ABCDEFGHIJKLRNOPUST_VWXYZ[\^a`fbcdepghijklmnoqrstuvwxyRoot Entry `&n ITEM000  F0xD`&n1TableQbCompObjj՜.+,0 hp|   8HA  Title  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q%F\Object F4dMicrosoft Word DocumentD:\Youngs Bay final data\Stream reports\Lewis and Clark Tribs\Barrett Creek Report.docWordDocument"2SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8Oh+'0h   $ 0 <HPX`ssBenenNormal Todd Boswello2ddMicrosoft Word 10.0@Ik@_D}@@TYm5@ X'bjbj22 "2XXXh h h h t  [ ] ] ] ] ] ] $RH       "  [  [  ; ; ࠍh 3 .; [ 0 ; ba "b; D,b; > ,  $* dh h  Upper Nehalem Watershed Habitat Assessment Stream Report STREAM: Fall Creek (near Big Eddy park) SUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River DATES: February 27, 2006 SURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlin REPORT PREPARED BY: Ben Walczak GENE CONSERVATION GROUP: 1-NC UTM COORDINATES: Start 0487021 E & 5086101 N End 0485342 E & 5086840 N USGS MAPS: Pittsburg Creek GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The Fall Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with the Nehalem River and extends 1,977 meters. Three reaches were designated based on: Land use and valley form. In the first reach Scour Pools (13%) and Riffles (76%) dominated the habitat, while Sand (18%), Gravel (19%), and Bedrock (54%) were the dominant substrate types. In the second reach Dammed/backwater pools (13%), Scour pools (16%) and Riffles (71%) dominated the habitat, while Sand (26%), Gravel (29%), and Bedrock (34%) were the dominant substrate types. Dammed and backwater pools (20%), Scour pools (16%), and Riffles (62%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (19%), Sand (34%), Gravel (32%), and Bedrock (15%) were the dominant substrate types. The survey begins at the confluence of the Nehalem River. An ODFW Spawning Survey sign was noted. The entire survey has marginal gravel, that is not solid rock but rather pea sized clay stone with long stretches of bedrock. There is a previous ODFW habitat project completed in the late 1990s. The habitat project has some minor successes but most areas have created no pools, off channel areas, or collected any gravel. All plantings have had poor overall survival due to a lack of follow up maintenance. REACH DESCRIPTIONS: REACH 1: Length 221 meters. The channel is constrained by moderate hillslopes in a narrow valley. The average valley width index is 1.5. Land use for the reach is second growth timber. A sub dominant land use of young timber was also observed. The average unit gradient is 2.9%. The channel characteristics include: primary 221m and secondary 0m. One pool was greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 4.5 deep pools per 1 kilometer of primary stream length. There were two key pieces of LWD, which averages to 0.9 pieces per 100m of primary channel. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of deciduous ranging from 15 30 cm dbh, with some conifers 15 30 cm dbh. This survey begins at the confluence with the Nehalem River where there is a 1.6m high step over bedrock. A logging road parallels the stream on the left bank. About halfway through the short reach there is a natural gas pipeline that crosses the creek. Most of the substrate in the reach has been scoured to bedrock. In addition, there are plantings along the terraces, which are unmaintained, and many of them are dead. Also, the water was very silted and muddy, which was caused by a recent timber harvest in reach 2. Reach 1 ended at a shotgun culvert crossing under OBlack mainline, at a change in valley width index. There is poor LWD project potential, but good access for industrial equipment. The narrow valley width reduces the opportunities for a future LWD placement project. The riparian has a good mix of conifers. So, a planting project is not necessary. REACH 2: Length 1,099 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 3.1. Land use for the reach is timber harvest with a secondary land use of second growth timber. The average unit gradient is 1.3%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,099m and secondary 59m. Zero pools were greater than 1 meter deep. There were seventeen key pieces of LWD, which averages to 1.5 key pieces per 100m of primary channel. The vegetation was based on two transects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of deciduous ranging from 15 30 cm dbh, with some conifers 30 50 cm dbh. Reach 2 begins just above the OBlack mainline culvert crossing as the valley widens. This is also the start of a 1998 habitat project and an ODFW habitat survey. In addition, there is an active timber harvest just above the road on the right hillslope. Many of the units are still scoured to bedrock, although the habitat logs are trapping a small amount of gravel. Moreover, there were a number of blown out beaver dams that were constructed on the habitat logs as well, that appeared to have been blown out during the recent winter flows. In addition, there are a lot of the habitat logs that have been broken as a result of the high flows. Halfway through the reach there is a ODFW habitat survey sign (end point) at a spring seep on the right. The previous habitat project continues above this point with more broken habitat logs. There was some fresh beaver activity in some of the units. The first nice pool that has been created by the habitat logs is located about halfway through the reach but most of the habitat logs have been broken or remain over the active channel. Only one secondary channel has been created as a result of the LWD placement project. In addition, most of the plantings have died leading to the suggestion that action be taken to ensure the survival of the remaining plantings. Also as a result of current timber harvest some of the trees in the buffer below the road have blown down. The active timber harvest ended in the last quarter of Reach 2, but there was still a past timber harvest area on the hillslope above the road. Reach 2 ended at a change in valley width index. There is good LWD project potential with good access for industrial equipment. The previous project appeared to use smaller logs (.3m) and have many broken logs scattered throughout. A future project focusing on using larger diameter logs should be beneficial for creating off-channel habitats. The recent timber harvest completed in 2006 further degrades this coho bearing stream. The stream buffer on the right is mostly alders, but the left has a mix of conifers. So, a planting project was not recommended, but revisiting the previous planting is needed to improve survival. REACH 3: Length 657 meters. The channel is constrained by moderate hillslopes in a narrow valley. The average valley width index is 2.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, a sub dominant land use was observed to be partial cut timber. The average unit gradient is 1.3%. The channel characteristics include: primary 657m and secondary 20m. One pool was greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 1.5 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were eleven key pieces of LWD, which averages to 1.7 key pieces per 100m of primary stream channel. The vegetation was based on one transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of deciduous ranging from 15 30 cm dbh, with some conifers 3 30 cm dbh. Reach 3 began at a reduction in valley width index above an old road crossing with new plantings. The habitat project ended below the start of the reach but the plantings continued into the reach. There was one beaver dam that did not blow out during recent high flows, but above this dam there were a few 1.5-2.0m high blown out dams that are now scoured to bedrock. There were only a few small pockets of decent spawning gravel in this reach. The survey ended at a tributary junction on the left, which had more flow than Fall Creek, just above another culvert crossing under OBlack mainline and an ODFW spawning survey end point. There is poor LWD project potential, but good access for industrial equipment. The narrow valley width reduced future project opportunities. The riparian has a mix of conifers and deciduous with the plantings continued into this reach. So, a planting project was not recommended in reach 3, but revisiting the previous planting is needed to improve survival. CX'h[EhW5CJ\hW/BCmn  H i j ~  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!Ole 5OlePres000,L!ITEM000ODS ITEM000FMT;lX !   ."System8$r0E -@Times New Roman-  2 Z -- 2  , 2 , , 2 X ,@Times New Roman-J2 *Upper Nehalem Watershed Habitat AssessmentTAA44T4A:!4`u;'44.A3A[;@!&;'T--4..`4A' 2  > 2 e , 2 e, , 2 eX , 2 e , 2 e ,2 e Stream ReportA'44;`T4A;4' 2 e > 2  ?-G2 _(STREAM: Fall Creek (near Big Eddy park)8=C=HY7,C!,,2!3,,!B1=2402,!3" 2 _  2 _ - 2  -82 ESUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River8HBBH9 HH22,!H,3,,NC2,! 2 E . 2  -22 +DATES: February 27, 2006HH==87,2!3,#0223222 2 + - 2  -L2 +SURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlinl8HCH=HCC=_=221B2'H,Y,!2Z-<,3222 2 ^ - 2  -;2  REPORT PREPARED BY: Ben WalczakC=8HC=8C<8HC=HBHB,2_,,-,2 2  . 2 j -2 GENE CO:H=H=CH%2 NSERVATION GROUP:SH8=CHH> IHHCHH8 2  ' 2 12 2 -!2 /NCHC 2  - 2 P -#2 UTM COORDINATES:H=YCHHCI HH==8 2  2 Start 8,! 2 2.2  0487021 E & 5086101 N 2222222=M2232222H 2   - 2 6 , 2 6, , 2 6X , 2 6 ,2 6End =22 2 6j2.2 6 0485342 E & 5086840 N 2222222=M2232222H 2 6  - 2  -42  USGS MAPS: Pittsburg CreeklH8H8YH888'22!1C!,,2 2   . 2  -)2  GENERAL DESCRIPTION:H=H=CI<H=8CD8>!HH 2   - 2 u  - 2  ,2 ,OThe Fall Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with the Nehalem =2,7,C!-,2H2,!3-2,'2!2-03-12',',22!2,2-,H22,H,3,,N(2 [ River and extends 1:C2,!,22,3,22'2p2 [ C,977 meters. Three reaches were designated based on: Land use and c222N,,!'=2!-,!-,,3,'I,!,2,'13,,22,',222<,222(,,222 Svalley form. In the first reach Scour Pools (13%) and Riffles (76%) dominated the 2,-0!2!N 22,!!'",,,28,22!822'!22T!,22C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,2 A Mhabitat, while Sand (18%), Gravel (19%), and Bedrock (54%) were the dominant m2,2,H2,8,22!22T!H!,3,!22S!,22C,3!2,2!22T!H-!,2,22O2,272 substrate types. In the seconz'22'!,,03,' 22,'-,22_2 d8d reach Dammed/backwater pools (13%), Scour pools (16%) 2!,-,2H,NN,23,-2H,,!222'!22T!8,32!222'!22S!2 ' Uand Riffles (71%) dominated the habitat, while Sand (26%), Gravel (29%), and Bedrock u,22C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,2,2,H2,8-22!22S!H",2,!23S!,22B,3!2,22 Q(34%) were the dominant substrate types. Dammed and backwater pools (20%), Scour o!22S!I,!,2,22N2,2'22'!,,03,'H,NN-2,222,,2I,,!222'!32S!8,22!>2 "pools (16%), and Riffles (62%) dom222'!22S!,22C!!,'!22S!22NY2 4inated the habitat, while Silt/organics (19%), Sand 2,,22,3,3,H2,82!1,2,'"22S!8,22y2 I(34%), Gravel (32%), and Bedrock (15%) were the dominant substrate types.a!22S!H",2,!23S!,32B,2!3,2!22T!H-!,3,22N2,2'22'!,,03,' 2   - 2  -2 fSThe survey begins at the confluence of the Nehalem River. An ODFW Spawning Survey k=2,'2!2.02-12',2,,22!2,2-,2!2,I,2,-NC2,!H2HH7_82-H22182!2.0P2 .sign was noted. The entire survey has margina'12H,'22,2=2,,2!,'2!2.03,'N,"12,M2 W,l gravel, that is not solid rock but rather 1",2,2,'22'22!2,222!,2,!2 LWpea sized clay stone with long stretches of bedrock. There is a previous ODFW habitat 2,,'-,2,.0'22,H3221'!,,3,'2!2,3!2-2=2,!,',3!,222'IH7_2,2,2 Xproject completed in the late 1990s. The habitat project has some minor successes but 2!2,,,2N2,,222,,,2222!'=2,3,2,2!2,,2,''2N,N22!'3,,,'','22C2 2%most areas have created no pools, offN2',!,,'2,3,,",,,222222'2!!P2 2. channel areas, or collected any gravel. All ,2,23,,!-,'2!,2,,,2,401",2-H2 Qplantings have had poor overall survival due to a lack of follow up maintenance. e2,221'2,2,3,2222!22,!,'2!22,22,2,,,22!!22H22N,2,3,2,, 2   . 2  , 2 , -(2 REACH DESCRIPTIONS::C=HCHH=8CD8> HI8 2 J , 2  -2 qREACH 1:C=HCH2 2 q - 2  - 2 W ,2 W,Length :<,312 2 W_2s2 WE 221 meters. The channel is constrained by moderate hillslopes in a 222N,,!'=3,,2,23,',22'!,2,230N22,",,2'22,'2,%2 narrow valley. TS2,!!2H3,.0=w2 Hhe average valley width index is 1.5. Land use for the reach is second 2,,3,",2,2,.0H2222,3'22;,322',!2!3,!-,,2'',,222-NANINANI"System &|-NANIITEM000FMT#3 FhmhmITEM000FMTRich Text Format8?9Ole  OlePres000]L!#3Rich Text Formatat;lXp!9{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;} {\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;} {\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);} {\f386\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f387\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f389\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f390\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f391\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);} {\f392\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f393\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}{\f394\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}{\f395\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255; \red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0; \red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f35\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \ssemihidden \styrsid16729435 Balloon Text;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid3431008\rsid12605206\rsid16729435} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\rsidroot12605206 \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1 \pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5 \pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12605206 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \tab \tab \tab }{\b\fs28\insrsid12605206 Upper Nehalem Watershed Habitat Assessment \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Stream Report \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 STREAM: Fall Creek (near Big Eddy park)\tab \par \par SUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River \par \par DATES: February 27, 2006 \par \par SURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlin \par \par REPORT PREPARED BY: Ben Walczak \par \par GENE CONSERVATION GROUP:\tab 1-NC \par \par UTM COORDINATES:\tab Start \endash 0487021 E & 5086101 N \par \tab \tab \tab \tab End \endash 0485342 E & 5086840 N \par \par USGS MAPS: Pittsburg Creek \par \par GENERAL DESCRIPTION: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \tab The Fall Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with the Nehalem River and extends 1 ,977 meters. Three reaches were designated based on: Land use and valley form. In the first reach Scour Pools (13%) and Riffles (76%) dominated the habitat, while Sand (18%), Gravel (19%), and Bedrock (54%) were the dominant substrate types. In the seco n d reach Dammed/backwater pools (13%), Scour pools (16%) and Riffles (71%) dominated the habitat, while Sand (26%), Gravel (29%), and Bedrock (34%) were the dominant substrate types. Dammed and backwater pools (20%), Scour pools (16%), and Riffles (62%) do minated the habitat, while Silt/organics (19%), Sand (34%), Gravel (32%), and Bedrock (15%) were the dominant substrate types. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 The survey begins at the confluence of the Nehalem River. An ODFW Spawning Survey sign was noted. The entire survey has margina l gravel, that is not solid rock but rather pea sized clay stone with long stretches of bedrock. There is a previous ODFW habitat project completed in the late 1990\rquote s. The habitat project has some minor successes but most areas have created no pools, off channel areas, or collected any gravel. All plantings have had poor overall survival due to a lack of follow up maintenance. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \tab \par REACH DESCRIPTIONS: \par \par REACH 1: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \tab Length \endash 221 meters. The channel is constrained by moderate hillslopes in a narrow valley. T he average valley width index is 1.5. Land use for the reach is second growth timber. A sub dominant land use of young timber was also observed. The average unit gradient is 2.9%. The channel characteristics include: primary 221m and secondary 0m. One pool was greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 4.5 deep pools per 1 kilometer of primary stream length. There were two key pieces of LWD, which averages to 0.9 pieces per 100m of primary channel. The vegetation is based on 1 riparian transect. T he trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of deciduous ranging from 15 \endash 30 cm dbh, with some conifers 15 \endash 30 cm dbh. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\wX'  EF] ^ _ h i g#h#%%Q'R'T'!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!gdWT'U'X'!! 1h/ =!"#$%@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List H@H [E Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJX2 z z z zHTXRidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 This survey begins at the confluence with the Nehalem River where there is a 1.6m high step over bedr ock. A logging road parallels the stream on the left bank. About halfway through the short reach there is a natural gas pipeline that crosses the creek. Most of the substrate in the reach has been scoured to bedrock. In addition, there are plantings a long the terraces, which are unmaintained, and many of them are dead. Also, the water was very silted and muddy, which was caused by a recent timber harvest in reach 2. Reach 1 ended at a shotgun culvert crossing under O\rquote Black mainline, at a change in valley width index. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 There is poor LWD project potential, but good access for industrial equipment. The narrow valley width reduces the opportunities for a future LWD placement project. The riparian has a good mix of conifers. So, a planting project is not necessary. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par REACH 2: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \tab Length \endash 1,099 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley w/BCmnHij~     EF]^_highQRTUZ000000p0000000 000000 00 00000 00 0 00(0 0p00p00p00000000p000000000p0 0000X'T'X'X'KKT]#KK$yyZ~Z=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace ZfjZ ^ ijZ:::n_jZZTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellMark McLaughlinW[E@ӒXP@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma"qhee88!24dHH3H(?WBen Todd Boswellab$%./( ) IK00;lX !   ."System8$r0E -@Times New Roman-  2 Z -- 2  , 2 , , 2 X ,@Times New Roman-J2 *Upper Nehalem Watershed Habitat AssessmentTAA44T4A:!4`u;'44.A3A[;@!&;'T--4..`4A' 2  > 2 e , 2 e, , 2 eX , 2 e , 2 e ,2 e Stream ReportA'44;`T4A;4' 2 e > 2  ?-G2 _(STREAM: Fall Creek (near Big Eddy park)8=C=HY7,C!,,2!3,,!B1=2402,!3" 2 _idth index is 3.1. Land use for the reach is timber harvest with a secondary land use of second growth timber. The average unit gradient is 1.3%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,099m and secondary 59m. Zero pools were greater than 1 meter deep. There were seventeen key pieces of LWD, which averages to 1.5 key pieces per 100m of primary channel. The vegetation w as based on two transects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of deciduous ranging from 15 \endash 30 cm dbh, with some conifers 30 \endash 50 cm dbh. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 Reach 2 begins just above the O\rquote Black mainline culvert crossing as the valley widens. This is also the start of a 1998 habitat project and an ODFW habitat survey. In addition, there is an active timber harvest just   2 _ - 2  -82 ESUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River8HBBH9 HH22,!H,3,,NC2,! 2 E . 2  -22 +DATES: February 27, 2006HH==87,2!3,#0223222 2 + - 2  -L2 +SURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlinl8HCH=HCC=_=221B2'H,Y,!2Z-<,3222 2 ^ - 2  -;2  REPORT PREPARED BY: Ben WalczakC=8HC=8C<8HC=HBHB,2_,,-,2 2  . 2 j -2 GENE CO:H=H=CH%2 NSERVATION GROUP:SH8=CHH> IHHCHH8 2  ' 2 12 2 -!2 /NCHC 2  - 2 P -#2 UTM COORDINATES:H=YCHHCI HH==8 2  2 Start 8,! 2 2.2  0487021 E & 5086101 N 2222222=M2232222H 2   - 2 6 , 2 6, , 2 6X , 2 6 ,2 6End =22 2 6j2.2 6 0485342 E & 5086840 N 2222222=M2232222H 2 6  - 2  -42  USGS MAPS: Pittsburg CreeklH8H8YH888'22!1C!,,2 2   . 2  -)2  GENERAL DESCRIPTION:H=H=CI<H=8CD8>!HH 2   - 2 u  - 2  ,2 ,OThe Fall Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with the Nehalem =2,7,C!-,2H2,!3-2,'2!2-03-12',',22!2,2-,H22,H,3,,N(2 [ River and extends 1:C2,!,22,3,22'2p2 [ C,977 meters. Three reaches were designated based on: Land use and c222N,,!'=above the road on the right hillslope. Many of the units are still scoured to bedrock, although the habitat l ogs are trapping a small amount of gravel. Moreover, there were a number of blown out beaver dams that were constructed on the habitat logs as well, that appeared to have been blown out during the recent winter flows. In addition, there are a lot of the habitat logs that have been broken as a result of the high flows. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 Halfway through the reach there is a ODFW habitat survey sign (end point) at a spring seep on the right. The previous habitat project continues above this point with more broken habitat logs. There was some fresh beaver activity in some of the units. The first nice pool that has been created by the habitat logs is located about halfway through the reach but most of the habitat logs have been broken or remain over the active channel. O nly one secondary channel has been created as a result of the LWD placement project. In addition, most of the plantings have died leading to the suggestion that action be taken to ensure the survival of the remaining plantings. Also as a result of curre n t timber harvest some of the trees in the buffer below the road have blown down. The active timber harvest ended in the last quarter of Reach 2, but there was still a past timber harvest area on the hillslope above the road. Reach 2 ended at a change in valley width index. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 There is good LWD project potential with good access for industrial equipment. The previous project appeared to use smaller logs (.3m) and have many broken logs scattered throughout. A future project focusing on using larger diameter logs should be beneficial for creating off-channel habitats. The recent timber harvest completed in 2006 further degrades this coho bearing stream. The stream buffer on the right}{\insrsid16729435 is mostly alders, but the left}{\insrsid12605206 has a mix of conifers. So, a planting project was not recommended, but revisiting the previous planting is needed to improve survival. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par \par REACH 3: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \tab Length \endash 657 meters. The channel is constrained by moderate hillslopes in a narrow valley. The average valley width index is 2.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, a sub dominant land use was observed to be partial cut timber. The average unit gradient is 1.3%. The channel characteristics include: primary 657m and secondary 20m. One pool was greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 1.5 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were eleven key pieces of LWD, which averages to 1.7 key pieces per 100m of primary stream channel. The vegetation was based on one transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of deciduous ranging from 15 \endash 30 cm dbh, with some conifers 3 \endash 30 cm dbh. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 Reach 3 began at a reduction in valley width index above an old road crossing with new plantings. The habitat project ended below the start of the reac h but the plantings continued into the reach. There was one beaver dam that did not blow out during recent high flows, but above this dam there were a few 1.5-2.0m high blown out dams that are now scoured to bedrock. There were only a few small pockets of decent spawning gravel in this reach. The survey ended at a tributary junction on the left, which had more flow than Fall Creek, just above another culvert crossing under O\rquote Black mainline and an ODFW spawning survey end point. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12605206 {\insrsid12605206 There is poor LWD project potential, but good access for industrial equipment. The narrow valley width reduced future project opportunities. The riparian has a mix of conifers and deciduous with the plantings continued into this reach. So, a planting project was not recommende d in reach 3, but revisiting the previous planting is needed to improve survival. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12605206 \par \par \par \tab }} ?2!-,!-,,3,'I,!,2,'13,,22,',222<,222(,,222 Svalley form. In the first reach Scour Pools (13%) and Riffles (76%) dominated the 2,-0!2!N 22,!!'",,,28,22!822'!22T!,22C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,2 A Mhabitat, while Sand (18%), Gravel (19%), and Bedrock (54%) were the dominant m2,2,H2,8,22!22T!H!,3,!22S!,22C,3!2,2!22T!H-!,2,22O2,272 substrate types. In the seconz'22'!,,03,' 22,'-,22_2 d8d reach Dammed/backwater pools (13%), Scour pools (16%) 2!,-,2H,NN,23,-2H,,!222'!22T!8,32!222'!22S!2 ' Uand Riffles (71%) dominated the habitat, while Sand (26%), Gravel (29%), and Bedrock u,22C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,2,2,H2,8-22!22S!H",2,!23S!,22B,3!2,22 Q(34%) were the dominant substrate types. Dammed and backwater pools (20%), Scour o!22S!I,!,2,22N2,2'22'!,,03,'H,NN-2,222,,2I,,!222'!32S!8,22!>2 "pools (16%), and Riffles (62%) dom222'!22S!,22C!!,'!22S!22NY2 4inated the habitat, while Silt/organics (19%), Sand 2,,22,3,3,H2,82!1,2,'"22S!8,22y2 I(34%), Gravel (32%), and Bedrock (15%) were the dominant substrate types.a!22S!H",2,!23S!,32B,2!3,2!22T!H-!,3,22N2,2'22'!,,03,' 2   - 2  -2 fSThe survey begins at the confluence of the Nehalem River. An ODFW Spawning Survey k=2,'2!2.02-12',2,,22!2,2-,2!2,I,2,-NC2,!H2HH7_82-H22182!2.0P2 .sign was noted. The entire survey has margina'12H,'22,2=2,,2!,'2!2.03,'N,"12,M2 W,l gravel, that is not solid rock but rather 1",2,2,'22'22!2,222!,2,!2 LWpea sized clay stone with long stretches of bedrock. There is a previous ODFW habitat 2,,'-,2,.0'22,H3221'!,,3,'2!2,3!2-2=2,!,',3!,222'IH7_2,2,2 Xproject completed in the late 1990s. The habitat project has some minor successes but 2!2,,,2N2,,222,,,2222!'=2,3,2,2!2,,2,''2N,N22!'3,,,'','22C2 2%most areas have created no pools, offN2',!,,'2,3,,",,,222222'2!!P2 2. channel areas, or collected any gravel. All ,2,23,,!-,'2!,2,,,2,401",2-H2 Qplantings have had poor overall survival due to a lack of follow up maintenance. e2,221'2,2,3,2222!22,!,'2!22,22,2,,,22!!22H22N,2,3,2,, 2   . 2  , 2 , -(2 REACH DESCRIPTIONS::C=HCHH=8CD8> HI8 2 J , 2  -2 qREACH 1:C=HCH2 2 q - 2  - 2 W ,2 W,Length :<,312 2 W_2s2 WE 221 meters. The channel is constrained by moderate hillslopes in a 222N,,!'=3,,2,23,',22'!,2,230N22,",,2'22,'2,%2 narrow valley. TS2,!!2H3,.0=w2 Hhe average valley width index is 1.5. Land use for the reach is second 2,,3,",2,2,.0H2222,3'22;,322',!2!3,!-,,2'',,222-NANI