sugar creek watershed improvement project...

of 19

Sugar Creek Watershed Improvement Project Proposal

Background The Salmon/Scott River Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest (Forest) proposes the Sugar

Creek Watershed Improvement Project, located immediately west and northwest of Callahan, CA,

Siskiyou County. The purpose of the project is to improve general watershed health within the Sugar

Creek 6th

-field watershed. Within the 12,169-acre project boundary, this proposal “stormproofs”

(restores natural flow patterns, minimizes surface erosion, and reduces potential for landslides at stream

crossings) about 24.2 miles of National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) road; restores storage

conditions on about 1.6 miles of road; hydrologically stabilizes about 6.4 miles of unauthorized routes;

and rehabilitates six individual sites.

The project is located primarily in the Sugar Creek 6th

-field watershed, which includes activities within

the following drainages: Cedar Gulch, Messner Gulch, Squaw Gulch, Sugar Creek, and Wildcat Creek.

Minimal project components are also within French Creek and South Fork Scott River drainages. The

legal location of the project is: Township 40 North, Range 8 West, Sections 4 and 5; and Township 40

North, Range 9 West, Sections 1-3, 9-11, 14-17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 33, and 34 (Mount Diablo

Meridian) (Figures 1a & 1b). Elevation ranges from 3,040 to 6,240 feet.

Management Direction The 1995 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, as amended) incorporates standards

and guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan. The Forest Plan provides Forest-wide and management

area (MA) direction for project-level projects.

The project area is primarily within MA 15 (Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective [VQO]). The

remainder of the project is within the following MAs: MA 5 (Late-successional Reserves), MA 10

(Riparian Reserves), MA 11 (Retention VQO), and MA 17 (General Forest). A summary of relevant

Forest Plan goals for each MA are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Forest Plan goals by MA within the project area.

Management

Area Acres

Pages in

Forest Plan* Goals Pertinent to This Proposal

MA 5 – Late-

successional

Reserves

116 4-83 to 4-89 Protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and

“old growth” forest ecosystems.

MA 10 –

Riparian

Reserves

3,1231

1,6522

9533

4-106 to 4-114

Provide benefits to riparian-dependent and associated

species; enhance habitat conservation for species within

the transition zone between upslope and riparian; and

improve travel and dispersal corridors.

MA 11 –

Retention VQO 139 4-115 to 4-116

Provide a level of attractive, forested scenery; manage

human activities so they are subordinate to the

characteristic landscape and are not evident to the casual

Forest visitor.

of 19

Management

Area Acres

Pages in

Forest Plan* Goals Pertinent to This Proposal

MA 15 – Partial

Retention VQO 3,302 4-126 to 4-127

Provide an attractive, forested landscape where

management and human activities remain visually

subordinate to the character of the landscape.

MA 17 –

General Forest 339 4-131 to 4-132

Develop a transportation system to transport Forest

commodities; meet visual quality objectives; provide for

snags and hardwood habitat to help maintain wildlife

species; and maintain stand health.

* Forest Plan accessed online May 30, 2012 at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landmanagement/planning

1RR Sugar Creek 6

th field watershed, within the Forest boundary, including private inholdings.

2RR Sugar Creek 6

th field watershed, within the Forest boundary and not including private inholdings.

3RR as per #2, but also not including Wilderness.

In addition to Forest Plan direction, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) considered mid-level assessments

or guidance documents, including Callahan Ecosystem Analysis (USFS 1997).

The IDT designed the project to be consistent with all applicable law, regulation, policy, and direction.

Purpose and Need for Action

An IDT, composed of specialists from a wide array of disciplines, visited the project area and worked

together to develop a proposal consistent with all Forest Plan standards and guidelines. By comparing

the existing conditions in the project area with the desired conditions from the Forest Plan, the IDT

identified the following needs for the project.

The purpose and need of the proposed project is to improve general watershed health within the Sugar

Creek 6th

-field watershed (Figures 1a and 1b). In 2011, watersheds in the Forest were assessed utilizing

a number of elements, including (not an exhaustive list): fire regime condition, roading, cumulative

watershed effects, and presence of coho salmon (Elder and Laurie 2011). Prioritization for focusing

restoration projects on the Forest was then assigned, with the Sugar Creek watershed ranking as a “high”

concern within the larger Scott River drainage. The purpose and need for this project will be achieved

primarily through addressing existing and potential sediment discharge from a variety of sources, such

as roads and mines, but may also include other actions. Specifically, implementation of the project is

expected to:

Improve the watershed condition class on Forest Service lands, as defined in the Watershed

Condition Framework (USFS 2011);

Repair legacy sediment sites to meet the load allocations of the Scott River Total Maximum

Daily Load, and the conditions of the Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements (North Coast

Regional Water Quality Control Board 2010); and

Implement the recommendations of the Coho Salmon Recovery Plan to reduce human-caused

sediment and eliminate passage barriers for aquatic organisms (National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) 2007, California Department of Fish and Game 2004).

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landmanagement/planning

of 19

Below is a description of the existing and desired conditions by management area.

Existing Condition Within the Sugar Creek 6

th-field watershed, on Forest Service administered lands and those resources

held in management agreement with Timbervest, the Forest has identified the following existing

conditions, pertinent to the purpose and need of this project, which require action:

Legacy1 non-point and point sediment sources.

Cumulative effects to watershed and aquatic resources from roads, as well as specific locations.

Aquatic organism passage barrier(s), with a focus on structures in anadromous habitat.

Desired Condition The proposed project will achieve the following desired conditions:

Remediate all legacy sites, non-point, and point sediment sources.

Decrease cumulative effects to the watershed, thus improving overall condition.

Upgrade identified barriers to allow aquatic organism passage.

Proposed Action

The proposed action was designed to meet the purpose and need of the project. Within the 12,169-acre

Sugar Creek 6th

-field watershed, the proposed action will:

1. Stormproof about 24.2 miles of road.

2. Restore storage conditions to about 1.6 miles of road.

3. Hydrologically stabilize about 6.4 miles of an unauthorized route.

4. Rehabilitate six individual sites (under 15 acres, total).

Treatment miles, acreages, and locations are approximate at this point and may be adjusted and refined

following scoping. Maps showing the proposed treatment areas are displayed in Figures 2a through 2f

and Figure 3.

1. Roads - Stormproofing

Stormproofing activities improve drainage on NFTS roads to restore natural flow patterns, minimize

surface erosion, and reduce potential for landslides at stream crossings. Roads proposed for treatment

include NFTS roads and those managed under a maintenance agreement (Agreement) with Timbervest,

a private timber harvest company with inholdings throughout the Sugar Creek 6th

-field watershed. Work

may entail any or all of the following treatments:

Construct dips at stream crossings to eliminate diversion potential.

Reduce road fill volumes at stream crossings to withstand 100-year peak flows and debris flows.

Upgrade culverts to pass 100-year peak flows.

Construct rolling dips and waterbars to reduce concentration of overland run-off.

Stabilize landslides. May include construction of retaining walls.

Outslope road surface and eliminate in-board ditch or outside berms

Seed and mulch disturbed areas to control short-term surface erosion.

Apply rock aggregate to the road surface.

Grade the roadbed.

1 Legacy sources or sites are considered those existing discharge or potential discharge areas or sites that are the result of

human activity from the past and can reasonably and feasibly be remedied.

of 19

Table 2. Roads proposed for stormproofing activities.

Road Number Status Length

(mi)

Full Stormproofing

41N16 USFS 3.7

Partial Stormproofing

40N04 USFS 1.1

40N09 Agreement 3.3

40N20 USFS 2.0

40N23 Agreement 2.1

40N25 USFS 1.1

40N26 USFS 1.1

40N26B USFS 0.9

40N27 Agreement 1.3

40N66 Agreement 0.6

40N66A Agreement 0.6

40N74 USFS 0.8

40N75 USFS 1.1

41N14 USFS/

Agreement 4.5

Total: 24.2

Partial stormproofing is less extensive than full stormproofing, and tends to target specific locations or

short road segments where active erosion is observed or has high probability of occurring. In contrast,

full stormproofing often occurs on roads with more generalized sediment issues, and thus includes

longer road segments; and treatments may be more expensive, such as requiring significant outsloping

of the road surface and elimination of in-board ditches or outside berms.

2. Roads – Storage – Forest Road 40N23

Forest Road 40N23 includes three distinct segments. One segment is maintained under an agreement

with Timbervest, and will be partially stormproofed, as described previously. A second segment is

located within the French Creek drainage and will not be covered under this project proposal – i.e.,

current access and road maintenance status will be maintained. The third segment, which is within the

Sugar Creek drainage and is maintained by the Forest, is described herein.

Forest Road 40N23 (Forest segment) is a Maintenance Level 1 road with year-round closure that, prior

to this project, was placed in storage status. Total length of this road is approximately 1.6 miles. The

north and south halves of the road are disconnected due to lack of a bridge or low-water crossing of

Sugar Creek. The road is located upon unstable granitic soils, and all-terrain vehicle and motorcycle use

on the north half of the road is causing localized resource impact, including sediment mobilization and

degradation of waterbars, dips, and other storage features.

of 19

The proposal is for heavy equipment (i.e., an excavator and support vehicles) to re-establish the storage

features. Where necessary, features may be added or modified in order to minimize the potential of

sediment mobilization and promote roadbed stabilization. Culverts will remain in place, with dips to be

added at channel crossings to reduce diversion potential. Vehicle barriers – currently present, but largely

non-functional – will be re-established, and new barriers may be constructed. Barricades may include

one or more of the following: gate, boulders, or tank traps. Trees (up to 18 inches diameter-at-breast-

height [dbh]) may also be dropped across the roadbed.

3. Unauthorized Routes – Hydrologic Stabilization

Unauthorized routes may be user-created, or are spurs built to access timber or mining claims prior to

rules requiring rehabilitation once operations were complete. The Motorized Travel Management

process designated Forest-wide motorized vehicle routes (USFS 2010). Routes determined to be suitable

(i.e., not causing unacceptable resource impact nor in conflict with other activities) were added to the

NFTS; and others, such as those listed in Table 3, were not. Unauthorized routes often lack the

engineering required by contemporary regulations. Routes may be poorly located on the landscape,

including traversing highly erosive soils and/or located too near waterways; stream crossings – culverts

and fords – may be improperly sited; and roadbeds often exhibit inadequate drainage, such as rutting

during wet weather and concentrating overland run-off flows, thereby causing conditions of excessive

erosion. Maintenance is often non-existent. Finally, some routes may be redundant due to access to the

same area by other better maintained and sited roads.

Table 3. Unauthorized routes proposed for hydrologic stabilization activities.

Route

Designation

Length

(mi)

Route

Designation

Length

(mi)

40N04.1 0.3

40N25.1 0.3

40N04.2 2.0

40N25.1A 0.5

40N04.2A 0.5

40N25.2 0.4

40N22.1 0.2

40N26.1 0.3

40N22.2 0.3

40N26B.1 0.3

40N22.3 0.6

40N75.1 0.5

40N22.4 0.2

For this project, hydrologic stabilization activities may include removal of culverts; re-establishment of

channel crossings to a slope and form that mimics natural conditions; installation of dips, waterbars, and

other run-off control features; removal of inside ditches; and outsloping the roadbed. Each route will

have a combination of actions prescribed as best suited to it. To achieve the desired objective of

minimizing input of sediment derived from human activities, it has been determined that scarification

and/or recontouring to remove the roadbed from the landscape is not necessary; and in some cases, due

to underlying geologic instability, such invasive procedures may create more issues than are solved.

Additionally, unauthorized routes will be blocked to motorized vehicle use via a combination of tank

traps and boulder placement. Controlling vehicle access is critical to allow the re-establishment of the

grasses, brush, and other vegetation which will maximize stability and minimize sediment mobilization.

Total: 4.1 miles

of 19

For several routes (highlighted in Table 3), it has been determined a modification to the above described

measures are required for successful project implementation:

Route 40N04.2

Route 40N04.2 (about two miles) tracks roughly north-south through the drainages of Squaw Gulch

and Cedar Gulch. In general, hydrologic stabilization, as described, will be an appropriate

prescription. The exception is the north (Squaw Gulch) access, where an open topography presents a

challenge in controlling motorized vehicle use. Additionally, it is desirable to maintain access at the

boundary for Forest personnel due to the presence of an old mining site which has been identified for

future rehabilitation actions.

For the north access, several strategies are proposed. First, a tank trap/boulder blockade to restrict

motorized vehicle access will occur not at the Forest boundary, but at a suitable location further

along the route, where landscape features and vegetation restrict overland travel to the existing

roadbed. Second, a fence line will be constructed at the Forest boundary (length to be determined,

but unlikely to span more than 0.5 miles) that ends at appropriate topographical-based localities

which preclude circumventing by vehicles. The fence line, with accompanying signage, will control

motorized vehicle access to Route 40N04.2, while simultaneously allowing future entry by Forest

personnel to the mine site for evaluation and rehabilitation.

Route 40N22.2

Route 40N22.2 (about 0.3 miles) accesses two locations identified by this project for site-specific

restoration activities – the unnamed “Tiger Fork” Mine and an adjacent hillside meadow. Although

the route includes rutting, mobilization of sediment at ephemeral channel crossings and other

impacts common to unauthorized routes in the project area, controlling vehicle access in this

instance is particularly important to allow long-term post-project recovery success for actions

planned at the mine and meadow. Therefore, supplementary measures, in addition to those described

for standard hydrologic stabilization, have been determined necessary for Route 40N22.2.

Blockage of motorized vehicle access to Route 40N22.2 will utilize a tank trap/boulder prescription

at the junction with Sugar Creek road (Forest Road 40N22), but may also include scarification of the

take-off (distance to be determined). If scarified, the roadbed will be subsequently replanted with an

appropriate seed mixture. Trees (up to 18 inches dbh) may also be placed across the roadbed.

Finally, additional boulders will be strategically set along the shoulder of Sugar Creek road where

evidence exists of vehicles leaving the main road to enter the Tiger Fork mine/meadow area via an

overland route.

Route 40N22.3

Although Route 40N22.3 is measured to be 0.6 miles in length, it is not accessible beyond the Tiger

Fork crossing. At some point the culvert at that crossing was removed (no documentation is

available regarding this). In consequence, the roadbed on the far side of Tiger Fork is inaccessible at

this time due to the deep nature of the channel prohibiting crossing by heavy equipment.

of 19

The focus of the previously described hydrologic stabilization activities will, therefore, be between

Tiger Fork and Sugar Creek road, a distance of about 0.1 miles. The roadbed beyond Tiger Fork

appears to have self-rehabilitated due to natural revegetation and a lack of use by motorized vehicles.

4. Individual Sites

Multiple site-specific locations within the Sugar Creek 6th

-field watershed have been identified as

contributing actual or significant potential impact to aquatic and water resources (Figure 3). Restoration

of these sites will improve overall watershed condition. For each component, the existing condition is

briefly described, followed by the proposed action. In all cases, where necessary, ground disturbed

during earth-moving activities will be reseeded with a seed mix as directed by a Forest botanist.

Table 4. Individual sites proposed for rehabilitation activities.

Locations

Autumn Mine

Squaw Gulch - North Pond

Squaw Gulch - South Pond

Tiger Fork Culvert

Unnamed “Tiger Fork” Mine

Unnamed “Tiger Fork” Meadow

Autumn Mine

The Autumn Mine, an inactive hard rock gold operation, is located in Cedar Gulch, an intermittent

stream. Adjacent is the Homestead Placer Mine. Both are estimated to be of 1920s to 1930s vintage.

Together, the two mines create a spatially complex site. Approximately mid-way through the site in the

stream channel is a bedrock shelf. Upcanyon, the shelf is a landform consisting of raw, highly-

weathered, and well-cemented mounds which superficially resembles tailing piles. However,

preliminary review by the Forest Geologist indicates that the landform is remnant alluvium left behind

from placer mining (Bell 2012). In contrast, tailing piles from mine operations are present downcanyon

of the shelf, along with signs of past downcutting within the streambed. Although downcutting no longer

seems to be occurring, due to arrestment by the bedrock shelf, the tailing piles do show indications of

erosion and may deliver to the stream sediment during greater than 10-year storm events (Bell 2012).

The erosion-prone areas are patchy, with some locales stabilized due to a vegetative cover.

The Autumn Mine component proposal focuses on the tailings downcanyon of the bedrock shelf. At this

time, heavy equipment work is considered neither necessary nor desirable, although this could change as

more analysis is completed. Instead, focus will be on encouraging the appropriate microclimate for

establishment of the grasses, herbs, and brush which will hold soil in place and decrease potential for

raveling and other sediment movement. Emphasis will be on the bare patches, with already vegetated

areas avoided as much as possible. A hand crew will place wattles, mulch netting, and other appropriate

materials on the hillslope. An appropriate seed mixture may be applied, at the discretion of a botanist.

Squaw Gulch – North Pond

The north end of Route 40N04.2 intersects with the Forest Service boundary at Squaw Gulch. Present at

the boundary line are several structures and other elements associated with historic mining operations

of 19

within the area, including hard rock adits, as well as placer and hydraulic operations. A settling pond

(“north pond”) was constructed behind the north structures, damming an unnamed ephemeral tributary

to Squaw Gulch. Except following spring run-off or large storm events, this pond is dry. The earthen

dam shows signs of erosion when it is occasionally overtopped, which creates the potential for a

localized sediment mobilization event should it fail in the future.

The Squaw Gulch (north pond) component proposal is not fully defined at this point. Several options

exist, dependent upon review of the site by appropriate Forest personnel. Because the pond is settling

fine material mobilized from historic upslope hydraulic mining operations, complete removal of the

earthen dam may not be desirable. A possible alternative includes upgrading and rocking the present

outflow to allow the pond to overflow in a manner which maintains dam integrity.

Squaw Gulch – South Pond

Slightly west and south of the Squaw Gulch north pond described previously, a second pond (“south

pond”) was constructed. The earthen dam crosses mainstem Squaw Gulch, which flows intermittently.

Unlike its counterpart, the south pond does not appear to have captured the same volume of sediment

despite having a larger drainage area. The south pond dam also seems to experience more overtopping

events than the north pond, resulting in the recent undermining and felling of several trees adjacent the

channel, as well as bank slumpage; water also appears to seep through and under the dam. Therefore,

integrity of the dam, particularly in the long-term, is suspect. In addition to the signs of active erosion,

particularly during spring run-off and storm events that fill the pond, were the dam to fail, the result

would be a localized sediment mobilization event.

The Squaw Gulch (south pond) component proposal includes removing the earthen dam and sediment

captured behind, thereby restoring channel slope and character. Active slumping downstream of the dam

will be addressed by pulling the banks back, thereby constructing a bank slope that is less prone to

erosion.

Tiger Fork Culvert

Forest Road 40N23 (under a maintenance agreement) crosses Tiger Fork immediately upstream of its

confluence with Sugar Creek. The current culvert was installed in 1984, prior to which it was a wood-

plank decked log bridge. When installed, the large “squash” culvert constricted the channel; subsequent

alteration of the local hydrologic patterns restricted Sugar Creek from backing up Tiger Fork during

high flow events. Additionally, the slope of the culvert is such that a native substrate bottom cannot be

maintained. Compared to pre-culvert conditions, the mouth of Tiger Fork has become scoured and

downcut. While the Tiger Fork culvert has not been officially evaluated as to fish passage status, it is the

professional judgment of the Salmon/Scott River District Fish Biologist that passage is marginal at best,

and most likely is a complete barrier. Removal or modification of the Tiger Fork culvert has been

highlighted within the draft Coho Recovery Plan (NMFS 2012, pp. 36-22, 36-23).

The Tiger Fork culvert component proposal includes replacing the current culvert with either a

bottomless arch culvert or a bridge. In either case, slope and substrate will align the historical condition,

allowing both aquatic organism passage, as well as re-establishment of a more natural, local hydrologic

condition.

of 19

Unnamed (“Tiger Fork”) Mine

An unnamed mine, designated “Tiger Fork Mine” for this proposal, is located at the end of route

40N22.2. Little is conclusively known about the mine at this time. Historically, a road was built across

Tiger Fork to access the mine site, with a small culvert set intentionally high in the fill in order to create

a pond. The pond, in turn, was directed into a ditch system to support mine operations. The existing

condition is one where the ditch has fully captured the stream, returning it to its native channel several

hundred feet downstream. The ditch has subsequently downcut through a highly erosive granitic sand

hillslope. Erosion is active, and the Tiger Fork Mine appears to be a point source for human-caused

mobilization of fine sediments to the larger Sugar Creek drainage.

The Tiger Fork Mine component proposal includes removal of the culvert and fill; digging out the pond

to re-establish the creek to its original channel; and plugging the top of the ditch (with material captured

in the pond) to discourage the stream from re-occupying the ditch. Depending upon the resultant slope

and underlying geology of the reconstructed channel, a structure (i.e., boulders or other appropriate

material) may be required to prevent headcut initiation while the streambed stabilizes post-project.

Trees, including pine (less than ten) and alders, currently growing in the fill will be removed.

Additionally, the ditch will be crossed, most likely with a hand crew, to remove a small culvert located

in an ephemeral channel on the other side.

Unnamed (“Tiger Fork”) Meadow

Part 1

An unnamed hillslope meadow, designated “Tiger Fork Meadow” for this proposal, is located adjacent

to Tiger Fork Mine, at the end of route 40N22.2. The meadow appears to be mesic in character,

underlain in the wetter portions with black, low-oxygen soils. Water feeding the meadow originates

from a spring which shows signs of past development. Deep rutting and other resource damage is

currently occurring due to vehicle use (e.g., mud-bogging). This action has resulted in channelization of

water into the ruts. The original character of water flow through the meadow is believed to have been as

overland sheetflow or similar, and due to alteration of the flow, portions of the meadow have dried,

causing loss of meadow vegetation which requires wetter soils. Additionally, soil is being eroded and

mobilized towards Tiger Fork.

The Tiger Fork Meadow component proposal includes the use of a hand crew to knock down the ruts,

thereby in-filling the channelized areas. Small waterbars and other low impact means will be used to

further redirect spring flow back into the meadow to re-establish sheetflow. Sufficient vegetation

remains at the site to allow natural recolonization of the disturbed areas.

Part 2

Due to proximity to Tiger Fork Meadow, a series of gullies are also considered to be a part of the

meadow component. Origination is from failure of a historic ditch that was used for mining, agriculture,

or both, but is no longer in operation. Flow in the ditch, when it occurs, is seasonal in nature (water

captured from ephemeral channels or overland spring run-off/storm events). These gullies traverse

forested hillside adjacent the meadow; and have additionally eroded a portion of Route 40N22.2. All

mobilized sediment enters directly into Tiger Fork, immediately downstream of the Tiger Fork Mine

culvert.

of 19

The gully component proposal is not fully defined at this point. Two options are available, dependent

upon review of the site by appropriate Forest personnel. The first option would repair the ditch failure,

thus preventing seasonally flowing water from accessing the gully system. The other option would

purposefully break down the ditch berm at several points “upstream” of the failure, allowing water to

spread out onto a vegetated slope in locations where it would not cause erosion issues. In either case,

water would no longer be actively flowing through the gullies, thus, suspending fine sediment

mobilization, particularly as the channels naturally re-vegetate.

References

Bell, A. 2012. Autumn Mine and Homestead Mine Geologic Investigation – Salmon/Scott

River Ranger District. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. 2 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2004. Recovery strategy for California coho

salmon. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission. 594 pp.

Elder, D., and G. Laurie. 2011. Priority watersheds – Klamath National Forest.

Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Draft SONCC Coho Recovery Plan - Chapter 36

(Scott River Population). National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office,

Arcata, CA.

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/soncc_draft/Chapter_36_Scott_River_Population.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act

Klamath River Coho Salmon River Plan. Prepared by Rogers, F.R., I.V. Lagomarsino, and J.A.

Simondet for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Long Beach, CA. 48 pp.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2010. Waver of Waste

Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land

Management Activities on National Forest System Lands in North Coast Region.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2011. Watershed Condition Framework – A Framework for

Assessing and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition, United States. FS-977. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Motorized Travel Management – Record of Decision. Klamath

National Forest, Yreka, CA.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/projects/?cid=fsm8_049819

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1997. Callahan Ecosystem Analysis – Scott River Ranger District.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5109805

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/soncc_draft/Chapter_36_Scott_River_Population.pdf

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/projects/?cid=fsm8_049819

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5109805

of 19

Figure 1a. Location of project watershed – Sugar Creek – within the Scott River drainage,

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest.

of 19

Figure 1b. General overview of the project area.

of 19

Figure 2a. Road work – Cedar Gulch/Squaw Gulch area.

of 19

Figure 2b. Massner Gulch area.

of 19

Figure 2c. Road work – lower Wildcat Creek area.

of 19

Figure 2d. Road work – upper Wildcat Creek area.

of 19

Figure 2e. Road work – Tiger Fork area.

of 19

Figure 2f. Road work – upper Sugar Creek area.

of 19

Figure 3. Site-specific project locations.

sugar creek watershed improvement project...

Documents