ࡱ>  y  >+ !"#$%&'()*L=-./0123456789:;i?@ABCDEFGHIJKTMNOPQRSVUXWYZe[\]^_`abcdfghjlmnopqrstuwxz{|}~Root Entry - ITEM000  F0xD-1TablekCompObjj՜.+,0 hp|   `4A  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"JSummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8Oh+'0h   $ 0 <HPX`ssBenenNormal Todd Boswello2ddMicrosoft Word 10.0@ԭ@_D}@B#@<-5@ <bjbj22 "JXX46666666 $T $ R\H6 66 6 6 66 2- {.$0T^JT666666 L 6V , _     Upper Nehalem Watershed Habitat Assessment Stream Report STREAM: Lundgren Creek SUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River DATES: March 1, 2006 SURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlin REPORT PREPARED BY: Ben Walczak GENE CONSERVATION GROUP: 1-NC UTM COORDINATES: Start 0480945 E & 5093916 N End 0483493 E & 5095367 N USGS MAPS: Clatskanie GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The Lundgren Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with Messing Creek and extends 4,253 meters. Six reaches were designated based on: Land Use and Land Form. In the first reach Dammed and backwater pools (69%) and Riffles (19%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (30%), Sand (39%), and Gravel (18%) were the dominant substrate types. In the second reach Scour pools (64%) and Riffles (31%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (37%) and Sand (33%) were the dominant substrate types. Dammed and backwater pools (42%) and Scour pools (51%) dominated the habitat in the third reach, while Silt/organics (26%), Sand (36%), Gravel (21%), and Bedrock (17%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fourth reach Scour pools (29%) and Riffles (58%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (22%), Sand (33%), and Gravel (35%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fifth reach Dammed and backwater pools (39%) and Riffles (48%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (29%), Sand (32%), and Gravel (24%) were the dominant substrate types. In the sixth reach Riffles (86%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (22%), Sand (30%), and Gravel (34%) were the dominant substrate types. REACH DESCRIPTIONS: REACH 1: Length 227 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 20. Land use for the reach is second growth timber. A subdominant land use of rural residential was also observed. The average unit gradient is 0.5%. The channel characteristics include: primary 227m and secondary 111m. Two pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 8.8 pools greater than 1 meter deep per kilometer of primary stream length. There were zero key pieces of LWD. The vegetation is based on 2 riparian transects. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of deciduous ranging from 15 30 cm dbh, with some deciduous 30 50 cm dbh. Blackberry patches were also present along the riparian area. There are numerous sections of the stream that need additional shade cover. This survey begins at the confluence with Messing Creek. An ODFW Spawning Survey start was noted at the start point. This is a short reach with a nice riparian but, a lack of good spawning gravel. There were a few blown out beaver dams, the only remaining beaver dam was just recently rebuilt and was partially blown out. There were two backwaters found in the reach, one of which has nice cover and good undercut. At the end of the reach, there is a large (approx. 50m long by 30m wide) man made pond on the left terrace. There is no fish passage to this pond, due to a 1.0m high step over hardpan clay. In addition, there is a culvert crossing that drains from the pond into the secondary channel, which is a potential barrier. The landowner has planted some well-established conifers in the yard along the secondary channel, and on the terrace along the creek. The plantings appear to have established nicely. Reach 1 ends as the stream becomes unconstrained. There is good LWD project potential for this reach with good access for industrial equipment if landowner permission is granted. There is little complexity and LWD throughout the reach. The riparian has adequate shade cover and LWD recruitment from recent plantings. So, a planting project is not necessary. REACH 2: Length 428 meters. The channel is unconstrained with braided channels in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 10.0. Land use for the reach is wetland with a sub dominant land use of second growth timber also observed. The average unit gradient is 0.6%. The channel characteristics include: primary 428m and secondary 54m. Three pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 7.0 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were no key pieces of LWD. The vegetation was based on one riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mixed sizes of deciduous ranging from 15 30 cm dbh. Reach 2 begins as the stream becomes unconstrained just above the man-made pond. At the start of the reach, the stream has no complexity and appears to have been diverted around the landowners yard. There is an old, degraded double shotgun culvert under a private road. The culvert on the left, which holds nearly all the stream flow, is degraded and is starting to collapse. Additionally, the upstream side of the culvert is partially plugged. The culvert on the right is in slightly better condition, but is degraded as well. The landowner appears to have taken steps to save his road, but it appears that the two culverts combined are not big enough, nor in appropriate condition to handle the high flows. There is good restoration project potential, where the landowner could receive a new culvert or bridge along with the possible implementation of a LWD placement project. Above the pond, the stream becomes more unconstrained. Cattails and some reed grass are present within the active channel. Not far above the culvert, less than 100m, there is a small tributary junction on the right that has good potential as an alcove development site. The remainder of the reach consists of slow moving units with little to no spawning gravel, but serves as good rearing habitat. The only good pocket of spawning gravel was observed just below the degraded culverts. Reach 2 ends at a change in land use. There is a lack of LWD recruitment and reduced shade cover within the riparian. So, a planting project would be beneficial. REACH 3: Length 429 meters. The channel is unconstrained with a braided channel in a broad valley. The average width index is 10.0. Land use for the reach is wetlands with a sub dominant land use of young timber observed as well. The average unit gradient is 5.2%. The channel characteristics include: primary 429m and secondary 74m. Six pools were greater than 1 meter deep which averages to 14.0 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were three key pieces of LWD in the reach which averages to 0.7 pieces per 100m of primary channel. The vegetation was based on one riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of conifers ranging from 3 - 15 cm dbh, with some deciduous 30 50 cm dbh. Reach three began at a change in land use as the riparian on the hillsides diminishes to 10 year stands on the left and 3 year stands on the right. The stream remains unconstrained, and the substrate still lacks gravel. Many of the pools lack adequate cover. There were also a few blown out beaver dams in this reach, and one intact beaver dam that was partially blown out, but did have some fresh chew sticks. Reach 3 ended at the confluence of the tributary on the right. Tributary on the right has an old culvert that is only 0.3m wide under an old logging road. As a result, the tributary was backing up behind the road and then spilling over it. The culvert should be removed and the road decommissioned to allow adequate drainage of the tributary. This tributary has great potential as an alcove development site as the tributary did not warrant a habitat survey. There is good LWD project potential, with good access for industrial equipment on an old logging rd. The riparian is in good condition with small conifers that will contribute to future LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is not necessary. REACH 4: Length 1,397 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average width index is 9.1. Land use for the reach is second growth timber. A sub dominant land use of young timber was also noted. The average unit gradient is 0.9%. The channel characteristics include: primary 1,397m and secondary 69m. Ten pools were greater than 1 meter deep which averages to 7.2 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were three key pieces of LWD in this reach, which averages to 0.2 pieces per 100m of primary stream length. The vegetation was based on three riparian 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 3 - 15 cm dbh. Reach 4 starts at the confluence with a tributary on the right, where the stream once again becomes constrained. This reach has the first signs of good spawning gravel. Some units were scoured to bedrock as there was a lack of in-stream LWD. Not far from the start of the reach, the stream passes through a culvert crossing under a logging road. This culvert is a potential artificial velocity barrier. The upstream side of the culvert was nearly completely clogged, which was resulting in the creek flowing over the road during high fOle 5OlePres000,h 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  ?-.2 _STREAM: Lundgren Creek 8=C=HY;2231!,2C",,3 2 _p @ 2 _ - 2  -82 ESUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River8HBBH9 HH22,!H,3,,NC2,! 2 E . 2  -+2 +DATES: March 1, 2006eHH==8Y,!,222223 2 + - 2  -L2 +SURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlinp8HCH=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 CONSERVATION GROUP:H=H=CHH8=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  0480945 E & 5093916 N 2222222=M2232222H 2   - 2 6 , 2 6, , 2 6X , 2 6 ,2 6End =22 2 6j2.2 6 0483493 E & 5095367 N 2222222=M2232222H 2 6  - 2  -,2  USGS MAPS: ClatskanieH8H8YH88B,'2,2, 2   - 2  -)2  GENERAL DESCRIPTION:H=H=CI<H=8CD8>!HH 2   - 2 u  - 2  ,2 ,OThe Lundgren Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with Messing =2,<2231!,2C",,2H3,!2,2,'2!2.03-12',',22!2,2,,H2Y,''21P2 [ .Creek and extends 4,253 meters. Six reaches wC!,,2,22,3,22'2222N,,!'83!,,,2,'HD2 [ v&ere designated based on: Land Use and -!-2,'12,,22,',222<.22H',,222 RLand Form. In the first reach Dammed and backwater pools (69%) and Riffles (19%) <,2272!N 22,!!'",,,2I,NN,2,223,,3H,,!222'!22T!,22D!!,'!22S!2 A Tdominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (30%), Sand (39%), and Gravel (18%) were 22N2,,22,2,2,I2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22!22S!,22H!,3,!22S!I,!,Y2 4the dominant substrate types. In the second reach Sc2,22N2,2'22'!,,12,' 22,',-222!-,,28,>2 +"our pools (64%) and Riffles (31%) 22!222'!22S!,22D!!,'!22S!2 ' Rdominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (37%) and Sand (33%) were the dominant 22N2,,22,2,2,I2,82!1,2,'!22S!,228,22!22S!H,",2-22N2,22 Ssubstrate types. Dammed and backwater pools (42%) and Scour pools (51%) dominated '22'!,,03,'H,NN-2,222,,2I,,!222'!32S!,228,22!222'!23S!22N2,,2a2 9the habitat in the third reach, while Silt/organics (26%)2,2,2,22,2!2!-,,2H2,82!1,2,'"22S!;2  , Sand (36%), Gravel (21%), and 8,22!22T!H!,3,!22S!,222 WBedrock (17%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fourth reach Scour pools (29%) B,2!3,2!22T!H-!,2,22N2,2'22'!,,02,'22,!22!2",,,28,23!222'!22S!2 Tand Riffles (58%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (22%), Sand (33%), and ,22C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,2,2,H2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22"22S!,22[2 f5Gravel (35%) were the dominant substrate types. In thH!,2,!23S!I,!,2-32N2,2'22'!,,02,' 2212 fxe fifth reach Dammed and ),!!2!-,,2I,NN-2,222 Sbackwater pools (39%) and Riffles (48%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics 2,,2H,,!222'!22T!-22C!!,'!22S!22N2-,22,2,2,H2,82!1,2,'2 LV(29%), Sand (32%), and Gravel (24%) were the dominant substrate types. In the sixth !22S!8,22!23S!,22H!,2,!23S!I,!,2-32N2,2'22'!,,02,'22,'32h2 >reach Riffles (86%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics!,,,2C"!,'!22T!22N2,,22,2,2,H2,92!1,2,'/2   (22%), Sand (30%), and !23S!8,22!22S!,22S2 20Gravel (34%) were the dominant substrate types. H!,2,!23S!I,!,2-32N2,2'22'!,,02,' 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_2y2 WI 227 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. s222N,,!'=3,,2,23,',22'!,2,230,"!-,,'2,2!3,22,-0q2 DThe average valley width index is 20. Land use for the reach is sec=2,,2-!-1,3,.0H2322,3'22;,222(,!3!2,!-,,2'',,+2  T{\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 (ArabITEM000FMT#3 F - -ITEM000FMTRich Text Format8<TOle  OlePres000vh #3Rich Text Formatat;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 \rsid10961391\rsid10966106\rsid13042344} \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\rsidroot10966106 \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 {\insrsid10966106 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \tab \tab \tab }{\b\fs28\insrsid10966106 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 {\insrsid10966106 STREAM: Lundgren Creek\tab \par \par SUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River \par \par DATES: March 1, 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 0480945 E & 5093916 N \par \tab \tab \tab \tab End \endash 0483493 E & 5095367 N \par \par USGS MAPS: Clatskanie \par \par GENERAL DESCRIPTION: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \tab The Lundgren Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with Messing Creek and extends 4,253 meters. Six reaches w ere designated based on: Land Use and Land Form. In the first reach Dammed and backwater pools (69%) and Riffles (19%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (30%), Sand (39%), and Gravel (18%) were the dominant substrate types. In the second reach S c our pools (64%) and Riffles (31%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (37%) and Sand (33%) were the dominant substrate types. Dammed and backwater pools (42%) and Scour pools (51%) dominated the habitat in the third reach, while Silt/organics (26% ) , Sand (36%), Gravel (21%), and Bedrock (17%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fourth reach Scour pools (29%) and Riffles (58%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (22%), Sand (33%), and Gravel (35%) were the dominant substrate types. In t h e fifth reach Dammed and backwater pools (39%) and Riffles (48%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (29%), Sand (32%), and Gravel (24%) were the dominant substrate types. In the sixth reach Riffles (86%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organic s (22%), Sand (30%), and Gravel (34%) were the dominant substrate types. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \par \par REACH DESCRIPTIONS: \par \par REACH 1: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \tab Length \endash 227 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 20. Land use for the reach is sec ond growth timber. A subdominant land use of rural residential was also observed. The average unit gradient is 0.5%. The channel characteristics include: primary 227m and secondary 111m. Two pools were greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 8.8 p o ols greater than 1 meter deep per kilometer of primary stream length. There were zero key pieces of LWD. The vegetation is based on 2 riparian 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 deciduous 30 \endash 50 cm dbh. Blackberry patches were also present along the riparian area. There are numerous sections of the stream that need additional shade cover. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 This survey begins at the confluence with Messing Creek. A n ODFW Spawning Survey start was noted at the start point. This is a short reach with a nice riparian but, a lack of good spawning gravel. There were a few blown out beaver dams, the only remaining beaver dam was just recently rebuilt and was partially b l own out. There were two backwaters found in the reach, one of which has nice cover and good undercut. At the end of the reach, there is a large (approx. 50m long by 30m wide) man made pond on the left terrace. There is no fish passage to this pond, due to a 1.0m high step over hardpan clay. In addition, there is a culvert crossing that drains from the pond into the secondary channel, which is a potential barrier. The landowner has planted some well-estalows. The surveyors noted that the culvert appeared too small for the size of the stream. There was an ODFW Spawning Survey sign located at this crossing. About halfway through this reach, the stream passes through another culvert crossing under a logging road which did not appear on the topographic map. There was not a lot of off channel habitat in this reach. A decent spring fed alcove was present 100m above the first culvert in the reach, but it was not very deep. A few shallow isolated pools with little complexity were also noted. A few hundred meters above the second culvert crossing there is a screened intake diversion and the stream is fenced off. This is believed to be on the Martin property. Reach 4 ends at a third culvert crossing under a logging road where there is an ODFW Spawning Survey sign. There is good LWD project potential, with good access for industrial equipment on an old logging rd. The riparian is in good condition with small conifers that will contribute to future LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is not necessary. REACH 5: Length 781 meters. The channel is unconstrained with multiple channels in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 3.0. Land use for the reach is wetlands. A sub dominant land use of second growth timber was also observed. The average unit gradient is 1.3%. The channel characteristics include: primary 781m and secondary 51m. Three pools were greater than 1 meter deep which averages to 3.8 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were three key pieces of LWD in this reach, which averages to 0.4 pieces per 100m of primary stream length. The vegetation was based on one riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of conifers ranging from 3 - 15 cm dbh, with some mixed conifers and deciduous 15 - 30 cm dbh. Reach 5 begins above the culvert as the stream once again becomes unconstrained. This reach is comprised of a number of braided channels resulting in good rearing habitat. Approximately 100m from the start point, there is a small spring seep on the right that has good alcove development potential. The reach lacks gravel and in-stream LWD. Reach 5 ended just above a large, old beaver pond as the stream once again becomes constrained. There is good LWD project potential, but access for industrial equipment is poor. This may reduce future opportunities. The riparian is in good condition with small conifers that will contribute to future LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is not necessary. REACH 6: Length 991 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 6.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber with a sub dominant land use of large timber also observed. The average unit gradient is 1.4%. The channel characteristics include: primary 991m and secondary 47m. One pool was greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 1.0 pool per kilometer of primary stream length. There was one key piece of LWD in this reach, which averages to 0.1 pieces per 100m of primary stream length. The vegetation was based on one riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly deciduous ranging from 15 - 30 cm dbh, with some conifers 3 - 15 cm dbh. Reach 6 begins as the stream becomes constrained and the substrate becomes comprised of some good spawning gravel. The number of nice, deep pools diminishes in this reach as the gradient begins to increase. There is nice shade cover, but much of the riparian is dominated by alders. A number of spring seeps enter the stream, but many are small and steep. There is still not an abundance of in-stream LWD. There were a few blown out beaver dams present in the reach. The survey ended at a 55/45 split with a tributary junction on the right in conjunction with an ODFW Spawning Survey sign end point. The gradient increases as the gravel diminishes above the end point. There is good LWD project potential for this reach, but there blished conifers in the yard along the secondary channel, and on the terrace along the creek. The plantings appear to have established nicely. Reach 1 ends as the stream becomes unconstrained. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10966106 {\insrsid10966106 There is good LWD project potential for this reach with good access for industrial equipment if landowner perm ission is granted. There is little complexity and LWD throughout the reach. The riparian has adequate shade cover and LWD recruitment from recent plantings. So, a planting project is not necessary. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \par \par \par REACH 2: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \tab Length \endash 428 meters. The cis poor access for industrial equipment. There is little complexity and LWD throughout the reach. The riparian has adequate shade cover from alder dominated terraces, but almost no future LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is necessary. CG&&&&)))"*,,4d44 3H(?ZTBen Todd Boswell;lX&    ."Systemr0E -@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  ?-.2 _STREAM: Lundgren Creek 8=C=HY;2231!,2C",,3 2 _p @ 2 _ - 2  -82 ESUBBASIN: Upper Nehalem River8HBBH9 HH22,!H,3,,NC2,! 2 E . 2  -+2 +DATES: March 1, 2006eHH==8Y,!,222223 2 + - 2  -L2 +SURVEY CREW: Todd Boswell, Mark McLaughlinp8HCH=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 CONSERVATION GROUP:H=H=CHH8=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  0480945 E & 5093916 N 2222222=M2232222H 2   - 2 6 , 2 6, , 2 6X , 2 6 ,2 6End =22 2 6j2.2 6 0483493 E & 5095367 N 2222222=M2232222H 2 6  - 2  -,2  USGS MAPS: ClatskanieH8H8YH88B,'2,2, 2   - 2  -)2  GENERAL DESCRIPTION:H=H=CI<H=8CD8>!HH 2   - 2 u  - 2  ,2 ,OThe Lundgren Creek winter habitat survey begins at its confluence with Messing =2,<2231!,2C",,2H3,!2,2,'2!2.03-12',',22!2,2,,H2Y,''21P2 [ .Creek and extends 4,253 meters. Six reaches wC!,,2,22,3,22'2222N,,!'83!,,,2,'HD2 [ v&ere designated based on: Land Use and -!-2,'12,,22,',222<.22H',,222 RLand Form. In the first reach Dammed and backwater pools (69%) and Riffles (19%) <,2272!N 22,!!'",,,2I,NN,2,223,,3H,,!222'!22T!,22D!!,'!22S!2 A Tdominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (30%), Sand (39%), and Gravel (18%) were 22N2,,22,2,2,I2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22!22S!,22H!,3,!22S!I,!,Y2 4the dominant substrate types. In the second reach Sc2,22N2,2'22'!,,12,' 22,',-222!-,,28,>2 +"our pools (64%) and Riffles (31%) 22!222'!22S!,22D!!,'!22S!2 ' Rdominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (37%) and Sand (33%) were the dominant 22N2,,22,2,2,I2,82!1,2,'!22S!,228,22!22S!H,",2-22N2,22 Ssubstrate types. Dammed and backwater pools (42%) and Scour pools (51%) dominated '22'!,,03,'H,NN-2,222,,2I,,!222'!32S!,228,22!222'!23S!22N2,,2a2 9the habitat in the third reach, while Silt/organics (26%)2,2,2,22,2!2!-,,2H2,82!1,2,'"22S!;2  , Sand (36%), Gravel (21%), and 8,22!22T!H!,3,!22S!,222 WBedrock (17%) were the dominant substrate types. In the fourth reach Scour pools (29%) B,2!3,2!22T!H-!,2,22N2,2'22'!,,02,'22,!22!2",,,28,23!222'!22S!2 Tam length. There were three key pieces of LWD in this reach, which averages to 0.2 pieces per 100m of primary stream length.}{\insrsid10961391 The vegetation was based on three riparian transects. The trees found most frequently in the ripa rian zone were mostly mixed sizes of deciduous ranging from 15 - 30 cm dbh, with some conifers 3 - 15 cm dbh. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 Reach 4 starts at}{\insrsid10961391 the confluence with a tributary on the right}{\insrsid10966106 , where the stream once again becomes constrained. This reach has the first signs of good spawning gravel. Some units were scoured to bedrock as there was a lack of in-stream LWD. Not far from the start of the reach, the stream passes through a culvert crossing under a logging road. This culvert is a potential artificial velo c ity barrier. The upstream side of the culvert was nearly completely clogged, which was resulting in the creek flowing over the road during high flows. The surveyors noted that the culvert appeared too small for the size of the stream. There was an ODFW Spawning Survey sign located at this crossing. }{\insrsid10961391 \par \par }{\insrsid10966106 About halfway through this reach, the stream passes through another culvert crossing under a logging road which did not appear on the topographic map. There was not a lot of off channel habitat in this reach . A decent spring fed alcove was present 100m above the first culvert in the reach, but it was not very deep. A few shallow isolated pools with little complexity were also noted. A few hundred meters above the second culvert crossing there is a screene d intake diversion and the stream is fenced off. This is believed to be on the Martin property. Reach 4 ends at a third culvert crossing under a logging road where there is an ODFW Spawning Survey sign. \par }{\insrsid10961391 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10961391 {\insrsid10961391 There is good LWD project potential, with good access for industrial equipment on an old logging rd. The riparian is in good condition with small conifers that will contribute to future LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is not necessary. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10961391 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 REACH 5: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \tab Length \endash 781 meters. The channel is unc onstrained with multiple channels in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 3.0. Land use for the reach is wetlands. A sub dominant land use of second growth timber was also observed. The average unit gradient is 1.3%. The channel character i stics include: primary 781m and secondary 51m. Three pools were greater than 1 meter deep which averages to 3.8 pools per kilometer of primary stream length. There were three key pieces of LWD in this reach, which averages to 0.4 pieces per 100m of pri mary stream length.}{\insrsid10961391 The vegetation was based on one riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly mixed sizes of conifers ranging from 3 - 15 cm dbh, with some mixed conifers and deciduous 15 - 30 cm dbh.}{\insrsid10966106 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 Reach 5 begins above the culvert as the stream once again becomes unconstrained. This reach is comprised of a number of braided channels resulting in good rearing habitat. Approximately 100m from the start point, there is a small spri ng seep on the right that has good alcove development potential. The reach lacks gravel and in-stream LWD. Reach 5 ended just above a large, old beaver pond as the stream once again becomes constrained. \par }{\insrsid10961391 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10961391 There is good LWD project potential, but access for industrial equipment is poor. This may reduce future opportunities.}{\insrsid10961391\charrsid10961391 }{\insrsid10961391 The riparian is in good condition with small conifers that will contribute to future LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is not necessary. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \par REACH 6: \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \tab Length \endash 991 meters. The channel is co nstrained by terraces in a broad valley. The average valley width index is 6.0. Land use for the reach is second growth timber with a sub dominant land use of large timber also observed. The average unit gradient is 1.4%. The channel characteristics i n clude: primary 991m and secondary 47m. One pool was greater than 1 meter deep, which averages to 1.0 pool per kilometer of primary stream length. There was one key piece of LWD in this reach, which averages to 0.1 pieces per 100m of primary stream leng th.}{\insrsid10961391 The}{\insrsid10961391\charrsid10961391 }{\insrsid10961391 vegetation was based on one riparian transect. The trees found most frequently in the riparian zone were mostly deciduous ranging from 15 - 30 cm dbh, with some co nifers 3 - 15 cm dbh.}{\insrsid10966106 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10966106 Reach 6 begins as the stream becomes constrained and the substrate becomes comprised of some good spawning gravel. The number of nice, deep pools diminishes in this reach as the gradient begins to increase. There is nice shade cover, but much of the riparian is dominated by alders. A number of spring seeps enter the stream, but many are small and steep. There is still not an abundance of in-stream LWD. There were a few blown out beaver dams present in the reach. The survey ended at a 55/45 split with a tributary junction on the right in conjunction with an ODFW Spawning Survey sign end point. The gradient increases as the gravel diminishes above the end point. \par }{\insrsid10961391 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10961391 {\insrsid10961391 There is good LWD project potential for this reach, but there is poor access for industrial equipment. There is little complexity and LWD throughout the reach. The riparian has adequate shade cover from alder dominated terraces, but almost no future LWD recruitment. So, a planting project is necessary. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10961391 \par \par }}tat, while Silt/organics (2* %     $      2 Mr 282 M r %), Sand (3 *   2 Mr 382 Mr %), and *  42 r Gravel (35%) were the domin$ * $ and Riffles (58%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics (22%), Sand (33%), and ,22C!!,'!22T!22N2,,22,2,2,H2,82!1,2,'!22S!8,22"22S!,22[2 f5Gravel (35%) were the dominant substrate types. In thH!,2,!23S!I,!,2-32N2,2'22'!,,02,' 2212 fxe fifth reach Dammed and ),!!2!-,,2I,NN-2,222 Sbackwater pools (39%) and Riffles (48%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics 2,,2H,,!222'!22T!-22C!!,'!22S!22N2-,22,2,2,H2,82!1,2,'2 LV(29%), Sand (32%), and Gravel (24%) were the dominant substrate types. In the sixth !22S!8,22!23S!,22H!,2,!23S!I,!,2-32N2,2'22'!,,02,'22,'32h2 >reach Riffles (86%) dominated the habitat, while Silt/organics!,,,2C"!,'!22T!22N2,,22,2,2,H2,92!1,2,'/2   (22%), Sand (30%), and !23S!8,22!22S!,22S2 20Gravel (34%) were the dominant substrate types. H!,2,!23S!I,!,2-32N2,2'22'!,,02,' 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_2y2 WI 227 meters. The channel is constrained by terraces in a broad valley. s222N,,!'=3,,2,23,',22'!,2,230,"!-,,'2,2!3,22,-0q2 DThe average valley width index is 20. Land use for the reach is sec=2,,2-!-1,3,.0H2322,3'22;,222(,!3!2,!-,,2'',,+2  ond growth timber. A n2222!3H2N2,!H-NANI   82 8 r 0. Land use for the reach is        )2 8 r second growth timber $  %2 8 r . A # -NANI