Comments:
8-1-06: Reach changes gradually. Downsteam - large substrate, upstream in cemetary more gravel. In upper portion of cemetary (T2.01B) width increases, more active channel adjustments (islands, flood chutes, bars), smaller substrate, more residential encroachment (**8-11-06 update: some observations not borne out by measurements e.g. change in substarte, change in width**). A substantial portion of lowermost 2.01A is underground, ~75' - Main St. plus the CCV parking lots. However, no clearly obvious changes in channel characteristics downstream of this; though I do remembernoting Grice Brook as rejuvenating when we assessed Stevens M06 last summer. Through the lower portion of the cemetary this stream seems a typical step-pool system - contained in a fairly solid valley/gully setting. Aquatic life - water striders (Gerridae), dace, crayfish, frogs. Rip-rap in cemetary is very old. On spot of erosion in cemetary is troubling - some headstones in water. Stream can't make a turn at flood-stage therefore an eddy forms cutting into this bank - only potential project area. Extensive Japanese knotweed especially in cemetary. Some grand old cottonwoods also. ? Do stream assessment protocol make sense in systems this small (full watershed 0.63 square miles)? Should typical reach size be scaled with watershed size? Probably, but if so reaches in very small watersheds would also be very small and perhaps not worth the effort needed to survey them.