аЯрЁБс>ўџ  ўџџџ|џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ§џџџ  ўџџџўџџџ>+ўџџџ !"#$%&'()*L=-./0123456789:;ўџџџ?ўџџџўџџџ@ABCDEFGHIJKTMNOPQRSVUXWYZb[\]^_`afўџџџdekghijmlvnopqrstuўџџџwxyz{ўџџџ§џџџ~€Root Entryџџџџџџџџ АЭq™•Ч €ITEM000џџџџ  РF0ЉxDЙФЦАЭq™•Ч1TableџџџџcјCompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџjўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0ш hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М Щф TЏ.A  Titleўџџџўџџџўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq%РF\Object РF4dMicrosoft Word DocumentD:\Youngs Bay final data\Stream reports\Lewis and Clark Tribs\Barrett Creek Report.docWordDocumentџџџџџџџџџџџџ"BSummaryInformation(џџџџ DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџITEM000FMTџџџџџџџџџџџџўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0h˜ЄАМШи №ќ  $ 0 <HPX`фssBenenNormal Todd Boswello2ddMicrosoft Word 10.0@4т0@Ш_DЉ}Х@дŸ‰”•Ч@‚К˜•ЧћЫ'ьЅС5@ №ПЦ6bjbjЯ2Я2 "B­X­XЦ.џџџџџџˆ6666666д8 8 8 8 D дЈЖl l l l l l l l '))))))$^RАHM6Хl l ХХM66l l beeeХR6l 6l 'eХ'eЂe66l ` €!уи˜•Ч8  'x0Јј!.јJTž66666ј6 l ’ў hef TК l l l MMддd 8 Oдд8  Upper Nehalem Watershed Habitat Assessment Stream Report STREAM: Ford Creek (a.k.a. Lindgren Creek) SUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River DATES: March 3, 2006 SURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlin REPORT PREPARED BY: Ben Walczak GENE CONSERVATION GROUP: 1-NC UTM COORDINATES: Start – 0479390 E & 5094228 N End – 0478676 E & 5098128 N USGS MAPS: Marshland GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The Ford Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with the Nehalem River and extends 5,311 meters. Five reaches were designated based on: Land Use and Land Form. In the first reach Scour pools (24%) and Riffles (60%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (16%), Sand (44%), and Gravel (35%) were the dominant substrate types. In the second reach Scour pools (50%) and Riffles (45%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (15%), Sand (41%), and Gravel (40%) were the dominant substrate types. Scour pools (25%) and Riffles (71%) dominated the habitat. In the third reach, while Silt/organics (15%), Sand (33%), Gravel (41%), and Cobble (11%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fourth reach Riffles (88%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (12%), Sand (25%), Gravel (34%), and Cobble (15%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fifth reach Riffles (32%) and Rapids (65%) dominated the habitat, while Gravel (24%), Cobble (25%), Boulder (14%), and Bedrock (29%) were the dominant substrate types. REACH DESCRIPTIONS: REACH 1: Length – 769 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 20. Land use for the reach is rural residential. A subdominant land use of young timber was also observed. The average unit gradient is 0.7%. The channel characteristics include: primary 769m and secondary 95m. Eight pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 10.4 pools greater than 1 meter deep per kilometer of primary stream length. There were zero key pieces of LWD. The vegetation is based on one riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly deciduous ranging from 15 – 30 cm dbh, with grass dominating. This survey begins at the confluence with the Nehalem River, where no ODFW spawning survey sign was observed. In the first hundred meters, the Nehalem River heavily influences the stream during high flows, resulting in high active erosion along the stream bank, as well as some areas of poor quality gravel. The stream crosses under the Highway 202 Bridge and enters a large grassy field with no apparent current livestock use. On both sides of the stream in the field, there are small conifer plantings. However, many of the plantings appear to be potentially overgrown by blackberry. Measures should be taken to ensure that these plantings are not lost. The entire field is owned by the Ferguson’s. Some areas could use some additional plantings, as the riparian is quite poor. Near the end of the reach, the stream crosses under a farm road, with a deep pool below it. Downstream from this culvert there is a nice sized alcove but it has poor water quality with some algae bloom. Reach 1 ended at a large shotgun culvert under the Columbia River mainline, which has some large boulders and riprap. The crossing corresponds with the end of the field. There is good LWD project potential, with good access for industrial equipment. An alcove located below the road at the end of reach 1 could be improved. Otherwise, there was no other off-channel habitat observed in this reach. The riparian area is a mix of alders and grass on both sides of the stream. Therefore, a planting project would be beneficial to improve future LWD recruitment by establishing confiers. Also, a fencing project could be implemented to keep livestock out of the stream. REACH 2: Length – 1,262 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 12.8. 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 0.5%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,262m and secondary 218m. Fifteen pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 11.9 pools greater than 1 meter deep per kilometer of primary stream length. There were no key pieces of LWD. The vegetation is based on three transects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly deciduous ranging from 15-50 cm dbh, with some conifers 30-50 cm dbh. Reach 2 began above the Columbia River mainline culvert crossing, at a change in land use, as the stream leaves a grassy field and enters forested land. The quality of the spawning gravel improves in some pockets in this reach, however some units were scoured to bedrock. Not far from the start of the reach, there is another field on the right, which has been replanted with conifer plantings. There is a spring fed alcove in this field that has current poor shade cover as well as some algae growth, but there are some nice established conifer plantings. About halfway through the reach, there is an old log bridge that crosses the stream, with an ODFW spawning survey end point for segment 1 and start for segment 2. Also this is a start point for an ODFW habitat study site. There are a number of backwaters located within this reach, although a few have no cover. The field continues to the end of the reach, which ends as the riparian improves and the stream becomes more forested. There is good LWD project potential, with good access for industrial equipment. The spawning gravel improves in this reach, but the complexity and LWD is lacking. Now the reach is on forested land there is a high potential for a future LWD project to be successful. The riparian is made up of medium sized alders with some confiers. Surveyors noted planting project potential for establishing more confiers for future LWD recruitment. REACH 3: Length – 1,265 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average width index is 8.2. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with a sub dominant land use of young timber. The average unit gradient is 0.8%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,265m and secondary 180m. Four pools were greater than 1 meter deep which averages to 3.2 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were three key pieces of LWD in the reach, which averages to 0.2 pieces per 100m of primary channel. The vegetation was based on three transects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were deciduous 15-30 cm dbh, with some conifers 3-15cm dbh. Reach three began at another change in land use, as the stream enters more forestland. The pockets of good spawning gravel continue in this reach, as do the number of backwaters. There were two secondary channels in this reach, but both lacked pools and were relatively shallow. About halfway through the reach, there is another bridge crossing with an ODFW spawning survey sign. Just above the bridge crossing, there is a spring fed alcove on the right that had a large amount of algae growth. There are sections of the riparian in this reach, which are very nice with some large Western Red Cedar trees, but this alternates with other sections of the stream, which are alder dominated corridors. Reach 3 ends at the confluence of Trib A on the right. There is good LWD project potential, but poor access for industrial equipment. The spawning gravel improves in this reach, but the complexity and LWD is still minimal. The riparian is made up of medium sized alders and conifers providing future LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is not necessary. REACH 4: Length – 847 meters. The channel is constrained by multiple terraces in a broad valley. The average width index is 4.8. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with a sub dominant land use of young timber. The average unit gradient is 1.7%. The channel characteristics include: primary 847m and secondary 75m. Two pools were greater than 1 meter deep which averages to 2.4 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were five key pieces of LWD in this reach, which averages to 0.6 pieces per 100m of primary stream length. The vegetation is based on two transects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were deciduous 15-30 cm dbh, with some mixed conifers 3-15cm dbh. Reach 4 starts at the confluence of Trib A in conjunction with an ODFW spawning survey sign end point for segment 3 and the start for segment 4. Over 100m above the start point, the gradient slowly begins to increase, and there is an increase in the amount of cobble in the substrate and a decrease in the amount of spawning gravel. About halfway through the reach there is a small tributary on the right with mediocre alcove development potential. Alders dominate the riparian in the reach. Not far from the start point there were two heavily silted puddled secondary channels, which were quite shallow. Reach 4 ends at a reduction in valley width index about 100m above a small tributary junction on the right. ThereOle џџџџџџџџџџџџ5OlePres000џџџџ,œITEM000ODS џџџџITEM000FMT#3џџџџ РFа˜Ци˜•Ча˜Ци˜•Чџџџџџџџџˆ;lXZ ­‘  №.ћМ"System8$rэЦ0јE -ћœџ@Times New Roman-  2 Zу -- 2 пу , 2 п,у , 2 пXу ,ћ‹џМ@Times New Roman-J2 п„*уUpper Nehalem Watershed Habitat AssessmentTAA44T4A:!4`u;'44.A3A[;@!&;'T--4..`4A' 2 пЩ у > 2 eу , 2 e,у , 2 eXу , 2 e„у , 2 eАу ,2 eм уStream ReportA'44;`T4A;4' 2 eУу > 2 ыу ?-L2 _+уSTREAM: Ford Creek (a.k.a. Lindgren Creek) 8=C=HY72!2C!,,2",2,<231!,2C",,2" 2 _hу Ь 2 _4у - 2 ву -82 EуSUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River8HBBH9 HH22,!H,3,,NC2,! 2 EЏу . 2 Иу -+2 +уDATES: March 3, 2006NHH==8Y,!,222223 2 +ку - 2 žу -L2 +уSURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlin 8HCH=HCC=_=221B2'H,Y,!2Z-<,3222 2 ^у - 2 „у -;2 ї уREPORT PREPARED BY: Ben WalczakC=8HC=8C<8HC=HBHB,2_,,-,2 2 ї у . 2 jу -2 н уGENE CONSH=H=CHH8"2 н.уERVATION GROUP:=CHH> IHHCHH8 2 нЕу ' 2 нму12 2 ну-!2 н/уNCHC 2 нКу - 2 Pу -#2 УуUTM COORDINATES:H=YCHHCI HH==8 2 Уеу л2 УАуStart 8,! 2 У†у–2.2 УИу 0479390 E & 5094228 N 2222222=M2232222H 2 Ун у - 2 6у , 2 6,у , 2 6Xу , 2 6„у ,2 6АуEnd =22 2 6jу–2.2 6œу 0478676 E & 5098128 N 2222222=M2232222H 2 6С у - 2 Љу -+2  уUSGS MAPS: MarshlandNH8H8YH88Y,!'2,22 2  #у - 2  у -)2  уGENERAL DESCRIPTION:H=H=CI<H=8CD8>!HH 2  ‘у - 2 u у - 2 ш у ,‚2 ш ,OуThe Ford Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with the Nehalem =2,72!2C",,2H2-!3,2,'2!2.02-12',(,22!2,2-,H22,H,3,,N42 [ уRiver and extends 5,311 metlC2,!,22,3,22'2222N,b2 [ {:уers. Five reaches were designated based on: Land Use and ,!'72,!,-,2,'I,",2,'13,,22,(,222=,22H',,22…2 Ю QуLand Form. In the first reach Scour pools (24%) and Riffles (60%) dominated the t<,2272!N 22,!!'",,,28,22!232'!22S!,22C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,ˆ2 A Sуhabitat, while Silt/organics (16%), Sand (44%), and Gravel (35%) were the dominant i2,2,H2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22!22S!-22H!,2,!23S!I,!,3,22N2,2>2 Д "уsubstrate types. In the second rea'22'!,,03,' 22,'-,222!,-[2 Д )5уch Scour pools (50%) and Riffles (45%) dominated the ,28,22!222'"22S!,22C!!,'!22S!22N2,,22,ˆ2 ' Sуhabitat, while Silt/organics (15%), Sand (41%), and Gravel (40%) were the dominant i2,2,H2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22!22S!-22H!,2,!23S!I,!,3,22N2,22 š Mуsubstrate types. Scour pools (25%) and Riffles (71%) dominated the habitat. m'22'!,,03,'8,22!232'!22S!,22C!!,'!23S!22N2,,22,2,2, 2 š  у - 2 у -I2 €)уIn the third reach, while Silt/organics (i 22,2!2!,-,2H2,82!1,2,'!L2 € +у15%), Sand (33%), Gravel (41%), and Cobble 22S!8,32!22S!H",2,!23S!-22C222,‘2 ѓYу(11%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fourth reach Riffles (88%) dominated the !22S!I,!,2,22N2,2'22'!,,03,' 22,!32!2!,-,2C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,‰2 fTуhabitat, while Silt/organics (12%), Sand (25%), Gravel (34%), and Cobble (15%) were 2,2,H2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22!22S!I!,2,!22T!,22C222,!22S!I,!,G2 й(уthe dominant substrate types. In the fif2,22N2,2'22'!,,12,' 22,!!G2 й(уth reach Riffles (32%) and Rapids (65%) 2",,,2C"!,'!22S!,22C,22'!32S!‰2 LTуdominated the habitat, while Gravel (24%), Cobble (25%), Boulder (14%), and Bedrock 22N2,,22,2,2,I2,H!,2,!23S!C222,!22S!B222-!!22S!,22B,3!2,2L2 П+у(29%) were the dominant substrate types. !22S!I,!,2,22N2,2'22'!,,03,' 2 ПЧу . 2 2у - 2 Ѕу -(2 уREACH DESCRIPTIONS::C=HCHH=8CD8> HI8 2 Jу , 2 ‹у -2 ўуREACH 1:C=HCH2 2 ўКу - 2 qу - 2 фу ,2 ф,уLength :<,312 2 ф_у–2P2 ф‘.у 769 meters. The channel is constrained by te222N,,!'=3,,2,23,',22'!,2,230,42 фК уrraces in a broad valley. l"!-,,'2,2!3,22,-0Œ2 WVуThe average valley width index is 20. Land use for the reach is rural residential. A =2,,2-!-1,3,.0H2322,3'22;,222(,!3!2,!-,,2'!2",!,'2-2,HŒ2 ЪVуsubdominant land use of young timber was also observed. The average unit gradient is '2222N2,2,222',2!03231N2,!I,','232',!2,2=2,,2-!-1,231!,2,2'-NANIEr 0.7%. The channel characteristics include: primary 769m and secondar * *M{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\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 (ArabITEM000FMTRich Text Format8џџџџџџџџџџџџ<.MOle џџџџџџџџ OlePres000џџџџџџџџџџџџ}œџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџ’ #3Rich Text Formatatˆ;lXp!„ic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\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;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid543429\rsid6241087\rsid12062821} \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\rsidroot6241087 \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 {\insrsid6241087 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \tab \tab \tab }{\b\fs28\insrsid6241087 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 {\insrsid6241087 STREAM: Ford Creek (a.k.a. Lindgren Creek)\tab \par \par SUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River \par \par DATES: March 3, 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 0479390 E & 5094228 N \par \tab \tab \tab \tab End \endash 0478676 E & 5098128 N \par \par USGS MAPS: Marshland \par \par GENERAL DESCRIPTION: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \tab The Ford Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with the Nehalem River and extends 5,311 met ers. Five reaches were designated based on: Land Use and Land Form. In the first reach Scour pools (24%) and Riffles (60%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (16%), Sand (44%), and Gravel (35%) were the dominant substrate types. In the second re ach Scour pools (50%) and Riffles (45%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (15%), Sand (41%), and Gravel (40%) were the dominant substrate types. Scour pools (25%) and Riffles (71%) dominated the habitat. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 In the third reach, while Silt/organics ( 15%), Sand (33%), Gravel (41%), and Cobble (11%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fourth reach Riffles (88%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (12%), Sand (25%), Gravel (34%), and Cobble (15%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fi fth reach Riffles (32%) and Rapids (65%) dominated the habitat, while Gravel (24%), Cobble (25%), Boulder (14%), and Bedrock (29%) were the dominant substrate types. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par \par REACH DESCRIPTIONS: \par \par REACH 1: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \tab Length \endash 769 meters. The channel is constrained by te rraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 20. Land use for the reach is rural residential. A subdominant land use of young timber was also observed. The average unit gradient is 0.7%. The channel characteristics include: primary 769m and secondary 95m. Eight pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 10.4 pools greater than 1 meter deep per kilometer of primary stream length. There were zero key pieces of LWD. The vegetation is based on one riparian transect. The tree s found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly deciduous ranging from 15 \endash 30 cm dbh, with grass dominating. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 This survey begins at the confluence with the Nehalem River, where no ODFW spawning survey sign was observed. In the first hundred mete rs, the Nehalem River heavily influences the stream during high flows, resulting in high active erosion along the stream bank, as well as some areas of poor quality gravel. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 The stream crosses under the Highway 202 Bridge and enters a large grassy field w ith no apparent current livestock use. On both sides of the stream in the field, there are small conifer plantings. However, many of the plantings appear to be potentially overgrown by blackberry. Measures should be taken to ensure that these plantings are not lost. The entire field is owned by the Ferguson\rquote s. Some areas co is good LWD project potential, but poor access for industrial equipment. Access would be the biggest drawback to conducting future restoration work in this reach. The spawning gravel improves in this reach, but the complexity and LWD is still minimal. The riparian is made up of medium sized alders with some confiers. Surveyors noted planting project potential for establishing more confiers for future LWD recruitment. REACH 5: Length – 1,168 meters. The channel is constrained by moderate hillslopes in a narrow valley. The average valley width index is 2.4. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with a sub dominant land use of young timber. The average unit gradient is 3.2%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,168m and secondary 56m. Zero pools were greater than 1 meter deep. There were twenty-five key pieces of LWD in this reach, which averages to 2.1 pieces per 100m of primary stream length. The vegetation is based on one riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were deciduous 3-15 cm dbh, with some conifers 3-30cmm dbh. Reach 5 began as the valley width index decreased to less than 2.5 at a long rapid over bedrock and a marked increase in gradient. Above the rapid there is a big blown out beaver dam that is now a riffle with some pockets of spawning gravel. Also, there is a large dried up beaver dam on the left terrace above the blown out dam. The gradient continues to increase, as there are a number of rapids over bedrock and a reduction in spawning gravel. Also, there are a number of very steep spring seeps and tributaries that enter the stream in this reach. There are several blown out beaver dams that have no fresh activity. In addition, there were a number of steps over logs that were scoured to bedrock with no pool below. Just below the survey end point, there is a massive 75m long by 20m wide debris jam, which may be a natural barrier. The survey ended at a 55/45 split with a tributary junction on the left. The was an ODFW spawning survey end point for segment 4 and the start point of segment 5 as well as the start point of an ODFW rearing study site. There is not much LWD project potential with poor access for industrial equipment. Access would be the biggest drawback to conducting future restoration work in this reach. This reach actually had much more LWD than previous reaches due to the massive debris jam recorded at the top of the reach. It looks as if logs were dumped here from the last timber harvest (>50 yrs ago). A future project could be to investigate the debris jam and what beneficial future projects could be incorporated with this jam (maybe breaking it up, so it will provide future LWD downstream). CЊc"%X&))њ+Ћ-‚2…22•2…4Ц6ќѓќяќяќяќяќяќяќяќяhХJh?;_5CJ\h?;_/BCpq‘ЇЈдеії  F g h ~  ” • ж з Ј Љ Њ О §Р!Ќ§Р!Ѕ§Р!Ѕ§Р!Ѕ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќuld use some additional plantings, as the riparian is quite poor. Near the end of the reach, the stream crosses under a farm road, with a deep pool below it. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 Downstream from this c ulvert there is a nice sized alcove but it has poor water quality with some algae bloom. Reach 1 ended at a large shotgun culvert under the Columbia River mainline, which has some large boulders and riprap. The crossing corresponds with the end of the f ield.}{\insrsid543429 \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid543429 {\insrsid543429 There is good LWD project potential, with good access for industrial equipment. An alcove located below the road at the end of reach 1 c ould be improved. Otherwise, there was no other off-channel habitat observed in this rЦ6§О П Ш Щ wxЎЏщъ  ХЧЊЋbcdmn*"+""%§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§ Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!ЌјР!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§ Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§ Р!Ќ§Р!ЌјР!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§ Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§ Р!ЌgdХJeach. The riparian area is a mix of alders and grass on both sides of the stream. Therefore, a planting project would be beneficial to improve future LWD recruitment by establishing confiers. Also, a fencing project could be implemented to keep livestock out of the stream. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par \par REACH 2: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrs"%#%$%%%W&X&Y&b&c&+),)њ+ћ+Њ-Ћ-Ќ-Е-Ж-S0T0U0ƒ2„2„4…4Х6Ц6§Р!ЌјР!ЌјР!ЌјР!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§ Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§ Р!Ќ§Р!ЌјР!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!Ќ§Р!ЌјР!Ќ§Р!ЌgdХJid6241087 \tab Length \endash 1,262 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 12.8. 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 0.5%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,262m and secondary 218m. Fifteen pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 11.9 pools greater than 1 meter deep per kilometer of primary stream length. There we re no key pieces of LWD. The vegetation is based on three transects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly deciduous ranging from 15-50 cm dbh, with some conifers 30-50 cm dbh. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 Reach 2 began above the Columbia River mainline c ulvert crossing, at a change in land use, as the stream leaves a grassy field and enters forested land. The quality of the spawning gravel improves in some pockets in this reach, however some units were scoured to bedrock. Not far from the start of the r each, there is another field on the right, which has been replanted with conifer plantings. There is a spring fed alcove in this field that has current poor shade cover as well as some algae growth, but there are some nice established conifer plantings. About halfway through the reach, there is an old log bridge that crosses the stream, with an ODFW spawning survey end point for segment 1 and start for segment 2. Also this is a start point for an ODFW habitat study site. There are a number of backwater s located within this reach, although a few have no cover. The field continues to the end of the reach, which ends as the riparian improves and the stream becomes more forested. \par }{\insrsid543429 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid543429 {\insrsid543429 There is good LWD project potential, with good access for industrial equipment. The spawning gravel improves in this reach , but the complexity and LWD is lacking. Now the reach is on forested land there is a high potential for a future LWD project to be successful. The riparian is made up of medium sized alders with some confiers. Surveyors noted planting project potential for establishing more confiers for future LWD recruitment. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid543429 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par REACH 3: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \tab Length \endash 1,265 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average width index is 8.2. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with a sub dominant land use of young timber. The average unit gradient is 0.8%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,265m and secondary 180m. F our pools were greater than 1 meter deep which averages to 3.2 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were three key pieces of LWD in the reach, which averages to 0.2 pieces per 100m of primary channel. The vegetation was based on three tra nsects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were deciduous 15-30 cm dbh, with some conifers 3-15cm dbh. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 Reach three began at another change in land use, as the stream enters more forestland. The pockets of good spawning gravel continue i n this reach, as do the number of backwaters. There were two secondary channels in this reach, but both lacked pools and were relatively shallow. About halfway through t 1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %А˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€œ@@ёџ@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@ђџЁD Default Paragraph FontVi@ѓџГV  Table Normal :V і4ж4ж laі (k@єџС(No List Ц.Bџџџџ џџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™ џџ z™ЧЧ%T(Ц.Ау2/BCpq‘ЇЈдеіїFgh~”•жзЈЉЊОПШЩwxЎ Џ щ ъ     ХЧЊЋbcdmn*+"#$%WXYbc+!,!њ#ћ#Њ%Ћ%Ќ%Е%Ж%S(T(U(ƒ*„*„,…,Х.Ш.˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€ˆ˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€ €˜0€€ €˜0€€ €˜he reach, there is another bridge crossing with an ODFW spawning survey sign. Just a bove the bridge crossing, there is a spring fed alcove on the right that had a large amount of algae growth. There are sections of the riparian in this reach, which are very nice with some large Western Red Cedar trees, but this alternates with other sec tions of the stream, which are alder dominated corridors. Reach 3 ends at the confluence of Trib A on the right. \par }{\insrsid543429 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid543429 {\insrsid543429 \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid543429 {\insrsid543429 There is good LWD project potential, but poor access for industrial equipment. The spawning gravel improves in this reach, but the complexity and LWD is still minimal. The riparian is made up of medium sized alders and conifers providing future LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is not necessary. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid543429 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par REACH 4: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \tab Length \endash 847 meters. The channel is constrained by multiple terraces in a broad valley. The average width index is 4.8. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with a sub dominant land use of young timber. The average unit gradient is 1.7%. The channel characteristics include: primary 847m and secondary 75m. Two pools were greater than 1 meter deep which averages to 2. 4 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were five key pieces of LWD in this reach, which averages to 0.6 pieces per 100m of primary stream length. The vegetation is based on two transects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zo ne were deciduous 15-30 cm dbh, with some }{\insrsid543429 mixed }{\insrsid6241087 conifers 3-15cm dbh. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 Reach 4 starts at the confluence of Trib A in conjunction with an ODFW spawning survey sign end point for segment 3 and the start for segment 4. Over 100m above the start point, the gradient s lowly begins to i0€€ˆ˜0€€˜0€€ˆ˜0€€ €˜0€€ˆ˜0€€˜0€€ €˜0€€p˜0€€˜0€€p˜0€€˜0€€p˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€p˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€p˜0€€˜0€€p˜0€€p˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€ˆ˜0€€ €˜0€€ˆ˜0€€ €˜0€€ncrease, and there is an increase in the amount of cobble in the substrate and a decrease in the amount of spawning gravel. About halfway through the reach there is a small tributary on the right with mediocre alcove development potentia l . Alders dominate the riparian in the reach. Not far from the start point there were two heavily silted puddled secondary channels, which were quite shallow. Reach 4 ends at a reduction in valley width index about 100m above a small tributary junction on the right. \par }{\insrsid543429 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid543429 {\insrsid543429 There is good LWD project potential, but poor access for industrial equipment. Access would be the biggest drawback to conducting future restoration work in this reach. The spawning gravel improves in this reach, but the complexity and LWD is still minimal. The riparian is made up of medium sized alders with some confiers. Surveyors noted planting project potential for establishing more confiers for future LWD recruitment. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid543429 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par REACH 5: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \tab Length \endash 1,168 meters. The channel is constrained by moderate hillslopes in a narrow valley. The average valley width index is 2.4. Land use for the reach is second growth timber, with a sub dominant land use of young timber. T he average unit gradient is 3.2%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,168m and secondary 56m. Zero pools were greater than 1 meter deep. There were twenty-five key pieces of LWD in this reach, which averages to 2.1 pieces per 100m of primar y stream length. The vegetation is based on one riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were deciduous 3-15 cm dbh, with some conifers 3-30cmm dbh. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 Reach 5 began as the valley width index decreased to less than 2.5 at a l ong rapid over bedrock and a marked increase in gradient. Above the rapid there is a big blown out beaver dam that is now a riffle with some pockets of spawning gravel. Also, there is a large dried up beaver dam on the left terrace above the blown out d am. The gradient continues to increase, as there are a number of rapids over bedrock and a reduction in spawning gravel. Also, there are a number of very steep spring seeps and tributaries that enter the stream in this reach. }{\insrsid543429 \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid543429 T}{\insrsid6241087 here are}{\insrsid543429 several}{\insrsid6241087 blown out beaver dams that have no fresh activity. In addition, there were a number of steps over logs that were scoured to bedrock with no pool below. Just below the survey end point, there is a massive 75m long by 20m wide debris jam, which may be a natural barrier. The survey ended at a 55/45 split with a tributary junction on the left. The was an ODFW spawning survey end point for segment 4 and the start point of segment 5 as well as the start point of an ODFW rearing study site. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6241087 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid543429 {\insrsid543429 There is not much LWD project potential with poor access for industrial equipment. Access would be the biggest drawback to conducting future restoration work in this reach. This reach actually had much more LWD than previous reaches due to the massive debris jam recorded at the top of the reach. It looks as if logs were dumped here from the last timber harvest (>50 yrs ago). A future project could be to investigate the debris jam and what beneficial future projects could be incorporated with this jam (maybe breaking it up, so it will provide future LWD downstream). \par }}22N2,2J2 Д *уsubstrate types. In the second reach Scour'22'!,,03,' 22,'-,222!,-,28,22!O2 Д ‰-у pools (50%)˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€ˆ˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€(˜0€€p˜0€€(˜0€€(˜0€€(˜0€€pЦ6О "%Ц6 Ц6џџ oœƒSpœƒьSqœƒЄЯrœƒфЯlœƒ$аmœƒdаnœƒЄаœƒфаœƒ$б‘œƒdб||‚Šннх   Ш. ‰фъъ   Ш. 9 *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€= *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€=*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType€    žІёљ=E9%A%…%%И.У.Ш.Ш.q‘doЌ%З%Ш.И.У.Ш.џџTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellTodd Landon BoswellMark McLaughlinхХJ?;_џ@€Ф.Ф.Иг’ЏЏФ.Ф.Ц.@@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial"qˆ№аhkЕ8kЕћЫ'TћЫ'T!№ ДД~4dЏ.Џ.ˆ 3ƒ№мH(№џ?фџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ?;_џџBen Todd Boswell :<,312 2 ф_у–42b2 ф‘:у 769 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a 222N,,!'=3,,2,23,',22'!,2,230,"!-,,'2,"2 фn уbroa‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹Œўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџˆ;lXZ ­‘  №.ћМ"System юrэЦ0јE -ћœџ@Times New Roman-  2 Zу -- 2 пу , 2 п,у , 2 пXу ,ћ‹џМ@Times New Roman-J2 п„*уUpper Nehalem Watershed Habitat AssessmentTAA44T4A:!4`u;'44.A3A[;@!&;'T--4..`4A' 2 пЩ у > 2 eу , 2 e,у , 2 eXу , 2 e„у , 2 eАу ,2 eм уStream ReportA'44;`T4A;4' 2 eУу > 2 ыу ?-L2 _+уSTREAM: Ford Creek (a.k.a. Lindgren Creek) 8=C=HY72!2C!,,2",2,<231!,2C",,2" 2 _hу Ь 2 _4у - 2 ву -82 EуSUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River8HBBH9 HH22,!H,3,,NC2,! 2 EЏу . 2 Иу -+2 +уDATES: March 3, 2006NHH==8Y,!,222223 2 +ку - 2 žу -L2 +уSURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlin 8HCH=HCC=_=221B2'H,Y,!2Z-<,3222 2 ^у - 2 „у -;2 ї уREPORT PREPARED BY: Ben WalczakC=8HC=8C<8HC=HBHB,2_,,-,2 2 ї у . 2 jу -2 н уGENE CONSH=H=CHH8"2 н.уERVATION GROUP:=CHH> IHHCHH8 2 нЕу ' 2 нму12 2 ну-!2 н/уNCHC 2 нКу - 2 Pу -#2 УуUTM COORDINATES:H=YCHHCI HH==8 2 Уеу л2 УАуStart 8,! 2 У†у–2.2 УИу 0479390 E & 5094228 N 2222222=M2232222H 2 Ун у - 2 6у , 2 6,у , 2 6Xу , 2 6„у ,2 6АуEnd =22 2 6jу–2.2 6œу 0478676 E & 5098128 N 2222222=M2232222H 2 6С у - 2 Љу -+2  уUSGS MAPS: MarshlandNH8H8YH88Y,!'2,22 2  #у - 2  у -)2  уGENERAL DESCRIPTION:H=H=CI<H=8CD8>!HH 2  ‘у - 2 u у - 2 ш у ,‚2 ш ,OуThe Ford Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with the Nehalem =2,72!2C",,2H2-!3,2,'2!2.02-12',(,22!2,2-,H22,H,3,,N42 [ уRiver and extends 5,311 metlC2,!,22,3,22'2222N,b2 [ {:уers. Five reaches were designated based on: Land Use and ,!'72,!,-,2,'I,",2,'13,,22,(,222=,22H',,22…2 Ю QуLand Form. In the first reach Scour pools (24%) and Riffles (60%) dominated the t<,2272!N 22,!!'",,,28,22!232'!22S!,22C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,ˆ2 A Sуhabitat, while Silt/organics (16%), Sand (44%), and Gravel (35%) were the dominant i2,2,H2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22!22S!-22H!,2,!23S!I,!,3,22N2,2>2 Д "уsubstrate types. In the second rea'22'!,,03,' 22,'-,222!,-[2 Д )5уch Scour pools (50%) and Riffles (45%) dominated the ,28,22!222'"22S!,22C!!,'!22S!22N2,,22,ˆ2 ' Sуhabitat, while Silt/organics (15%), Sand (41%), and Gravel (40%) were the dominant i2,2,H2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22!22S!-22H!,2,!23S!I,!,3,22N2,22 š Mуsubstrate types. Scour pools (25%) and Riffles (71%) dominated the habitat. m'22'!,,03,'8,22!232'!22S!,22C!!,'!23S!22N2,,22,2,2, 2 š  у - 2 у -I2 €)уIn the third reach, while Silt/organics (i 22,2!2!,-,2H2,82!1,2,'!L2 € +у15%), Sand (33%), Gravel (41%), and Cobble 22S!8,32!22S!H",2,!23S!-22C222,‘2 ѓYу(11%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fourth reach Riffles (88%) dominated the !22S!I,!,2,22N2,2'22'!,,03,' 22,!32!2!,-,2C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,‰2 fTуhabitat, while Silt/organics (12%), Sand (25%), Gravel (34%), and Cobble (15%) were 2,2,H2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22!22S!I!,2,!22T!,22C222,!22S!I,!,G2 й(уthe dominant substrate types. In the fif2,22N2,2'22'!,,12,' 22,!!G2 й(уth reach Riffles (32%) and Rapids (65%) 2",,,2C"!,'!22S!,22C,22'!32S!‰2 LTуdominated the habitat, while Gravel (24%), Cobble (25%), Boulder (14%), and Bedrock 22N2,,22,2,2,I2,H!,2,!23S!C222,!22S!B222-!!22S!,22B,3!2,2L2 П+у(29%) were the dominant substrate types. !22S!I,!,2,22N2,2'22'!,,03,' 2 ПЧу . 2 2у - 2 Ѕу -(2 уREACH DESCRIPTIONS::C=HCHH=8CD8> HI8 2 Jу , 2 ‹у -2 ўуREACH 1:C=HCH2 2 ўКу - 2 qу - 2 фу ,2 ф,уLength :<,312 2 ф_у–2P2 ф‘.у 769 meters. The channel is constrained by te222N,,!'=3,,2,23,',22'!,2,230,42 фК уrraces in a broad valley. l"!-,,'2,2!3,22,-0Œ2 WVуThe average valley width index is 20. Land use for the reach is rural residential. A =2,,2-!-1,3,.0H2322,3'22;,222(,!3!2,!-,,2'!2",!,'2-2,HŒ2 ЪVуsubdominant land use of young timber was also observed. The average unit gradient is '2222N2,2,222',2!03231N2,!I,','232',!2,2=2,,2-!-1,231!,2,2'-NANI