# Redwood Creek

**– Progress Report on** 
**Erosion Control Work**
**and**
**Sediment TMDL**

Prepared for the participating landowners in the Redwood Creek watershed, the California Departme n t of Fish and Game, and the Pacific Coast Fish, Wild life and Wetlands
Restoration Association

By Redwood National and State Parks.

Jun e 20, 2011

# Redwood Creek

**– Progress Report on** 
**Erosion Control Work and Sediment TM D**  **L**

Prepared by: Greg Bundros

Darci Short

**June 20, 2011**

This report was prepared for the participating landowners in the Redwood Creek watershed, the California Depart me n t of Fish and Game, and the Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association by Redwood National and State Parks.

Bundros, G.J. and Short, D. 2011. Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and
Sediment TMDL. Redwood Na tional and S tate Parks report to the Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association, u n published, 84 pp

.

### Page intentionally left blank

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL i 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Redwood Creek watershed , in north coastal California, has unique characteristics that significantly increase the likelihood for successful watershed restoration and recovery . Redwood Creek is a moderate sized watershed that supports anadromous salmonid species. It has a National

an d State Park in the lower third of the watershed and the upper two

- thirds is 90 percent owned by just eight landowners who manage lands for timber and ranching. Cooperative partnerships have formed to improve conditions throughout the watershed.

Cooperat ive efforts to control and prevent erosion from logging roads in the upper Redwood Creek
watershed (areas upstream of the park) started in earnest in 1996. Detailed road assessments identified potential erosion sites, estimated sediment yields and recomme nded treatments. Subsequent r oad treatments have been completed through cooperative erosion control projects

, separate landowner projects and timber harvest plan road work. About 120 miles have been upgraded and about 61 miles have been decommissioned. Total funding for all cooperative erosion control projects in the upper watershed through 2009 was about $5.8 million. Landowners have
contributed about 33% of the funds.

Analysis of detailed volumetric data shows road treatments have reduced the poten tial sediment yield from logging roads in the upper watershed by about 531,000 cubic yards. This is about 30 percent of the potential sediment yield estimated at assess ed sites or about 19 percent of the estimated total for the upper watershed.

Completed work has reduced potential sediment loading by about 36 percent of the TMDL’s required 60 percent load reduction. However, 71 percent of the total reduction occurred in the lower watershed, on park lands, compared to a 29 percent reduction in the upper w atershed

, mostly private lands . While both represent significant reductions, more work is needed in the upper watershed to more fully distribute load reduction throughout the watershed. For watershed recovery, the work is necessary and achievable.

The analyses presented in this report prioritize erosion control and prevention treatments based on work completed through 2009 . Each analysis works at a different scale and provides prioritizations that can be used individually or in combination appropriate to the scale and objective of the erosion prevention project.

A W atershed Improvement Plan is presented that identifies road management practices that can protect aquatic and riparian habitat s , and move the watershed closer to recovery and meeting the obj ectives of the Redwood Creek TMDL.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL ii 

# ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The road assessments and treatment projects in Redwood Creek would not have been possible without the generous funding by California Department of Fish and Game SB 271 grants, California Propositions 5 0 and 84, California State Water Resources C ontrol Board, 319(h) grant s , U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service

, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, and private landowner s

.
The project would also not have been possib le without private landowner cooperation. The private
landowners in Redwood Creek are willing partners who have provid ed access to their lands, funding, opinions and perspectives, and an optimistic outlook for improv ed watershed conditions. It is our hop e that the report information is used appropriately and private landowners in Redwood Creek are never penalized for their trusting cooperation.

This report was prepared for Mitch Farro of Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association (P CFWWRA) by Redwood National and State Parks under a cooperative agreement. We are grateful to Mr. Farro for his leadership role in Redwood Creek, as the project would not have occurred without his leadership. Pacific Watershed Associates provided invalua ble technical oversight, training and quality control during this work as a sub

- contractor to PCFWWRA. We are extremely grateful to Randy Lew who provided consistent quality control. Most importantly, we acknowledge the field crews who worked so diligent ly under sometimes adverse field conditions. They are dedicated and highly skilled, and did an outstanding job.

Thanks to Randy Klein, Mary Ann Madej and Vicki Ozaki for synthesizing sediment load data for
Redwood Creek and review of the TMDL discussion. We also thank Judy Wartella for her expertise completing many of the GIS analyses contained in the report.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL iii 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... iii

INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1

BACKGROUND

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2

Watershed Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

Land Use

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2

Roads

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 2

Cooperative Erosion Control and Prevention Efforts

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE COOPERATIVE EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM 19 96

- 2009

.................... 4

Road Assessments

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 4

Completed Road Treatments

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 5

Accompl ishments and the Total Maximum Daily Load for Redwood Creek

................................ ............. 8

TMDL for Redwood Creek

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 8

Hillslope Numeric Targets and Progress Ma de Attaining the Targets

................................ .................. 11

Sediment Load Reduction 1998

- 2009

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 14

Long

- Term Average Annual Sediment Loads and 10

- Year Rolling Ann ual Average

...................... 16

Discussion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 16

CURRENT ROAD CONDITIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 20

Drivabil ity and Maintenance Status

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 20

Potential Sediment Yield

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 21

Fluvial erosion sites

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 22

Landslide sites

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 23

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL iv Estimated Costs for Treating Remaining Roads

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24

TREATMENT PRIORITIES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 25

Prioritizing Roads and Sub

- Watersheds Using Database Queries

................................ ............................... 25

Roads

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 26

Sub

- water sheds

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 27

Prioritizing Areas within the Watershed Using a GIS Spatial Analysis

................................ ...................... 29

Prioritizing Sub

- Watersheds Using Risk Analyses

................................ ................................ ............................. 29

Resource Threat

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 29

Resource threat and resource at risk

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 34

C ritical Crossings

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 34

WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 39

CONCLUSIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 43

REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 46

GLOSSARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 49

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL v 

## Appendixes

Appendix A: Average road density by sub

- watershed and interfluve

Appendix B: Field form used by RNSP and PCFWWRA

Appe ndix C: Redwood Creek road assessment site maps

Appendix D : Projects and grant funding

Appendix E : Methods used to estimate TMDL load reductions

Appendix F : Ranking criteria for assessed roads

Table F

- 1. Roads ranked by potential sediment yield.

Table F

- 2. Roads ranked by potential sediment yield per mile.

Table F

- 3. Roads ranked by cost

- effectiveness.

Appendix G : Sub

- watershed ranking with weighting values for risk analysis

Table G

- 1. Sub

- watersheds ranked by total potential sediment yield.

Table G

- 2. Sub

- watersheds ranked by number of critical crossings in each sub

watershed.

Table G

- 3. Sub

- watersheds ranked by the number of Shalstab sites in each sub

watershed.

Appendix H : Salmonid distribution in the Redwood Creek watershed

Figure H

- 1. Salm onid distribution in the Redwood Creek watershed.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL vi 

## List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Redwood Creek watershed and road assessment areas.

................................ ..... 3

Figure 2. Reduction of potential sediment yield by decommission and upgrade treatments in upper
Redwood Cre ek.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 7

Figure 3. Treatment priorities based on threat and resource at risk , 2004.

................................ ................... 9

Figure 4. Reduction in p otential s ediment y ield, 200 9

. ................................ ................................ ........................ 10

Figure 5. Total annual sediment loads for Redwood Creek , 10

- year rolling annual average and TMDL target.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 17

Figu re 6. Annual sediment ‘savings’, TMDL target, and average annual sediment load in Redwood

Creek 1998

- 2009.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 18

Figure 7. Cumulative annual sediment load (Qtl) at Orick with and without ‘savings’ from erosion control and prevention efforts 1998

- 2009.

................................ ................................ ............................ 19

Fi gure 8. Pot ential sediment yield density.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 31

Figure 9. Sub

- watershed ranking based on threat.

................................ ................................ ................................ 32

Figure 10. Resource threat and resource at risk.

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 35

Figure 11. Critical crossing density.

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 37

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL vii 

## List of Tables

Table 1 . Road assessments in the upper Redwood Creek watershed.

................................ .............................. 5

Table 2

. Sites treated and sediment saved for p rojects assessed by RNSP and PCFWWRA

. ................... 6

Table 3 : Sediment ‘saved’ from delivery from fluvial and landslide sites.

................................ ..................... 7

Table 4 . Summary of stream crossings, crossings with diversion potent ial and critical crossings.

..... 8

Table 5 . Treated roads and hillslope position.

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 12

Table 6 . Controllable loads and reductions, Redwood Creek, 1998

- 2009.

................................ .................. 15

Table 7 . Average annual sediment loads at Orick gage for selected time periods.

................................ ... 16

Table 8 . Project s and data used in summary statistics and analysis for remaining (not decommissioned) roads.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20

Table 9 . Drivability of all assessed roads through 2009.

................................ ................................ ..................... 21

Table 1 0 . Maintenance status of all assessed roads through 2009.

................................ ................................ . 21

Table 1 1 . Potential sediment yield for remaining (not decommissioned) sites assessed by PCFWWRA and RNSP with proposed treatments.

................................ ................................ .............. 22

Table 1 2 . Selected information for fluvial erosion sites.

................................ ................................ ...................... 23

Table 1 3 . Class I stream crossings with medium or higher urgency.

................................ .............................. 23

Table 1 4 . Selec ted information for landslide sites.

................................ ................................ ............................... 24

Table 1 5

. Estimated treatment costs for roads not yet treated and extended to all roads

. ................... 25

Table 1 6 . Treatment priority for roads based on potential sediment yield, yield per mile and/or

treatment cost

- effectivene ss

. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 26

Table 1 7 . Sub

- watershed treatment priority based on potential sediment yield per mile of road.

... 28

Table 1 8 . Sub

- watershed treatment priority based on resource threat.

................................ ...................... 33

Table 19 . Sub

- watershed treatment priority based on resource threat and res ource at risk.

............ 36

Table 2 0 . Sub

- watersheds and interfluves affected by state Highway 299.

................................ ................ 4 2

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 1 

# I NTRODUCTION

The Redwood Creek watershed is unique from other north coastal California watersheds. It is relatively small (180,000 acres) and a national a nd state park occupies the lower

- third of the watershed. Most of the land upstream of the park is used for forest products and ranching, and is owned by a relatively small number of large landowners which makes watershed

- scale planning
feasible. The Redw ood Creek Watershed Group whose membership represents about 90 percent of the ownership and/or management of land in the watershed formed to improve water quality conditions throughout the watershed (RCWG, 2006). There are no major water diversions in the watershed, and the only developed municipality is the town of Orick, located along the lowermost
reach of Redwood Creek. These attributes significantly increase the likelihood that recovery and
restoration efforts in Redwood Creek can succeed.

S tudies pe rformed in Redwood Creek have documented that erosion and sedimentation from past floods impact the channel for decades (Madej and Ozaki, 2009) and affect many life cycles of
anadromous salmonids. E rosion from logging roads has been identified as the larg est controll a ble source of sediment in the watershed ( RNSP, 1997; USEPA

, 1998). The sediment TMDL for

Re d wood Creek (USEPA

, 1998), the Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon (CDFG

, 2004), the Redwood Creek Watershed Assessment Report (Cannata et al.

, 2006), the Redwood National and State Parks ( RNSP ) General Management Plan/General Plan (NPS

- CDPR

, 1999) , and the Integrated Watershed Strategy for Redwood Creek (RCWG, 2006) all encourage completion of road assessments, and implementation of road decomm ission and u p grade projects to protect and

restore aquatic and riparian habitat and water quality

. In Redwood Creek, cooperative efforts to control and prevent erosion from logging roads on private lands started in 1996.

This report is an update to previo us reports that summarized road assessment data collected in the upper Redwood Creek watershed and described treatment priorities based on analysis of the data. In this update, we: 1) describe the accomplishments of the erosion control work since cooperat ive efforts began and place the accomplishments in the context of the Redwood Creek sediment TMDL ; 2) summarize the conditions of the remaining assessed roads in the upper watershed, and ; 3) present updated treatment priorities for areas in the upper water shed based on work that has been completed through 2009. Similar to previous reports, a watershed improvement plan is also presented. The erosion control work described in this report includes projects completed through cooperative efforts, completed timb er harvest plans and individual landowner projects for which
we have data

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 2 

# BACKGROUND

W ATERSHED 

## D ESCRIPTION

Redwood Creek drains a 285 square mile watershed located in the Coast Range of n orthern
California (Figure 1 )

. The upstream two

- thirds of the wa tershed is mostly private lands managed for timber production and ranching. Redwood National and State Parks occup ies the lower

- third of
the watershed.

The watershed is steep and mountainous, and located within a tectonically active area with relatively rapid uplift. Weak, pervasively sheared rocks underlie the watershed. Mean annual
watershed

- wide precipitation averages about 80 inches. The combination of steep terrain, weak underlying geology and soils, and moderately high precipitation contribute t o naturally high erosion rates and susceptibility to accelerated erosion.

The watershed is unusually long and narrow, and has a very large number of sma ll tributary sub

watersheds. There are no major tributar ies to Redwood Creek above Prairie Creek . Most
tributaries are low

- order and high gradient streams. Their channels are general ly deeply incised, and steep hillslopes adjacent to channels are particularly landslide prone (Pitlick, 1982).



## L AND 

## U SE

The primary land use in the watershed during the past 8 0 years has been timber production and ranching. Historically, roughly 82 percent of the Redwood Creek watershed supported old

- growth coniferous forests. Harvesting of the coastal redwood forests in portions of the lower Redwood Creek watershed began in the latter half of the 1800s . Mechanized timber harvesting was established throughout the watershed by the late 1930s. Timber harvesting and associated road construction accelerated in the watershed in the late 1940s to 1950s in the Douglas

- fir dominated upper watershed. During the 1960s timber harvest was concentrated more in the lower watershed, and logging continued steadily until expansion of Redwood National Park in 1978. By 1978, about 81 percent of the original forest in the watershe d had been lo gged (Best, 1984).



## R OADS

The earliest roads in the Redwood Creek watershed coincided with settlement in the mid

- 1800s. New roads were built as settlement and ranching expanded. A rapid rise in road construction occurred along with increased timber harves t in the mid

- 1900s. The r oad construction history for the Redwood Creek watershed was researched by RNSP and is described by Bundros et al

. (2003).

The history of forest practice rule s part ly explain s the legacy road conditions in the watershed today. St ate regulation of t imber harvest activities began in 1945, but was not fully implemented until the passage of the Z’berg

- Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973. The first substantive erosionK l a m

a t h

R i v

e

r

T r i n i t y

0 4 8 1 2 2 M i l e s M
a d
R i v

e

r E u r e k a H u m b o l d t

B a y

S o u r c e : N : \ G I S

_ M a p s \ u s e r

_ m a p s \ 6 0

_ U B E r o s i o n P r e v e n t i o n R a n k i n g \ 2 0 1 0 U p d a t e C o m p i l e d : F e b r u a r y
, 2 0 1 1 R e d w o o d

C

r e e

k
R

i v e r P

a c i f

i

c O c e a n

O r i c k



### R e d w o o d R e d w o o d

N a t i o n a l N a t i o n a l

a n d S t a t e a n d S t a t e

P a r k s P a r k s C a

l i f o

r n

i a S T U D Y A R E A



### R o a d A s s e s s m e n t s

R o a d s S u r v e y e d

L i m i t e d D a t a

R o a d s U n s u r v e y e d

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 4 control rules for logging roads appeared in 1983. By then

, more than 1,000 miles of roads in the upper watershed had been built to inadequate standards. More than 88 percent of the roads in existence today were built before forest practice rules had been fully implemented. Today , there are about 1,040 mil es of roads in the upper watershed of which about 907 miles are privately owned and managed. Road density averages 6.4 miles/mile 2 

### and ranges from 3.6 to 10.7 miles/mile 2 

### in tributary watersheds

. The r oad density for all sub

- watersheds is shown in Appe ndix A

.



## C OOPERATIVE 

## E ROSION 

## C ONTROL AND 

## P REVENTION 

## E FFORTS Cooperative efforts to control and prevent erosion from logging roads in upper Redwood Creek (areas upstream of the park) started in earnest in 1996. The se efforts were built on trust . A small pi lot project in 1995 was completed by RNSP and Green Diamond Resource Company ( GDRCo

- formerly Simpson Timber Company) in Coyote Creek. In 1996 and in cooperation with the Stover family, RNSP completed the first large assessment and implementation project in Garrett Creek.
This was followed by a larger assessment completed by RNSP and multiple implementation project s on Sierra Pacific Industries lands. The success of these earli er projects led to a partnership
between numerous landowners, RNSP and Pacifi c Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetland Restoration

Association (PCFWWRA ) to advance cooperative erosion control efforts in the upper watershed

.
The cooperative erosion control efforts in Redwood Creek would not have been possible without

agency grant s and land owner funding. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jobs

- in

- the

- Woods

program , provided grant funds during the development of this cooperative program. The California Department of Fish and Game’s ( CDFG ) Fisheries Restoration Grant p rogram provided fundin g for subsequent assessments and implementation projects. Landowners have provided access, funding
and support for all of the efforts described in this report.

D ata from the i nitial road assessment s completed in Redwood Creek were summarized in previous

r eports (Bundros et al

., 2003 ; Bundros et al

., 2004 ; Bundros and Short, 2009). Bundros et al

. (2003) also contains detailed discussions on road construction history

, road density, timber harvest in the inner gorges along Redwood Creek and land slide history , channel erosion and riparian conditions and restoration opportunities

.



# ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE COOPERATIVE EROSION

CONTROL PROGRAM 1996

- 2009

R OAD 

## A SSESSMENTS

Road a ssessment projects were developed with willing landowners and implemented as funding
beca me available. E leven distinct assessment projects, shaped by watershed boundaries , willing
landowners and grant opportunities have been implemented by four different investigators

– RNSP

,

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 5 PCFWWRA

, Natural Resources Management Corporation (NRM) and Five Co unties Salmoni d Conservation Program (SCP). Quality control for road assessments completed by PCFWWRA was provided by Pacific Watershed Associates and RNSP. Of the 1

, 10 0 miles of road existing in the upper watershed at the beginning of the program, about 773 miles (70 percent ) have been
assessed. The remaining 328 miles of roads are owned by landowners who have not participate d in the cooperative erosion control efforts.

All road assessments included field work t hat identif ied potential erosion sites, estimate d the
volume of sediment that could deliver to a stream if erosion occurred, and prescribed corrective

treatments. All sites assessed by PCFWWRA also included cost estimate s for e quipment and labor needs. Data were compiled on field forms (Append ix B) and sites located on airphoto mylar overlays. All field data were entered into a database and the location of each site was entered into

GIS as a point coverage (Appendix C) . Both database and GIS coverages are maintained by RNSP.
Table 1 describe s the road assessments in upper Redwood Creek.

Table 1 . Road assessments in the upper Redwood Creek watershed.

Road Assessments (miles) % of B eginning
L ength

PCFWWRA A ssessed 567 51%
RNSP A ssessed 93 8%

NRM A ssessed 88 8%

Five Counties SC P A ssessed 25 2%

Total Assessed 773 70%
Not Assessed 328 30%

Total M iles 1,101 100%

1 Mileages shown di ffer from those reported in previous reports due to: Reassessment of Minor Creek by PCFWWRA ‘replacing’ the roads assessed by NRM , new road constr uction associated with THPs, assessment of roads subsequent to previous assessments and, to a lesser extent, clean

- up/editing of minor GIS errors.
2 Totals may differ slightly from those shown in other tables in this report due to rounding.



### In all road a ssessments, investigators followed generally similar methods to collect and record information. However, subsequent data analysis revealed inconsistencies between some investigators which prevented the use of data collected by NRM and Five Counties SCP in most of the analyses in this report.



## C OMPLETED 

## R OAD 

## T REATMENTS Projects to control and prevent potential erosion identified by road assessments in the upper
watershed have been implemented since 1996. As assessments were completed in specific areas, proj ects were implemented soon afterward to treat the obvious high priority roads and sites. Projects were implemented where assessments were completed while further assessments were occurring in other areas. After most of the assessments had been completed, treatment priorities
for areas in the upper watershed were based on results from analyses reported by Bundros et al. (2003 and 2004).

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 6 R oad s have been treated through cooperative erosion control projects , separate landowner projects
and timber harvest plan (THP) road work. RNSP has reviewed all reports of cooperative projects completed from 1996 through 2009 and all CDF approved THPs within assessment areas through
2007. Most treated roads have been field review ed by RNSP geologists to evaluate completed treatments. Some decommissioned roads were not field reviewed by RNSP, but were described in project completion reports prepared by Pacific Watershed Associates . BLM g eologists provided similar reports and data for work completed in Lacks Creek

.

Of the a pproximately 6 60 miles of roads assessed by PCFWWRA and RNSP, about 181 miles have
been treated since 1996 . About 120 miles have been upgraded and about 61 miles have been
decommissioned. Total funding for all cooperative erosion control projects in the upper watershed through 2009 was about $5.8 million. Landowners provided about $1.9 million (33%) in funding with the remainder provided by various grant sources totaling about $3.8 million (67%). Costs associated with work completed independently by lan downers and in association with THPs are
not included. A list of projects and funding is included in Appendix D

.

Table 2 shows selected statistics for sites that have been treated. Of the 4,955 sites assessed between 1996 and 2009, 1,090 sites (22 percen t) have been treated. More than 13 percent of all
assessed sites were decommissioned and about 9 percent of all assessed sites were upgraded. Combined, the sediment “saved” (the potential sediment yield prevented from entering a stream) by all treatments was over 531,000 yds 3 

### . Figure 2 shows these data graphically.

Table 2

. Sites treated and s ediment saved for p rojects assessed by RNSP and PCFWWRA.

No. of
S ites Potential
Sediment

Yield (yds 3 ) %
Number

of all
S ites % of
Potential
Sediment

Yield

Sites in I nitial A ssessments (1996

– 2009) 4,955 1,765,000 100% 100%
Sediment S aved from D elivery

Decommissioned S ites 660 414,000 13% 2 3 % Upgraded S ites 423 117,000 9% 7 %

Maintained S ites 7 0 0% 0%

Total s 1,090 531,000 22% 30%

Sites T reated under THPs 177 39,000 4% 2%

Sites T reated under C ooperative E rosion C ontrol P rogram 913 492,000 18% 28%

New S ites T reated, N ot in I nitial R oad A ssessments 146 Not avail. 3% Not applic.

Total s 1,236 531,000 25% 30%

1 All THPs filed through 2007, all cooperative projects through 2009.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 7 F igure 2. Reduction of potential sediment yield by decommission and upgrade treatments in upper
Redwood Creek.

Further breakdown of the 1,090 treated sites show that about 76 percent of the sites were fluvial and about 24 percent were landslide sites. The fluvial sites accounted for about 48 percent of the
volume ‘saved’ (prevented from delivery to a stream) , while landslide sites accounted for 52 percent. Table 3 shows the sediment sa ved from fluvial and landslide sites that were in the initial
road assessments.

Table 3 : Sediment ‘saved’ from delivery from fluvial and landslide sites. (I ncludes deco mmission and upgrade treatments.)

Site type Count Sediment

‘ S aved’ from

D elivery % of Count of all of Sites

Treated % of Potential Sediment Yield ‘Saved’

All S ites T reated and in I nitial R oad A ssessments 1,090 531,000 100% 100%

Fluvial Sites 833 257,000 76% 48%

Stream Crossings 542 237,000 50% 45%

Other F luvial S ites 291 20,000 27 % 4%

Landslide Sites 257 274,000 24% 52%



### T he initial assessments by RNSP and PCFWWRA included 2, 540 stream crossing. Of those, 1,5 90 (6 3 %) had a diversion potential. Of all stream crossings, 464 (1 8 %) were ‘ c ritical ’ c rossings (stream crossings with a n undersized culvert, diversion potential and at least a medium plug potential). Treatments, either decommission or upgrade, have corrected 340 diversion potentials
and 110 c ritical c rossings. These statistics are summarized in Table 4

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 8 Table 4 . Summary of stream crossings, crossings with diversion potential and critical crossings.

Type of Stream Crossing Number of Sites in Initial Assessments % of all S ites Number of Sites Treated % of Type Treated

Stream Crossings 2, 540 100% 54 0 2 1 %

w/ Diversion Potential 1,5 90 6 3 % 3 40 2 1 %
Critical Crossings 464 1 8 % 110 24%



### A nother way to look at treatment accomplishments is spatially. Figure 3 shows the treatment priorities reported by Bundros et al

. in 2004 that assigned treatment priorities to t he sub

watersheds in upper Redwood Creek. Priorities were based on a risk analysis that considered
sediment

, as the resource threat

, and salmonids , as the resource at risk. Figure 4 shows that the greatest reduction of potential sediment yield has occurr ed in the areas where the treatment priorities were the highest in that analysis

.



## A CCOMPLISHMENTS AND THE 

## T OTAL 

## M AXIMUM 

## D AILY 

## L OAD FOR 

## R EDWOOD 

## C REEK

This section place s the erosion control and prevention work completed between 1998 and 2009 in
the Redwood Creek watershed in context with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Redwood Creek. We attempt to answer the question, “To what extent has the road work completed throughout the watershed in the past 12 years met the objectives identified by the TMDL? ” RNSP started decommissioning roads in the lower watershed in 1978 and c ooperative erosion control and prevention work in the upper watershed (areas upstream of the park) started in 199 6 , before TMDL discussions began.



## TMDL FOR 

## R EDWOOD 

## C REEK


### The sediment TMDL for the Redwood Creek watershed was developed primarily to promote
activities that protect aquatic and riparian habitats and water quality from sedimentation
associated with land use

. Accelerated erosion from the combined effects of past land use pr actices
and large storms impact ed the migration, spawning, reproduction, and early development of anadromous fish such as coho salmon, C hinook salmon, and steelhead trout (EPA

, 1998)

. The
TMDL identifie d logging roads as the major source of controllable s ediment.

Based on long

- term annual sediment load records for Redwood Creek, the TMDL estimated the total annual sediment loading at about 4,750 tons per square mile per year. The total allowable sediment load, or TMDL, was estimated at 1,900 tons per squa re mile per year, a 60 percent reduction in total sediment loading. To allow for temporal variation, the allowable load was expressed as a 10

- year rolling annual average.

The TMDL identifies both instream and hillslope numeric targets. Instream targets a re meant to provide a measure of the quality of aquatic habitat and whether or not streams are recovering from sediment impacts associated with management activities. The TMDL envisions a monitoring program that would evaluate the instream targets through time. To our knowledge, such a monitoring program does not exist. In contrast, hillslope targets describe the desired condition for the watershed with respect to management activities that can affect sedimentation and waterJune

Debris Torrent Lacks

Minor Bridge Coyote

Devils

Noisy Panther

Lupton

Minon Garrett

High Prairie

Bradford Pardee Toss-Up

Lake Prairie Dolly Varden

Captain

Windy

Emmy Lou

Simon Gunrack Pilchuck Garcia

Headwaters_M Upper Panther Wiregrass Moon

Loin

Last Gap Squirrel Tail George

Sweathouse Cashmere Stover

Six Rivers

Twin Lakes Snow Camp Joplin

Cool Springs Lee

Santa Fe

Lineament Marquette

Tom Fern Prairie

Jena Cut-Off Meander

Ayers

Burley Smokehouse Greenpoint

Christmas Prairie Johnson Prairie

Monroe Flat

Headwaters_W Headwaters_E Powerline Timbo 

## Sub-watershed Ranking Based on Resource Threat and Resource at Risk

Upper Redwood Creek Watershed

Source: RNSP GIS - N:\GIS_Maps\user_maps\60_UBErosionPreventionRanking\Feb2004Updates Compiled: February, 2004 *This map shows the result of a numerical risk analysis that is based on resource threat and resource at risk (anadromous salmonids). Sub-watersheds are ranked only if at least 40% of the roads in the sub-watershed were assessed.

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 1.25
Miles Sub-watershed Ranking*

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Very Low

Not Ranked
Status of Inventory Data

Limited Data

Currently Unsurveyed

Park lands

Streams (1:24k)

Watershed dividesL a c k s

M i n o r G a r r

e t t

S t o v e r

B r a d f o r d C o y o t e

J o h n s o n P r a i r i e

M o l a s s e s D e v i l s

P a n t h e r

G e o r g e

D o l l y V a r d e n

L e e

G a r c i a

C a s h m e r e

P i l c h u c k

T o s s

- U p

S w e a t h o u s e

C a p t a i n

N e g r o J o e

W i n d y

S q u i r r e l T a i l

E m m y L o u

C u t

- O f f M e a n d e r

G u n r a c k

S i m o n

M i n o n J u n e

W i r e g r a s s

L o i n

S a n t a F e

G r e e n p o i n t

L u p t o n

F e r n P r a i r i e

C h r i s t m a s P r a i r i e

J e n a

N o i s y

C o o l S p r i n g s

S i x R i v e r s

U p p e r P a n t h e r

L a s t G a p

L i n e a m e n t

H e a d w a t e r s

_ E

H e a d w a t e r s

_ M H i g h P r a i r i e

L a k e P r a i r i e

P a r

d e e

M a r q u e t t e

T i m b o

P o w e r l i n e

S n o w C a m p

S m o k e h o u s e

T w i n L a k e s

B u r l e y
T o m

H e a d w a t e r s

_

W D e b r i s T o r r e n t A y e r s B e a v e r

S o u r

c e : R N S P G I S

- N : \ G I S

_ M a p s \ u s e r

_ m a p s \ 6 0

_ U B E r o s i o n P r e v e n t i o n R a n k i n g \ 2 0 1 0 U p d a t e s C o m p i l e d : F e b r u a r y
, 2 0 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 1 M i l e s 

# R e d u c t i o n i n P o t e n t i a l S e d i m e n t Y i e l d 1 9 9 6

- 2 0 0 9

U p p e r R e d w o o d C r e e k W a t e r s h e d

* T h i s m a p s h o w s w h e r e t h e g r e a t e s t r e d u c t i o n i n p o t e n t i a l

s e d i m e n t y i e l d h a s o c c u r r e d i n t h e u p p e r w a t e r s h e d f o r t h e p e r i o d o f 1 9 9 6 t h r o u g h 2 0 0 9

. T h e a n a l y s i s u s e d a l l s i t e s t h a t h a d o r s t i l l h a v e a t l e a s t a m e d i u m e r o s i o n p o t e n t i a l

. P o t e n t i a l

s e d i m e n t y i e l d i s c o n s i d e r e d f o r e a c h s u b

- w a t e r s h e d a n d i n t e r f l u v e a r e a

. A r e a s o f l i m i t e d d a t a w e r e n o t u s e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s

. 

### R e d u c t i o n i n P o t e n t i a l S e d i m e n t Y i e l d ( y d s ) *

6 0

, 0 0 0

- 8 0

, 0 0 0

4 0

, 0 0 0

- 6 0

, 0 0 0

2 0

, 0 0 0

- 4 0

, 0 0 0

1 0

, 0 0 0

- 2 0

, 0 0 0

< 1 0

, 0 0 0

N o C h a n g e
S t a t u s o f I n v e n t o r y D a t a

L i m i t e d D a t a

C u r r e n t l y U n s u r v e y e d

P a r k l a n d s

S t r e a m s ( 1 : 2 4 k )

W

a t e r s h e d d i v i d e s

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 11 quality. Hillslope targets address the disconnect between the timing of improved hillslope conditions and channel recovery, and separate legacy channel effects from c urrent hillslope
conditions. Hillslope targets are also measureable and their improvements are immediate. The EPA believed that meeting hillslope targets would allow watershed recovery and attainment of instream targets through time.

The following di scussion focuses on the hillslope numeric targets because they relate directly to the erosion control and prevention work performed in the Redwood Creek watershed. Because many of the roads in the lower watershed, on park lands, had already been treated b y 1998, the primary focus of the discussion will be on the work completed in the upper watershed, mostly private lands
and for which we have data

. Additional information about the Redwood Creek TMDL can be found

in Appendix E

.



## H ILLSLOPE 

## N UMERIC 

## T ARGETS AN D 

## P ROGRESS 

## M ADE 

## A TTAINING THE 

## T ARGETS 

### The hillslope numeric targets in the TMDL describe the desired conditions with respect to road design, location, inspection and maintenance , and timber harvest practices in sensitive streamside areas. The following de scribes to what extent the hillslope targets have been met in the upper
watershed through cooperative erosion control and prevention work, independent landowner projects or through completed timber harvest plans. The hillslope targets are listed individua lly, followed by a description of the accomplishments and a brief discussion that integrates the targets and accomplishments:

Target: No crossings have a diversion potential (i.e., crossings are reconfigured permanently to prevent stream diversion).

Accom plishments: The number of stream crossings with diversion potential has been reduced by

21 percent on assessed roads. Initial assessments identified about 2,540 stream crossings of which

a bout 1,590 (63%) had a diversion potential. Subsequently, about 3 40 have been either
decommission ed or upgrade d . Because 270 stream crossings were decommissioned, there are now about 2,270 crossings remaining in the assessment areas

, of which 1,250 (56%) hav e a diversion potential.

These results can be extended to the unassessed roads in the upper watershed. The i nitial
assessments identified about 2.4 crossings with diversion potential per mile of road

. By applying this average density to all unassessed road s, we estimate there were about 2,650 stream crossings
with diversion potential in the entire upper watershed prior to treatments. When the 340 treated crossings are considered, the number of stream crossings with diversion potential in the upper
watershed has been reduced by about 13 percent since cooperative ero sion control began in 1996.

Discussion: Progress has been made preventing stream diversions, but more work needs to be done. Language that acknowledges the sediment threat to water quality from stream diversion erosion has been in the state forest practi ce rules since 1983. The rules, however, have often relied
on the maintenance of structures, such as waterbars, to prevent diversions rather than requiring construction of more permanent, maintenance

- free structures such as dips. Since maintenance requir ements expire one to three years after completion of a timber harvest plan, temporary

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 12 structures eventually break down and become ineffective. Rules and enforcement of measures that prevent stream diversions have improved in recent years. New r oad rules under consideration at the time of this writing may finally address this critical issue (CDF

, 2011).

Target: All culverts and crossings are sized to pass the 50

- year flood and associated sediment and debris. Crossings and culverts in the snow zone (gener ally, upstream of Highway 299) are sized large enough to accommodate flows and associated sediment and debris caused by rainfall and snow melt runoff.

Accomplishments: The number of crossings capable of passing a 50

- year flood in the assessment

areas incr eased by about 22 percent. The improvement occurred by decommissioning and upgrading roads. Of the remaining crossings in the assessment areas, 43 percent of the culverted crossings will pass a 50

- year flood, meeting the TMDL hillslope target, and 37 per cent will pass a

100

- year flood, the current sizing standard in state forest practice rules.

Discussion: Stream crossing culvert sizing requirements and methods have markedly improved. State forest practice rules changed culvert sizing requirements f or stream crossings from a 50

- year flood to a 100

- year flood in 2001 (CDF

, 2001). Guidance documents prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection describe proper culvert sizing methods and considerations for passage of flood flows , including sediment and debris (Cafferata et al

. , 2004).

Target: All landings and road fills on slopes >50% which could potentially deliver sediment to a stream are pulled back and stabilized

.
Accomplishments: Based on GIS analysis of assessed sites w ith at least a medium treatment urgency, 43 percent of the sites on slopes greater than 50 percent were treated. When relationships from assessed roads that consider the number of sites per mile of road and the percentage of sites that occupy various slop e categories are applied to the miles of unassessed roads, about 31 percent of the sites on slopes greater than 50 percent were treated throughout the upper watershed.

Table 5 below classifies the road miles that have been treated by hillslope position. H illslope position is based on an equal division of the hillslope area above a stream channel and is divided into three positions, including the upper

- third, middle

- third and lower

- third.

Table 5 . Treated roads and hillslope position.

Road Treatment Miles % of Road Miles Treated Based on Hillslope Position

Lower Middle Upper

Decommissioned 61 50% 38% 12% Upgraded 123 28% 38% 34%



### Discussion: Significant progress has been made treating landings, road fills and crossings on the steeper hillslope areas. Erosion control and prevention work in upper Redwood Creek has been guided by treatment priorities established through analyses of road assessment data (Bundros et

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 13 al.

, 2003 and 2004). The treatment priorities considered, among other things, the proximi ty of roads to a stream channel and the likelihood of failure and sediment delivery. Generally, the steepest hillslope areas are found along streams and in the lowermost hillslope position. Results in
Table 5 ( above ) are consistent with the GIS analysis of treated sites and slope steepness. The table shows that most of the decommissioned roads occupied lower hillslope positioned areas. In

contrast , roads that have been upgraded tended to occupy the more gentle, mid

- to upper

- hillslope positions. Roads on gentler slopes are commonly used to access and treat the roads on steeper slopes, and they are nearly always treated too.

Target: All roads have surfacing and drainage facilities or structures which are appropriate to their patterns and intensity of u se

.
Accomplishments: The analysis of road assessment data cannot determine the degree to which this target is being met.

Discussion: This target is affected primarily by land use regulations and, in general, we believe progress has been made in attaini ng this target. Provisions that address road surfacing, timing of road use and drainage facilities are found in multiple sections of the state forest practice rules. These measures were greatly improved with the implementation of the Threatened or Impair ed Watershed rules in 2001 (CDF

, 2001) and the Anadromous Salmonid Protection Rules (CDF

, 2009). A good example of improved road management is Green Diamond Resource Company’s Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan (GDRCo

, 2006) which contains standards for ro ad surfacing, timing of road use and drainage structures.

Target: All roads are inspected and maintained annually or decommissioned.
Decommissioned roads are maintenance

- free.

Accomplishments: Excluding roads that have been decommissioned, about 44 perc ent of all roads assessed are being maintained. About 10 percent of the roads assessed have been decommissioned
and are maintenance

- free. Including the decommissioned roads, about 54 percent of all roads assessed are being maintained or are maintenance

- f ree, leaving 46 percent of the assessed roads
unmaintained.

Discussion: In 2004, we reported that 32 percent of all roads assessed were being maintained (Bundros et al.

, 2004). The fact that 54 percent of the assessed roads are now being maintained (or

a re maintenance

- free) is a substantial step towards reaching the TMDL target. It is possible that more roads are being maintained than we know about because work can occur without our knowledge. Road inspection and maintenance are affected more by land us e regulations than by our cooperative erosion control and prevention program, but there are no regulations that require long

- term annual road inspection and maintenance. Green Diamond Resource Company’s Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan (GDRCo

, 2006) cont ains explicit road inspection and maintenance
standards for the 50

- year life of the permit. Green Diamond Resource Company manages about 33 percent of all roads in the upper watershed. The TMDL target would more likely be met if similar

commitments were adopted throughout the watershed. Given the extensive road network in the upper watershed, it is unlikely the target will ever be met without significant incentives and effort.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 14 The enormous maintenance responsibilities for the roads in the upper watershe d points to the need to: 1) decommission more roads in the upper watershed, and 2) make roads as maintenance

- free as possible when they are in use and especially before THP inspection and maintenance requirements expire.

Target: Roads are not located in steep inner gorge or unstable headwall areas except where
alternative road locations are unavailable.

Accomplishments: About 15 miles of roads have been decommissioned and 5 miles have been upgraded in the inner gorges of the upper watershed. Based on GI S analysis and excluding county and state roads, about 91 miles of inner gorge roads remain in the upper watershed. About 66 miles of the remaining inner gorge roads have been assessed. Of these roads, about 20 miles (30 % ) are drivable and/or maintained; the balance are not drivable and/or maintained. We have no
information on roads in unstable headwall areas.

Discussion: The vast majority of inner gorge roads were built before 1962. Current forest practice rules strongly discourage the construction or reconstruction of inner gorge roads. Based on the review of timber harvest plans submitted for Redwood Creek, no new inner gorge roads have been proposed for more than a decade. Residential subdivision and associated road construction may
spawn construc tion of inner gorge roads without strong County oversight.

Target: Clearcut and/or tractor yarding are not used in steep, unstable streamside areas unless a detailed geological assessment is performed which shows there is no potential for
increased sedime nt delivery as a result of using th ese methods

.
Accomplishments: The analysis of road assessment data cannot determine the degree to which this target is being met. We have no information to address the metric requiring “ no [emphasis added] potential for increased sediment”

.
Discussion: Improved forest practices have contributed significantly to attaining this TMDL target, because the rules now acknowledge the sensitivity of streamside areas to ground disturbance. The Report of the Scientific Review Pan el on California Forest Practice Rules and Salmonid Habitat (Ligon
et al.

, 1999) was a landmark study that, among other things, stressed the need for greater evaluation of steep streamside areas. As a result of this study and since 2001, state forest pra ctice rules have required a detailed geologic assessment of proposed timber harvest operations on steep streamside areas, greater conifer retention in streamside areas and have discouraged tractor use in these areas (CDF

, 2001). When harvest activities ar e proposed in potentially unstable streamside areas, findings from detailed geologic reports are reviewed during pre

- harvest inspections by geologists from the California Geological Survey, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Redwood National and State Parks. The metric requiring “ no [emphasis added] potential for increased sediment” is unlikely met by any ground disturbing activity.



## S EDIMENT 

## L OAD 

## R EDUCTION 

## 1998

- 2009 The TMDL estimated that a 60 percent reduction in the long

- term annu al sediment load for Redwood Creek (4,750 tons/square mile/year) was needed for watershed recovery. Load

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 15 reduction would be accomplished by treating controllable sources of sediment from roads as identified by the TMDL hillslope numeric targets. This sec tion looks at how much of the controllable sediment load has been reduced throughout the watershed since 1998.

Controllable loads have been reduced by road decommissioning and upgrading projects. In the lower watershed, primarily park lands, an aggressive road decommissioning program has been underway since 1980. In the upper watershed, primarily private lands, roads have been decommissioned and upgraded through cooperative efforts, landowner projects and timber harvest activities since 1996. Properly de commissioned roads are maintenance

- free and sediment sources are removed. In contrast, upgraded roads still contain potential sediment because the road is still in place, but the likelihood of failure during a large storm is low.

In estimating the contr ollable load reductions (or sediment ‘saved’; i.e., the amount of sediment prevented from entering a stream by treating the road), the total volume of sediment treated through upgrades was also included, providing the corrective work met established standa rds, and
the likelihood of site failure was low following treatment. Based on road assessment data for the upper watershed and records from the p arks ’ Watershed Restoration Program, Table 6 shows the
reductions of controllable loads in the watershed since 1998.

Table 6 . Controllable loads and reductions, Redwood Creek, 1998

- 2009 (rounded to 1,000s).

Controllable Loads (tons) Load Reduction (sediment ‘saved’)

Sub

Watershed 1998 2009 Tons % by Sub

- Wshd % of 1998

- 2009 Total Reduction % of Total 1998 Cont rollable Load

Lower Watershed 3,358,000 1,417,000 1,941,000 58% 71% 25%

Upper Watershed 4,289,000 3,511,000 7 96 ,000 1 9 % 29% 10%

Totals 7,647,000 4,928,000 2,7 37 ,000 NA 100% 36%



### Overall, controllable sources of sediment have been reduced by about 36 pe rcent in the entire watershed, more than half the 60 percent reduction required by the TMDL. Most of the load reduction (71 % ) has occurred within the lower watershed where work has been reliably funded for a longer time. In the lower watershed, road deco mmissioning on park lands has treated about 58 percent of the controllable loads in the lower watershed. In the upper watershed, road decommissioning and upgrade work ha s reduced watershed

- wide controllable loads by about 29 percent, or about 1 9 percent o f the controllable loads in the upper watershed. Work on private lands has been funded by competitive grants and the landowner s . Methods used to estimate load
reductions are described in Appendix E

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 16 

## L ONG



## - T ERM 

## A VERAGE 

## A NNUAL 

## S EDIMENT 

## L OADS AND 

## 10

- Y EAR 

## R OLL ING 

## A NNUAL 

## A VERAGE 

### The USGS operates a stream gaging station at Orick, about three miles upstream from the mouth of
Redwood Creek. Stream discharge has been measured since 1954 and the total sediment load (suspended and bed load) has been measure d since 1 972. The more than six decade

- long continuous record captures the variation in hydrologic conditions as well as the watershed’s response to land use and changing watershed conditions. Table 7 lists the average annual total
sediment loads for Redwood Cree k measured at Orick for selected time periods. The time periods
were selected to show how the length of period considered and low to moderate flows can affect average annual sediment loads.

Table 7 . Average annual sediment loads at Orick gage for selec ted t ime p eriods

.

Period Years Average Annual Loads (tons/sqmi/yr) Comments

1954

- 2009 56 4,100 complete record (1954

- 1971 are synthesized data)

1954

- 1997 44 4,700 includes large storms; pre

- TMDL

1990

- 2009 20 2,000 includes 1990s low flows and 1996

- 97 st orms

1987

- 1993 7 870 low flow period

1998

- 2009 12 1,800 moderate flows during TMDL period



### The EPA established the TMDL (allowable sediment load allocation) for Redwood Creek at 1,900 tons/square mile/year expressed as a 10

- year rolling annual average. The rolling average was meant to allow for variations in rainfall and runoff through time. Figure 5 shows the 10

- year rolling annual sediment average for Redwood Creek from 1960 to 2009.

The total annual sediment load peaked in Redwood Creek by the early

- 1970s following periods of widespread sedimentation from the combined effects of early land use and large storms. Annual average sediment loads and the 10

- year rolling average (plotted as the last year in a 10

- year period) declined steadily for the next 20 years during a period of mostly low to moderate flows. During a period of low flows from 1987

- 1994, the 10

- year rolling average fell below the TMDL target of 1,900 tons/square mile/year for the first time. The declining trend in the 10

- year rolling

av erage reversed following the storms in 1996 and 1997. Since 2007, the 10

- year rolling average has once again dropped below the TMDL during a period of moderate flows.



## D ISCUSSION 

### Since the EPA established the TMDL in 1998, potential sediment loads have bee n reduced by about half of the required 60 percent load reduction at the watershed scale. But, the reduction has occurred to a greater extent by work completed in the lower watershed within park areas. Further reductions in controllable loads in the uppe r watershed are needed to more fully distribute load reduction efforts throughout the watershed. The 29 percent load reduction in the upper watershed was achieved by decommissioning and upgrading roads. Because upgraded roads are not

maintenance

- free, lo ng

- term maintenance of those roads will be critical to fully realize the benefits from the investments to reduce the potential for future road failures.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 17 

### 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Sediment Load (tons/sqmi)



### Water Year TMDL target

10

- year Rolling Ave.

Annual Sediment Load

Estimated Annual Sediment Load



### Figure 5 . Total annual sediment loads for Redwood Creek , 10

- year rolling annual average and

TMDL ta rget.

The fact that the 10

- year rolling annual average for sediment loads in Redwood Creek can fall below the TMDL target (1,900 tons/square mile/year) is very encouraging. We believe it shows the cumulative benefits and returns from erosion control and p revention efforts and improved land management practices. However, the 1996 and 1997 storms serve as reminders that more work needs to be done. Curry (HSU, 2007) reported that, in Redwood Creek and at the watershed scale, the storms were relatively moder ate storms (12

- year recurrence interval), but they triggered about
250 landslides throughout the watershed that eroded more than 745,000 yds 3 

### of material and reversed the declining trend of the 10

- year rolling average curve. About 63 percent of the
landsl ides were associated with roads (HSU, 2007). If large sediment inputs to Redwood Creek can be prevented during future large storms, sediment loads will drop as legacy sediment stored in the channel moves out of the system. Combined with cooperative effor ts that decommission more roads, especially those in sensitive geomorphic settings, and upgrade and maintain the remaining road network, we believe the annual sediment loads will drop below the TMDL target and will be sustainable through the infrequent lar ge storms.

There are about 1,040 miles of road in the upper Redwood Creek watershed and about 280 miles of road in the lower watershed. Road density in the upper watershed has fallen from about 7.2 miles/square mile in 2004 to about 6.4 miles/square mile as of 2009 . Road density in the lower watershed has fallen from about 4.9 miles/square mile in 1978 to about 2.4 miles/square mile. Both reductions are improvements, but we believe the road density in the upper watershed is still too high. At 6.4 miles / square mile, the road density in the upper watershed approximates the

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 18 drainage density (7.5 miles/square mile) for all streams in the watershed. Thus, more roads need to be decommissioned in the upper watershed to reduce the sediment threats associated wi th
road s

.
When considering all work completed in the lower and upper watershed, the total amount of sediment ‘saved’ from 1998 to 2009 is approximately 2,7 37 ,000 tons, or about 9, 9 00 tons per square mile of watershed area. This represents about 227,000 ton s/year or 820 tons/square mile/year. To put the sediment savings into perspective, the total sediment load for the same period in Redwood Creek was about 6,100,000 tons, or 22,000 tons/square mile, or 1,800 tons/square mile/year. Because the amount of se diment reduction from erosion control efforts is not ‘realized’ in the same way as the annual sediment loads for Redwood Creek, it is difficult to make a direct comparison between the two. But, the fact that sediment reduction is about 46 percent of the a verage annual load places a certain significance on the work accomplished. It will take large storms to test the effectiveness of the hillslope work and be able to observe the benefits from the completed work.

Figure 6 shows the annual sediment ‘savings ’ from work completed in the watershed from 1998 to
2009. Also shown is the average annual sediment load for Redwood Creek for this same time period and the TMDL 10

- year rolling average. While a direct comparison of sediment ‘saved’ to

annual sediment tr ansport rates is not possible because of the time delay in realizing the benefits of the work, showing this information together helps put the sediment ‘savings’ in perspective. As would be expected, the rate of work in the upper and lower watersheds vari ed, and years with no or minimal work coincided with a lack of project funding. Of the total sediment ‘saved’, about 29 percent was saved from the upper watershed and 71 percent was saved from the lower watershed.

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009tons/sq.mi./yr.



### UpperWshd

Lower Wshd TMDL 10

- year rolling average 1,900 tons/sq.mi./yr.

Average annual sediment load Redwood Creek 1,800 tons/sq.mi./yr.



### Figure 6 . Annual sediment ‘savings’, TM DL target, and average annual sediment load in Redwood
Creek 1998

- 2009.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 19 Figure 7 is another way to consider the benefits from the sediment savings from 1998 to 2009. It
shows the cumulative annual sediment load for Redwood Creek measured at Orick and the savings from erosion control and prevention work. Sediment savings are shown along with both measured
sediment loads and what the theoretical sediment loads might have been without these efforts. The plot shows that cumulative sediment loads would have i ncreased by about 30 percent without completed erosion control and prevention treatments. The plot assumes the sediment ‘savings’ are immediate, which we know is unlikely.

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010tons/sq.mi./yr. Orick Qtl w/out Savings

Orick Qtl

Sediment Savings



### Figure 7 . Cumulative annual sediment load (Qtl) at Orick with and without ‘savi ngs’ from erosion control and prevention efforts 1998

- 2009.

The results presented in this section represent the minimum benefits from the completed work. In other words, it is important to remember that, through time, the sediment savings provide returns just like any investment: interest and dividends accrue and compound annually. And, as with investments, small increases in principle amounts add up to large returns through time. Water quality and salmonid habitat will likely improve at the sub

- watersh ed level before the cumulative benefits combine to improve conditions in the main channel of Redwood Creek. Sediment reduction from erosion control and prevention efforts will create benefits such as clean water, increased pool depth and frequency, and st able riparian areas that support conifer growth for large woody debris recruitment and improved stream water temperatures. A less tangible but significant return on these investments are the offsite cumulative impacts that will be prevented by the
compete d work.

Significant progress has been made toward attaining the TMDL hillslope targets in Redwood Creek, but more work needs to be done. Further reductions in controllable loads in the upper watershed are needed to more fully distribute load reduction ef forts throughout the watershed. The rate of future work will depend on funding opportunities and global economic trends which affect the

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 20 demand for lumber products. A more consistent and well

- funded watershed

- wide program would speed attainment of the TM DL targets and watershed recovery. The Park is committed to seeking funding opportunities in partnership with cooperators primarily to decommission roads.



# CURRENT ROAD CONDITIONS

T his section describes the current condition of the remaining assessed roa ds in upper Redwood
Creek. Results are based on road assessment data which have been updated for each site and road
that has been treated through either cooperative erosion control projects , separate landowner projects or THP road work

Throughout this dis cussion we use project data that are reliable for the specific summary statistic or analysis. During each assessment, some investigators recorded all data used in all tables and analyses in this report. Others did not record estimated treatment costs or used volumetric surveys
that were inconsistent with most other assessments in the watershed. Table 8 shows the

assessment projects , the total road miles for those projects and which data are used in summary
statistic s and analys e s.

Table 8

. P rojects and data used in summary statistics and analys i s for remaining (not decommissioned) roads

.

Projects with Reliable Data Summary Statistic or Data Analysis Total Road Miles Assessed % of R emaining R oads in U pper Redwood Creek

PCFWWRA All cost tables and priorit izing roads 518 5 0 %

PCFWWRA and RN S P Sediment yield and prioritizing roads and areas 6 01 58 %

PCFWWRA, RN S P

, NRM and County Drivability and maintenance status 712 6 8 %

Not A ssessed 328 32%

Total all R emaining R oads 1040



## D RIV ABILITY AND 

## M AINTENANCE 

## S TATUS Drivability and road maintenance status were documented during each assessment. The data were updated after completion of subsequent road treatments. Roads were described as drivable, not drivable, maintained, unmaintained, or decommissioned. Of t he remaining (not decommissioned)

7 12 miles of assessed roads, about 400 miles are considered drivable by a standard 4WD vehicle
and about 2 57 miles are considered not drivable. Drivability was not documented for about 5 5
miles of roads. D riv ability is s ummarized in Table 9

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 21 Table 9 . Drivability of all assessed roads through 2009

.

Drivability Miles % of Total Assessed Miles

Driv able 400 5 6 %

Not Drivable 2 57 3 6 %

Not D ocumented 5 5 8 %

Total Assessed Roads Remaining 7 1 2 100%



### Maintained roads show signs of recent maintenance, such as cleaning of culvert inlets, trash racks, and inboard ditches; grading; rolling dip or water bar reconstruction; brushing; culvert replacement; or fill reconstruction

. U nmaintained r oads lack obvious maintenance to culverts and ditches, and vegetation encroach es on the roa d and road surface. The road may or may not be
drivable. There are presently about 310 miles of maintained roads and about 330 miles of
unmaintained roads. The status was not documented for about 72 miles of road. Table 10

summar i zes these data.

Table 1 0 . Maintenance status of all assessed roads through 200 9

.

Maintenance Status Miles % of Total Assessed Miles

Maintained 310 44 %

Unmaintained 330 46 %

Unknown Status 72 10 %

Total Assessed Roads Remaining 712 100%



## P OTENTIAL 

## S EDIMENT 

## Y IELD

Potential sediment yield is the volume of sediment that can potentially erode and be delivered to a stream during a large storm. The volume is an estimate calculated from field measurements made
of the void that would erode if a potential erosion site failed

. In this report, potential sediment yield is always the larger of site potential yi eld or the extreme potential yi e l d (refer to the glossary for definitions) for each site ( if one exists ).

Initial road assessment s by PCFWWRA and RNSP identified 4,955 sites as reported in Table 2. During subsequent road treatment projects, additional erosion sites were identified and assessed. The values reported below reflect all data from the initial road assessments and data fro m 129 additional sites assessed during treatment projects.

A total of 5

, 08 4 sites were evaluated in the field since 1996 by PCFWWRA and RN S P

. Of these, 737
have been decommissioned and subsequently have negligible potential sediment yield. Of the

remaini ng 4,347 sites , there are 3

, 528 fluvial erosion sites and 819 landslide sites. Potential sediment yield is summarized in Table 1 1

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 22 Table 1 1 . Potential sediment yield for remaining (not decommissioned) sites assessed by
PCFWWRA and RN S P with proposed tre atments

.

No. of Sites Erosion Volume (yds 3 ) 2 Site Potential

Yield (yds 3 ) Extreme Potential

Yield 3 (yds 3 ) Potential Sediment

Yield 4 (yds 3 ) % of No. of Sites % of Potential Sediment

Yield

Sites A ssessed and Re maining 1 4,347 1, 697, 6 0 0 985,0 00 468,8 00 1, 270, 0 00 100% 100%

All Sites with No Yield 569 8,600 0 0 0 13% 0%
All Sites, Yield >0 3,778 1,689,000 985,000 468,800 1,269,900 87% 100%

M

- H Sites, Yield >0 1,942 1,015,800 637,900 366,000 865,400 45% 68%

All Fluv ial Sites 3,528 712,300 708,100 112,000 768,000 81% 60%

All Landslide Sites 819 985,200 276,900 356,800 501,900 19% 40%

Field Call for Treatment

Decommission 1,405 861,200 384,100 264,800 547,200 32% 43%
Upgrade 2,016 759,500 528,60 0 175,000 627,100 46% 49%

Maintain 895 74,800 70,600 25,000 90,600 21% 7%

None 31 2,100 1,700 4,000 5,100 1% 0%

Totals all Sites 4 4,347 1,697,600 985,000 468,800 1,270,000 100% 100%

Table notes:
1 Number of sites differs from value shown in Table 2, because this table includes 129 additional sites assessed during treatment projects.
2 Erosion Volume is that amount of sediment that can potentially erode from a site.
3 329 out of 4,327 sites had an extreme potential yield.
4 Potential Sediment Yie ld is the greater of the site potential yield and the extreme potential yield for each site then summed for all sites. It is not the sum of the two columns “Site Potential Yield” and “Extreme Potential Yield”.
5 Small differences in sums or with other ta ble s are due to rounding.



## F

LUVIAL EROSION SITES


### Of the remaining sites, not decommissioned, there are 3,528 fluvial erosion sites . Of those , 2, 301

are haul road stream crossings. Of these, 1, 2 18 have treatment urgencies of medium or higher with the pote ntial to yield about 4 65

, 600 yds 3 

### of sediment to streams. This is about 63 percent of the potential sediment yield of all medium and higher urgency fluvial erosion sites. Skid trail crossings account for the next largest volume of potential sediment yiel d with an estimated 14, 2 00 yds 3 

### possible sediment delivery from 78 sites with medium or higher treatment urgency. Selected data
for fluvial erosion sites are shown in Table 1 2

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 23 Table 1 2

. Selected information for fluvial erosion sites

.

Fluvial Feature s All Urgency Sites Medium to High Urgency Sites

No. of Sites Potential Sediment

Yield No. of Sites Potential Sediment

Yield % of No. of Medium +

Sites % of Pot. Sediment

Yield

Haul road stream c rossings 2,301 723, 800 1,218 465,600 83 % 61 %

DRC 1 with sed iment delivery 358 10, 400 11 1 5, 1 00 8 % 1 %
DRC, no sediment delivery 463 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
DRC, r oad r eaches 5 1 00 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

Road reach 142 5,7 00 5 3 3, 3 00 4 % 0 %

Skid t rail c rossings 147 25,00 0 78 14,200 5 % 2 %

Swales 112 3,0 00 6 8 00 0 % 0 %

Totals 3,52 8 768, 0 0 0 1, 467 4 89,000 100 % 64 %

1 DRC

– Ditch Relief Culvert



### F ish passage at stream crossings

– There were 21 Class I stream crossings identified during road assessments. Subsequent to initial

assessments, four sites were decommissioned, one upgraded a nd one found not treatable as part of an adjacent road decommissioning project. Of the 17 remaining sites, four sites have treatment urgencies of medium or higher. Table 13 shows the current status of these four Class I streams. One of the crossings sh own is identified as a possible barrier to fish.

There are additional Class I stream crossings in Redwood Creek along roads managed by Humboldt County and Caltrans that are not reported here. Areas not assessed as part of the cooperative erosion control p rogram are also not included in Table 1 3

.

Table 13 . Class I stream crossings with medium or higher urgency.

Site ID Road Name Location Type Urgency Comment

2064050 LC4000 Mainstem Lacks Washed out MED "King's Crossing” mostly washed

- out. About 100 yds 3 remain within mainstem.

4037223 Dolly Varden Cashmere Old l og bridge MED

HIGH Failing

- bridge may be barrier. Need to replace or remove.

5038016 UPR

- 10 Mainstem Windy Bridge MED

HIGH Bridge seriously constrict ing channel. Need to replace. ~400 yards of pot. yield.

5044018 L2000

- CN Noisy Bridge MED Bridge condition is OK. Road drainage treatments are medium urgency.



## L ANDSLIDE SITES


### Of the remaining sites

, not decommissioned, t here are 819 assessed landslide sites. Of these, 47 7
sites ha ve medium or h igher treatment urgencies and potential sediment yield of about 37 6

, 4 00 yds 3 

### . This is about 7 5 percent of total potential sediment yield from all landslide sites. Selected
information for landslide sites is shown in Table 1 4

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 24 Table 1 4 . Selected informa tion for landslide sites.

Landslide Features All Urgency Sites Medium to High Urgency Sites

No. of Sites Potential Sediment

Yield No. of Sites Potential Sediment

Yield % of No. of Medium + Sites % of Pot. Sediment

Yield

Road 589 24 5

, 000 33 6 188, 6 00 71% 38 %
Landing 86 43,400 49 40,900 10% 8 %
Hillslope 10 22,1 0 0 4 4, 700 1% 1%
Road, Hillslope 64 114,3 00 35 76,800 5% 15 %
Road, Landing 36 3 4, 4 00 2 6 31,600 6% 6 %
Road, Swale 25 23

, 5 00 21 21,100 7% 4 %
Landing, Hillslope, Swale 9 19,2 00 4 12,7 00 0% 3 %

Tota ls 819 501,9 00 477 376,400 100% 75 %



## E STIMATED 

## C OSTS FOR 

## T REATING 

## R EMAINING 

## R OADS Costs for treating all assessed sites and roads have been reported in past reports ( Bundros et al

., 2003 and 2004 ; Bundros and Short , 2009) that estimated costs based on si te specific information for equipment, material and labor needs usi ng cost s and rates in effect at the time of the reports

. For this report, we used average treatment cost s ($/ mile of road to be treated) calculated in 2009
from assessment data and applie d those values to the remaining untreated roads in the upper
watershed. We used this simplified method because the schedule for project implementation is

uncertain and we know that costs, especially fuel costs, can vary significantly with time. Thus, the

cost estimate s presented in this report are intended to provide only a general scale of funding
needed to treat the remaining roads in the upper Redwood Creek watershed.

Table 1 5 lists the type of treatments prescribed by field crews, unit treatment costs and estimates to treat the remaining roads in the upper watershed. For the remaining assessed roads, cost
estimates assume that all site s prescribe d for decommission would be treated and only the upgrade sites with urgency equal to or greater than medium would be treated. The final column in Table 1 5
extends the cost estimates to include all roads (not state or county owned) in the upper watershed based on the per mile treatment cost for assessed roads and with the same ratio of decommissioned to upgrade d roads.

The estimated cost to treat the remaining 518 miles of assessed roads is about $24 million. When

estimates are extended to include un assessed roads, t he estimated total cost to treat all remaining untreated roads in the upper watershed is about $44 million.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 25 Table 1 5 . Estimated treatment costs for roads not yet treated and extended to all roads

.

Miles prescribed for

treatment type: Assessed roads Costs e xtended to include all unassessed roads Data from previous reports

2003 2004 2009 2011 2011
Decommission (mi) 144 167 152 154 275
Upgrade (mi) 207 226 235 222 397
Maintain (mi) 83 95 76 142 151
Total (mi) 434 488 463 518 823

Average Cost per Mile Decommission $43,700 $42,8 00 1 $72, 700 $72, 700 2 $72, 700
Average Cost per Mile U pgrade $36,300 $36, 900 1 $59, 400 $59, 400 2 $59, 400
Average Cost per Mile Maintain not avail not avail not avail not avail not avail

Total Cost to Treat Roads with Costs Assigned: $13,815,000 $15,485,000 $24,950,000 $24,362, 000 $43, 588,000

Overall Average Cost
p er Mile $31,800 $31, 800 $64, 600 $ 53,000 $61,680

1 Fuel costs rose significantly between 2004 and 2009 affecting all costs.

2 Cost per mile for 2011 estimate based upon costs calculated in 2009

.



# TREATMENT PRIORITIES

This section presents examples o f analyses that can be used to establish treatment priorities based
on road assessment data. Each example analyzes road assessment data differently and at a
different scale. Establishing priorities helps determine where the greatest benefit s can be achie ved
and ensures limited funds are spent wisely.

The analyses in this section have been presented in our previous summary report s (Bundros et al

. , 2003 and 2004 ). Here, we repeat those analyses with consideration of all road treatments completed since co operative erosion control efforts began . The results presented in this section reflect the new treatment priorities for the remaining assessed roads in the upper watershed.



## P RIORITIZING 

## R OADS AND 

## S UB



## - W ATERSHEDS 

## U SING 

## D ATABASE 

## Q UERIES

Th is analysis relies on database queries that characterize individual roads and sub

- watersheds so that treatment priorities can be established. Unlike other analyses described in this section, database queries are based on treatment urgency instead of erosion potential

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 26 

## R OAD S


### This analysis establishes a treatment priority for individual roads using database queries and data
for sites assessed by PCFWWRA , and not decommissioned

. Sites assessed by o ther s were omitted because field crews did not prescribe detailed treatments no r estimate treatment costs. Roads that contained sites with medium to high treatment urgencies were ranked based on three criteria : 1) potential yield (volume of sediment that can enter a stream) from the entire road; 2) potential yield per mile of road e valuated, and; 3) treatment cost

- effectiveness (the cost per cubic yard to prevent sediment from entering a stream). Road treatment priority was based on the ranking of each

criterion for eac h road. Of the nearly 5 8 0 roads originally assessed , Table 1 6 l ists, in alphabetical order, the 20 roads that have the highest treatment priority based on potential sediment yield, potential yield per mile of road and/or treatment cost

- effectiveness when the top 30 roads (5%) of
each criterion was considered. Tables F

- 1, F

- 2, and E

- 3 (Appendix F ) show how each road rank ed
for each criterion.

Table 1 6 . Treatment priority for roads based on potential sediment yield, yield per mile and/or

treatment cost

- effectiveness. ( T he four roads with bolded names rank high in all t hree criteria. )

Road Name Length (mi) Total no. of sites Total no. M to H

sites Potential Sediment

Yield all sites (yds 3 ) For Medium to High Urgency Sites

Potential Sediment

Yield (yds 3 ) Potential Sediment Yield per mile (yds 3 / mi) Cost/yard "saved" Total Cost

809 1.8 15 13 16,032 12,510 7,032 $12.53 $156,745
831 2.1 13 7 7,699 7,338 3,578 $2.02 $14,821
1140 0.8 15 7 12,616 7,144 9,516 $3.34 $23,856
1410 1.9 23 12 8,125 7,602 3,994 $4.43 $33,660
1431 1.7 29 22 9,479 9,375 5,626 $10.24 $9 5,960 1433 0.5 7 7 3,978 3,978 7,835 $3.04 $12,109
1440 1.5 18 15 15,155 14,588 9,657 $2.15 $31,314
800G 0.3 2 2 3,726 3,726 12,298 $3.28 $12,236 Dolly Varden 11.8 155 114 109,890 103,954 8,793 $11.87 $1,234,068
DVA 1.3 18 15 7,480 7,292 5,640 $15.49 $112,964
LC5000 2.3 26 21 23,659 23,089 10,176 $2.57 $59,360
N500A 0.2 3 3 1,697 1,697 7,318 $4.92 $8,348 Old Hwy 299 2.5 52 39 16,040 15,064 6,074 $15.52 $233,836
PR1106 0.6 5 5 10,417 10,417 17,639 $3.02 $31,477
R1000 2.1 21 13 8,914 8,775 4,164 $3. 84 $33,653
R2100 0.2 2 2 1,557 1,557 7,402 $3.05 $4,746
R3351 0.1 1 1 750 750 6,544 $1.36 $1,017
R3800 0.9 11 10 9,796 9,774 11,364 $5.89 $57,576
R3810 0.1 2 1 5,000 3,500 43,126 $2.90 $10,165
RC

- 2 1.5 25 14 10,122 9,120 6,168 $14.77 $134,682

Table n ote: Costs above include only heavy equipment costs for site specific treatments and laborers for culvert installations. Costs do not include equipment mobilization, road opening, heavy equipment requirements for road drainage treatments, culvert materia ls costs, mulch and seeding costs, project layout, coordination, oversight, report preparation, or overhead.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 27 The 1140, 1440, LC5000 and PR1106 roads have the highest treatment priority because each road appeared in the top 30 roads and in all three criteri a . These roads have relatively high potential sediment yield, high yield per mile of road, and high treatment cost

- effectiveness. The other roads
listed in Table 1 6 ranked high in at least two of the three criteri a

.



## S UB



## - WATERSHEDS


### This analysis estab lishes a treatment priority for individual sub

- watersheds using database queries
and data for sites assessed by PCFWWRA and RN S P , and not decommissioned

. Sites assessed by
others were omitted because we determined the volume estimates are inaccurate ( Bund ros and Short, 2009 ). The analysis presents basic information for each sub

- watershed, and computes the total potential sediment yield per mile of road (yds 3 

### /mile) for each sub

- watershed. The query evaluates sites with medium to high erosion potentials in sub

- watersheds where at least 40 percent
of the road miles had been evaluated. The results were sorted by the potential sediment yield per
mile of road and assigned a priority ranging from very low to very high. The priority for each sub

watershed was a ssigned by comparing its yield per mile to the highest yield per mile value of the
sub

- watersheds considered. T he very low priority sub

- watersheds would yield 0

- 20 percent of the yield per mile for the sub

- watershed with the highest value, and the very hi gh priority sub

watershed would yield 80

- 100 percent of the h ighest yielding sub

- watershed.

Table 1 7 shows the query results and establishes a treatment priority for each sub

- watershed by the total potential sediment yield per mile of road. Potential sedi ment yield per mile ranged from about 52 yds 3 

### /mile in Six Rivers Creek to 5,745 yds 3 

### /mile of road in Lee Creek. Lee Creek was considered an outlier in this analysis because its yield was nearly twice the value of the next highest
sub

- watershed. Potential sediment yield averaged about 1,140 yds 3 

### /mile.

Also from the Table 1 7 , Lacks Creek has the highest potential sediment yield, equal to about

1 42, 0 00 yds 3 

### . Lacks Creek is more than twice the size of the next largest sub

- watershed, so the fact
that it has t he highest total potential yield is no surprise. Of the 42 sub

- watersheds considered, 14
sub

- watersheds can potentially yield more than 1 0,000 yds 3 

### of sediment per square mile.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 28 Table 1 7 . Sub

- watershed treatment priority based on potential sediment yiel d per mile of road.

Sub

- Watershed Acres Roads Potential Sediment Yield Sub

Watershed

Priority Total (mi) Evaluated (%) Density (mi/mi 2 ) Total (yds 3 ) Yield/mile 2 (yds 3 /mi 2 ) Yield/Mile (yds 3 /mi)

Lee 292 3.1 100% 6.7 17,546 38,493 5,745 Very High Wiregr ass 1,153 9.5 92% 5.3 34,515 19,152 3,635 Very High
Johnson Prairie 386 2.2 87% 3.6 7,338 12,179 3,371 Very High
Toss

- Up 1,709 15.7 97% 5.9 43,662 16,355 2,778 High
Pilchuck 1,086 8.8 92% 5.2 24,398 14,381 2,773 High
Loin 601 5.0 81% 5.3 12,515 13,328 2,517 High
Timbo 229 3.8 94% 10.7 8,769 24,479 2,295 High Headwaters_W 179 1.7 52% 6.0 3,740 13,360 2,235 High
Stover 544 4.8 56% 5.7 9,885 11,621 2,052 Medium
Garcia 905 10.1 90% 7.1 20,627 14,581 2,049 Medium
Powerline 408 4.3 94% 6.8 8,874 13,916 2 ,048 Medium Dolly Varden 2,151 23.5 92% 7.0 44,327 13,191 1,883 Medium
Tom 259 2.2 93% 5.4 4,067 10,045 1,853 Medium Coyote 5,043 16.5 57% 2.1 30,159 3,827 1,829 Medium
June 125 0.9 100% 4.8 1,694 8,701 1,804 Medium
Lacks 10,977 82.5 85% 4.8 142,333 8 ,298 1,724 Medium
Smokehouse 426 5.8 74% 8.7 9,210 13,850 1,594 Medium Negro Joe 806 9.5 72% 7.6 12,380 9,830 1,301 Low George 699 6.4 100% 5.8 8,145 7,461 1,282 Low
Twin Lakes 811 9.8 90% 7.8 11,875 9,369 1,206 Low
Fern Prairie 509 6.5 73% 8.2 7,310 9,194 1,124 Low
Garrett 2,643 21.1 62% 5.1 18,688 4,525 886 Low
Minor 8,248 84.6 87% 6.6 73,535 5,706 869 Low Burley 255 3.0 91% 7.4 2,564 6,444 866 Low Lupton 3,329 41.1 62% 7.9 35,637 6,852 866 Low Headwaters_M 1,688 15.4 72% 5.8 12,352 4,684 802 Lo w Snow Camp 773 8.2 66% 6.8 6,262 5,182 767 Low
Lake Prairie 2,144 18.8 82% 5.6 14,035 4,190 746 Low
Panther 3,800 30.7 95% 5.2 21,767 3,666 708 Very Low
Jena 246 4.1 47% 10.7 2,715 7,061 660 Very Low
Cashmere 861 9.3 80% 6.9 5,554 4,130 595 Very Low
Pardee 1,985 23.6 68% 7.6 11,280 3,638 478 Very Low
Christmas Prairie 455 6.9 73% 9.8 3,033 4,267 437 Very Low Noisy 4,030 46.8 73% 7.4 19,326 3,069 413 Very Low Marquette 492 6.7 91% 8.7 2,747 3,572 410 Very Low Cool Springs 737 9.5 45% 8.3 3,592 3,1 18 377 Very Low
Santa Fe 530 8.7 65% 10.5 3,003 3,625 344 Very Low
Debris Torrent 129 2.0 91% 9.8 559 2,770 283 Very Low High Prairie 3,476 40.1 50% 7.4 8,011 1,475 200 Very Low Joplin 441 3.7 90% 5.4 657 954 176 Very Low Ayers 242 3.6 97% 9.5 511 1,3 50 143 Very Low
Six Rivers 741 9.2 57% 8.0 479 414 52 Very Low

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 29 

## P RIORITIZING 

## A REAS WITHIN THE 

## W ATERSHED 

## U SING A 

## GIS S PATIAL 

## A NALYSIS

This analysis establishes a treatment priority for areas in the upper watershed using a GIS spatial analysis and data fro m sites assessed by PCFWWRA and RN S P , and not decommissioned

. Data from sites assessed by others were not used. Rather than focusing on a specific road or sub

- watershed, this method analyzes potential sediment yield throughout the upper watershed and hig hlights discrete areas by the concentration or density of potential sediment yield. The spatial analysis ignores sub

- watershed boundaries.

The analysis uses both numeric and spatial data. Numeric data are the potential sediment yield
values for sites as estimated by the field crews, an d the spatial data comes from GIS point coverage for each site evaluated during the assessment. Because each point represents the location of a site, the analysis can evaluate the potential sediment yield of one site in rel ation to the potential sediment yield of sites that surround it.

Using GIS and the data sources described above, the density or “hot spots” (potential sediment yield per square mile) throughout the upper Redwood Creek watershed was computed. Simply stated , an analysis tool found in GIS software can scan and analyze a contiguous area using a moving one square mile circular “ window.” As the window sweeps across the landscape, it notes the potential sediment yield at each site location and adds to it the yiel d associated to neighboring sites if they are within one square mile of the site being evaluated. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 8 . The darkest colors represent the areas that contain the highest density of potential sediment yield, sug gesting another possible treatment priority.



## P RIORITIZING 

## S UB



## - W ATERSHEDS 

## U SING 

## R ISK 

## A NALYSES

T his analysis establishes treatment priorities using a numeric risk analysis and data from sites assessed by PCFWWRA and RN S P , and not decommissioned . Rather than analyzing a specific road or broad contiguous area, this method prioritizes each sub

- watershed based on specific criteria. Similar to other analyses, at least 40 percent of the road length in each sub

- watershed must have
been assessed to be considered , a nd only sites with medium or higher erosion potential are included in the analysis . The analysis is performed twice. F irst

, evaluates sub

- watersheds based on the likelihood for and magnitude of potential erosion which we call resource threat . Then

, anad romous salmonids are added to the analysis that considers salmonids as the resource at risk

.



## R ESOURCE 

## T HREAT 

### This risk analysis establishes a sub

- watershed treatment priority based on resource threat, or the likelihood for and magnitude of erosion in each sub

- watershed. The resource threat for each sub

watershed considers three criteria: 1) potential sediment yield; 2) critical crossings, and; 3)
Shalstab . Resource threat was computed as follows:

Resource Threat = Yield + CXing + Shalstab

where, for each sub

- watershed:

Yield is the total potential sediment yield for the sub

- watershed

, CXing is the number of critical crossings in the sub

- watershed , and

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 30 Shalstab is the number of Shalstab sites in the sub

- watershed

.
Weighted values were assigned to each crit erion (Appendix G ) based on the actual range of values
for each criterion . The weighted values were then summed to create a final score for each sub

watershed. The final scores were sorted from high to low values and a sub

- watershed treatment priority as signed based on 20% breaks in cumulative total scores. The results are shown in Figure
9 and Table 1 8 and suggest that Lacks, Minor and Dolly Varden creeks have the highest treatment priority based on potential resource threat, followed by Toss

- Up, Lupton and Wiregrass creeks. The results are in general agreement with the spatial analysis for potential sediment yield density ( Figure 8 ).L a c k s

M i n o r G a r r e t t

S t o v e r

B r a d f o r d C o y o t e

J o h n s o n P r a i r i e

M o l a s s e s D e v i l s

P a n t h e r

G e o r g e

D o l l y V a r d e n

L e e

G a r c i a

C a s h m e r e

P i l c h u c k

T o s s

- U p

S w e a t h o u s e

C a p t a i n

N e g r o J o e

W i n d y

S q u i r r e l T a i l

E m m y L o u

C u t

- O f f M e a n d e r

G u n r a c k

S i m o n

M i n o n J u n e

W i r e g r a s s

L o i n

S a n t a F e

G r e e n p o i n t

L u p t o n

F e r n P r a i r i e

C h r i s t m a s P r a i r i e

J e n a

N o i s y

C o o l S p r i n g s

S i x R i v e r s

U p p e r P a n t h e r

L a s t G a p

L i n e a m e n t

H e a d w a t e r s

_ E

H e a d w a t e r s

_ M H i g h P r a i r i e

L a k e P r a i r i e

P a r d e e

M a r q u e t t e

T i m b o

P o w e r l i n e

S n o w C a m p

S m o k e h o u s e

T w i n L a k e s

B u r l e y
T o m

H e a d w a t e r s

_ W D e b r i s T o r r e n t A y e r s B e a v e r

0 2 4 6 8 1 M i l e s

S o u r c e : R N S P G I S

- N : \ G I S

_ M a p s \ u s e r

_ m a p s \ 6 0

_ U B E r o s i o n P r e v e n t i o n R a n k i n g \ 2 0 1 0 U p d a t e C o m p i l e d : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 1 * T h e r o a d a s s e s s m e n t d a t a c o l l e c t e d b e t w e e n 1 9 9 6 a n d 2 0 0 4

w i t h i n t h e u p p e r R e d w o o d C r e e k w a t e r s h e d i n c l u d e s a v o l u m e

e s t i m a t e o f p o t e n t i a l s e d i m e n t y i e l d t o s t r e a m s a t e a c h s i t e

e v a l u a t e d

. F o r e a c h s i t e
, t h e e r o s i o n p o t e n t i a l ( l i k e l i h o o d o f f a i l u r e ) w a s e s t i m a t e d a s e i t h e r l o w
, m e d i u m o r h i g h

.

T h i s m a p s h o w s t h e d e n s i t y o f p o t e n t i a l s e d i m e n t y i e l d f o r t h o s e

s i t e s r a t e d t o h a v e m e d i u m t o h i g h e r o s i o n p o t e n t i a l

. I t w a s p r o d u c e d u s i n g a G I S a n a l y s i s t h a t c a l c u l a t e s d e n s i t y u s i n g

a m o v i n g o n e s q u a r e m i l e c i r c u l a r w i n d o w

. 

## U p p e r R e d w o o d C r e e k W a t e r s h e d 

# P o t e n t i a l S e d i m e n t Y i e l d D e n s i t y

S t a t u s o f I n v e n t o r y D a t a

L i m i t e d D a t a

U n s u r v e y e d

P a r k l a n d s

W

a t e r s h e d d i v i d e s

S t r e a m s ( 1 : 2 4 k ) 

### P o t e n t i a l S e d i m e n t

Y i e l d D e n s i t y * ( c u b i c y a r d s / s q u a r e m i l e )

0

- 5

, 0 0 0

5

, 0 0 0

- 1 5

, 0 0 0

1 5

, 0 0 0

- 3 0

, 0 0 0

3 0

, 0 0 0

- 4 5

, 0 0 0

4 5

, 0 0 0

- 7 0

, 0 0 0

7 0

, 0 0 0

- 1 0 0

, 0 0 0L a c k s

M i n o r G a r r

e t t

S t o v e r

B r a d f o r d C o y o t e

J o h n s o n P r a i r i e

M o l a s s e s D e v i l s

P a n t h e r

G e o r g e

D o l l y V a r d e n

L e e

G a r c i a

C a s h m e r e

P i l c h u c k

T o s s

- U p

S w e a t h o u s e

C a p t a i n

N e g r o J o e

W i n d y

S q u i r r e l T a i l

E m m y L o u

C u t

- O f f M e a n d e r

G u n r a c k

S i m o n

M i n o n J u n e

W i r e g r a s s

L o i n

S a n t a F e

G r e e n p o i n t

L u p t o n

F e r n P r a i r i e

C h r i s t m a s P r a i r i e

J e n a

N o i s y

C o o l S p r i n g s

S i x R i v e r s

U p p e r P a n t h e r

L a s t G a p

L i n e a m e n t

H e a d w a t e r s

_ E

H e a d w a t e r s

_ M H i g h P r a i r i e

L a k e P r a i r i e

P a r

d e e

M a r q u e t t e

T i m b o

P o w e r l i n e

S n o w C a m p

S m o k e h o u s e

T w i n L a k e s

B u r l e y
T o m

H e a d w a t e r s

_

W D e b r i s T o r r e n t A y e r s B e a v e r

S o u r

c e : R N S P G I S

- N : \ G I S

_ M a p s \ u s e r

_ m a p s \ 6 0

_ U B E r o s i o n P r e v e n t i o n R a n k i n g \ 2 0 1 0 U p d a t e s C o m p i l e d : F e b r u a r y
, 2 0 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 1 M i l e s 

# S u b

- w a t e r s h e d T r e a t m e n t P r i o r i t y B a s e d o n R e s o u r c e T h r e a t

U p p e r R e d w o o d C r e e k W a t e r s h e d

* T h i s m a p s h o w s t h e r e s u l t o f a n u m e r i c a l r i s k a n a l y s i s t h a t i s b a s e d o n r e s o u r c e t h r e a t ( p o t e n t i a l s e d i m e n t y i e l d + c r i t i c a l

c r o s s i n g s + S h a l s t a b )

. S u b

- w a t e r s h e d s a r e r a n k e d o n l y i f a t l e a s t 4 0 % o f t h e r o a d s i n t h e s u b

- w a t e r s h e d w e r e a s s e s s e d

. 

### S u b

- W a t e r s h e d P r i o r i t y *

V

e r y H i g h

H i g h

M e d i u m

L o w

V

e r y L o w

N o t R a n k e d

S t a t u s o f I n v e n t o r y D a t a

L i m i t e d D a t a

C u r r e n t l y U n s u r v e y e d

P a r k l a n d s

S t r e a m s ( 1 : 2 4 k )

W

a t e r s h e d d i v i d e s

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 33 T able 1 8 . Sub

- watershed treatment priority based on resource threat.

Sub

- Watershed Area (ac) Weighting Values for:

Total Score Sub

- Watershed Priority Potential Sediment

Yield Critical Crossings Shalstab

Lacks 10 ,977 9 9 9 27 Very High Minor 8,248 9 9 9 27 Very High Dolly Varden 2,151 9 7 3 19 Very High
Toss

- Up 1,709 7 3 7 17 High Lupton 3,329 7 3 5 15 High Wiregrass 1,153 7 3 5 15 High Coyote 5,043 5 5 3 13 Medium Negro Joe 806 3 7 3 13 Medium
Garcia 905 5 3 3 11 Medium Noisy 4,030 5 5 1 11 Medium
Panther 3,800 5 3 3 11 Medium
Pilchuck 1,086 5 1 5 11 Medium
Garrett 2,643 3 5 1 9 Low
Pardee 1,985 3 3 3 9 Low
Lake Prairie 2,144 3 1 3 7 Low
Johnson Prairie 386 1 5 0 6 Low George 699 1 3 1 5 Low
Headw aters_M 1,688 3 1 1 5 Low
Lee 292 3 1 1 5 Low
Loin 601 3 1 1 5 Low
Powerline 408 1 3 1 5 Low
Twin Lakes 811 3 1 1 5 Low Snow Camp 773 1 3 0 4 Very Low
Christmas Prairie 455 1 1 1 3 Very Low
Debris Torrent 129 1 1 1 3 Very Low High Prairie 3,476 1 1 1 3 Very Low Joplin 441 1 1 1 3 Very Low
June 125 1 1 1 3 Very Low Marquette 492 1 1 1 3 Very Low
Six Rivers 741 1 1 1 3 Very Low
Stover 544 1 1 1 3 Very Low
Timbo 229 1 1 1 3 Very Low Burley 255 1 1 0 2 Very Low
Cashmere 861 1 0 1 2 Very Low
Coo l Springs 737 1 1 0 2 Very Low
Fern Prairie 509 1 1 0 2 Very Low Headwaters_W 179 1 1 0 2 Very Low
Jena 246 1 1 0 2 Very Low
Santa Fe 530 1 1 0 2 Very Low
Smokehouse 426 1 1 0 2 Very Low
Tom 259 1 1 0 2 Very Low Ayers 242 1 0 0 1 Very Low

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 34 

## R ESOURCE THREAT AND RESOURCE AT RISK 

### This risk analysis uses the same methods used to describe resource threat, but now integrates
anadromous salmonids in each sub

- watershed as the resource at risk . Doing so adds a biological element to the previous analysis that prioritized sub

- watershed treatment only in terms of the
likelihood for and magnitude of potential erosion, or resource threat . In this analysis risk is defined
as follows:

Risk = Resource Threat + Resource at Risk

Resource Threat was defined in the pre vious analysis. Resource at Risk considers the number of anadromous salmonid species observed in each sub

- watershed. Salmonid distribution information for the Redwood Creek watershed is from documented stream surveys performed since 1965 and is
shown in Figure H

- 1 (Appendix H ).

The results from this analysis are shown in Figure 10 and Table 19

. Lacks and Minor creeks are the highest priority for treatment because both have high sediment threats and support at least three salmonid species. The treatmen t priority for sub

- watersheds such as Coyote, Panther and Pilchuck creeks moved from medium in the previous analysis to high, because they have moderately high
sediment threats and support populations of at least two salmonid species

. Other subwatersheds,
such as Toss

- up, Lupton and Wiregrass fell in treatment priority even though each supports one salmonid species. While High Prairie Creek supports two salmonid species, its treatment priority is relatively low because of its low sediment threat.



## C RITICA L 

## C ROSSINGS Stream crossings are a significant sediment threat to aquatic and riparian habitats and water quality because there are so many crossings built throughout north coast watersheds. Crossings
that can divert a stream from its natural watercourse are especially problematice, because of the magnitude of erosion that can occur if the stream diverts (see Watershed Improvement Plan). Stream crossings that are especially prone to diversion are those we refer to as ‘critical’ crossings.

Critical crossi ngs are th ose most likely to diver t during a large storm because they have a diversion potential, undersized culvert and a t least medium plug potential.

Considerable progress has been made in reducing the number of critical crossings in the upper
watershed , but more work need s to be done. To identify areas where the concentration of critical crossings remains high, we performed a GIS spatial analysis that computed the density of critical crossings per square mile across all of the assessment areas. The re sults of this analysis are shown in Figure 11. The darkest colors represent ‘hot spots’, or the highest concentrations of critical crossings and areas of the highest risk.L a c k s

M i n o r G a r r

e t t

S t o v e r

B r a d f o r d C o y o t e

J o h n s o n P r a i r i e

M o l a s s e s D e v i l s

P a n t h e r

G e o r g e

D o l l y V a r d e n

L e e

G a r c i a

C a s h m e r e

P i l c h u c k

T o s s

- U p

S w e a t h o u s e

C a p t a i n

N e g r o J o e

W i n d y

S q u i r r e l T a i l

E m m y L o u

C u t

- O f f M e a n d e r

G u n r a c k

S i m o n

M i n o n J u n e

W i r e g r a s s

L o i n

S a n t a F e

G r e e n p o i n t

L u p t o n

F e r n P r a i r i e

C h r i s t m a s P r a i r i e

J e n a

N o i s y

C o o l S p r i n g s

S i x R i v e r s

U p p e r P a n t h e r

L a s t G a p

L i n e a m e n t

H e a d w a t e r s

_ E

H e a d w a t e r s

_ M H i g h P r a i r i e

L a k e P r a i r i e

P a r

d e e

M a r q u e t t e

T i m b o

P o w e r l i n e

S n o w C a m p

S m o k e h o u s e

T w i n L a k e s

B u r l e y
T o m

H e a d w a t e r s

_

W D e b r i s T o r r e n t A y e r s B e a v e r

S o u r

c e : R N S P G I S

- N : \ G I S

_ M a p s \ u s e r

_ m a p s \ 6 0

_ U B E r o s i o n P r e v e n t i o n R a n k i n g \ 2 0 1 0 U p d a t e s C o m p i l e d : F e b r u a r y
, 2 0 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 1 M i l e s 

# S u b

- w a t e r s h e d T r e a t m e n t P r i o r i t y B a s e d o n R e s o u r c e T h r e a t a n d R e s o u r c e a t R i s k

U p p e r R e d w o o d C r e e k W a t e r s h e d

* T h i s m a p s h o w s t h e r e s u l t o f a n u m e r i c a l r i s k a n a l y s i s t h a t i s b a s e d o n r e s o u r c e t h r e a t ( p o t e n t i a l s e d i m e n t y i e l d + c r i t i c a l

c r o s s i n g s + S h a l s t a b ) a n d r e s o u r c e a t r i s k ( a n a d r o m o u s s a l m o n i d s ) S u b

- w a t e r s h e d s a r e r a n k e d o n l y i f a t l e a s t 4 0 % o f t h e r o a d s i n t h e s u b

- w a t e r s h e d w e r e a s s e s s e d

. 

### S u b

- W a t e r s h e d P r i o r i t y *

V

e r y H i g h

H i g h

M e d i u m

L o w

V

e r y L o w

N o t R a n k e d

S t a t u s o f I n v e n t o r y D a t a

L i m i t e d D a t a

C u r r e n t l y U n s u r v e y e d

P a r k l a n d s

S t r e a m s ( 1 : 2 4 k )

W

a t e r s h e d d i v i d e s

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 36 T able 19 . Sub

- watershed treatment priority based on resource threat and resource at risk.

Sub

- Watershed Area (ac) Fish (Resource at Risk) Scores

Total Score Sub

Watershed

Priority # of Species Weighting Value Resource Threat Resource at Risk

(3x weight)

Lacks 10,977 4 9.00 27 27 54 Very High
Minor 8,248 3 6.75 27 20 47 Very High Coyote 5,043 3 6.75 13 20 33 High Dolly Varden 2,151 2 4.50 19 14 33 High
Panther 3,800 2 4.50 11 14 25 High
Pilchuck 1,086 2 4.50 11 14 25 High
Toss

- Up 1,709 1 2.25 17 7 2 4 Medium Lupton 3,329 1 2.25 15 7 22 Medium Wiregrass 1,153 1 2.25 15 7 22 Medium
Garcia 905 1 2.25 11 7 18 Medium Noisy 4,030 1 2.25 11 7 18 Medium High Prairie 3,476 2 4.50 3 14 17 Low
Garrett 2,643 1 2.25 9 7 16 Low
Pardee 1,985 1 2.25 9 7 16 Low
Lake Prairie 2,144 1 2.25 7 7 14 Low Negro Joe 806 0 0.00 13 0 13 Low
Twin Lakes 811 1 2.25 5 7 12 Low
Loin 601 1 2.25 5 7 12 Low Snow Camp 773 1 2.25 4 7 11 Low
Six Rivers 741 1 2.25 3 7 10 Very Low
Smokehouse 426 1 2.25 2 7 9 Very Low
Cashmere 8 61 1 2.25 2 7 9 Very Low
Santa Fe 530 1 2.25 2 7 9 Very Low
Jena 246 1 2.25 2 7 9 Very Low
Johnson Prairie 386 0 0.00 6 0 6 Very Low
Lee 292 0 0.00 5 0 5 Very Low Headwaters_M 1,688 0 0.00 5 0 5 Very Low George 699 0 0.00 5 0 5 Very Low
Powerline 40 8 0 0.00 5 0 5 Very Low Joplin 441 0 0.00 3 0 3 Very Low
Christmas Prairie 455 0 0.00 3 0 3 Very Low
Debris Torrent 129 0 0.00 3 0 3 Very Low
Timbo 229 0 0.00 3 0 3 Very Low
June 125 0 0.00 3 0 3 Very Low Marquette 492 0 0.00 3 0 3 Very Low
Stover 5 44 0 0.00 3 0 3 Very Low
Fern Prairie 509 0 0.00 2 0 2 Very Low Headwaters_W 179 0 0.00 2 0 2 Very Low Cool Springs 737 0 0.00 2 0 2 Very Low Burley 255 0 0.00 2 0 2 Very Low
Tom 259 0 0.00 2 0 2 Very Low Ayers 242 0 0.00 1 0 1 Very LowL a c k s

M i n o r G a r r e t t

S t o v e r

B r a d f o r d C o y o t e

J o h n s o n P r a i r i e

M o l a s s e s D e v i l s

P a n t h e r

G e o r g e

D o l l y V a r d e n

L e e

G a r c i a

C a s h m e r e

P i l c h u c k

T o s s

- U p

S w e a t h o u s e

C a p t a i n

N e g r o J o e

W i n d y

S q u i r r e l T a i l

E m m y L o u

C u t

- O f f M e a n d e r

G u n r a c k

S i m o n

M i n o n J u n e

W i r e g r a s s

L o i n

S a n t a F e

G r e e n p o i n t

L u p t o n

F e r n P r a i r i e

C h r i s t m a s P r a i r i e

J e n a

N o i s y

C o o l S p r i n g s

S i x R i v e r s

U p p e r P a n t h e r

L a s t G a p

L i n e a m e n t

H e a d w a t e r s

_ E

H e a d w a t e r s

_ M H i g h P r a i r i e

L a k e P r a i r i e

P a r d e e

M a r q u e t t e

T i m b o

P o w e r l i n e

S n o w C a m p

S m o k e h o u s e

T w i n L a k e s

B u r l e y
T o m

H e a d w a t e r s

_ W D e b r i s T o r r e n t A y e r s B e a v e r

S o u r c e : R N S P G I S

- N : \ G I S

_ M a p s \ u s e r

_ m a p s \ 6 0

_ U B E r o s i o n P r e v e n t i o n R a n k i n g \ 2 0 1 0 U p d a t e C o m p i l e d : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 1 * T h e r o a d a s s e s s m e n t p e r f o r m e d b e t w e e n 1 9 9 6 a n d 2 0 0 4 w i t h i n t h e u p p e r R e d w o o d C r e e k w a t e r s h e d

e v a l u a t e d r o a d

- s t r e a m c r o s s i n g s a n d t h e i r d r a i n a g e

s t r u c t u r e s

. D r a i n a g e s t r u c t u r e s w e r e e v a l u a t e d f o r t h e i r c a p a c i t y a s w e l l a s t h e i r d i v e r s i o n a n d p l u g p o t e n t i a l

. C r o s s i n g s h a v i n g a d i v e r s i o n p o t e n t i a l

, a

m e d i u m t o h i g h p l u g p o t e n t i a l

, a n d a n u n d e r s i z e d

c u l v e r t a r e r e f e r r e d t o a s “ C r i t i c a l C r o s s i n g s ” a n d s h o u l d b e t r e a t e d a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e

.

T h i s m a p s h o w s t h e d e n s i t y o f C r i t i c a l C r o s s i n g s f o r t h e a r e a

s u r v e y e d

. I t w a s p r o d u c e d b y a G I S a n a l y s i s t h a t c a l c u l a t e d d e n s i t y u s i n g a m o v i n g o n e s q u a r e m i l e c i r c u l a r w i n d o w

.



### S t a t u s o f I n v e n t o r y D a t a

L i m i t e d D a t a

U n s u r v e y e d

P a r k l a n d s

W

a t e r s h e d d i v i d e s

S t r e a m s ( 1 : 2 4 k ) 

### N u m b e r o f C r i t i c a l C r o s s i n g s / s q u a r e m i l e *

< 1

1

- 1 0

1 0

- 2 0

2 0

- 4 0

4 0

- 6 0

0 2 4 6 8 1 M i l e s 

## C r i t i c a l C r o s s i n g D e n s i t y

U p p e r R e d w o o d C r e e k W a t e r s h e d

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 38 Discussion

S everal different analys es have been presented that prioritize erosion control and prevention
treatments in the upper Redwood Creek watershed. Each analysis works at a different scale, and
has its s trengths and weaknesses.

The first analysis established a treatment priority for individual roads and sub

- watersheds using database queries. Roads were prioritized based on: 1) total potential sediment yield for the
untreated road reach ; 2) total potentia l sediment yield per mile of road, and; 3) treatment cost

effectiveness. Sub

- watersheds were prioritized by total potential sediment yield per mile of road. These simple analyses characterize each road and sub

- watershed by potential sediment yield and

co st

- effectiveness, and are based on simple databases queries . Analysis results are most useful when all roads are controlled by a single landowner. Its utility diminishes when roads cross multiple ownership or sub

- watershed boundaries, because the analy si s lacks a spatial reference.

The second analysis established a treatment priority for areas of high potential sediment yield density or “hot spots” using a GIS spatial analysis. The analysis is blind to sub

- watershed
boundaries. Its ability to highlight discrete areas containing a potentially high cumulative potential sediment yield is its greatest strength. The spatial reference provided in this analysis is well suited to establishing treatment priorities at all planning scales. A disadvantage to this method is that it does not consider what percentage of an area has been evaluated. Thus, the analysis can miss areas of high potential sediment yield density if adjacent areas have not been fully evaluated and included in the analysis

.
The third analysis established a treatment priority for sub

- watersheds by performing two separate risk analyses. The first analysis was based only on resource threat (the likelihood for and the magnitude of potential erosion), and the second integrated the resource at risk (anadromous salmonids) into the analysis. Depicting the risk to salmonid populations at a watershed scale is perhaps the greatest strength of this analysis that integrates specific site information such as potential sediment yield and critical crossings, with watershed attributes such as hillslope stability (Shalstab) and salmonids. A disadvantage to this method is that it is based on sub

- watershed boundaries and, therefore, does not evaluate interfluves between sub

- watersheds. Interfluves tend
to have t he highest road densities (Table A

- 1 ) and they deliver sediment directly to Redwood Creek. We also believe DEMs used to run the Shalstab model tend to underestimate steepness, especially
in the confined streamside areas . Underestimating steepness in thes e areas could reduce the predicted resource threat at individual sites and the sub

- watershed ranking.

The risk analysis is also sensitive to how much of a sub

- watershed has been assessed. A sub

watershed is considered in the analys i s only if at least 40 percent of the road length in the sub

watershed had been evaluated. Therefore, the percentage of roads and/or the number of sites
evaluated in each sub

- watershed must be considered when reviewing the analysis results.

The final analysis identified areas that contain high concentrations of critical crossings. The analysis is blind to ownership and sub

- watershed boundaries, and is well suited to planning efforts

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 39 at all landscape scales. However, the completeness of road assessments in neighboring areas mu st be considered when reviewing results.

The ‘ best ’ prioritization method would probably use a combination of the analyses presented in this report, and would depend on the scale and objectives of the planning effort. For example, a smaller
landowner will ing to implement an erosion control project might use database queries in combination with the spatial analysis to prioritize work on their land. If the protection of sub

watersheds that supports the greatest number of salmonid species is the objective, t hen the numeric risk analysis that integrates salmonid information would be appropriate in combination with the database query that considers treatment cost

- effectiveness. The spatial analysis could also help pinpoint priority areas within the sub

- watersh ed.

Our preference for prioritizing areas for treatment would consider the importance of limiting
sedimentation in the main channel of Redwood Creek

, because of its importance to fisheries and the threat sediment poses to the downstream park resources

. Outside of the Prairie Creek sub

watershed, the main channel of Redwood Creek represents about 70 percent of all accessible anadromous salmonid habitat in the Redwood Creek watershed (California Resources Agency

, 2002), and severe aggradation of the main c hannel, as experienced during past large storms, would threaten the riparian areas in the park, including the alluvial old

- growth groves. Thus, a
watershed

- wide planning effort that sets sediment reduction to the main channel of Redwood
Creek as its prima ry objective could use the numeric risk analysis based on resource threat in
combination with the analys i s that identifies the “hot spots” throughout the entire watershed

.



# WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN

W e offer the following suggestions for land management practices that can protect aquatic and riparian habitat s and move the watershed closer to recovery and meeting the objectives of the
Redwood Creek TMDL.

1. Continue Erosion Control and Prevention Efforts in the Upper Watershed Significant progress has been made in treating potential erosion sites and meeting identified hillslope targets in the TMDL. However, it’s imperative this work continues in the upper watershed, where only 1 9 percent of the estimated controllable sediment load has been treated. S ediment load
reduction should occur throughout the watershed, especially in areas identified as high priority for treatment in this report. Medium to high urgency sites identified in the road assessments should be treated at the earliest possible date. R edwood National and State Parks is willing to help develop projects and facilitate project implementation. The p ark looks forward to working with private landowners, non

- profit organizations and other government agencies to seek funds and help implement e rosion

- control and prevention work.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 40 2. Treat Stream Crossings that have Diversion Potential

E rosion caused by stream diversions during large storms can be significant and is preventable , and
the prevention of diversions is perhaps the most cost

- effective erosion control treatment. Diversion potentials at stream crossings should be treated, independent of other established treatment priorities.

Based on our observations in the Redwood Creek watershed, stream diversions can cause severe gully erosion that often leads to significant landslide erosion. Studies performed in the Redwood Creek watershed have shown that: 1) stream diversions can account for a significant portion of a sediment budget during large storms; 2) the erosion volume from diversions can far exceed the volume contained in the crossings from which the streams diverted, and; 3) stream diversions are preventable (Weaver and Hagans, 1987; Best and others, 1995).

Of the approximately 2, 540 stream crossings originally evaluated by PCFWWRA and R NSP, nearly 1,5 9 0 crossings (6 3 %) had a diversion potential and 464 crossings (1 8 % of all crossings) were critical crossings . Upgrade and decommission projects have treated 3 36 ( 2 1 %) of the assessed potential diversion crossings, and 110 ( 24 %) of the asse ssed critical crossing s

. Crossings with diversion potential (especially critical c rossings ) in the upper watershed should receive the highest treatment priority.

Diversion prevention efforts should rely on permanently installed critical dips as defined by Weaver and Hagans (1994). Waterbars are insufficient and are not a substitute for permanent,
well

- constructed critical dips. If the crossing is the low point of the road and acts as a critical dip, the surface of the road should be insloped towards the culvert inlet to prevent surface runoff from reaching the downstream fillslope that would erode. The outflows of critical dips should be rock armored, especially if the critical dip is center ed over the crossing and it drains to the downstream
side of the crossing fill

.
3. Decrease Road Density The road density in the upper watershed is too high and should be reduced. The a verage road density for the entire watershed is about 4.8 miles per square mile. However, roads are not
distributed evenly throughou t the watershed. In the lower watershed, mostly park lands, road density is about 2.4 miles/square mile while in the upper watershed, mostly private lands , road density is about 6.4 miles / square mile. Road density has been reduced in the upper watershed

since cooperative projects have decommissioned roads , but the fact that road density approximates the density of all streams (7.5 miles/ square mile) in the watershed suggests it is still too high. New
road s needed for timber harvest should be built as tem porary road s. Roads not needed for a
decade or more should be either permanently or temporarily decommissioned. A r oad density of
about 5.0 miles per square mile in any sub

- watershed would be a reasonable initial goal. With fewer roads, long

- term sedime nt delivery to Redwood Creek and its tributaries, and maintenance
needs and costs would be reduced.

4 . Provide Long

- Term Road Maintenance Based upon road assessments and completed work, about 55 percent of the assessed roads in
Redwood Creek are being ma intained (or are maintenance

- free because they have been

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 41 decommissioned ) . In 2004, we reported that about 32 percent of all roads assessed were being maintained (Bundros et al.

, 2004) , so this is a significant improvement. Road inspection and

maintenance will be critical for watershed recovery because the potential sediment impacts associated with roads will exist as long as roads remain on the landscape

. We encourage landowners to voluntarily adopt measures similar to those found in Green Diamond Resour ce Company’s Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan (GDRCo

, 2006) that contains explicit standards for road inspections and maintenance

. Roads should be maintained into perpetuity or they should be permanently or temporarily decommissioned.

5 . Improve Stream Crossing Construction Standards
Based on original assessment data

, we estimated there were about 5,000 stream crossings in the

entire upper Redwood Creek watershed prior to treatments (Bundros et al.

, 2004). While about
540 crossings have either been subs equently upgraded or decommissioned, there are still a significant number of stream crossings in the upper watershed. S tream crossing design and construction standards should reflect this threat to salmonids and water quality and follow guidelines describ ed by Cafferata and other s ( 2004)

.
When crossings are reconstructed, sediment accumulated upstream of the crossing should be
excavated from the channel before a new culvert is installed. This allows a culvert to be installed deeper and the crossing to b e built with a minimum amount of fill. Placing the culvert deeper in the
fill will ensure it more closely conforms with the original stream channel grade, which will allow sediment and debris to be transported through the culvert instead of being deposit e d at the culvert inlet which can plug the culvert and cause failure.

Whether new or reconstructed, crossing fill should be thoroughly compacted by appropriate equipment (not crawler tractors), especially along the outer edge of the fill prism and around th e newly placed culvert. Rock armor on the downstream fillslope of the crossing is not a substitute for proper compaction, but it is recommended to more fully protect the crossing if the culvert were to plug or otherwise fail.

6 . Avoid Throughcut Road Con struction Throughcut road construction should be avoided because such roads are impossible to drain properly. This is especially important for roads that lead to landings where concentrated surface runoff can saturate the outer landing edge and cause land ing failure , or to stream crossings where throughcut road construction would make it difficult to hydrologically disconnect road runoff from the crossing.

7 . Drainage, Drainage, Drainage Road surface drainage is an integral part of all road systems. When properly configured by ditch relief culverts, outsloped road surfaces and/or rolling dips, road surface drainage distributes surface runoff evenly along a road, and prevents concentrated runoff that leads to sheet, rill and gully erosion. Reducing the am ount of road and inboard ditch that drains directly in to streams reduces sediment delivery to streams. Where inboard ditches are needed and must be improved along existing roads, the ditches can be excavated into the inside edge of the road so that cutban ks are not disturbed. Many roads are wider than needed. By e xcavating ditch lines into the road as

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 42 opposed to the cutbank

, cutbank failures can be prevent ed, and road widths and maintenance costs
can be reduced

.

8

. Account for Highway 299 When Installin g Culverts Downslope of the Highway When sizing culverts it is important to consider the effects s tate Highway 299 has on the routing of
surface water

. Standard culvert sizing methods that ignore the effects of the highway will either

overestimate or unde restimate the drainage area , storm discharge and culvert diameter needed at crossings located below the highway . There are about 11 miles of s tate Highway 299 in the
Redwood Creek watershed.

Hydrologic effects from state Highway 299 are likely to be mor e pronounced when it crosses middle hillslope positions, where drainage density tends to be high and stream channels are not fully formed. Highway culverts are not always installed for the smallest streams, so streamflow can be diverted by inboard ditches and storm drains to a neighboring drainage. The highway surface also can collect a vast amount of surface runoff that can be discharged onto previously unchanneled hillslope areas. These effects could result in increased channel erosion, because of the flashiness and quantity of runoff, especially when rapid snow melt occurs. Therefore, the surface drainage patterns and the placement of drainage structures along state Highway 299 should be considered when sizing culvert s in areas downslope of the highway

. Table 2 0 shows how the length of state Highway 299 is distributed through different sub

- watersheds and interfluves

.

Table 20 . Sub

- watersheds and interfluves affected by state Highway 299. (l istings are in an easterly direction along the highway route. )

Watershed/Interfluve State Highway 299

Miles in Watershed (mi) Density in Watershed (mi/mi 2 )

Santa Fe Creek 0.7 0.9 Greenpoint Creek 0.7 1.4 Greenpoint

- Lupton 1.5 1.2 Lupton Creek 1.0 0.2 Lupton

- Fern Prairie 0.5 1.3 Negro Joe

- Windy 0.1 0.2 Negro Joe Creek 1.2 0.9 Captain Creek 3.8 1.8

Sweathouse

- Captain 0.2 0.4

Sweathouse Creek 0.2 0.1 Windy Creek 0.6 0.4



### 9 . Restore Riparian Function along Redwood Creek Riparian conditions along Redwood Creek must improve before large woody debris can once again occupy the main channel of Redwood Creek in sufficient quantities needed for nutrient cycling,
channel complexity, pool forming elements, shelter

, and over

- winter habitat for anadromous
salmonids

. Once dominated by coniferous forests that provided shade and a source of large woody

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 43 debris, today an estimated 60 percent of the riparian corridor along Redwood Creek is dominated mostly by hardwood forests. Outside of the Prairie Creek sub

- watershed, the main channel of Redwood Creek represents about 70 percent of all accessible anadromous salmonid habitat in the Redwood Creek watershed (California Resources Agency, 2002 ).

Riparian restoration opportunities exist through conifer planting and/or release, especially where conifers are already established below hardwood canopies. The greatest restoration opportunities likely exist in the reaches upstream of Highway 299 where the active channel is commonly less than 100 feet wide, well within the growth potential of Douglas

- fir that could provide channel sp anning

structure. Douglas

- fir

, and in some cases Redwood, are growing below a hardwood canopy along an
estimated 12 river miles (20 percent) of the riparian corridor (Bundros et al., 2003)

.
Conservation easements along the riparian corridor that include steep streamside slopes should
also be considered, especially in the inner gorge areas upstream of state Highway 299. Obtained from willing landowners, riparian and inner gorge areas placed into conservation easements would ensure the long

- term recruitmen t of large conifers to the main channel of Redwood Creek. Finally,

w e are encouraged by improved forest practices that are ret aining greater numbers of conifers along streams for large woody debris recruitment and stream water temperature control, and on steep streamside areas where streamside landslides are an important recruitment mechanism for large woody debris.



# CONCLUSIONS

P artnerships have formed around the common objective of improving watershed conditions in
Redwood Creek

. This includes the fo rmation of the Redwood Creek Watershed Group whose members represent about 90 percent of the ownership and/or management of land in the
watershed (RCWG, 2006)

. These partnerships have spawned collaborative efforts that will ultimately improve and maintain salmonid habitat and water quality in Redwood Creek, and protect the downstream public trust resources in Redwood National and State Parks.

There are about 1, 040 miles of road in the upper Redwood Creek watershed. Of those, about 910
miles (87 percent) ar e on private lands and used for forest and ranch management. Road

assessments that have identified treatments and estimated costs have been completed on 463 miles
roads. The estimated cost to treat these roads was reported by Bundros and Short ( 2009) and averaged about $64,600 per mile. Extending unit costs to all roads (not state or county owned) , the
estimated total cost to treat all remaining logging and ranch roads in the upper watershed is about $ 44 million.

In the upper watershed, e rosion control a nd prevention work has been performed through cooperative efforts, individual landowner projects and through road work associated with timber
harvest plans . Since efforts to prevent erosion from logging roads started in the mid

- 1990s, 61

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 44 miles of roads ha ve been decommissioned and 120 miles of roads have been upgraded. About 294

stream crossings were upgraded with new and properly sized culverts or bridges, nearly 3 00

stream crossings were decommissioned, and 275 potentially unstable road reaches and /or l andings were treated. The total sediment savings from this work was 531,000 yds 3 

### or about 30 percent of the total potential sediment yield from assessed roads in the upper watershed. A bout $ 880,000 has been spent on completing road assessments and about $ 5.8 million on project implementation.

Based on the average potential sediment yield of 2, 600 yds 3 

### /mile of road on remaining assessed
roads we estimate that about 2,340,000 yds 3 

### of potential sediment yield associated with logging
and ranch roads remai ns in the upper watershed . It represents about seven times the long

- term
annual sediment load of Redwood Creek

. Of this total, about 60 percent is associated with fluvial sites such as stream crossings, and about 40 percent is associated with unstable ro ad reaches and landings.

We believe the values for total potential sediment yield are conservative and represent a minimum value. Extreme erosion potential is difficult to estimate, and we know that road assessments do not capture the full risk of strea m diversions, landslides or debris torrents originating at roads. Also, we have observed offsite landsliding along confined stream channels caused by the rapid filling of
landslide deposits. Potential sediment yield associated with such events is not inc luded in yield estimates when sites are evaluated because doing so would be highly speculative.

The values for total potential sediment yield and sediment saved through erosion control and prevention efforts also do not include estimate s for the amount of erosion that occurs from a road’s surface or inboard ditch. We know erosion from these surfaces occurs, but the rate of ero sion is
variable

, influenced by such things as road design, the underlying materials of the road, whether or
not the road is watere d during use, the amount of use, etc. Thus, we chose to ignore volume
estimates for surface erosion because of the uncertainties

.

T he erosion control and prevention work completed in the lower and upper watersheds has made significant progress toward meet ing the goals of the Redwood Creek TMDL. Completed work has reduced potential sediment loading by about 3 6 percent of the TMDL’s required 60 percent load reduction. However, 71 percent of the total reduction occurred in the lower watershed

, on park
lands , compared to a 29 percent reduction in the upper watershed. While both represent significant reductions, more work is needed in the upper watershed to more fully distribute load reduction throughout the watershed. Moreover, seven percent of the load red uction in the upper
watershed resulted from upgrading roads. U pgraded roads are not maintenance

- free, so they must
be maintained over the long

- term to fully realize the benefits from the investments that reduce d the potential for future road failures.

The trend of the 10

- year rolling average annual sediment load for Redwood Creek has been encouraging. During periods of low to moderate flows, the 10

- year rolling average fell below the
1,900 tons /square miles/year TMDL target two times and it currently rema ins below the target.
This trend clearly shows the target is attainable, but whether or not it can be sustained over the long

- term is the question. The effects from the relatively moderate 1996 and 1997 storms are reminders that widespread erosion from r oads will continue to occur during stressing events until

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 45 the road network throughout the watershed is properly treated. Because of improved land management practices and watershed

- wide efforts to prevent erosion, t he watershed is recovering
from the extr eme erosional events in the 1960s and 1970s . However, the objective of the TMDL
will not be met without additional work and a commitment to long

- term road maintenance

. More

r oads , especially in sensitive geomorphic settings

, need to be decommissioned and other s need to be upgraded and /or maintained for the 10

- year rolling average annual sediment load to remain sustainably below the TMDL target through large storms.

Forest and ranch roads are a conundrum. They are needed for land management, but the high density of roads constructed throughout the upper Redwood Creek watershed is a huge cumulative watershed impact that is largely ignored. While f orest road construction standards have improved over the past years, there is still no mechanism for long

- term road maintenance . Without a commitment to long

- term road maintenance, we will always be addressing “legacy” effects from past forest rotations. We encourage landowners to voluntarily adopt measures similar to those found in Green Diamond Resource Compan y’s Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan (GDRCo

, 2006) that contains explicit standards for road inspections and maintenance. Roads should be maintained into perpetuity or they should be permanently or temporarily decommissioned.

P reventing erosion from logg ing roads, regardless of location, is important as all sediment is transported to the mainstem of Redwood Creek. Outside of the Prairie Creek tributary located in the lowermost portion of the watershed, the main channel of Redwood Creek represents about 7 0 percent of all accessible anadromous salmonid habitat in the Redwood Creek watershed (California Resources Agency, 2002). Th e need to protect the main channel of Redwood Creek is further supported by the presence of the public trust resources found in R edwood National and State Parks, a UNESCO designated World Heritage Site located in the lower watershed . Erosion and sedimentation occurring upstream of the park can significantly impact the parks’ resources.

The different spatial and database analyses of road assessment data presented in this report consistently point to several sub

- watersheds that should be considered high priority for treatment. Eastside tributaries include Coyote, Lacks and Minor c reek s , and portions of Negro Joe Creek

. Westside trib utaries include Dolly Varden, Garcia, Lupton, Noisy, Panther, Pilchuck, Toss

- Up and Wiregrass creeks, and the lower portions of Ayers, Cashmere, Marquette, Powerline and Timbo
creeks. Based on the currently available road assessment data, t he limited fund s available for erosion control and prevention work would be best spent in these areas.

Regardless of how erosion control and prevention treatments are prioritized in the Redwood Creek watershed, it is important to remember that ground conditions change, s ome landowners are more able and willing to implement erosion control and prevention work than others, and logistics can complicate ‘priorities’. The most effective erosion control and prevention strategy for the Redwood

Creek watershed should be flexible , and recognize the challenging nature of implementing projects across a large landscape with multiple owners. Erosion prevention efforts should also recognize the importance of the main channel of Redwood Creek to salmonids and the importance of protecti ng the public trust resources in the national park located at the downstream end of the
watershed.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 46 

# REFERENCES

Best, D.W. 1984. Land Use of the Redwood Creek Basin. Redwood National Park Technical Report Number 9. National Park Service, Redwood Nation al Park. Arcata, California. 24pp plus

maps.
Best, D.W.; Kelsey, H.M.; Hagans, D.K.; Alpert, M. 1995. Role of Fluvial Hillslope Erosion and Road Construction in the Sediment Budget of Garrett Creek, Humboldt County, California. In : Geomorphic Processes a nd Aquatic Habitat in the Redwood Creek Basin, Northwestern California. Editors: Nolan, K.M.; Kelsey, H.M.; Marron, D.C. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454

- M 9pp

Bundros, G.J.; Short, D.; Barr, B.E.; Hare, V.C. 2003. Upper Redwood Creek wate rshed road assessment summary report: Redwood National and State Parks report to the Pacific Coast Fish, Wetlands and Wildlife Restoration Association, unpublished, 137pp.

Bundros, G.J., Short, D. and Hare, V.C. 2004. Upper Redwood Creek watershed road a ssessment: updated summary report: Redwood National and State Parks. Report to the Pacific Coast Fish, Wetlands and Wildlife Restoration Association, unpublished, 129 p.

Bundros, G.J. and D. Short. 2009. Upper Redwood Creek watershed road assessment sum mary report

– March 2009 update. Redwood National and State Parks report to the Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association, unpublished. Arcata. 47 pp.

Cafferata, P., Spittler, T., Wopat, M., Bundros, G., and Flanagan, S. 2004. Designing watercourse crossings for passage of 100

- year flood flows, wood, and sediment. California Forestry Report 1, March 2004. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 34pp.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2004. Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission. 594 p.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2011. Road rules regulatory proposal with FPC edits. Compiled by the Board of F orestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, California. 122 p.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2009. Anadromous salmonid protection rules, 2009. Modification for OAL approval November 30, 2009. Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations (14 CCR). Sacramento, California. 98 p.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2001. California forest practice rules 2001. Title 14, California Code and Regulations Chapters 4 and 4.5. Compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Resource Management, Forest Practice Program. Sacramento, California. 254 p.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 47 California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1998. Draft Redwood Creek Water Quality Attainment Strategy for Sediment . California North Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1998. Staff report for the proposed Redwood Creek Water Quality Attainment Strategy for sediment (total maximum daily loads and implem entation plan). California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region. 28 p.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1998. Supplemental report for the proposed Redwood Creek Water Quality Attainment Strategy for sediment. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region. 74 p.

California Resources Agency. 2002. The North Coast Watershed Assessment Program Draft Redwood Creek Watershed Synthesis Report. February, 2002. California Resources Agency.

Can nata, S., R. Henly, J. Erler, J. Falls, D. McGuire and J. Sunahara. 2006. Redwood Creek watershed assessment report. Coastal Watershed Planning and Assessment Program and North Coast Watershed Assessment Program. California Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California.

Dietrich, W.E., and D.R. Montgomery. 1998. SHALSTAB: A digital terrain model for mapping shallow landslide potential. University of California, Berkeley, Geomorphology Research Group, Department of E arth and Planetary Science, College of Letters and Science, 307 McCrone Hall, Berkeley, California 94720

- 4757. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~geomorph/shalstab/index.htm

Dietrich, W.E ., D. Bellugi, and R. Real de Asua. 2001. Validation of the shallow landslide model, SHALSTAB, for forest management. Pages 195

- 227 in M.S. Wigmosta and S.J. Burges, editors. Landuse and watersheds: human influence on hydrology and geomorphology in urban a nd forest areas. Water Science and Application Volume 2. American Geophysical Union Water Resources Monograph, Washington, District of Columbia.

Green Diamond Resource Company (GDRCo). 2006. Aquatic habitat conservation plan and candidate conservation ag reement with assurances. Green Diamond Resource Company. Volume 1. 552 p.

Hare, V.C. 2003. Evaluation of a geographic information system model of shallow landsliding in Redwood Creek, California. MS Natural Resources Planning and Interpretation, Humbo ldt State University, Arcata, California. 94 pp.

Humboldt State University (HSU). 2007. A landslide study in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California: effects of the 1997 storm. Tera L. Curry. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Environmental Systems. Geology department. 107 p.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 48 Ligon, F., A.A. Rich, G. Rynearson, D. Thornburgh, and W. Trush. 1999. Report of the scientific review panel on California forest practice rules and salmonid habitat. Prepare d for the Resources Agency of California and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Sacramento, California. 92 p. plus appendices.

Madej, M . A., and Ozaki, V. 2009 . Persistence of effects of high sediment loading in a salmon

- bering river, northern Cal ifornia, in James, L.A., Rathburn, S.L., and Whittecar, G.R., eds., Management and Restoration of Fluvial Systems with Broad Historical Changes and Human Impacts: Geological Society of America Special Paper 451, p. 43

- 55, doi: 10.1130/2009.2451(03).

Pitlic k, J. 1982. Sediment Routing in Tributaries of the Redwood Creek Basin: Northwestern California. Redwood National Park Technical Report Number 8. National Park Service, Redwood National Park. Arcata, California. 67 pp. (Out of print)

Redwood Creek Landown ers Association. 1998. Alternative Proposal TMDL Strategy for the Redwood Creek watershed. Submitted to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board October 28, 1998. 38 p.

Redwood Creek Watershed Group. 2006. Integrated watershed strategy for Redwood Creek. Available at Redwood National and State Parks, Arcata, Ca. 102 pp.

Redwood National and State Parks. 1997. Draft Redwood Creek Analysis. Redwood National and State Parks. 74pp.

Redwood National and State Park s , 2009. Minor Creek Watershe d Inventory and Restoration Planning Summary Report. Road Assessment Project Contract # P0610549. Redwood National and State Parks, Arcata, CA 30pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service and California Department of Parks and Recreation (NPS

- CDPR). 1999. Final G eneral M anagement P lan/ G eneral P lan,

E nviro n mental I mpact S tatement/ E nvironmental I mpact R eport, V ols 1 & 2.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment Redwood Creek, California. U. S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Region 9. 60 pp.

Weaver, W. E. and D. K. Hagans. 1987. Magnitude, cause and basin response to fluvial erosion, Redwood Creek basin, northern California. In : Erosion and Sedimentation. in the Pacific Rim (Proceedings of the Corv allis Symposium, August, 1987). IAHS Publ. No. 165.

Weaver, W.E. and D. K. Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads. Mendocino County Resource Conservation District. 161 pp.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 49 

# GLOSSARY

**Culvert**

**-** a metal, plastic or concrete pipe set below th e road surface. Is used to pass streamflow from upslope of the road to downslope of the road. Culverts can also be placed to drain springs and inboard ditch flow from the inside to the outside of the road, beyond the outer edge of the road fill, or
fillsl ope.

**Class I watercourse crossing**

– a fish bearing stream as defined by the California Forest Practice
Rules

.

**Cost**

**- effectiveness** 

**–** the cost per unit volume of sediment to prevent it from entering a stream, commonly expressed as $/yd 3 

### “saved”.

**Critical cros sing** 

**–** a haul road crossing at a stream channel that possesses all three of the following characteristics: a diversion potential, an undersized culvert and medium to high plug potential.

**Critical dip**

– a broad rolling dip located at a stream crossing that returns streamflow to its natural watercourse if the crossing culvert plugs and streamflow overtops the road. It is a broad, gentle, permanent dip (low spot) across the road surface that allows passage of vehicles, logging trucks and standard logging equi pment. They are generally maintenance

- free.

**Cross**

**- road drain** 

- a deep, abrupt ditch constructed across a road to drain water from the road surface and/or inboard ditch. Generally, not drivable and placed at frequent intervals (approx. every
50

- 100 feet ) on permanently closed roads. Compare to rolling dip.

**Delivery**

– t he percentage of erosion volume that is actually delivered to a stream. It is used to
calculate yield . Stream crossings usually have a 100 percent delivery. For landslides the percent
d elivery can be between 0 and 100 percent. Some landslides fail and deliver to a hillslope or terrace bench with no delivery to streams (0%). Many landslides deliver 100 percent directly to
stream channels.

**Diversion**

– a condition originating at a stream crossing, where stream flow overtops the road and flows down a road, inboard ditch, or skid trail instead of re

- entering its natural watercourse. Stream diversions can cause significant gully and landslide erosion.

**Diversion potential**

– normally associate d with stream crossings that have continuous road grades through the crossing which allow a stream to flow down a road if the crossing culvert plugs and streamflow overtops the road. The crossing is not the low point of the road as the road passes over
th e stream channel. Existing diversion potentials can be corrected by installing well

- constructed critical dips at the crossing so that streamflow returns immediately to its stream channel if diversion occurs. Proper crossing construction (grade

- breaks, cr itical dips, minimum fill, properly sized culverts) can prevent diversions.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 50 **Decommission**

– the process of removing road fill or reshaping a road such that erosion and sedimentation are minimized. A decommissioned road has all culverts removed, all road fi ll at stream crossings fully excavated and permanent, self

- maintaining road surface drainage provided by a combination of outsloping, rolling dips or cross road drains. A road may be permanently or temporarily decommissioned.

**Ditch relief culvert (DRC)**

– a drainage structure that intercepts and conveys water from the inside edge of the road to the outside edge of the road.

**Downspout**

– normally culvert material bolted and secured to the culvert outlet that conveys water down a fillslope to undisturbed gro und to prevent surface erosion. Downspouts may be either full

round or half

- round.

**Erosion potential (EP)**

– the subjective and relative ranking of the likelihood, not magnitude, of erosion at a site during the next major storm. Expressed as “high”, “medi um” or “low.”

**Erosion volume**

– is the amount of material that could eroded from a site. It is expressed in cubic yards and 0

- 100 percent may reach a stream. Is used with delivery to calculate yield

.
**Extreme erosion potential (EEP)**

– A subjective assessm ent of the capability of a potential erosion site to erode significantly more volume than the estimated potential erosion volume. Expressed as “yes” or “no.” It characterizes a worst case scenario that identifies the potential for an unusually large magn itude failure. An example would be a stream diversion that could obliterate inboard ditches, relief pipes, and other crossings during a major storm, or a stream crossing or landing that could fail catastrophically, scouring hillslopes or channels below.

**Extreme potential yield**

– The volume of sediment that would be delivered to a stream by a site failing under the extreme erosion potential scenario. Expressed in cubic yards.

**Fluvial erosion**

**–** erosion caused by flowing water. Includes erosion at stream c hannels, gullies and rills. Compare to landslide erosion, which does not include erosion by flowing water.

**Ford**

**–** a stream crossing that requires a vehicle to drive across and through a stream channel bed. There is no fill or drainage structure in a ford crossing.

**Inboard ditch**

– a ditch along the inside edge of the road that collects and conveys road surface runoff and spring discharge. The ditch usually conveys runoff to the next culvert or drainage
structure down the road.

**Landing**

**–** a location where lo gs are collected and loaded onto trucks for transport. Landings are typically located along haul roads.

**Landslide erosion**

– erosion associated with mass movement of soil or hillslope. Types of landslides are debris slides, torrents, earthflows, slumps, r ock falls and others. Compare to fluvial erosion, which is erosion by flowing water.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 51 **Maintained road**

– a road that shows evidence of recent maintenance, including cleaning of culvert inlets, trash racks, and inboard ditches, grading, rolling dip or waterb ar reconstruction, brushing, culvert replacement, or reconstruction of fills. Compare to unmaintained road

.
**Outslope**

– a road surface that is shaped to slant toward the outside (downslope side) edge of a road. The slanted surface naturally disperses surf ace runoff. A road that is outsloped may or may not be drivable depending on the intent of treatment. Outsloped road may or may not have an inboard ditch.

**Outsloping**

– the act of changing a flat or insloped road to an outsloped road. For erosion control treatments, substantial fill is removed from the outer edge of the road prism, and spread and shaped along the inside edge of the road, typically against the cutbank. For surface drainage on active roads, the road surface has a mild outslope that is driv able by logging trucks and forms a relatively

maintenance

- free road surface that disperses road surface runoff.

**Potential sediment yield**

**–** the larger of the site potential yield and the extreme potential yield (if one exists) for a site. Expressed in cub ic yards.

**Road upgrade**

– improving a road to current road building standards with the intent of reducing erosion from roads. Upgrading includes; replacing rusted, plugged and undersized culverts, reshaping roads for proper drainage, constructing critical dips at crossings to prevent stream diversions, pulling back steeply perched road or landing fill that can enter a stream, reducing road fill volumes at stream crossings and others.

**Rolling dip**

- a broad, shallow, gentle dip (low point) in the road surface that collects road surface runoff and conveys it to the outer edge of the road. It can also drain an inboard ditch.

**Site potential yield**

- the expected volume of material that would be delivered to a stream from a single erosion site expressed in cubic y ards. It is computed by multiplying the erosion volume at a site by the percentage delivery to the stream (e.g. 800 yds 3 

### erosion volume x 80% delivery = 640 yds 3 

### site potential yield). Compare to extreme potential yield and potential sediment yield

.

**Ski d trail crossing** 

- a point where a tractor skid trail crosses a defined stream channel. A drainage structure may or may not be present.

**Stream crossing**

– the point where a road crosses a defined stream channel. The crossing may be composed of road fill w ithout a drainage structure or may be composed of buried logs (Humboldt crossing), a culvert, a ford, or a bridge.

**Stream diversion**

- a condition where streamflow has been diverted from its natural watercourse.

**Unmaintained road** 

– a road that lacks obvious maintenance to culverts, ditches and road surface. Culverts may be partially or completely plugged, badly rusted or crushed, outlet flow uncontrolled across fillslope or other deficiencies present. Ditches may lack cleaning and vegetation may be

encroac hing the road and road surface. The road may or may not be drivable.

**Upgrade**

– improving a road to current road building standards with the intent of reducing erosion from roads. Upgrading includes; replacing rusted, plugged and undersized culverts, resh aping roads

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL 52 for proper drainage, constructing critical dips at crossings to prevent stream diversions, pulling back steeply perched road or landing fill that can enter a stream, reducing road fill volumes at stream crossings and others.

**Urgency or treatmen t urgency** 

– a subjective and relative assessment of the need to treat a site to prevent erosion. Identified as low, medium or high. A low urgency site typically would survive an average winter storm with little threat of experiencing or causing erosion. A medium urgency site may experience erosion during an average winter if left untreated. A high urgency site would likely erode or cause erosion during an average winter if left untreated.

**Waterbar**

– a shallow ditch or berm constructed across a road or s kid trail that drains the road surface and/or inboard ditch. It is not a permanent structure as they tend to break down with any type of use, including wildlife tramping. They are insufficient to prevent stream diversions at crossings.

**Yield**

**–** the amount of sediment that reaches a stream channel. It is express in cubic yards and may
be 1

- 100 percent of the erosion volume

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL A

- 1 

# APPENDIX A

A VERAGE 

## R OAD 

## D ENSITY BY 

## S UB



## - W ATERSHED AND 

## I NTERFLUVE

Table A1 . Average road density by sub

- watershed and interfluve.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL A

- 2 Table A1 . Average road density by sub

- watershed and interfluve.

Westside Tributaries Eastside Tributaries

Tributary/Interfluve Name* Area sq mi Total Road Miles Road Density, mi/mi 2 Tributary/Interfluve Name* Area, sq mi Total Road Mi les Road Density, mi/mi 2

DC

- JC 1.2 0.8 0.7 Coyote 7.9 16.5 2.1 Joplin 0.7 3.7 5.4 CC

- JPC 1.2 6.9 5.6 JC

- PC 0.8 2.3 3.0 Johnson Prairie 0.6 2.2 3.6 Panther 5.9 30.7 5.2 JPC

- GC 0.4 2.5 6.3 PC

- GC 1.7 11.1 6.6 Garrett 4.1 21.1 5.1 George 1.1 6.4 5.8 GC

- MFC 0.2 1.0 5.2 GC

- DVC 1.1 7.6 6.8 Monroe Flat 0.3 1.8 6.0 Dolly Varden 3.4 23.5 7.0 MFC

- LC 0.4 2.4 6.0 DVC

- LC 0.1 0.1 1.1 Lacks 17.2 82.5 4.8 Lee 0.5 3.1 6.7 LC

- SC 0.3 2.5 8.1 LC

- GC 0.4 1.5 3.9 Stover 0.9 4.8 5.7 Garcia 1.4 10.1 7.1 SC

- RG C 0.8 7.0 8.8 Cashmere 1.3 9.3 6.9 Roaring Gulch 0.7 4.9 7.0 CC

- PC 0.8 3.3 4.4 RGC

- BC 0.6 4.7 8.2 Pilchuck 1.7 8.8 5.2 Beaver 0.9 4.8 5.6 PC

- TUC 0.6 3.6 6.3 BC

- MC 0.7 5.2 7.8 Toss

- Up 2.7 15.7 5.9 Mill 1.3 7.6 5.7 TUC

- JC 0.1 0.4 5.2 MC

- MSC 0.1 1 .1 13.9 June 0.2 0.9 4.8 Molasses 1.7 12.0 6.9 JC

- WC 0.4 2.1 5.4 MSC

- MNC 0.8 5.1 6.4 Wiregrass 1.8 9.5 5.3 Moon 1.2 6.7 5.8 WC

- LC 0.7 4.8 6.6 MNC

- MRC 0.4 4.0 10.1 Loin 0.9 5.0 5.3 Minor 12.9 84.6 6.6 LC

- SFC 0.3 1.8 7.0 MRC

- SC 1.3 7.8 5.9 Santa Fe 0.8 8.7 10.5 Sweathouse 1.6 9.0 5.6 Greenpoint 0.5 5.0 9.6 SC

- CC 0.5 3.3 6.7 GC

- LC 1.3 16.8 13.1 Captain 2.1 25.0 12.1 Lupton 5.2 41.1 7.9 CC

- NJC 0.3 4.5 16.5 LC

- FPC 0.4 3.5 9.5 Negro Joe 1.3 9.5 7.6 Fern Prairie 0.8 6.5 8.2 NJC

- WC 0.6 5.3 8 .5 FPC

- CPC 0.2 1.1 5.6 Windy 1.7 14.2 8.1 Christmas Prairie 0.7 6.9 9.8 WC

- STC 0.7 8.3 11.6 CPC

- JC 0.2 1.5 8.2 Squirrel Tail 1.6 10.3 6.5 Jena 0.4 4.1 10.7 Emmy Lou 2.6 18.9 7.3 JC

- NC 0.3 2.9 8.4 ELC

- COMC 0.3 2.8 9.9 Noisy 6.3 46.8 7.4 Cut

- Off Meander 0.9 5.1 5.7 NC

- CPC 0.5 3.0 6.0 COMC

- GC 0.5 5.4 10.2 Cool Springs 1.2 9.5 8.3 Gunrack 1.8 12.3 6.9 CPC

- SRC 0.2 0.1 0.9 GC

- SC 0.1 0.3 3.0 Six Rivers 1.2 9.2 8.0 SF Gunrack 0.6 1.4 2.5 SRC

- AC 0.3 1.7 5.8 Simon 1.7 5.9 3.4 Ayers 0.4 3.6 9.5 SC

- MC 0.4 1.3 2.9 AC

- HPC 0.2 1.9 9.9 Minon 4.3 22.1 5.2 High Prairie 5.4 40.1 7.4 MC

- UPC 0.6 3.8 6.0 HPC

- LPC 0.9 8.7 9.8 UPC

- BC 0.1 0.9 6.4 Lake Prairie 3.3 18.8 5.6 Upper Panther 2.5 11.2 4.5 LPC

- PC 0.8 3.7 4.4 Bradford 3.7 19.3 5.2 Pardee 3.1 23.6 7.6 BC

- LGC 0.9 2.6 2.9 PC

- DTC 0.1 1.4 9.8 Last Gap 1.6 9.1 5.8 Debris Torrent 0.2 2.0 9.8 LG

- LC 0.5 2.4 4.7 DTC

- MC 0.7 5.8 8.4 Lineament 0.9 7.8 8.7 Marquette 0.8 6.7 8.7 Headwaters_E 0.2 1.3 7.2 MC

- TC 0.0 0.0 0.9 Headwaters_M 2.6 15.1 5.7 Timbo 0.4 3.8 10.7
TC

- PC 0.1 1.6 13.6 Totals and Average East Side 94 538 5.7 Powerline 0.6 4.3 6.8 Redwood Creek 2.6 4.3 1.7 PC

- SCC 0.1 0.2 2.9 Snow Camp 1.2 8.2 6.8 Smokehouse 0.7 5.8 8.7 Twin Lakes 1.3 9.8 7.8 TC

- BC 0 .2 1.4 5.7 Burley 0.4 3.0 7.4 BC

- TC 0.1 1.3 9.5 Tom 0.4 2.2 5.4 Headwaters_W 0.3 1.7 6.0 Totals and Average West Side 72 494 6.9 Redwood Creek above RNSP 162 1,036 6.4

**•** Interfluve names are comprised of an abbreviation for tr ibutaries that are immediately adjacent to the interfluve.

**•** Totals may differ slightly from those shown in other tables due to rounding.

**•** Road density can be affected by the size of a tributary basin, its ownership, land use, and underlying geology. For exa mple, the road density for Lacks Creek is 4.8 mi/mi 2 when averaged over the entire sub

- basin. However, the road density on the west side of Lacks Creek is about 7 mi/mi 2 , while the road density on the east side is about 4 mi/mi 2

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL B

- 1 

# APPENDIX B

F IELD 

## F ORM USED BY 

## PCFWWRA AND 

## RNSPReviewed by :REDWOOD CREEK BASIN ROAD INVENTORY FORMCheckID No.:Redwood National and State ParksASAPVersion 3/27/03SECTION I: GENERAL SITE INFORMATIONRoad Name: Site #Date:By:Watershed: OwnershipYear built:Quad ID: Photo#Photo date:Current road condition: Drivable [ Maintained Abandoned Decommissioned ]The road surface is: [ Native Rocked Paved ]Proposed Treatment: [ Maintain Upgrade Decommission ]SECTION II: FLUVIAL SITE (CROSSINGS, RELIEF CULVERTS, GULLY, ETC.)FEATURE:[ Stream Xing Skid Xing Swale*DRC Road reach ] SpringPROCESS:None Gully Streambnk/channel eros. Collapsing Fill failureWill it debris torrent?Y N MDRAINAGE STRUCTURE:Bridge*Culvert: *metal *concrete *plasticHumboldt Fill Ford Armored fill NoneCritical dip@xing?Y NLeft ditch/road lengthft. Right ditch/road lengthft.DIVERSION POTENTIAL:DP?Y NNow diverted Past diverted Rd grade %CONDITION OF FILL: Intact removed % washed-out%CULVERT INLET INFORMATION:*Diameter in. Headwall heightin. Rust line: width _in. depth _in.Stream class:I, II, III, or IVUpstrm chan: width _ft; depth _ftGrade_%Sediment transport:H M LCMP undersized?Y M NPlug potential:H M L*Inlet condition:OK Rust/holes Band separation Trash rack Drop inlet*crushed %*plugged%CULVERT OUTLET INFORMATION:*Condition:OK Rust/holes Functional downspout %crushed % ShotgunFish-outlet drop: now ft. @bankfullft. Culvert grade%Pool dim.: lengthft.depthft. @bankfull: lengthft.depthft.Comments:SECTION III: LANDSLIDE SITEFEATURE:Road reach Landing Cutbank HillslopePROCESS:[Slow, deep seated Fast, shallow debris slide] Will it debris torrent?Y M NSETTING:Streamside: <55% or >55% Swale Headwall Break-in-slope HillslopeDistance to stream ft. Slope%ACTIVITY: Failed in past? :Y N%failed %ASSOCIATION(S):Road related Water onto feature Spring Stream undercuttingSECTION IV: TREATMENTS(Circle all that apply)Critical dip@xing Install culvert Replace culvert New culv: dia. in. lenft.Drop inlet Flared inlet Trash rack Remove sed@CMP inlet Brush inletReconstruct fill Excavate fill Ford Bridge Other NoneArmor fillslope: @inletft2; Downstream faceft2Downspoutft.Armored fill: sill height ft. sill widthft. Check culvert size********** URGENCY:H M LCOMPLEXITY:H M L**********ROAD REACH TREATMENTSClear/est. IBDft.Remove IBDft.Rock roadft2. Remove bermft.Rolling dips: # OS w/out IBDft. OS w/IBDft. Inslope roadft.Cross-road drains #Ditch relief culvert #,ft.SECTION V: FILL AND FUTURE EROSION VOLUMESDimensions of landslide or gully: length:ft. width:ft.depth:ft.(Use Comment Section below to record dimensions of complex features)Future erosion volume: yd3%delivery:% Future yield:yds3Erosion Potential:H M LPotential for Extreme Erosion?Y NIs the treatment likely to control or prevent erosion?:Y M NExtreme Erosion Potential Volume (yds3): [ <500, 500-1000, 1K-2K, 2K-5K, >5K ]✓EXCAVATION VOLUMES✓EQUIPMENT HOURS COMMENT ON TREATMENT:Total excavated (yds3): Excavatror (hrs):Vol. put back in (yds3): Dozer (hrs):Vol. removed (yds3): Dump truck (hrs):Vol. stockpiled (yds3): Grader (hrs):Vol. endhauled (yds3): Backhoe (hrs):Dist. endhauled (ft): Labor (hrs):Exca. prod. rate (yds3/hr): Other:Stream Profile through CrossingXing type: 1, 2, 3, 4(begin at top of crossing)(circle one)Cross Section(s)(begin on left side of crossing)Angle (deg)(up+, dn-)Distance(feet)Code(UES, TOP, IBR,OBR, BOT, XS1,XS2 ....LES)CommentsXS#Angle(deg)Distance(feet)Code(LRP, LEC,CLP,REC,RRP)Comments 0 0 UES, TRN in natural channel 1 0 0 LRP, TRN Base of cutbankDesign ResultsDecommission vol. (2:1)Erosion vol. (1:1)Culvert add/repl. vol. (1:1)Humboldt crossing (1:1)Site sketch-Site No. :.Culvert length needed

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL C

- 1 

# APPENDIX C

R EDWOOD 

## C REEK 

## R OAD 

## A SSESSMENT 

## S ITE 

## M APS

There are 16 maps showing roads and assessment site locations for the entire upper watershed.

The maps may not be included in this printed copy of the report, but are i n th e electronic version, contained on CD at the back of this report . You may request additional copies of the CD or report
from Darci Short at Redwood National and State Parks : 707

- 825

- 5144 or Darci_Short@nps.gov.

### Redwood Creek

– Progre ss Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL D

- 1 

# APPENDIX D

P ROJECTS AND 

## G RANT 

## F UNDING

Table D

- 1 show s the cooperative erosion control i mplementation p rojects in the u pper Redwood Creek w atershed from 1996 through 2009. Pilot projects prior to 1996 are not shown. Costs for erosion control work implemented by landowners outside of the cooperative efforts are not shown. Those projects include work associated with timber harvest plans and general road maintenance work funded by the landowner.

Table D

- 1. Cooperative erosion control p rojects in the Upper Redwood Creek w atershed , 1996 through 2009.

Proje ct

No. Year(s) Watershed Lead Group Funding Source

Landowner Grant TOTAL

4 1996

- 1997 Garrett RNSP $9,200 $104,500 $113,700

5 1998 Bradford, etc NRM $16,400 $109,800 $126,200

6 1999 Lake Prairie, etc. RNSP $94,000 $128,300 $222,300

7 2001 / 02 Panther, George PCFWWRA $75,000 $197,500 $272,500

8 2002 / 03 Redwood PCFWWRA $129,800 $214,700 $344,500

9 2003 / 04 Dolly Varden / K&K PCFWWRA $173,300 $704,500 $877,800

10 2004 / 06 Coyote Creek (N) PCFWWRA $188,100 $440,900 $629,000

11 2005 / 06 Redwood PCFWWRA $150,000 $263,900 $413,900

12 2006 Redwood/Panther PCFWWRA $206,700 $206,700

13 2006 / 08 Coyote (S) PCFWWRA $95,000 $326,100 $421,100

14 2006 / 08 Coyote (S) PCFWWRA $464,600 $464,600

15 2009 Lacks

- BLM PCF WWRA $996,000 $676,500 $1,672,500

Totals $1,926,800 $3,838,000 $5,764,800

Percent of all F unding 33% 67% 100%
Percent of F unding T hrough 200 9

, O mits BLM F unded P roject s 23% 77% 100%



### For all projects, landowners have provided about 33 percent of the total project costs. In 2009, BLM provided nearly one million dollars for work on BLM lands. If the BLM project is not factored in to the funding totals, landowners have provided about 2 3 percent of the total funding for implementation work.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL E

- 1 

# APPENDIX E

M ETHODS 

## U SED TO 

## E STIMATE 

## TMDL L OAD 

## R EDUCTIONS



## B ACKGROUND
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has oversight authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 303(d)(1)(A) of the CWA delegates to states the authority to implem ent provisions of the
CWA for their waters. It requires states to establish a priority ranking for waters on the 303(d) list of impaired waters and establish TMDL s for such waters. If the state does not establish a TMDL, then the EPA must develop one.

Redwood Creek was 303(d) listed as sediment impaired by the California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in 1996 , and listed as temperature impaired in 2002. When Redwood Creek was listed as sediment impaired, the RWQCB designated the watershed as a high priority for development of a sediment TMDL.

On October 31, 1997, the EPA entered into a consent decree (decree), Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, et. al. v. Marcus , (N.D. Cal. No. 95

- 4474 MHP), which establish ed a timetable for development of TMDLs for several watersheds in northwest California. The decree required development of a TMDL for Redwood Creek by December 31, 1998.

On parallel tracks, t he EPA and RWQCB both began work on the sediment TMDL for R edwood Creek

in 1997 . The RWQCB completed a draft TMDL with Implementation Plan (RWQCB, 1998) and staff report (RWQCB, 1998) in November 1998. An alternative to the RWQCB’s Implementation Plan was also developed by private landowners in the Redwood Creek watershed (RCLA, 1998). Because neither the RWQCB nor State Water Resources Control Board adopted a TMDL for Redwood Creek, the EPA in December 1998 established the TMDL for sediment in order to meet the requirements of the decree (EPA, 1998). A sedimen t TMDL Implementation Plan was never adopted by the state. Instead, the RWQCB adopted the Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Policy Statement for Sediment Impaired Receiving Waters in the North Coast Region (Resolution

No. R1

- 2004

- 0087) that relies o n existing enforcement and permitting tools to control non

- point source pollution.



## M ETHODS To estimate the load reductions in relation to TMDL targets requires calculations of load reduction in the lower and upper watersheds since 1998. Load reductions are achieved through road decommissioning and upgrades. Properly decommissioned roads are maintenance

- free and sediment sources are removed. In contrast, upgraded roads still contain potential sediment sources because the roads are still in place. But, if roads are upgraded correctly, the likelihood of failure during large storms will be low. In computing the controllable load reductions (or sediment ‘saved’; i.e., the amount of sediment prevented from entering a stream by treating the road) since
estab lishment of the 1998 TMDL, the total amount of sediment treated through upgrades was

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL E

- 2 included, providing the completed work met established standards, and the likelihood of site failure after treatment was determined (through inspection) to be low.
In th e lower watershed, one of the Park’s primary goals has been to decommission the hundreds of miles of old logging roads that are not needed for park management or visitor use. Because past
road assessments occurred on roads the Park knew would be decommiss ioned, the assessments only measured the amount of material that would be excavated during road decommissioning. The amount of sediment that would be ‘saved’ by road treatments was not estimated. In contrast, road assessments in the upper watershed routi nely estimated the amount of sediment that would be ‘saved’ by treating the road.

Thus, the challenge in estimating the TMDL load reductions that have occurred throughout the watershed was estimating the controllable load in park areas that existed in 199 8 when the TMDL
was established and the amount the load has been reduced since 1998. These values were back

calculated by developing correction factors that converted excavation volumes to sediment ‘saved’ volumes (load reduction). Described below in mor e detail, the controllable sediment loads that existed in 1998 within park lands and the amount they were reduced (sediment ‘saved’) by work completed through 2009 were computed by applying a correction factor of 55 percent to the
excavation volumes for al l stream crossings and a select group of unstable road reach treatments.

For stream crossings, a correction factor was estimated by using data from the upper basin road assessment database and queries that computed the average ratio of the estimated potent ial sediment yield volume and estimated site excavation volume. Volumes were based on detailed field surveys. The ratio ranged from 46

- 59 percent and averaged 54 percent. Projects completed in the upper watershed were also considered. The ratios for co mpleted projects ranged from 61

- 85 percent and averaged 61 percent. Based on those results, we chose a correction factor of 55 percent of the excavation volume to reflect the sediment ‘saved’ from all stream crossing

treatments and to ensure a conservativ e estimate.

For unstable road reach treatments, we had to consider which and how much of the two primary treatments to include. Export Outslope (EOS) treatments remove a great deal (sometimes all) of the road bench and, because of site characteristics su ch as instability, moisture and/or slope steepness, excavated road fill cannot be stored locally and must be exported to a stable fillsite. EOS’s generally occur in the most unstable geomorphic settings, but the treatment can sometimes be prescribed for

p urposes other than erosion control, as in the case for Outslope (OS) treatments.

OS treatments store excavated material from the road locally and shape it into the cutbank. While some OS treatments were prescribed to prevent sediment delivery, most were prescribed in the park to reshape the roads. Doing so improves revegetation, lessens the visual scarring of the road on the landscape and ensures permanent surface drainage. Thus, we decided to include most of the EOS treatments, but none of the OS treat ments when computing sediment savings from unstable road reach treatments to ensure a conservative yet reasonable estimate. For EOS treatments, we assumed that 75 percent of the EOS treatments were prescribed for erosion control and assumed a 74 percent d elivery rate (HSU 2007) if failure occurred. Combining both assumptions created a correction factor of [coincidentally] 55 percent.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL E

- 3 Therefore, for the load reduction in the park, we estimated the total sediment ‘saved’ by summing

the excavation volumes for all stream crossings and EOS treatments, and multiplying that value by 55 percent. Based on the treatment of 70 miles of roads, from 1998 to 2009, the load reduction averaged about 18,500 yds 3 

### per mile or 28,000 tons per mile.

Estimating the control lable load for the upper watershed and what remains to be treated was straightforward, because the road assessments in the upper watershed routinely estimated the amount of sediment that would be ‘saved’ by the road treatments . From road assessments compl eted by PCFWWRA and RNSP, we estimated the total potential sediment yield for all roads in the upper watershed at about 2.9 million cubic yards (4.3 million tons). We derived that estimate by applying 2,700 yds 3 

### per mile of potential sediment yield (the a verage potential sediment yield from assessed roads) to unassessed roads and believe it is a conservative and reasonable estimate. Conditions in the watershed did not change that much between 1998 and the time of road assessments, but about 20 miles of ne w seasonal roads were built. Most were evaluated by the road assessments and were built in stable upper hillslope areas. All were built to better standards than most of the roads built during earlier years. Because the potential sediment yield from thes e new roads would be a negligible portion of the assessed roads, we chose to use the total potential sediment yield from our assessments as the starting point for the 1998 TMDL and load reduction calculations. The load reduction in the upper watershed was based on the actual work completed through 2009. The load reduction in the upper watershed for the period 1998

- 2009 was 2,900 yds 3 

### /mile, or about 4,400 tons/mile of road.

The difference between the potential sediment ‘saved’ per mile of road in the lower watershed is six

times larger than that for the upper watershed. This is not surprising when the nature of the se roads is considered. The lower watershed was dominated by old

- growth redwood and was logged during an era when large trees ‘needed’ large, w ide roads. Mainline roads were built throughout what is now park land as two

- lane off

- highway roads . S pur roads where single lane roads , but still generously large and wide. In contrast, the upper watershed was dominated mostly by Douglas

- fir
which are smaller trees. Most of the roads were built with a smaller footprint to one

- lane standards, resulting in smaller volume fill.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL F

- 1 

# A PPENDIX F

R ANKING 

## C RITERIA FOR 

## A SSESSED 

## R OADS

Table F

- 1. Roads ranked by potential sediment yield.

Table F

- 2. Roads ranked by potential sediment yield per mile.

Table F

- 3. Roads ranked by cost

- effectiveness.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL F

- 2 Table F

- 1 : Roads ranked by potential sediment yield.

Road Name Length (mi) Total no. of ALL Sites Total no. of M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

for ALL Sites (yds 3) Potential Sediment Yield for M to H Sites (yds3) Percent of Potential Sediment Yield

Volume for M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

per Mile for M to H Sites

(yds3/mi) Total Cost for M to H Sites Cost/Yard "Saved"

Dolly Varden 11.8 155 114 10 9,890 103,954 95% 8,793 $1,234,068 $11.87
Old K&K 8.3 97 35 43,395 33,359 77% 4,042 $307,439 $9.22
LC5000 2.3 26 21 23,659 23,089 98% 10,176 $59,360 $2.57
K&K West 7.9 79 30 37,375 23,063 62% 2,909 $263,580 $11.43
LC1000 6.5 42 27 22,770 20,241 89% 3,1 34 $191,878 $9.48
1400 4.6 47 32 19,382 17,301 89% 3,753 $96,655 $5.59
PR1100 5.4 69 44 19,033 16,068 84% 2,958 $141,382 $8.80
Old HWY 299 2.5 52 39 16,040 15,064 94% 6,074 $233,836 $15.52
1440 1.5 18 15 15,155 14,588 96% 9,657 $31,314 $2.15
1000 3.9 37 16 14,312 14,050 98% 3,616 $74,023 $5.27
809 1.8 15 13 16,032 12,510 78% 7,032 $156,745 $12.53
808 3.9 40 22 19,766 11,895 60% 3,087 $125,299 $10.53
L2010 4.3 42 27 15,483 11,689 75% 2,750 $136,646 $11.69
MC1000 6.4 82 53 15,313 10,897 71% 1,691 $19 1,235 $17.55
Mainline 2.7 33 16 13,611 10,585 78% 3,875 $145,608 $13.76
PR1106 0.6 5 5 10,417 10,417 100% 17,639 $31,477 $3.02
UPR

- 10 4.7 38 24 14,685 10,394 71% 2,197 $126,230 $12.14
R3800 0.9 11 10 9,796 9,774 100% 11,364 $57,576 $5.89
LC4000 2.5 35 24 17,335 9,436 54% 3,849 $85,283 $9.04
1431 1.7 29 22 9,479 9,375 99% 5,626 $95,960 $10.24
RC

- 2 1.5 25 14 10,122 9,120 90% 6,168 $134,682 $14.77
R1000 2.1 21 13 8,914 8,775 98% 4,164 $33,653 $3.84
Roddiscroft 5.3 55 31 9,195 8,308 90% 1,573 $113,422 $13.65
1410 1.9 23 12 8,125 7,602 94% 3,994 $33,660 $4.43
LC2000 2.6 17 13 8,762 7,591 87% 2,881 $108,119 $14.24
1020 1.7 18 12 8,059 7,544 94% 4,465 $36,317 $4.81
L2171 1.4 16 12 7,884 7,532 96% 5,446 $110,514 $14.67
CR2900 7.2 80 17 18,227 7,509 41% 1,045 $24,776 $3.30
FP500 1.6 29 18 9,014 7,351 82% 4,733 $110,692 $15.06
831 2.1 13 7 7,699 7,338 95% 3,578 $14,821 $2.02
DVA 1.3 18 15 7,480 7,292 97% 5,640 $112,964 $15.49
1140 0.8 15 7 12,616 7,144 57% 9,516 $23,856 $3.34
DVD

- 1 1.4 12 11 7,102 7, 004 99% 5,162 $69,224 $9.88
L1000 3.2 24 15 7,789 6,573 84% 2,031 $70,951 $10.79
L2000

- CN 5.4 64 29 7,677 5,754 75% 1,070 $98,520 $17.12

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL F

- 3 Table F

- 1: Roads ranked by potential sediment yield.

Road Name Length (mi) Total no. of ALL Sites Total no. of M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

for ALL Sites (yds3) Potential Sediment Yield for M to H Sites (yds3) Percent of Potential Sediment Yield

Volume for M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

per Mile for M to H Sites

(yds3/mi) Total Cost for M to H S ites Cost/Yard "Saved"

F

- 1

- 4 1.6 20 15 6,023 5,431 90% 3,428 $28,719 $5.29
L2011 0.6 10 7 5,822 5,261 90% 8,177 $83,782 $15.92
800H 1.3 20 16 5,736 4,961 86% 3,775 $77,114 $15.54
R3000 3.5 34 17 11,253 4,895 43% 1,379 $38,446 $7.85
R3900 1.7 16 6 12,2 55 4,508 37% 2,706 $16,304 $3.62
TP1321 1.1 12 7 5,365 4,258 79% 3,713 $39,362 $9.24
1450 3.1 24 16 5,224 4,138 79% 1,321 $45,464 $10.99
BO1315 1.0 8 5 5,084 4,131 81% 4,220 $48,269 $11.68
LC1100 1.1 4 3 4,100 4,003 98% 3,633 $56,894 $14.21
1433 0.5 7 7 3,978 3,978 100% 7,835 $12,109 $3.04
FL1025 0.8 8 7 3,982 3,947 99% 4,671 $17,178 $4.35
820 2.8 15 9 5,559 3,937 71% 1,387 $51,349 $13.04
BO1306 0.4 4 4 3,789 3,789 100% 10,207 $46,725 $12.33
R3500 1.3 14 11 3,755 3,727 99% 2,838 $24,725 $6.63
800G 0.3 2 2 3,726 3,726 100% 12,298 $12,236 $3.28
1150 1.0 15 8 4,640 3,608 78% 3,494 $25,735 $7.13
3C2500 1.9 18 7 5,881 3,554 60% 1,830 $47,799 $13.45
3C2010 0.2 6 5 4,000 3,500 88% 16,972 $49,559 $14.16
LC5005 0.5 3 1 7,074 3,500 49% 7,405 $9,095 $2.60
PR1107 0.7 3 3 3,500 3,500 100% 4,690 $9,900 $2.83
R3810 0.1 2 1 5,000 3,500 70% 43,126 $10,165 $2.90
3C2800 0.8 20 11 4,742 3,429 72% 4,501 $48,288 $14.08
LC

- 1 8.7 50 18 4,862 3,391 70% 389 $51,327 $15.14
L2010

- B 0.1 1 1 3,334 3,334 100% 44,387 $35, 350 $10.60
CP1000 1.9 28 7 6,248 3,293 53% 1,704 $51,917 $15.77
D

- Line 1.7 22 17 3,445 3,286 95% 1,953 $59,704 $18.17
DVG 0.7 16 16 3,141 3,141 100% 4,658 $42,714 $13.60
SW

- 1A 3.0 17 11 3,669 3,003 82% 996 $54,248 $18.07
890C 0.8 7 6 3,508 2,963 84% 3 ,839 $66,185 $22.34
RP1000 3.0 29 17 8,200 2,893 35% 949 $26,994 $9.33
RC

- 1 1.2 21 11 3,367 2,770 82% 2,253 $33,236 $12.00
808A 1.8 9 9 2,756 2,756 100% 1,530 $18,350 $6.66


### Additionally ranked roads available upon request.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL F

- 4 Table F

- 2: Roads ranked by p otential sediment yield per mile

.

Road Name Length (mi) Total no. of ALL Sites Total no. of M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

for ALL Sites (yds3) Potential Sediment Yield for M to H Sites (yds3) Percent of Potential Sediment Yield

Volume for M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

per Mile for M to H Sites

(yds3/mi) Total Cost for M to H Sites Cost/Yard "Saved"

L2010

- B 0.1 1 1 3,334 3,334 100% 44,387 $35,350 $10.60
R3810 0.1 2 1 5,000 3,500 70% 43,126 $10,165 $2.90
HP

- 22 0.0 3 2 1,204 804 67% 25,588 $23,005 $28.60
PR1106 0.6 5 5 10,417 10,417 100% 17,639 $31,477 $3.02
3C2010 0.2 6 5 4,000 3,500 88% 16,972 $49,559 $14.16
HP

- 21 0.1 1 1 1,014 1,014 100% 15,504 $13,523 $13.34
800G 0.3 2 2 3,726 3,726 100% 12,298 $12,236 $3.28
R3800 0.9 11 10 9 ,796 9,774 100% 11,364 $57,576 $5.89
BO1306 0.4 4 4 3,789 3,789 100% 10,207 $46,725 $12.33
LC5000 2.3 26 21 23,659 23,089 98% 10,176 $59,360 $2.57
L2173 0.2 3 3 1,845 1,845 100% 9,979 $11,595 $6.28
1440 1.5 18 15 15,155 14,588 96% 9,657 $31,314 $2.15
1140 0.8 15 7 12,616 7,144 57% 9,516 $23,856 $3.34
R1050 0.2 2 1 1,829 1,778 97% 9,405 $11,362 $6.39 Dolly Varden 11.8 155 114 109,890 103,954 95% 8,793 $1,234,068 $11.87
AM

- 4

- 1 0.1 1 1 500 500 100% 8,438 $2,712 $5.42
UBR 0.2 3 2 1,775 1,723 97% 8,402 $27,722 $16.09
L2011 0.6 10 7 5,822 5,261 90% 8,177 $83,782 $15.92
L1000

- E 0.1 2 2 961 961 100% 8,082 $16,272 $16.93
R4250 0.1 2 2 625 625 100% 8,031 $8,981 $14.38
3C2002 0.1 1 1 1,050 1,050 100% 8,007 $7,458 $7.10
DVJ 0.3 4 2 2,792 2,269 81% 7,882 $1 6,272 $7.17
1433 0.5 7 7 3,978 3,978 100% 7,835 $12,109 $3.04
LC5005 0.5 3 1 7,074 3,500 49% 7,405 $9,095 $2.60
R2100 0.2 2 2 1,557 1,557 100% 7,402 $4,746 $3.05
N500A 0.2 3 3 1,697 1,697 100% 7,318 $8,348 $4.92
809 1.8 15 13 16,032 12,510 78% 7,032 $ 156,745 $12.53
R3351 0.1 1 1 750 750 100% 6,544 $1,017 $1.36
RC

- 2 1.5 25 14 10,122 9,120 90% 6,168 $134,682 $14.77
Old HWY 299 2.5 52 39 16,040 15,064 94% 6,074 $233,836 $15.52
DVA 1.3 18 15 7,480 7,292 97% 5,640 $112,964 $15.49
831A 0.2 3 3 1,237 1,2 37 100% 5,633 $29,838 $24.12
1431 1.7 29 22 9,479 9,375 99% 5,626 $95,960 $10.24
1220 0.4 6 5 15,170 2,281 15% 5,541 $18,958 $8.31

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL F

- 5 Table F

- 2: Roads ranked by potential sediment yield per mile.

Road Name Length (mi) Total no. of ALL Sites Total no. of M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

for ALL Sites (yds3) Potential Sediment Yield for M to H Sites (yds3) Percent of Potential Sediment Yield

Volume for M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

per Mile for M to H Sites

(yds3/mi) Total Cost for M to H Sites Cost/Yard "Saved"

PP1010 0.1 1 1 323 323 100% 5,477 $3,729 $11.54
L2171 1.4 16 12 7,884 7,532 96% 5,446 $110,514 $14.67
3C2512 0.3 6 1 3,066 1,500 49% 5,349 $3,729 $2.49
200A 0.3 3 1 1,827 1,689 92% 5,294 $27,120 $16.06
RV4 0.4 6 6 2,068 2,06 8 100% 5,257 $30,236 $14.62
LC5001 0.1 1 1 750 750 100% 5,246 $2,622 $3.50
DVD

- 1 1.4 12 11 7,102 7,004 99% 5,162 $69,224 $9.88
LPC

- PC

- 1 0.1 3 1 935 750 80% 5,052 $3,390 $4.52
F

- 1

- 4

- 0 0.2 3 3 1,191 1,191 100% 4,942 $17,930 $15.05
FP500 1.6 29 18 9,014 7,351 82% 4,733 $110,692 $15.06
RP1200 0.3 6 3 1,622 1,413 87% 4,699 $13,560 $9.60
PR1107 0.7 3 3 3,500 3,500 100% 4,690 $9,900 $2.83
FL1025 0.8 8 7 3,982 3,947 99% 4,671 $17,178 $4.35
DVG 0.7 16 16 3,141 3,141 100% 4,658 $42,714 $13.60
3C2800 0.8 20 11 4,742 3,429 72% 4,501 $48,288 $14.08
1020 1.7 18 12 8,059 7,544 94% 4,465 $36,317 $4.81
800F 0.5 2 2 1,945 1,945 100% 4,294 $44,810 $23.04
808D

- 1 0.1 1 1 295 295 100% 4,261 $5,085 $17.24
BO1315 1.0 8 5 5,084 4,131 81% 4,220 $48,269 $11.68
3C2501 0. 3 5 2 2,279 1,101 48% 4,200 $22,130 $20.10
R1000 2.1 21 13 8,914 8,775 98% 4,164 $33,653 $3.84
HRPR

- 1 0.2 3 2 840 807 96% 4,086 $3,390 $4.20
Old K&K 8.3 97 35 43,395 33,359 77% 4,042 $307,439 $9.22
1410 1.9 23 12 8,125 7,602 94% 3,994 $33,660 $4.43
UP C

- BC

- 2 0.2 1 1 778 778 100% 3,921 $10,848 $13.95
Mainline 2.7 33 16 13,611 10,585 78% 3,875 $145,608 $13.76
LC4000 2.5 35 24 17,335 9,436 54% 3,849 $85,283 $9.04
890C 0.8 7 6 3,508 2,963 84% 3,839 $66,185 $22.34
895 0.6 5 5 2,437 2,437 100% 3,838 $47,4 05 $19.45
802A 0.1 2 2 247 247 100% 3,833 $2,094 $8.48
800H 1.3 20 16 5,736 4,961 86% 3,775 $77,114 $15.54
R1005 0.4 4 4 1,326 1,326 100% 3,755 $16,606 $12.52
1400 4.6 47 32 19,382 17,301 89% 3,753 $96,655 $5.59 

### Additionally ranked roads available upo n request.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL F

- 6 Table F

- 3: Roads ranked by cost

- effectiveness.

Road Name Length (mi) Total no. of ALL Sites Total no. of M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

for ALL Sites (yds3) Potential Sediment Yield for M to H Sites (yds3) Percent of Potential Sed iment Yield

Volume for M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

per Mile for M to H Sites

(yds3/mi) Total Cost for M to H Sites Cost/Yard "Saved"

UPC

- BC 0.6 4 3 2,194 1,694 77% 2,609 $2,034 $1.20
R3351 0.1 1 1 750 750 100% 6,544 $1,017 $1.36
930 1.7 4 1 75 0 750 100% 434 $1,119 $1.49
N550A 0.2 1 1 750 750 100% 3,276 $1,356 $1.81
O

- 8 0.1 1 1 95 95 100% 728 $177 $1.86
O

- 4

- 2

- 3 0.4 5 2 1,468 451 31% 1,169 $908 $2.01
831 2.1 13 7 7,699 7,338 95% 3,578 $14,821 $2.02
1440 1.5 18 15 15,155 14,588 96% 9,657 $31, 314 $2.15
800I 0.8 2 2 1,517 1,517 100% 1,913 $3,745 $2.47
3C2512 0.3 6 1 3,066 1,500 49% 5,349 $3,729 $2.49
LC5000 2.3 26 21 23,659 23,089 98% 10,176 $59,360 $2.57
LC5005 0.5 3 1 7,074 3,500 49% 7,405 $9,095 $2.60
R3970 0.2 2 2 910 910 100% 3,741 $2, 569 $2.82
PR1107 0.7 3 3 3,500 3,500 100% 4,690 $9,900 $2.83
R3810 0.1 2 1 5,000 3,500 70% 43,126 $10,165 $2.90
PR1106 0.6 5 5 10,417 10,417 100% 17,639 $31,477 $3.02
1433 0.5 7 7 3,978 3,978 100% 7,835 $12,109 $3.04
R2100 0.2 2 2 1,557 1,557 100% 7,4 02 $4,746 $3.05
800G 0.3 2 2 3,726 3,726 100% 12,298 $12,236 $3.28
CR2900 7.2 80 17 18,227 7,509 41% 1,045 $24,776 $3.30
1140 0.8 15 7 12,616 7,144 57% 9,516 $23,856 $3.34
LC5001 0.1 1 1 750 750 100% 5,246 $2,622 $3.50
R3900 1.7 16 6 12,255 4,508 37% 2,706 $16,304 $3.62
1055 0.3 1 1 89 89 100% 263 $339 $3.81
R1000 2.1 21 13 8,914 8,775 98% 4,164 $33,653 $3.84
RV

- 1 0.7 3 3 178 178 100% 252 $708 $3.98
HRPR

- 1 0.2 3 2 840 807 96% 4,086 $3,390 $4.20
PR1104 0.4 1 1 400 400 100% 920 $1,695 $4.24
FL1025 0.8 8 7 3,982 3,947 99% 4,671 $17,178 $4.35
1410 1.9 23 12 8,125 7,602 94% 3,994 $33,660 $4.43
LPC

- PC

- 1 0.1 3 1 935 750 80% 5,052 $3,390 $4.52
N750 0.3 2 1 426 371 87% 1,267 $1,695 $4.57
CP1210 1.4 19 1 6,324 686 11% 491 $3,210 $4.68
1020 1.7 18 12 8, 059 7,544 94% 4,465 $36,317 $4.81
N500A 0.2 3 3 1,697 1,697 100% 7,318 $8,348 $4.92

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL F

- 7 Table F

- 3: Roads ranked by cost

- effectiveness.

Road Name Length (mi) Total no. of ALL Sites Total no. of M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

for ALL Sites (yds3) Poten tial Sediment Yield for M to H Sites (yds3) Percent of Potential Sediment Yield

Volume for M to H Sites Potential Sediment Yield

per Mile for M to H Sites

(yds3/mi) Total Cost for M to H Sites Cost/Yard "Saved"

LC

- 7 0.7 6 2 1,611 649 40% 942 $3,21 6 $4.96
R5000 1.4 9 3 1,474 814 55% 569 $4,168 $5.12
L2000 0.5 10 3 1,403 1,293 92% 2,484 $6,734 $5.21
1000 3.9 37 16 14,312 14,050 98% 3,616 $74,023 $5.27
F

- 1

- 4 1.6 20 15 6,023 5,431 90% 3,428 $28,719 $5.29
801 1.3 4 2 503 497 99% 394 $2,675 $5.38
A M

- 4

- 1 0.1 1 1 500 500 100% 8,438 $2,712 $5.42
N770 0.6 4 4 1,645 1,645 100% 2,726 $9,079 $5.52
1400 4.6 47 32 19,382 17,301 89% 3,753 $96,655 $5.59
LC2 0.3 4 4 923 923 100% 3,052 $5,238 $5.67
N500C 1.3 3 2 69 69 100% 55 $392 $5.68
R3800 0.9 11 10 9,79 6 9,774 100% 11,364 $57,576 $5.89
R

- 77 0.1 1 1 30 30 100% 226 $177 $5.90
3C2810 0.5 3 1 783 500 64% 976 $3,051 $6.10
L2173 0.2 3 3 1,845 1,845 100% 9,979 $11,595 $6.28
R1050 0.2 2 1 1,829 1,778 97% 9,405 $11,362 $6.39
RP900 0.7 5 3 1,091 1,082 99% 1,4 85 $7,060 $6.52
R3500 1.3 14 11 3,755 3,727 99% 2,838 $24,725 $6.63
808A 1.8 9 9 2,756 2,756 100% 1,530 $18,350 $6.66
R3200 1.3 13 5 1,338 498 37% 382 $3,412 $6.85
R3350 0.3 5 3 215 145 67% 548 $1,017 $7.03
DVM 1.4 10 8 2,082 2,017 97% 1,435 $14,249 $ 7.06
3C2002 0.1 1 1 1,050 1,050 100% 8,007 $7,458 $7.10
1150 1.0 15 8 4,640 3,608 78% 3,494 $25,735 $7.13
HP

- 31 0.3 1 1 306 306 100% 930 $2,185 $7.15
DVJ 0.3 4 2 2,792 2,269 81% 7,882 $16,272 $7.17
C1400 0.6 1 1 233 233 100% 394 $1,695 $7.27
FL1030 0 .3 2 1 252 139 55% 495 $1,070 $7.70
R3000 3.5 34 17 11,253 4,895 43% 1,379 $38,446 $7.85
FP1000 1.5 18 3 151 85 56% 57 $678 $7.98
DVC 0.1 2 2 331 331 100% 2,511 $2,712 $8.20
800H

- 1 0.1 2 2 391 391 100% 2,839 $3,210 $8.21 

### Additionally ranked roads avai lable upon request.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL G

- 1 

# APPENDIX G

Sub

- W atershed R anking with W eighting V alues for R isk A nalysis

Table G

- 1. Sub

- watersheds ranked by total potential sediment yield.

Table G

- 2. Sub

- watersheds ranked by number of critical crossings in each sub

- watershed.

Ta ble G

- 3. Sub

- watersheds ranked by the number of Shalstab sites in each sub

- watershed

.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL G

- 2 

## S UB



## - W ATERSHED 

## R ANKING WITH 

## W EIGHTING 

## V ALUES FOR 

## R ISK 

## A NALYSIS

This ap pendix contains the definition of terms and explanation of weighting values for the risk analyses.

Yield

– describes the total potential sediment yield in each sub

- watershed. It integrates nicely into a risk analysis because it quantifies the amount of sediment that can potentially impact aquatic habitat and water quality. Yield is expressed in cubic yards (yds 3 

### ).

In this analysis, potential sediment yield is always the larger of site potential yield or the extreme potential yield for each site. The site potential yield was estimated for each site in the field, and represents the volume of material that can potentially erode and be delivered to a stream during a large storm. The extreme potential yield is the volume of sediment that can potentially be delivered during an extreme erosional event ( e.g., a debris torrent initiating at a stream crossing ), when the possibility for an extreme event had been identified in the field

. The extreme potential yield is always larger than the site potential yield. The potential sediment yield for all sites in a sub

watershed was summed and sorted from the highest to lowest values. Weighting values (odd
values from 1

- 9) were assigned to each sub

- watershed based on the 20 percent breaks for cumulative potential sediment yield.

Table G

- 1 ranks each sub

- watershed by total potential sediment yield and assigns a weight ing value for the risk analysis. Potential sediment yield ranged from 479 yds 3 

### in Six Rivers Creek to more than 142,300 yds 3 

### in Lacks Creek which is the largest sub

- watershed in the upper Redwood Creek watershed. Minor Creek is the next largest sub

- water shed in the upper Redwood Creek watershed. When compared to Lacks Creek, it is about 30 percent smaller, but has less than half of the potential
sediment yield. Because the potential sediment yield for Lacks Creek was nearly twice as much as
Minor Creek’ s value, Lacks Creek was not considered in the range of values when weighting values were assigned. Excluding Lacks Creek, t he average potential sediment yield was about 13,930 yds 3


### and the median yield was about 8,900 yds 3 

### . Only sites that had medium to high erosion potentials were considered, because low sites were considered relatively stable.

Critical crossings (CXings)

– have a diversion potential, an undersized culvert for a 100

- year flood

, and a medium to high plug potential. They are road

- stream crossings that are the most likely crossings to divert streams from their natural watercourses , and represent a potentially significant source of sediment from erosion that occurs along a roa d and/or on the hillslope that receives the
diverted streamflow

. The risk analysis considers how many critical crossings are found in each
sub

- watershed. The potential volume of sediment from the failure of a critical crossing cannot be
measured before failure occurs and volume estimates would be highly speculative

. However, studies performed in Redwood Creek show that stream diversions can lead to significant gully and landslide erosion (Best and others, 1995; Weaver and Hagans, 1987).

Diversion and culvert plug potential s were evaluated in the field. Culvert diamet er sizing was
based on field evaluations and the use of standard culvert sizing methods for the 100

- year storm.
For each sub

- watershed, the number of critical crossings was summed and then totals were sorted

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL G

- 3 from high to low values. Weighting values for each sub

- watershed were then assigned based on the 20% break in the cumulative number of CXings.

Table G

- 2 ranks each sub

- watershed by the number of critical crossings found in each sub

watershed, and assigns a weighting value for each sub

- watershed. Crit ical crossings ranged from one crossing in seven of the sub

- watersheds to 41 crossings in Lacks Creek. The average and median number of CXings per sub

- watershed was seven and three, respectively

.

Shalstab

– The risk analysis considers how many of the site s evaluated in a sub

- watershed fall within a potentially unstable zone based on Shalstab interpretation of the landscape. S halstab is a

GIS

- based model used for mapping the potential of shallow slope instabilities ( Dietrich et al

., 2001 ; Dietrich and Mont gomery , 1998 ) and applied to the Redwood Creek watershed (Hare, 2003). Model output has been used extensively in the Redwood Creek watershed during the field review of proposed timber harvest plans. While not precise, model output has been field evaluate d throughout the watershed and has shown good correlation with actual geomorphic conditions.

Shalstab output described here are results from a model run on a 10 meter drainage enforced Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the entire Redwood Creek Basin. The D EMs were created at Redwood National and State Parks using the TOPOGRID function in ArcInfo with a contour crenulated drainage network for drainage enforcement. Parameters used to run the model are those suggested for regional applications (phi=45 degrees , and soil density = 1700 kg/m 3 

### ) ( D ietrich and Montgomery

, 1998). For the purpose of this analysis, Shalstab values of Log(q/T) <=

- 2.8 defined the slope stability classes where shallow landsliding could occur. The number of potential
Shalstab sites in e ach sub

- watershed was summed and the totals sorted from high to low values. Weighting values for each sub

- watershed were then assigned based on the 20% break in the
cumulative number of Shalstab sites.

Table G

- 3 ranks each sub

- watershed by the number of S halstab sites found in each sub

- watershed, and assigns a weighting value for each sub

- watershed. The number of Shalstab sites in each sub

watershed ranged from zero in several sub

- watersheds to 59 in Lacks Creek. Of the 42 sub

watersheds considered, more than half had fewer than two Shalstab sites in the sub

- watershed. The average and median number of Shalstab sites were seven and three, respectively.

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL G

- 4 Table G

- 1. Sub

- watersheds ranked by total potential sediment yield.

Sub

- Watershed Acres %Roads Evaluat ed Total Potential Sediment Yield Weighting Value 

### (yds 3 

### ) (%CumYield)

Lacks 10,977 85% 142,333 outlier 9
Minor 8,248 87% 73,535 100% 9 Dolly Varden 2,151 92% 44,327 87% 9
Toss

- Up 1,709 97% 43,662 79% 7 Lupton 3,329 62% 35,637 72% 7 Wiregrass 1,1 53 92% 34,515 65% 7 Coyote 5,043 57% 30,159 59% 5
Pilchuck 1,086 92% 24,398 54% 5
Panther 3,800 95% 21,767 50% 5
Garcia 905 90% 20,627 46% 5 Noisy 4,030 73% 19,326 42% 5
Garrett 2,643 62% 18,688 39% 3
Lee 292 100% 17,546 36% 3 Headwaters_M 1,688 72 % 16,112 33% 3
Lake Prairie 2,144 82% 14,035 30% 3
Loin 601 81% 12,515 27% 3 Negro Joe 806 72% 12,380 25% 3
Twin Lakes 811 90% 11,875 23% 3
Pardee 1,985 68% 11,280 21% 3
Stover 544 56% 9,885 19% 1
Smokehouse 426 74% 9,210 17% 1
Powerline 408 94% 8, 874 16% 1
Timbo 229 94% 8,769 14% 1 George 699 100% 8,145 13% 1 High Prairie 3,476 50% 8,011 11% 1
Johnson Prairie 386 87% 7,338 10% 1
Fern Prairie 509 73% 7,310 8% 1 Snow Camp 773 66% 6,262 7% 1
Cashmere 861 80% 5,554 6% 1
Tom 259 93% 4,067 5% 1 Headwaters_W 179 52% 3,740 4% 1 Cool Springs 737 45% 3,592 4% 1
Christmas Prairie 455 73% 3,033 3% 1
Santa Fe 530 65% 3,003 3% 1 Marquette 492 91% 2,747 2% 1
Jena 246 47% 2,715 2% 1 Burley 255 91% 2,564 1% 1
June 125 100% 1,694 1% 1 Joplin 441 90% 657 0% 1
Debris Torrent 129 91% 559 0% 1 Ayers 242 97% 511 0% 1

Six Rivers 741 57% 479 0% 1

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL G

- 5 Table G

- 2. Sub

- watersheds ranked by number of critical crossings in each sub

- watershed.

Sub

- Watershed Miles of Roads #CXs %Cum# of CXings Weighting Value 2 004 %Evaluated 2010
Lacks 90.0 85% 82.5 41 100% 9

Minor 84.6 87% 84.6 30 85% 9 Negro Joe 9.5 72% 9.5 20 74% 7 Dolly Varden 28.2 92% 23.5 20 67% 7 Coyote 48.7 57% 16.5 17 59% 5 Noisy 51.2 73% 46.8 17 53% 5

Johnson Prairie 2.2 87% 2.2 12 47% 5

Gar rett 22.0 62% 21.1 11 43% 5 Lupton 43.6 62% 41.1 9 39% 3

Panther 40.4 95% 30.7 9 35% 3

Powerline 4.6 94% 4.3 8 32% 3

Garcia 10.1 90% 10.1 5 29% 3

Toss

- Up 16.6 97% 15.7 5 27% 3

Pardee 26.4 68% 23.6 5 26% 3 Wiregrass 9.7 92% 9.5 5 24% 3 George 7.3 10 0% 6.4 5 22% 3 Snow Camp 8.3 66% 8.2 5 20% 3 Burley 3.2 91% 3.0 4 18% 1

Tom 2.7 93% 2.2 4 17% 1

Stover 4.8 56% 4.8 3 15% 1 Cool Springs 9.6 45% 9.5 3 14% 1

Twin Lakes 9.8 90% 9.8 3 13% 1

Christmas Prairie 6.9 73% 6.9 3 12% 1

Six Rivers 9.2 57% 9.2 3 11% 1

Smokehouse 5.8 74% 5.8 3 10% 1

Timbo 4.0 94% 3.8 3 9% 1

Debris Torrent 2.0 91% 2.0 2 8% 1

Loin 5.4 81% 5.0 2 7% 1

Fern Prairie 6.5 73% 6.5 2 6% 1 Headwaters_M 16.4 74% 15.1 2 5% 1 Joplin 4.7 90% 3.7 2 5% 1

Lee 3.3 100% 3.1 2 4% 1

Pilchuck 9.3 92% 8.8 2 3% 1 Headwaters_W 1.7 52% 1.7 1 3% 1 High Prairie 42.0 50% 40.1 1 2% 1

Jena 4.1 47% 4.1 1 2% 1

June 0.9 100% 0.9 1 1% 1 Marquette 6.7 91% 6.7 1 1% 1

Santa Fe 9.3 65% 8.7 1 1% 1

Lake Prairie 25.5 82% 18.8 1 0% 1

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sediment TMDL G

- 6 Table G

- 3 . Sub

- watersh eds ranked by the number of Shalstab sites in each sub

- watershed

.

Sub

- Watershed Miles of Roads Number of Shalstab

Sites %Cum ulative Number of Shalstab Sites Weighting Value 2004 % Evaluated 2010

Lacks 90.0 85% 82.5 59 100% 9
Minor 84.6 87% 84.6 53 8 1% 9
Toss

- Up 16.6 97% 15.7 27 63% 7 Wiregrass 9.7 92% 9.5 17 54% 5 Pilchuck 9.3 92% 8.8 15 49% 5 Lupton 43.6 62% 41.1 14 44% 5 Panther 40.4 95% 30.7 12 39% 3
Lake Prairie 25.5 82% 18.8 11 35% 3 Garcia 10.1 90% 10.1 9 31% 3 Negro Joe 9.5 72% 9.5 9 2 8% 3
Pardee 26.4 68% 23.6 8 25% 3 Dolly Varden 28.2 92% 23.5 8 23% 3 Coyote 48.7 57% 16.5 8 20% 3
Timbo 4.0 94% 3.8 6 17% 1
Lee 3.3 100% 3.1 5 16% 1 George 7.3 100% 6.4 5 14% 1 Garrett 22.0 62% 21.1 4 12% 1
June 0.9 100% 0.9 4 11% 1 Cashmere 9.3 8 0% 9.3 3 10% 1 High Prairie 42.0 50% 40.1 3 9% 1 Joplin 4.7 90% 3.7 3 8% 1
Debris Torrent 2.0 91% 2.0 3 7% 1
Twin Lakes 9.8 90% 9.8 3 6% 1
Loin 5.4 81% 5.0 3 5% 1 Headwaters_M 16.4 74% 15.1 2 4% 1 Noisy 51.2 73% 46.8 2 3% 1 Marquette 6.7 91% 6.7 2 2% 1 Stover 4.8 56% 4.8 2 2% 1
Powerline 4.6 94% 4.3 1 1% 1 Christmas Prairie 6.9 73% 6.9 1 1% 1 Six Rivers 9.2 57% 9.2 1 0% 1
Fern Prairie 6.5 73% 6.5 0 0% 0 Smokehouse 5.8 74% 5.8 0 0% 0 Santa Fe 9.3 65% 8.7 0 0% 0 Headwaters_W 1.7 52% 1.7 0 0% 0
Jena 4.1 47% 4.1 0 0% 0 Cool Springs 9.6 45% 9.5 0 0% 0 Burley 3.2 91% 3.0 0 0% 0
Tom 2.7 93% 2.2 0 0% 0
Johnson Prairie 2.2 87% 2.2 0 0% 0 Ayers 3.8 97% 3.6 0 0% 0

### Redwood Creek

– Progress Report on Erosion Control Work and Sed iment TMDL H

- 1 

# APPENDIX H

S ALMONID 

## D ISTRIBUTION IN THE 

## R EDWOOD 

## C REEK 

## W ATERSHED

Figure H

- 1. An adromous s almonid distribution by sub

- watershed.L a c k s

M i n o r G a r r e t t

S t o v e r

B r a d f o r d C o y o t e

J o h n s o n P r a i r i e

M o l a s s e s D e v i l s

P a n t h e r

G e o r g e

D o l l y V a r d e n

L e e

G a r c i a

C a s h m e r e

P i l c h u c k

T o s s

- U p

S w e a t h o u s e

C a p t a i n

N e g r o J o e

W i n d y

S q u i r r e l T a i l

E m m y L o u

C u t

- O f f M e a n d e r

G u n r a c k

S i m o n

M i n o n J u n e

W i r e g r a s s

L o i n

S a n t a F e

G r

e e n p o i n t

L u p t o n

F e r n P r a i r i e

C h r i s t m a s P r a i r i e

J e n a

N o i s y

C o o l S p r i n g s

S i x R i v e r s

U p p e r P a n t h e r

L a s t G a p

L i n e a m e n t

H e a d w a t e r s

_ E

H e a d w a t e r s

_ M H i g h P r a i r i e

L a k e P r a i r i e

P a r d e e

M a r q u e t t e

T i m b o

P o w e r l i n e

S n o w C a m p

S m o k e h o u s e

T w i n L a k e s

B u r l e y
T o m

H e a d w a t e r s

_

W D e b r i s T o r r e n t A y e r s B e a v e r 

# A n a d r o m o u s S a l m o n i d D i s t r i b u t i o n b y S u b

- W a t e r s h e d

U p p e r R e d w o o d C r e e k W a t e r s h e d

* T h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a n a d r o m o u s s a l m o n i d s i s s h o w n b y s u b

- w a t e r s h e d a s d o c u m e n t e d b y s t r e a m s u r v e y d a t a

c o l l e c t e d s i n c e 1 9 6 5

. T h i s m a p d o e s n o t s h o w t h e h i s t o r i c r a n g e o f i n d i v i d u a l s p e c i e s n o r i s i t a c o m p r e h e n s i v e

r e c o r d o f f i s h p r e s e n c e

. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e w i t h

r e s p e c t t o C h i n o o k a s a v a i l a b l e s u r v e y d a t a i s o f t e n f r o m t h e s u m m e r m o n t h s w h e n C h i n o o k a r e n o t i n t h e r i v e r s y s t e m

. L i k e w i s e
, i n d i c a t e d p r e s e n c e o f a s p e c i e s w i t h i n a s u b

- w a t e r s h e d d o e s n o t i m p l y f i s h a c c e s s t o t h e e n t i r e c h a n n e l n e t w o r k w i t h i n t h e s u b

- w a t e r s h e d

- i n m o s t c a s e s a c c e s s i s l i m i t e d t o t h e l o w e r r e a c h e s o f t h e s u b

- w a t e r s h e d

. I n f o r m a t i o n i s f r o m t h e s t r e a m s u r v e y d a t a r e f e r e n c e d b e l o w :

A n d e r s o n
, D

. G

. 1 9 8 8

. B r o w n
, R

. A

. 1 9 8 8

. C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h a n d G a m e
, 2 0 1 1

. C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h a n d G a m e
, 2 0 0 2

. C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h a n d G a m e
, 1 9 6 5

. C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h a n d G a m e
, 1 9 6 6

. R e d w o o d N a t i o n a l a n d S t a t e P a r k s
, 2 0 0 1

.

S o u r c e : R N S P G I S

- N : \ G I S

_ M a p s \ u s e r

_ m a p s \ 6 0

_ U B E r o s i o n P r e v e n t i o n R a n k i n g \ 2 0 1 0 U p d a t e C o m p i l e d : F e b r u a r y
, 2 0 1 1

0 2 4 6 8 1 M i l e s 

### A n a d r o m o u s S a l m o n i d D i s t r i b u t i o n b y S u b

- W a t e r s h e d *

W

a t e r s h e d d i v i d e s

S t r e a m s ( 1 : 2 4 k )

C o h o
, C h i n o o k

, C u t t h r o a t a n d S t e e l h e a d

C o h o
, C h i n o o k a n d S t e e l h e a d

C o h o
, C u t t h r o a t a n d S t e e l h e a d

C o h o a n d S t e e l h e a d

C u t t h r o a t a n d S t e e l h e a d

S t e e l h e a d

N o d a t a a v a i l a b l e