North Coast Region Watershed Program Status

Shasta-Trinity National Forest North Coast Region Watershed Program Status

Prepared for North Coast Water Board Per Requirements of USFS Waiver Order No R1-2010-0029

December 2010

Shasta-Trinity National Forest North Coast Region Watershed Program Status

Contents

Introduction Purpose and Forest Setting

Shasta-Trinity National Forest within North Coast Water Region

Section 1 Key Watersheds

Section 2 Watershed Assessments

Section 3 Watershed Condition

Land Management Plan Watersheds of Concern

Watershed Disturbance Levels

Section 4 Forest Restoration Priorities

Section 5 Sediment Source Inventory Status

Section 6 Watershed Restoration Plans

Legacy work

Future Restoration Planning in Progress

Appendix A Priority Watersheds

Appendix B Showcase of Completed Restoration Projects

2 Introduction

Purpose and Forest Setting The Forest’s watershed restoration program focuses on attaining the requirements of the Clean Water Act and Regional Board Basin Plans, but also emphasizes overall watershed health and resilience to possible future climatic extremes, floods and fires. Three focal areas make up the Forest’s restoration program: 1) reducing erosion and sedimentation associated with roads; 2 ) aquatic organism passage; and 3) restoring fire adapted ecosystems. The road improvement work consists of a combination of decommissioning and drainage improvement, making roads better adapted for large storm events. The aquatic organism passage portion of the program promotes organism accessibility to suitable habitats and more natural transport of fluvial ecosystem elements. The fire adapted ecosystem sustainability portion is addressed primarily through fuels and vegetation management programs.

The monitoring and reporting requirements of the “Categorical Waiver of Waste Discharge… On Forest Service Lands Order No R1-2010-0029” (June 10, 2010) called for a summary of the key elements of the forests watershed restoration program; these are identification of Key Watersheds, a summary of watershed assessments, a summary of watershed conditions, identification of priority watersheds for restoration, an indication of the status of inventories and restoration implementation plans.

Shasta-Trinity National Forest within North Coast Water Region The Shasta-Trinity National Forest is comprised of roughly 2 million acres that lie within two different Water Quality Control Board Regions; the North Coast Region and the Central Valley Regions (see Figure 1.1). There are three sub-basins (4th-field watersheds) that drain the Forest in the North Coast Region; these are Shasta, Trinity and South Fork Trinity River. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest administers roughly 30% of the 7.3 million acres within these subbasins.

3 Figure 1.0 Shasta-Trinity National Forest Watersheds within the North Coast Region

4 SECTION 1 – KEY WATERSHEDS

Key Watersheds Key Watersheds provide watershed scale refugia specifically managed for maintaining or recovering habitat for anadromous and resident fish species. These watersheds comprise nearly 40% of USFS lands within the North Coast Water Board Region. There are four Key Watershed Areas on the Shasta- Trinity National Forest that are designated in the Northwest Forest Plan; these are New River, North Fork Trinity River, Canyon Creek and SF Trinity River. Each key area is equivalent to a 5th-field watershed with the exception of South Fork Trinity River which is comprised of two 5th-field watersheds, Upper SF Trinity River and Middle South Fork Trinity River. Management activities focus on restoration and minimizing impacts from roads, with no new roads to be constructed in roadless areas and an overall reduction in existing road mileage. Nonpoint source activities in Key Watersheds receive heightened attention, providing additional water quality protection and improvement. Figure 1.2 Key Watersheds

Table 1.1 Shasta-Trinity National Forest Watersheds (& Key Watersheds) Within the North Coast Water Board Region Klamath Basin via Trinity Klamath Basin via Trinity River River Watersheds (HUC5) Watersheds (HUC5) on the on the % USFS Shasta-Trinity National % USFS Shasta-Trinity National Forest Acres Admin Forest Acres Admin Grass Valley-Weaver 567,674 25% Upper Shasta River 314,755 25% Browns Creek 188,503 25% Whitney-Sheep Rock 339,092 33% Canyon Creek 317,613 25% Parks Creek-Shasta River 228,110 25% North Fork Trinity River 389,612 25% Willow Creek 224,666 25% New River 448,094 33% Julien-Shasta River 42,214 0% Burnt Ranch 537,844 25% Little Shasta River 81,473 0% Lower Trinity River 387,873 50% Lower Shasta River 78,839 0% Upper South Fork Trinity River 301,675 33% Main Trinity River 350,985 33% Middle South Fork Trinity River 355,879 33% Coffee Creek 223,938 33% Upper Hayfork Creek 317,298 33% East Fork Trinity River 147,764 50% Lower Hayfork Creek 426,046 33% Stuart Fork 264,493 33% Lower South Fork Trinity River 387,550 33% Trinity Reservoir 317,572 33% Total Watershed Area Key Watersheds 1,812,874 25% Draining From NFS Lands 7,239,563 30%

SECTION 2 – WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS

Watershed Assessments Watershed Analyses for 5th field watersheds that follow the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Regional Interagency Executive Committee and the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee 1995) are complete over 77% of the watersheds on the forest; 80% of the watersheds in the Trinity River portion of the Klamath Basin is complete and 75% of the watersheds in the Sacramento River portion of the forest. Watershed Analyses are required in the Northwest Forest Plan to conduct activities proposed in Key Watersheds or Riparian Reserves. Copies of these assessments are available to the public online at www.fs.usda.gov/ Links to National Forests by state are available there; after selecting California, then Shasta-Trinity ,a search for “Watershed Assessments” will lead to the Watershed Assessment page (or follow the following hotlink Shasta-Trinity National Forest- Home.) Some of the Watershed Assessments include analyses for more than one watershed and are not necessarily named by watershed. Table 2.1 can be used to determine which documents describe which watersheds and which watersheds remain to be analyzed. Figure 2.1 below displays the status of Watershed Analyses on the forest.

Table 2.1 Watershed Analysis Status and Cross walk from Watershed Name to corresponding Watershed Analysis Document

ANALYSIS WATERSHED WA NAME ANALYSIS WATERSHED WA NAME BEEGUM CREEK COTTONWOOD CR MIDDLE HAYFORK CREEK M HAYFORK & SALT CR BROWNS CREEK (Incomplete) NORTH FORK TRINITY N. FORK TRINITY RIVER BURNT RANCH SOLDIER BURNT RANCH PLUMMER S. FORK TRINITY RIVER BUTTER CREEK BUTTER CR RAMSHORN U. TRINITY CANYON CREEK NF TRINITY, EFNF TRINITY & CANYON CR RATTLESNAKE CREEK S. FORK TRINITY RIVER CLEAR CREEK U CLEAR CR SALT CREEK M HAYFORK & SALT CR COFFEE CREEK U. TRINITY SHASTA SW (Incomplete) CORRAL CREEK (Incomplete) SHOTGUN-SLATE SHOTGUN-SLATE EAST FORK NEW RIVER NEW RIVER SMOKY S. FORK TRINITY RIVER EAST FORK NORTH FORK TRINITY N. FORK TRINITY RIVER SOLDIER SOLDIER BURNT RANCH EAST FORK SOUTH FORK TRINITY S. FORK TRINITY RIVER SOUTH FORK COTTONWOOD CREEK (Incomplete) EAST FORK TRINITY U. TRINITY STUART FORK U. TRINITY EAST TRINITY RES U. TRINITY SWIFT CREEK U. TRINITY ELTAPOM CREEK (Incomplete) UPPER HAYFORK CREEK U HAYFORK FRENCH FRENCH CREEK UPPER NEW RIVER NEW RIVER HAPPY CAMP S. FORK TRINITY RIVER UPPER PILGRIM (Incomplete) HEADWATERS HEADWATERS SACRAMENTO UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER MCCLOUD FLATS HIDDEN VALLEY S. FORK TRINITY RIVER UPPER SOUTH FORK TRINITY S. FORK TRINITY RIVER HYAMPOM (Incomplete) UPPER TRINITY U. TRINITY LEWISTON U. TRINITY WEAVERVILLE WEAVERVILLE LOWER HAYFORK LOWER HAYFORK WEST TRINITY RES U. TRINITY LOWER NEW RIVER NEW RIVER WHITNEY (Incomplete) MIDDLE FORK COTTONWOOD COTTONWOOD CR WILLOW-PARKS (Incomplete)

Additional concurrent Watershed Assessment methods include the USFS Region 5, Fifth Field Watershed Condition Assessment (R5 USFS 2000) and a new National Watershed Condition Assessment (Oct 2010) that is designed to evaluate watersheds at a sub-watershed or 6th-field scale. The national assessment protocol was recently finalized and is expected to be iterative with initial assessments complete in late spring of 2011. These assessments are intended to evaluate all watersheds on Forest Service lands throughout the entire state and nationwide using a consistent process; by utilizing a consistent approach it is intended to enable better overall program management by improving the Forest Service’s ability to compare restoration priorities throughout the state and nationally.

Watershed condition is also assessed routinely in environmental planning analyses that consider past, present and foreseeable future activities to evaluate the potential for off-site cumulative watershed effects. An equivalent roaded acre disturbance model is used for these evaluations; the results of these assessments are displayed in the following section in Figure 3.2 below.

7 Figure 2.1 Watershed Analyses Status, December 2010 8 SECTION 3 – WATERSHED CONDITION

Land Management Plan Watersheds of Concern Watersheds of concern designated in the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)( USDA 1994) are Hyampom, Butter Creek, Plummer Creek, Rattlesnake Creek and East Fork South Fork Trinity River; all lie within the South Fork Trinity River Subbasin.

Figure 3.1 Shasta-Trinity LRMP Watersheds of Concern

Excessive sedimentation within the South Fork Trinity River is being addressed thru the TMDL for South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek (EPA 1998) which calls for a 20% reduction in sedimentation. The SF Trinity, Trinity and Shasta subbasins are all also 303d impaired due to water temperatures. On March 24th, 2010, the North Coast Regional Board approved the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Klamath River in California. The TMDL documents and Action Plan can be found at the following hotlink… Klamath River TMDL documents, which can also be found at the following URL: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/klamath_river/. Basically the TMDL implementation plan requires that federal land activities meet Klamath Basin conditions specified in WDR waivers.

9 Watershed Disturbance Levels Watershed Condition is also assessed through disturbance levels using the forest’s cumulative watershed effects (CWE) model. Past, present and future foreseeable activities that lead to ground disturbance are summarized at various hydrologic scales. The Forest Land Management Plan (USDA 1994) designates thresholds for 5th-field watersheds that consider the percentage of the watershed that has sensitive landforms and assigns a threshold value of disturbance. Generally, watersheds with higher sensitivities have lower thresholds of disturbance compared to more resilient watersheds, which would have higher thresholds and would be expected to tolerate higher levels of disturbance without increased susceptibility to adverse cumulative watershed effects. Thresholds have not been established at other hydrologic scales. The potential for adverse CWE at other hydrologic scales not described in terms of thresholds, but rather is evaluated on a watershed-specific basis related to elevated levels of disturbance that may increase the risk for adverse CWE.

The most recent CWE analysis (December 2010) indicates the following:

• The 5th-field watershed scale assessment indicates that overall disturbance levels are relatively low and that no watersheds over threshold. Three watersheds, East Fork Trinity, Burnt Ranch and Middle South Fork Trinity have the highest levels of disturbance; however these disturbance result in perceived moderate risk for adverse CWE. • The 6th-field sub-watershed scale assessment indicates that disturbance levels are considered to be high in two sub-watersheds; Hyampom and Sulphur Glade Creek – Waldorf Flat (both are within the Middle South Fork Trinity 5th-field watershed). • The 7th-field drainage scale assessment identifies 3 drainages that are considered to have very high disturbance levels (Big Creek-Hyampom, Pelletreau Creek and Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat) and four others at high disturbance levels (Halls Gulch, Oregon Gulch, Hyampom Valley and Long Gulch-Tomhead Gulch). • The 8th-field sub-drainage assessment identifies 46 subdrainages with high disturbance levels (Sub-drainages are identified only by numbers). Most of these are nested within watersheds with the highest disturbance levels at the broader scales.

See Figure 3.2 below.

10 Figure 3.2 Cumulative Watershed Effects Future Foreseeable Risk & Disturbance Levels, December 2010

11 SECTION 4 – WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITIES

Watershed restoration on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest has 3 primary focal areas: Road improvements and decommissioning, removing and reducing barriers to aquatic organism passage and restoring fire adapted forest ecosystems.

To facilitate restoration planning efforts, the Forest completed an assessment of priorities for watershed restoration implementation. The prioritization is based on a multi-factor evaluation at a drainage scale (h7) (ACT2 2008). Factors considered in the assessment include the presence of impaired waters, modeled disturbance levels (ERA), risks for erosion (RUSLE), and slope stability risks (Geo13). Relative priorities for restoration were based on values for each of these factors within a given watershed; on the perceived recovery potential for values at risk such as fisheries of concern (primarily anadromous species in peril); on local knowledge of watershed conditions, on known social concerns, and a variety of other factors. Figure 4.1 depicts the prioritization; Appendix A contains tabular data that corresponds to this figure.

12 Figure 4.1 Watershed Restoration Priorities 13 SECTION 5 – SEDIMENT SOURCE INVENTORY STATUS

Each year the Forest compiles information on selected watersheds to document sediment sources primarily associated with roads. The schedule of inventories is based on watershed priorities (see previous section – Figure 4.1). A substantial proportion of the Forest has already been inventoried. A Forest Sediment Source Inventory (SSI) Protocol was developed in 2007 to facilitate consistent interpretations and datasets. Inventories completed prior to 2007 are still of value but are more difficult to incorporate into assessments. The Forest has adopted an SSI schedule that calls for updated inventories roughly every 10 years. Figure 5.1 below depicts this schedule.

Table 5.1 Sediment Source Inventory Schedule HUC_NAME Status Schedule HUC_NAME Status Schedule Lower Trinity River Incomplete 2011 Willow Creek Incomplete 2014 Lower SF Trinity River Incomplete 2011 Main Trinity River Partial 2014 Lower Hayfork Creek Partial 2011 Coffee Creek Incomplete 2014 Upper Hayfork Creek Incomplete 2011 Stuart Fork Partial 2014 Upper McCloud River Partial 2012 Trinity Reservoir Partial 2014 Lower McCloud River Incomplete 2012 Dry Creek Incomplete 2014 Clear Creek Incomplete 2012 SF Cottonwood Creek Incomplete 2014 Canyon Creek Partial 2012 Whitney-Sheep Rock Incomplete 2015 North Fork Trinity River Incomplete 2012 Ash Creek Incomplete 2015 Grass Valley-Weaver Incomplete 2012 Bear Creek Incomplete 2015 Medicine Lake/ Lake Britton Incomplete 2012 Whitehorse Flat Incomplete 2016 Kosk/Iron Canyon Incomplete 2012 Fall River Incomplete 2016 Box Canyon Partial 2013 Upper SF Trinity River Complete 2017 Upper Sacramento River Partial 2013 Middle SF Trinity River Complete 2018 Squaw Valley Creek Incomplete 2013 Lower Sacramento River Complete 2019 McCloud Arm Shasta Lake Incomplete 2013 Burnt Ranch Complete 2019 Pit Arm Shasta Lake Incomplete 2013 Parks Creek-Shasta River Complete 2020 Squaw Creek Incomplete 2013 Upper Shasta River Complete 2020 Sacramento Arm Shasta Lake Incomplete 2013 East Fork Trinity River In Progress 2020 Sacramento Non Fed River/Stillwater Shed 2013 New River In Progress 2020 Browns Creek Incomplete 2013 Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek Partial 2013

14 Figure 5.1 Recent Sediment Source Inventory Status & Schedule

15 SECTION 6 – WATERSHED RESTORATION PLANS

Legacy Work Restoration work completed in the past few years (2008 through 2010) has focused on what are often referred to as legacy impacts. Most of the associated restoration work has been conducted in the South Fork Trinity River Sub-basin. Fewer opportunities exist within the Trinity Sub-basin where most of the watershed area is within congressionally designated ” Wilderness” with significantly lower levels of anthropogenic influence; or within the Shasta Sub-basin which has limited land area under Forest administration. Figure 6.1 below shows areas of completed watershed restoration projects.

Watershed protection and off-site erosion prevention will be substantially enhanced as a result of the newly adopted Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR 212.50(a) which states, “Motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13.” The permanent prohibition of cross-country travel should end the proliferation of unplanned off-road vehicle routes by prohibiting motorized cross-country travel on approximately 1.6 million acres of the Shasta- Trinity National Forest (Motorized Travel Management Record of Decision March 2010). Areas below the high-water mark of Shasta and Trinity Lakes are designated as open areas to provide for access to the water’s edge for water-based recreation. Vehicular travel in these areas is restricted to highway- legal vehicles with a 15 mph speed limit, in order to protect cultural and natural resources.

A newly designated motorized route system is adopted in the recent Travel Management Decision, with free maps of authorized routes available to the public (USDA March 2010). A nationwide effort is being conducted by the Forest Service to identify the minimum transportation system necessary to meet the needs of National Forests and the public (Travel Management Rule Subpart A). Environmental analysis of the transportation system on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is presently underway and is expected to be complete by end of 2011. Roads not presently part of the authorized transportation system will be considered for removal from the landscape and restoration to the natural condition, conversion to foot or equestrian trails, or addition to the system pending additional future environmental analysis, public involvement and documentation.

To date, roughly 250 miles of unneeded roads and trails have been decommissioned on Shasta-Trinity National Forest lands. Partners have not only leveraged funding for Forest Service restoration projects, but have also matched Forest Service funding to other external funds to perform similar projects on adjacent lands, contributing to a more holistic watershed approach to restoration.

16 The road drainage improvement work or “Legacy stormproofing” program continues to grow. The Forest has invested roughly $782,700 over the last 3 years, with 150 miles of roads improved and 135 miles more under agreement for upgrades in 2011.

Ten sizable barriers to aquatic organism passage have been upgraded to provide more natural fluvial ecosystem function and habitat connectivity. Over the last six years the Forest has invested roughly $2.9 million in these improvements.

A summary of many of these restoration projects is presented in Appendix B.

17 Figure 6.1 Recent Watershed Restoration (Primarily Road Improvements)

Future Restoration Planning in Progress The Westside Watershed Restoration EA is nearly complete with a comment period recent closing; it proposes decommissioning about 45 miles of roads and removal of 90 stream crossings, mostly within the South Fork Trinity and Trinity Sub-basins. The decision is expected to be made final in early spring 2011.

Proposals in progress for 2011 legacy road funding are in the Shasta sub-basin, which is regulated by the Klamath River TMDL, and in the Plummer Creek Sub-watershed in the South Fork Trinity River Sub-basin. The success of past efforts has reduced storm-related erosion potential and sedimentation risk on hundreds of miles of roads. Assuring that roads have well-armored critical dips, and that culverts and road surface drainage facilities are functioning in advance of significant storm events is preparing the Forest for the likelihood of future extreme weather events, and reducing the likely impact of such events on fisheries and infrastructure.

The Forest recently completed the Soldier Creek Road Analysis Process (RAP) (September 2010) which will inform a new restoration decision document for this Forest planning watershed.

The Forest will soon be acquiring new sediment source inventory data from 2009/2010 contracts. These data will inform RAP and NEPA planning documents for future watershed restoration. The schedule for future sediment source inventories is identified in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1. The 2011 inventory continues the focus on the South Fork Trinity Sub-basin by completing surveys within the Upper and Lower Hayfork 6th-field watersheds as well as the Lower South Fork Trinity watershed.

Special acknowledgement is given to the numerous individuals and multi-agency, federal, state and county partnerships that have helped to create a successful restoration program on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Our partners are the key to our success.

REFERENCES

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region. March 2010. Resolution No. R1-2010-0026 - Action Plan for the Klamath River Total Maximum Daily Loads addressing Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrient, and Microcystin Impairments in the Klamath River in California and the Lower Lost River Implementation Plan. Santa Rosa, CA.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region. 2010. Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R1-2010-0029. For Nonpoint Source Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land Management Activities on National Forest System Lands in the North Coast Region. Santa Rosa, CA.

Regional Interagency Executive Committee and the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. August 1995. Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208-3623

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Redding, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. March 2010. Motorized Travel Management Record of Decision. Redding, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. September 2010. Soldier Creek Watershed Road Analysis Process (RAP). Redding, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 5. 2000. Fifth Field Watershed Condition Assessment. Vallejo, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl.

Act2. 2008. Forest Priority Watersheds Evaluation. Forest Service Enterprise Team, Yreka, CA.

Appendix A

First Priority Areas for Watershed Restoration (H7- drainage scale)

usle geo era combo Risk Alpha Drainage Name (H7) risk risk risk rate mod Value source Fish Rate Label Lower Rattlesnake Creek 0.62 1.20 0.35 0.86 H H key Adjunct A North Rattlesnake Creek 0.42 1.11 0.35 0.75 H L key NA B Upper Rattlesnake Creek 0.52 0.97 0.20 0.68 H H key Adjunct C Prospect Creek 0.72 0.82 0.21 0.67 H H key Focal D Upper Plummer Creek 0.59 0.88 0.21 0.66 H H key Adjunct E Upper Indian Valley Creek 0.37 0.97 0.27 0.65 H L key NA F Lower Big Creek-New River 0.49 0.77 0.32 0.60 H H key Focal G Iron Canyon Reservoir 0.60 0.72 0.14 0.57 H H NA Passage H Cave Creek-Swift Creek 0.35 0.50 0.44 0.44 H L key NA I Lower Indian Valley Creek 0.27 0.55 0.36 0.43 H L key NA J Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 0.27 0.31 0.95 0.43 H L key NA K Raspbery Gulch-South Fork Trinity River 0.29 0.51 0.29 0.40 H H key Focal L Upper Big Creek-New River 0.46 0.40 0.22 0.38 M H key Focal M Tate Creek 0.74 0.27 0.10 0.38 M M tmdl Adjunct N Barron Creek-Caraway Creek 0.23 0.49 0.28 0.37 M H key Focal O Butter Creek Meadows 0.36 0.42 0.20 0.36 M L key NA P Red Mountain Creek 0.29 0.47 0.16 0.35 M H key Adjunct Q Smoky Creek 0.31 0.45 0.09 0.34 M H key Focal R Lower East Fork South Fork Trinity River 0.32 0.42 0.12 0.33 M H key Focal S Racoon Creek-Shady Gulch 0.66 0.19 0.13 0.32 M M tmdl Adjunct T Bell Creek 0.13 0.48 0.13 0.31 M H key Focal U McClellen-South Fork Trinity River 0.20 0.22 0.59 0.29 M L key NA V Coney Island-Upper McCloud River 0.72 0.09 0.11 0.28 M M tmdl Adjunct W Curtis Meadows-Upper McCloud River 0.68 0.10 0.14 0.28 M M tmdl Adjunct X Bierce Creek-South Fork Trinity River 0.25 0.36 0.13 0.28 M H key Adjunct Y Moosehead Creek-Colby Meadow 0.64 0.10 0.14 0.27 M M tmdl Adjunct Z China Creek-New River 0.17 0.23 0.43 0.25 M H key Focal AA Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 0.23 0.29 0.16 0.25 M L key NA AB Shel Mountain Creek 0.29 0.26 0.13 0.24 M H key Focal AC Bull Creek 0.62 0.05 0.13 0.24 M M tmdl Adjunct AD Lower Plummer Creek 0.22 0.29 0.12 0.24 M H key Adjunct AE Miller Springs 0.15 0.26 0.28 0.23 M L key NA AF Upper East Fork South Fork Trinity River 0.36 0.20 0.07 0.22 M H key Focal AG Lower Trout Creek 0.53 0.02 0.10 0.19 M H tmdl Adjunct AH

Second Level Priority Areas for Watershed Restoration usle geo era combo Risk Alpha Drainage Name (H7) risk risk risk rate mod Value source Fish Rate Label Lower Rush Creek 0.63 1.77 0.47 1.17 H M krb Adjunct a NA NA Crow Creek 1.52 1.13 0.45 1.11 H L b NA NA Halls Gulch 0.98 1.11 0.75 1.00 H L c NA NA Lower Mumbo Creek 0.97 1.23 0.43 0.99 H L d NA NA Pond Lily Creek-Middle East Fork Trinity R 0.96 1.07 0.63 0.95 H L e NA NA Highland Lakes-Upper East Fork Trinity River 0.97 0.69 0.77 0.79 H L f Upper Hawkins Creek 0.61 0.93 0.20 0.69 H M tmdl Adjunct g Stringbean Creek-Goods Creek 0.53 0.89 0.21 0.65 H M tmdl Adjunct h Upper Dog Creek 0.68 0.79 0.14 0.63 H M wca Focal i Post Creek 0.63 0.80 0.16 0.62 H L key NA j Hambone East 0.49 0.81 0.22 0.60 H M wca Unique k Headwaters Hayfork Creek 0.73 0.68 0.18 0.60 H M tmdl Adjunct l Dubakella Creek 0.47 0.81 0.19 0.58 H M tmdl Adjunct m Upper Big Creek-Hayfork Creek 0.49 0.76 0.16 0.56 H M tmdl Focal n Willow Creek-Squaw Valley Creek 0.79 0.57 0.16 0.55 H M tmdl Adjunct o Soldier Creek-Trinity River 0.68 0.58 0.26 0.55 M M NA Adjunct p Upper Claiborne Creek 0.76 0.56 0.16 0.54 H M tmdl Adjunct q Horse Heaven Meadows 0.98 0.31 0.42 0.53 H L NA NA r Damnation Creek-Stacey Creek 0.68 0.56 0.15 0.51 H M tmdl Adjunct s Lower Big Creek-Hayfork Creek 0.42 0.72 0.12 0.51 H M tmdl Focal t Devil's Creek-Lower East Fork Trinity River 0.41 0.55 0.44 0.49 H L NA NA u Lake Eleanor-Swift Creek 0.44 0.55 0.39 0.49 H M NA Focal v Headwaters Clear Creek 0.72 0.48 0.13 0.48 H M tmdl Adjunct w Upper Chatterdown Creek 0.60 0.54 0.15 0.48 H M tmdl Adjunct x Upper East Fork Hayfork Creek 0.70 0.48 0.12 0.47 H M tmdl Adjunct y Lower Slate Creek 0.54 0.53 0.22 0.47 H L wca NA z Little Creek-Hayfork Creek 0.46 0.51 0.39 0.47 H M tmdl Adjunct aa Upper Slate Creek 0.79 0.39 0.12 0.46 H L wca NA ab Rusch Creek 0.22 0.69 0.18 0.45 H M tmdl Adjunct ac Ditch Gulch-Salt Creek 0.53 0.50 0.19 0.45 H L NA NA ad Middle Parks Creek 0.46 0.57 0.10 0.44 H L NA NA ae Lower Chatterdown Creek 0.33 0.62 0.14 0.44 H M tmdl Adjunct af Pig Creek-Dairy Creek 0.69 0.39 0.10 0.42 H M tmdl Adjunct ag Little French Creek 0.23 0.63 0.15 0.41 H M tmdl Adjunct ah Nosoni Creek 0.57 0.44 0.10 0.41 H L NA NA ai Grouse Creek-Middle East Fork Trinity River 0.36 0.41 0.44 0.40 H L NA NA aj Picayune Creek 0.64 0.28 0.24 0.38 M L NA NA ak Upper Mumbo Creek 0.49 0.41 0.12 0.38 M L NA NA al Upper Salt Creek-Hayfork Creek 0.27 0.51 0.12 0.36 M M tmdl Focal am

usle geo era combo Risk Alpha Drainage Name (H7) risk risk risk rate mod Value source Fish Rate Label Upper Eltapom Creek 0.30 0.47 0.17 0.36 M M krb Focal an Ah-Di-Na 0.31 0.47 0.14 0.36 M M tmdl Focal ao Sailor Bar Creek-Trinity River 0.26 0.47 0.18 0.35 M M tmdl Adjunct ap Jessie Creek-Horse Creek 0.49 0.35 0.13 0.35 M M tmdl Focal aq Lower Eltapom Creek 0.21 0.50 0.15 0.34 M M krb Focal ar NA West Fork Parks Creek 0.37 0.42 0.10 0.34 M L wca as McKay Creek 0.64 0.25 0.12 0.34 M M tmdl Adjunct at Lower Claiborne Creek 0.39 0.39 0.11 0.33 M M tmdl Adjunct au NA South Fork Willow Creek 0.34 0.43 0.08 0.33 M L wca av Lower Kosk Creek 0.36 0.39 0.14 0.33 M M tmdl Focal aw White Deer Lake 0.45 0.29 0.20 0.32 M M wca Unique ax Fawn Creek-South Fork Sacramento River 0.44 0.30 0.11 0.30 M M wca POC ay NA Deer Creek 0.52 0.25 0.10 0.30 M L wca az Salt Creek-Squaw Creek 0.44 0.29 0.08 0.29 M M tmdl Focal ba Lower Dog Creek 0.38 0.29 0.10 0.28 M M wca Focal bb Potem Creek 0.43 0.26 0.07 0.27 M M tmdl Adjunct bc North Fork Squaw Creek-NE 0.39 0.26 0.10 0.27 M M tmdl Focal bd Upper Kosk Creek 0.51 0.18 0.10 0.26 M M tmdl Focal be Lake Siskiyou 0.57 0.12 0.12 0.26 M M wca POC bf Coal Creek-Kosk Creek 0.32 0.28 0.07 0.25 M M tmdl Focal bg Eddy Creek 0.47 0.18 0.09 0.25 M M tmdl Adjunct bh NA Upper Parks Creek 0.27 0.29 0.10 0.25 M L wca bi NA NA Seven Lakes Basin 0.37 0.21 0.10 0.24 M L bj Bartle Creek 0.57 0.06 0.17 0.24 M M tmdl Adjunct bk NA NA South Fork Castle Creek 0.35 0.23 0.07 0.23 M L bl NA NA Upper Middle Salt Creek 0.28 0.26 0.10 0.23 M L bm Belnap Spring 0.55 0.07 0.15 0.23 M M wca Unique bn Pole Corral Creek 0.31 0.20 0.15 0.22 M M wca Adjunct bo NA NA Bull Creek-Cedar Creek 0.48 0.11 0.10 0.22 M L bp NA Middle Slate Creek 0.20 0.27 0.09 0.21 M L wca bq Lower Hawkins Creek 0.23 0.25 0.09 0.21 M M tmdl Adjunct br Lower East Fork Hayfork Creek 0.29 0.23 0.05 0.21 M M tmdl Focal bs Upper Edson Creek 0.50 0.09 0.08 0.21 M M wca Adjunct bt Upper Rush Creek 0.19 0.24 0.14 0.21 M M krb Adjunct bu North Fork Backbone Creek 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.20 M M tmdl Focal bv Intake Spring 0.56 0.03 0.10 0.20 M M wca Source bw Swamp Creek 0.46 0.04 0.08 0.17 M M wca Adjunct bx

23 Appendix B Showcase of Completed Watershed Restoration Projects 2009 Infrastructure Improvement Fund Project Summary

Soldier Creek Fish Passage ½ mile of Habitat Total Project Cost:$495,915 Opened/Restored Project Purpose/Objectives:

The purpose of this project is to eliminate the existing fish barrier in Soldier Creek by replacing the culvert with an open bottom multi plate Arch. The existing culvert generates a concentrated discharge resulting in a water velocity too high to pass fish during winter and storm flow events. This has created an outlet plunge pool too difficult to gain access to during lower flows. Since the new crossing will be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event, this project will also meet the objective of eliminating the potential for a catastrophic culvert failure. Work Performed:

The existing 15 ft-6inch by 8 ft-8 inch corrugated steel pipe arch, 94 feet long was removed and replaced with a 25 ft. wide by 12ft-5 inch high, 110 foot long corrugated steel open bottomed multi plate pipe arch with step beveled ends and concrete reinforced slope collars. Other work performed was stream simulation through the multi plate arch along with placing 600 cubic yards of riprap slope protection and 180 cubic yards of aggregate as a surface course for the roadway. A bypass was also developed in order to allow vehicular Soldier Creek outlet and historic ditch prior to project work.

Expected Benefits:

A return to a naturally occurring stream bottom will comprise the substrate of the crossing and be allowed to exist at its natural grade. This will once again allow for fish and amphibian passage for all life stages at a wide range of

stream flows adding another ½ mile of habitat. The newly constructed structure with an open bottom has restored capacity to pass flows and associated debris with little chance for damage. This product should prove to be relatively Infrastructuremaintenance free well Improvementinto the distant future. Soldier Creek outlet and historic ditch upon project completion – Oct. 2009

24 Infrastructure Improvement Fund Project Summary

Goods Creek Fish Passage Miles of Habitat Opened/ 2006 Total Project Cost:$509.3M Restored: 3 miles

Project Purpose/Objectives:

The purpose of this project is to eliminate the existing fish barrier in Goods Creek by replacing the culvert with a bridge. The existing culvert generates a concentrated discharge resulting in a water velocity too high to pass fish during winter and storm flow events. This has created an outlet plunge pool too difficult to gain access to during lower flows. Since the new crossing will be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event, this project will also meet the objective of eliminating the potential for a catastrophic culvert failure. The existing culvert is undersized and the site has a history of overtopping. If there were another overtopping or the culvert were to fail - hundreds of cubic yards of road fill material could be being mobilized downstream

Work Performed:

The existing 9 ft. diameter, 71 foot long

corrugated steel culvert was removed and replaced with a 24 ft. wide, 93 ft. long pre- stressed concrete girder bridge. Approximately 2500 cubic yards of fill material was excavated and compacted on

the adjacent road bed. Approx..1000 cubic yards of Class 5 rip rap was placed around the abutments for slope protection. Work is expected to be completed Spring 2007.

Goods Creek outlet and weir prior to project work.

Expected Benefits:

A r eturn to a naturally occurring stream bottom will comprise the Substantially substrate ofcompleted the crossing bridge and– be allowed to exist at its natural grade. This will once again allow for fish and amphibian passage for all life stages at a wide range of stream flows. The bridge also eliminates the repeated deliveries of road based sediment from flooding, plus the recurring costs of reconstruction. The end-product should prove

to be relatively maintenance free well into the Dec.distant 2006. future.

25 2004/2005 Infrastructure Improvement Fund Project Summary

Limestone Creek Fish Passage Total Project Cost: $199,705

Project Purpose/Objectives: The purpose of this project was to rehabilitate the Limestone Creek culvert crossing sufficiant to provide unrestricted passage for all aquatic species. This crossing is located on Road 33N47, a maintenance level 3 road that is valuable to the forest. The Limestone Creek crossing is a large earth fill with a 72- inch x 50 ft multi-plate steel culvert. The road provides the administrative access into the area for fire suppression, resource protection and private property. Rehabilitation of the crossing was necessary due to its age (50+ years) and undersize and it formed a barrier to fish and other aquatic species. The breakdown of costs included NEPA/planning-approximately $4,000.00 design-$23,000.00, contract-$12,500

Work Performed: The 78-inch DIAMETER corregated steel culvert excavated and replaced with a 50-ft SPAN steel bridge. The original crossing was designed to pass a 25 year storm event and will be upgraded to pass 100 year storm flows. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of fill would be removed from the existing cossing and placed in a stable waste area. The outlet had scoured a deep hole that, during low flows, allows the water level to be about 3 feet below the bottom of the pipe. The structure was a barrier to fish migration in Limestone Creek, a tributary to Big Creek near H f k CA

Upstream view of Limestone Creek crossing before construction

Expected Benefits: The restriction and gradient of the old culvert increased the water velocity to the point that fish and other aquatic species were unable to travel upstream. Approximately 2.0 miles of habitat was being restricted. The following known aquatic species will now have unrestricted access through the crossing: coho salmon, steelhead, resident rainbow, Pacific lamprey, and Pacific giant salamanders. The new structure has restored capacity to pass flows and associated debris and no maintenance will be required in the future to remove lodge debris. In addition, the volume of fill material (~2,000 cubic yards) has been removed and no longer poses a threat to aquatic habitat downstream. Limestone Creek crossing after construction of bridge.

26 2004/2005 Infrastructure Improvement Fund Project Summary

Tule Creek Fish Passage Total Project Cost: $250,698

Project Purpose/Objectives: The purpose of this project was to rehabilitate the Tule Creek culvert crossing sufficiant to provide unrestricted passage for all aquatic species. This crossing is located on Road 31N31, a maintenance level 3 road that is valuable to the forest. The Tule Creek crossing is a large earth fill with a 72-inch x 115 ft multi-plate steel culvert. The road provides the administrative access into the area for fire suppression, resource protection and private property. Rehabilitation of the crossing was necessary due to its age (50+ years) and undersize and it formed a barrier to fish and other aquatic species. The breakdown of costs included NEPA/planning-approximately $4,000.00 design-$23,000.00, contract-$12,500.

Work Performed: The 72- inch DIAMETER corregated steel culvert would be excavated and replaced with a 64-ft SPAN concrete bridge. The crossing was originally designed to pass a 25 year storm event and upgraded to pass 100 year storm flows. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of fill were removed from the existing cossing and placed in a stable waste area. The outlet had scoured a deep hole that, during low flows, allows the water level to be about 3 feet below the bottom of the pipe. The structure was a barrier to fish migration in Tule Creek, a tributary to Hayfork Creek near Hayfork, CA. Upstream view of Tule Creek crossing before construction.

Expected Benefits: The restriction and gradient of the old culvert increased the water velocity to the point that fish and other aquatic species were unable to travel upstream. Approximately 2.0 miles of habitat was being restricted. The following known aquatic species will now have unrestricted access through the crossing: steelhead, resident rainbow, Pacific lamprey, and Pacific giant salamanders. The new structure has restored capacity to pass flows and associated debris and no maintenance will be required in the future to remove lodge debris. In addition, the volume of fill material (~2,000 cubic yards) has been removed and no longer poses a threat to aquatic habitat downstream. Tule Creek crossing after construction of bridge.

27 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].

Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).