DOCSLIB.ORG

Van Duzen River Cumulative Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Van Duzen River Cumulative Effects Van Duzen River Watershed Analysis Cumulative Watershed Effects Final Report July 15, 2002 Arcata, CA Cumulative Watershed Effects TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................i LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................v LIST OF MAPS...........................................................................................................................vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Approach and Process...................................................................................................3 2.0 WATERSHED OVERVIEW...............................................................................................5 2.1 Watershed Overview......................................................................................................5 2.2 Ownership and Land Use...............................................................................................6 2.3 Basin History ..................................................................................................................7 2.4 Geology and Soils ..........................................................................................................8 2.4.1 Geologic Units, Stratigraphy, and Structure of the Van Duzen Watershed...........9 2.4.2 Structure..............................................................................................................13 2.4.3 Seismic Setting....................................................................................................14 2.5 Soils 16 2.6 Fish Species and Distribution.......................................................................................19 2.6.1 Fish......................................................................................................................19 2.6.2 Steelhead Trout...................................................................................................19 2.6.3 Chinook Salmon ..................................................................................................20 2.6.4 Coho Salmon.......................................................................................................20 2.6.5 Cutthroat Trout ....................................................................................................21 2.7 Amphibians and Reptiles Species and Distribution......................................................21 2.7.1 Southern Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus)....................................21 2.7.2 Tailed Frog (Ascaphus truei) ...............................................................................22 2.7.3 Northern Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora aurora)................................................23 2.7.4 Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii)............................................................24 2.7.5 Northwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) ............................24 2.8 Climate and Hydrology.................................................................................................25 2.8.1 Climate ................................................................................................................25 2.9 Hydrology .....................................................................................................................30 2.10 Flood History ................................................................................................................33 2.10.1 Flood History from Historic Gage Records..........................................................33 2.10.2 Summary of Flood History...................................................................................36 2.10.3 Peak Flow Generating Processes .......................................................................37 2.11 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................38 2.11.1 Historic Vegetation ..............................................................................................38 Final Report Page i Van Duzen River Watershed Analysis Cumulative Watershed Effects 2.11.2 Current Vegetation ..............................................................................................40 2.11.3 The Role of Fire...................................................................................................40 3.0 SCOPING OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................42 4.0 MODULE FINDINGS ......................................................................................................45 4.1 Sediment Sources........................................................................................................46 4.1.1 Mass Wasting......................................................................................................46 4.1.2 Surface Erosion...................................................................................................51 4.1.3 Sediment Budget.................................................................................................52 4.2 Stream Processes........................................................................................................60 4.2.1 Hydrologic Change..............................................................................................60 4.2.2 Stream Channel ..................................................................................................63 4.2.3 Riparian Condition...............................................................................................64 4.3 Biological Resources....................................................................................................66 4.3.1 Fisheries Habitat .................................................................................................66 4.3.2 Amphibian and Reptile Habitat............................................................................66 5.0 SUB-BASIN KEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................68 5.1 Sediment Sources........................................................................................................68 5.2 Riparian Function and Fog Effect.................................................................................72 5.3 Cummings Creek..........................................................................................................73 5.3.1 Estimated Sediment Inputs .................................................................................73 5.3.2 Analysis of Potential Channel Response.............................................................74 5.3.3 Potential Resource Vulnerabilities.......................................................................75 5.4 Grizzly Creek................................................................................................................77 5.4.1 Estimated Sediment Inputs .................................................................................77 5.4.2 Analysis of Potential Channel Response.............................................................78 5.4.3 Potential Resource Vulnerabilities.......................................................................80 5.5 Hely Creek ...................................................................................................................81 5.5.1 Estimated Sediment Inputs .................................................................................81 5.5.2 Analysis of Potential Channel Response.............................................................82 5.5.3 Potential Resource Vulnerabilities.......................................................................83 5.6 Hydesville Creek ..........................................................................................................84 5.6.1 Estimated Sediment Inputs .................................................................................84 5.6.2 Analysis of Potential Channel Response.............................................................86 5.6.3 Potential Resource Vulnerabilities.......................................................................86 5.7 Root Creek ...................................................................................................................87 5.7.1 Estimated Sediment Inputs .................................................................................87 5.7.2 Analysis of Potential Channel Response.............................................................88 5.7.3 Potential Resource Vulnerabilities.......................................................................89 5.8 Stevens Creek..............................................................................................................91 5.8.1 Estimated Sediment Inputs .................................................................................91 5.8.2 Analysis of Potential Channel Response.............................................................92 Final Report Page ii Van Duzen River Watershed Analysis Cumulative Watershed Effects 5.8.3 Potential Resource Vulnerabilities.......................................................................93
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report
    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission in partnership with the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Humboldt Redwood Company Summary Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Restoration Grant Program Grantee Agreement: P1210516 Lower Eel River and Van Duzen River Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Spatial Structure Survey 2013-2016 Summary Report Prepared by: David Lam and Sharon Powers December 2016 Abstract Monitoring of coho salmon population spatial structure was conducted, as a component of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Coastal Salmonid Monitoring Program, in the lower Eel River and its tributaries, inclusive of the Van Duzen River, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Potential coho salmon habitat within the lower Eel River and Van Duzen River study areas was segmented into a sample frame of 204 one-to-three kilometer stream survey reaches. Annually, a randomly selected subset of sample frame stream reaches was monitored by direct observation. Using mask and snorkel, surveyors conducted two independent pass dive observations to estimate fish species presence and numbers. A total of 211 surveys were conducted on 163 reaches, with 2,755 pools surveyed during the summers of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Coho salmon were observed in 13.5% of reaches and 7.5% of pools surveyed, and the percent of the study area occupied by coho salmon juveniles was estimated at 7% in 2013 and 2014, 3% in 2015, and 4% in 2016. i Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Main Eel (PDF)
    12 3° 55'0 "W 123 ° 52'30 "W 123 ° 50'0" W 123 °4 7'30 "W 123 °4 5'0" W 123 °4 2'30 "W 123°40'0"W 1 23° 3 7'30" W 1 23° 35 '0" W 1 23° 32 '30" W B 2 a Lar lc a b k o ee Cr e e 5 1 m S e 5 4 re 2 S C k l l C 3 w k r co i 4 Da ry e i i M M e t h f C re e t c t y a ns Can on 3 2 k C n a C C Bro w r x r h ee w a r A f th e k k B r e v e o e l e u G A l e e en D l e s ounta e l M k i r C r in a a n d n u o re C d R p l e l i t d l o s k i h C M a 7 M in eek d y r Cr C e is 11 S v re e a 12 e k c k D 10 8 o t 9 t v Pea C i n r e h Roa e d k e c P a n R e k 10 n th e a e o r 7 C R r a C l len 11 12 r d A e r 8 l 7 k e ek ig e k b e d r 12 Middle Main Eel Planninge 10 Watershed 89 10 n C re 9 i 11 12 e ek C s Cre l l W r 11 s 25 4 i k !( o M oo H reek r r C C 15 Dee k e 13 r e 18 14 C r C e 17 nack re ek b 16 K o st We 15 18 Fr Cree k 40°22'30"N Cre 17 s ek 14 15 tth ew 16 14 13 Ma 13 17 18 16 L 13 k i 14 e t k Existing Land Use e t Martin Cr e le re C 01S 03E V 15 a s 40 °2 2'30 "N n e r k D o ee u l r ze o in C n D 01Srt 04E T R 20 Ma ive h r k u 01S 05E N e e r wm r e m k a n C e 24 a 21 n e 19 r 22 C C 23 r n e r 23 e a k B k k 19 ee Perr e 24 21 k t C r ott Cre 20 n e 22 19 la k rth Cre k 24 B 24 k o e 23 k e e s w 20 23 e e e o r B e r 22 r C C 21 C e an l n p o m p s w p e a Ca N K m bi o n Cre h ek 26 T V i F la ek n r t Cre n e u k Boul d m 25 29 27 e R 28 e o r E 30 d a a South Fork Bar n C o d e 26 R C le l Poison Oak Creek Watersh ed tto 25 a Ma R m e i r 30 25 29 v o 29 28 27 25 n 26 28 e r Paci fi c Lu mber Co mpa ny C 26 k r 27
    [Show full text]
  • Prologue: the Green Prison
    Prologue The Green Prison Jedediah Strong Smith was one of the famous mountain men who traveled the west in search of beaver in the decades before the California gold rush. In 1826, he reached the Mexican province that was to become California, and two years later, he traveled through northwest California on his second expedition. While in the Sacramento Valley, he and his party of 20 men and 300 horses and mules turned west off the Great Indian Trail near Red Bluff and headed for an inviting gap in the mountains. He reasoned that the mountains to the west held the river that would take them to Trinidad Bay. From there he planned to follow the coast north to the Columbia River. Trinidad Bay was a prominent feature on maps of Smith's day, based on the landings of Bruno Heceta and Juan Francisco Bodega y Cadra in '775- Jedediah Smith knew that trappers of the Hudson's Bay Company were finding beaver and other furbearers in Oregon in the early 1800s. Would northwest California be next? Indeed, trappers entered the upper Klamath River watershed in 1826. The next year Fran~oisPeyette led a small band of trappers downstream to the Yurok village of wec@es (Weitchpec), which will play an important role in the coming gold rush years. After leaving the Great Indian Trail, the Smith party left the deep grass- lands of the Sacramento Valley and entered the eastern foothills of north- west California. They encountered woodlands and chaparral similar to that of the Sierra Nevada and to those they had encountered on leaving the Presidio of Monterey at the beginning of their trip (Map 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering Our Past to Secure Our Future
    “To destroy in whole or in part”: Remembering Our Past to Secure Our Future Jack Norton Abstract This essay proposes that the history of California includes the intended destruction and decimation of native cultures, including their forced removal, illegal land acquisition, slavery, separation of families, and outright murder enacted by the private citizenry and governmental agencies during European contact can be defined as genocide as outlined by the United Nations Geneva Convention, 1948. The lasting legacy of contact on ab- original lifeways and tradition, as well as the recent resurgence of native traditions and culture is addressed to suggest that the health and healing of native communities lies in reconciling the past to make passage into the future. Introduction Each summer I return to northern California, to the land of the Hupa, Yurok, and Karuk. I return to pray and dance within the centers of our world. I join my cousins, my sons, my grandchildren, nephews and friends, to sing and dance once again upon the grounds cleansed and purified by spiritual energy eons ago. It is a time of renewal, to be amongst the energy of creation, to be re-created, born anew, and cleansed of a year’s accumulation of stress, anxieties, and distorted information, negative thoughts, or projections onto others for what we have failed to become. For ten days my wife and I stand within the radiance of ancestral memory as we visit, eat, and enjoy the company of those we have missed throughout the year. Yet, within this aura of renewal, I often feel a
    [Show full text]
  • 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Opens a New Window
    3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section provides information regarding impacts of the proposed project on hydrology and water quality. The information used in this analysis is taken from: ► Water Supply Assessment for the Humboldt Wind Energy Project (Stantec 2019) (Appendix T); ► Humboldt County General Plan (Humboldt County 2017); ► North Coast Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (North Coast IRWMP) (North Coast Resource Partnership 2018); ► Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) (North Coast RWQCB 2018); ► the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Mapping Program (2018); ► National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data; and ► California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater (DWR 2003). 3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION Weather in the project area is characterized by temperate, dry summers and cool, wet winters. In winter, precipitation is heavy. Average annual rainfall can be up to 47 inches in Scotia (WRCC 2019). The rainy season, which generally begins in October and lasts through April, includes most of the precipitation (e.g., 90 percent of the mean annual runoff of the Eel River occurs during winter). Precipitation data from water years 1981–2010 for Eureka, approximately 20 miles north of the project area, show a mean annual precipitation of 40 inches (NOAA and CNRFC 2019). Mean annual precipitation in the project area is lowest in the coastal zone area (40 inches per year) and highest in the upper elevations of the Upper Cape Mendocino and Eel River hydrologic units to the east (85 inches per year) (Cal-Atlas 1996). The dry season, generally May through September, is usually defined by morning fog and overcast conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads For· Temperature and Sediment
    ., U.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Lower Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for· Temperature and Sediment Approved by: l~ltl(Jl Alexis Strauss, Date Director, Water Division TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 1.1. OVERVIEW OF THE TMDL PROGRAM ................................................................... 1 1.2. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 2 1.3. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION.................................................... 4 1.4. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................. 7 2.1. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS............................................................................... 7 2.2. FISH POPULATION AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONCERNS......................... 9 2.3. STREAM TEMPERATURE PROBLEMS .................................................................. 14 2.4. SEDIMENT PROBLEMS ............................................................................................ 26 CHAPTER 3: TEMPERATURE TMDLS ............................................................................... 30 3.1. INTERPRETING THE EXISTING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TEMPERATURE ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Eel River & Tributaries PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC
    Management Agency: South Fork Eel River & Tributaries Bureau of Land Management ~ BLM Arcata Field Office PROPOSED WILD & SCENIC RIVERS University of California ~ Angelo Coast Range Reserve These proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers support threatened Location: Mendocino County and endangered populations of salmon and steelhead and CA 2nd Congressional District rare plants. They also provide outstanding research Watershed: opportunities of nearly pristine undeveloped watersheds. South Fork Eel River Wild & Scenic River Miles: South Fork Eel River – 12.3 miles South Fork Eel River—12.3 The South Fork Eel River supports the largest concentration Elder Creek—7 of naturally reproducing anadromous fish in the region. East Branch South Fork Eel River—23.1 Cedar Creek—9.6 Federal officials recently identified the river as essential for the recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. The Outstanding Values: upper portion of this segment is located on the Angelo Anadromous fisheries, ecological, Biosphere Reserve, hydrological, wildlife, recreation Preserve managed for wild lands research by the University of California. Angelo Reserve access roads are open to For More Information: public hiking. The lower portion flows through the existing Steve Evans—CalWild [email protected] South Fork Wilderness managed by the BLM. The river (916) 708-3155 offers class IV-V whitewater boating opportunities. The river would be administered through a cooperative management agreement between the BLM and the State of California. Elder Creek – 7 miles This nearly pristine stream is a National Natural Landmark, Hydrologic Benchmark, and a UN-recognized Biosphere Reserve. A tributary of the South Fork Eel River, the creek is an important contributor to the South Fork’s anadromous Front Photo: South Fork Eel River fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • California North Coast Offshore Wind Studies
    California North Coast Offshore Wind Studies Overview of Geological Hazards This report was prepared by Mark A. Hemphill-Haley, Eileen Hemphill-Haley, and Wyeth Wunderlich of the Humboldt State University Department of Geology. It is part of the California North Coast Offshore Wind Studies collection, edited by Mark Severy, Zachary Alva, Gregory Chapman, Maia Cheli, Tanya Garcia, Christina Ortega, Nicole Salas, Amin Younes, James Zoellick, & Arne Jacobson, and published by the Schatz Energy Research Center in September 2020. The series is available online at schatzcenter.org/wind/ Schatz Energy Research Center Humboldt State University Arcata, CA 95521 | (707) 826-4345 California North Coast Offshore Wind Studies Disclaimer This study was prepared under contract with Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation with financial support from the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment. The content reflects the views of the Humboldt State University Sponsored Programs Foundation and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment. This report was created under Grant Agreement Number: OPR19100 About the Schatz Energy Research Center The Schatz Energy Research Center at Humboldt State University advances clean and renewable energy. Our projects aim to reduce climate change and pollution while increasing energy access and resilience. Our work is collaborative and multidisciplinary, and we are grateful to the many partners who together make our efforts possible. Learn more about our work at schatzcenter.org Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Please cite as follows: Hemphill-Haley, M.A., Hemphill-Haley, E. and Wunderlich, W. (2020).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Klamath Mountains Province Summer Steelhead
    KLAMATH MOUNTAINS PROVINCE SUMMER STEELHEAD Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Critical Concern. Status Score = 1.9 out of 5.0. Klamath Mountain Province (KMP) summer steelhead are in a state of long-term decline in the basin. These stream-maturing fish face a high likelihood of extinction in California in the next fifty years. Description: Klamath Mountains Province (KMP) summer steelhead are anadromous rainbow trout that return to select freshwater streams in the Klamath Mountains Province beginning in April through June. Summer steelhead are distinguishable from winter steelhead by (1) time of migration (Roelofs 1983), (2) the immature state of gonads at migration (Shapovalov and Taft 1954), (3) location of spawning in higher-gradient habitats and smaller tributaries than other steelhead (Everest 1973, Roelofs 1983), and more recently, genetic variation in the Omy5 gene locus (Pearse et al. 2014). Summer steelhead are nearly identical in appearance to the more common winter steelhead (see Northern California coastal winter steelhead). Taxonomic Relationships: For general relationships of steelhead, see Northern California coastal winter steelhead account. In the Klamath River Basin, salmonids are generally separated primarily by run timing, which has been shown recently to have a genetic basis (Kendall et al. 2015, Arciniega et al. 2016, Williams et al. 2016, Pearse et al. In review). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not classify Klamath River basin steelhead “races” based on run- timing of adults, but instead recognizes two distinct reproductive “ecotypes.” Steelhead ecotypes are populations adapted to specific sets of environmental conditions in the Klamath Basin based upon their reproductive biology and timing of spawning (Busby et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Thirsty Eel Oct. 11-Corrections
    1 THE THIRSTY EEL: SUMMER AND WINTER FLOW THRESHOLDS THAT TILT THE EEL 2 RIVER OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA FROM SALMON-SUPPORTING TO 3 CYANOBACTERIALLY-DEGRADED STATES 4 5 In press, Special Volume, Copeia: Fish out of Water Symposium 6 Mary E. Power1, 7 Keith Bouma-Gregson 2,3 8 Patrick Higgins3, 9 Stephanie M. Carlson4 10 11 12 13 14 1. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 15 [email protected] 16 17 2. Department of Integrative Biology, Univ. California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; Email: 18 [email protected]> 19 20 3. Eel River Recovery Project, Garberville CA 95542 www.eelriverrecovery.org; Email: 21 [email protected] 22 23 4. Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 24 94720; Email: [email protected] 25 26 27 Running head: Discharge-mediated food web states 28 29 Key words: cyanobacteria, discharge extremes, drought, food webs, salmonids, tipping points 30 31 Although it flows through regions of Northwestern California that are thought to be relatively well- 32 watered, the Eel River is increasingly stressed by drought and water withdrawals. We discuss how critical 33 threshold changes in summer discharge can potentially tilt the Eel from a recovering salmon-supporting 34 ecosystem toward a cyanobacterially-degraded one. To maintain food webs and habitats that support 35 salmonids and suppress harmful cyanobacteria, summer discharge must be sufficient to connect mainstem 36 pools hydrologically with gently moving, cool base flow. Rearing salmon and steelhead can survive even 37 in pools that become isolated during summer low flows if hyporheic exchange is sufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic American Engineering Record Western Regional Office National Park Service U.S
    Van Duzen River ttridge (Alton Bridge) HAER No. CA-129 Spanning Van Duzen River on California Slate Highway 10! Alton vicinity Humboldt County ///IT £> California /-1 A} /J?" // / PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record Western Regional Office National Park Service U.S. Department of the Irterior San Francisco, California 94102 t UCAL HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD IX- ALT if Van Duzen River Bridge (Alton Bridge) HAER No. CA-129 Location: Spanning the Van Duzen River on California State Highway 101 Alton vicinity, Humboldt County, California UTM: 10 402887.4487745 Quad: Fortuna, California Date of Construction: 1924-1925 Engineer: Harlan D. Miller Bridge Department California Division of Highways Present Owner: California Department of Transportation District 1 1656 Union Street Eureka, California 95501 Present Use: Highway bridge Significance: The Van Duzen River Bridge, also known as the Alton Bridge, was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 1986. It represents a transitional design in the evolution of concrete arch bridges, and is the earliest surviving bridge designed under the direction of Harlan D. Miller, California's second state bridge engineer and the man most responsible for providing engineering design and aesthetic direction for California bridges between 1924 and 1940. Report prepared by: John W. Snyder Chief Architectural and Historic Studies California Department of Transportation 1120 N Street Sacramento, California 95814 Van Duzen River Bridge (Alton Bridge) HAER No. CA-129 (Page 2) PARTI. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The Van Duzen Bridge crosses the Van Duzen River just south of Alton in Humboldt County. The river was originally called Van Dusen's Fork of the Eel River, being so named in January 1850 after a member of the Gregg party of gold prospectors.
    [Show full text]
  • 9691.Ch01.Pdf
    © 2006 UC Regents Buy this book University of California Press, one of the most distinguished univer- sity presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2006 by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sawyer, John O., 1939– Northwest California : a natural history / John O. Sawyer. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-520-23286-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Natural history—California, Northern I. Title. QH105.C2S29 2006 508.794—dc22 2005034485 Manufactured in the United States of America 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 10987654321 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum require- ments of ansi/niso z/39.48-1992 (r 1997) (Permanence of Paper).∞ The Klamath Land of Mountains and Canyons The Klamath Mountains are the home of one of the most exceptional temperate coniferous forest regions in the world. The area’s rich plant and animal life draws naturalists from all over the world. Outdoor enthusiasts enjoy its rugged mountains, its many lakes, its wildernesses, and its wild rivers. Geologists come here to refine the theory of plate tectonics. Yet, the Klamath Mountains are one of the least-known parts of the state. The region’s complex pattern of mountains and rivers creates a bewil- dering set of landscapes.
    [Show full text]