Y = 1.7 + 40 X (Lower 1/3 position)

Calculate sediment delivered by road impact index (RRI),

RRI = acres of road

acres of sub-drainage X number of stream crossings

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/tools/warsss/sedsource_index.cfm

Problem Statement. Recent National Water Quality Inventory reports consistently implicate sediments

as a leading reported cause of water quality impairment in assessed rivers, streams, and lakes.

Accelerated erosion and sediment deposition/inputs from hillslope and channel processes have

impaired designated uses in rivers in many ways. Stream channel instability caused by excess

deposition of sediment can severely impact aquatic life including the food chain, spawning and

rearing habitat, in-stream cover, water temperature extremes, and other structural and functional

components. Adverse sediment impacts also include harmful effects on recreation, navigation,

conveyance, water treatment systems, and water storage. Economic consequences of excessive

sediment, deposition, and transport problems in surface waters have resulted in annual costs for

damages of approximately $16 billion (Osterkamp, et al.,1992). More on suspended and bedded

sediment impacts.

Past and current land uses and future development plans of watersheds must contain commensurate

assessments of cumulative watershed impacts. Applications of this watershed-based assessment

methodology potentially include developing TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for clean sediment,

as well as the sediment management components of watershed plans. Numerical Water Quality

Standards for non-toxic or clean sediment have not been set in many States, due to the great

complexity and uncertainty of prediction under extreme natural variability over temporal and spatial

scales. This complexity and variability has precluded the establishment of universal sediment

standards, but nonetheless, widespread adverse sediment impacts on beneficial water uses require

an organized, consistent, quantitative assessment to address the problems.

Hydrology and Soils Existing Conditions Report

Bear Creek Watershed Assessment

Pikes Peak Ranger District

December 19, 2012

Prepared by: Dana A. Butler

Pike National Forest Hydrologist

This report documents the existing conditions of the water quality, soil resources and watershed

condition of the Bear Creek Watershed.

Methodology

Existing watershed condition classes, research reports, GIS analysis, scoping issues and field

reconnaissance serve as the basis for this report.

Site Specific Reports include:

CH2M. 2012. High Drive Road Assessment.

Fin-Up Habitat Consultants, Inc. 2011. Aquatic Habitat Assessment - Bear Creek - Fountain

Creek Watershed - Pike National Forest Colorado.

Rocky Mountain Field Institute. 2012. Bear Creek Watershed Trail Assessment.

Winters, D.S., E.N.Bennett and J.P.Gallagher. – USDA Forest Service. 1994. Basinwide Stream

Habitat Inventory – Greenback Cutthroat Trout Streams of the Pike and San Isabel National

Forests in Colorado.

Existing Conditions

The project area is adjacent to the Bear Creek Regional Park at the southwest edge of the City of

Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Bear Creek is a small, headwater tributary of Fountain Creek, located on the east slope of Pikes

Peak, in El Paso County Colorado. The stream begins as a series of small tributaries in Jones

Park, a high mountain meadow located approximately five miles southwest of the City of

Colorado Springs. From the headwaters in Jones Park, Bear Creek descends steeply through a

rocky canyon 1/2 mile before another steep, narrow and rocky section is encountered.

Downstream of this second area of falls, the stream maintains a relatively constant gradient, until

it exits the canyon near the Gold Camp Road in Colorado Springs. Downstream of the Gold

Camp Road, the stream flows through Bear Creek Regional Park, crossing under 21st Street and

8th Street, south of the former gold mill at Gold Hill Mesa. The stream eventually flows into

Fountain Creek near the Martin Drake Power Plant (Gallagher, 2011).

Map 1 – Project Analysis Area (Blue line indicates analysis area delineation)

The existing condition of watershed resources results from natural and anthropogenic processes.

This project area is most influenced by a road and trails network with heavy recreational use.

Cumulative impacts from mining, wildfire, and watershed restoration activities also exist on the

landscape.

The following factors that influence the risk of erosion and sediment delivery to Bear Creek are

documented: acres of watershed, acres of bare ground, soils and geology, hillslope gradient,

drainage density, acres of road/trail disturbance, road/trail density, road/trail condition, number

of road/trail stream crossings, road/trail gradient, and unauthorized disturbance.

A popular one-way dirt road, High Drive, joins Bear Creek at a point close to the Forest Service

Boundary and confines the stream channel through the lower portion of the canyon. Two very

popular trails are accessed from the High Drive. A multiple-use trail (FS Trail #667), known

locally as the Buckhorn Trail, begins at the small saddle near Mays Peak, and follows a ridge

crest west to become the Jones Park trail. This trail receives considerable motorcycle and

mountain bicycle traffic, and is severely eroded along most of its length. The Buckhorn Trail

joins Bear Creek immediately upstream of the bedrock falls, located downstream of Jones Park.

The Bear Creek Canyon Trail (Forest Trail #666) begins at the point where the High Drive joins

Bear Creek. This trail follows the creek for approximately 1/4 mile before climbing the south

slope of the canyon. The trail again joins the creek at the bedrock falls mentioned above, and

continues a few hundred feet further to the junction with the Buckhorn Trail. In addition to the

two system trails, numerous non-system social trails exist within the watershed. One non-system

trail parallels the creek throughout all of the segment between High Drive and the Buckhorn

Trail. Studies conducted by the US Forest Service in the headwaters of the watershed in the mid

1990's indicate that High Drive and the trail systems in the watershed may be significant

contributors of sediment to Bear Creek (Winters, et al, 1994).

Bear Creek is classified as a B4 stream channel with portions of A1 and A2 stream types. The

valley type is an VIIIa or VIIIb depending on the valley slope. The side drainages are made up

of A, B and G stream types in valley types Is and IIs.

Figure 1 – Stream Classification Key (Rosgen, 2006).

Figure 2 – Valley Type Classification Key (Wildland Hydrology, 2012).

Bear Creek has an overall drainage density of around 5.52 miles per square mile. In the lower

part of the Bear Creek Watershed the valley becomes more confined, the side slopes are steeper

and the 1st order drainage density increases (Figure 3). This leads to a more rapid hydrograph

response to storm events and a higher risk of sediment delivery from disturbance.

Figure 3 – Stream drainage density (miles/sq. mile)

Water Quality

Sediment is the water quality variable of concern in Bear Creek. Sources of sediment include

roads, trails, mining activities, illegal trail use, natural hill slope erosion, wildfires, channel

processes and other natural sediment sources. Erosion and sedimentation occurs during

precipitation and runoff events as well as during base stream flow. Altered flow regimes,

hillslope disturbance and channel disturbance leads to accelerated bank erosion and accelerated

stream bed erosion.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment beneficial use designation for Bear

Creek is aquatic life cold 1, recreation 1a, water supply and agriculture (CDPHE, 2006). The

narrative sediment standards state that “surface waters shall be free from substances attributable

to human caused point source or nonpoint source discharge in amounts, concentrations or

combinations which: can settle to form bottom deposits detrimental to the beneficial uses.

Depositions are stream bottom build up of materials which include but are not limited to

anaerobic sludges, mine slurry or tailings, silt, or mud” and “are harmful to the beneficial uses”

(CDPHE, 2001).

According to the PSICC Plan (the Plan), lands administered by the PSICC must try to protect the

aquatic resources so that there is no measurable degradation of water quality. There is evidence

that pool volume is decreasing and affecting the beneficial use to the Greenback Cutthroat Trout

(Gallagher, 2011).

Water Quantity

An automated stream gauge is maintained by the on Bear Creek. The location of this gauge is at

Latitude 38°49'21", Longitude 104°53'17", in NE¼ sec.21, T.14 S., R.67 W., El Paso County,

Hydrologic Unit 11020003. The drainage area upstream of the gauge is 6.89 mi2.

The Beer Creek project analysis area has a contributing drainage area of approximately 5.5

square miles. Flow measurements taken during the Fin-Up survey, using a Marsh-McBirney

Flow-Mate 2000 meter, indicate that typical low flow conditions are approximately 0.4 cubic

foot second (cfs) in the study reaches. Bank-full stage within the study reaches was estimated to

be approximately 16 - 20 cfs (Gallagher, 2011). The regional curve for bankfull discharge as a

function of drainage area for this region indicates a bankfull flow of about 20 cfs. Although the

Fin-Up report makes note of a Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) diversion, CSU has confirmed

that no water has been diverted since the early 1990s and that the hydrograph represents natural

stream flows.

According to the USGS gage, a bankfull event has not occurred in the drainage since 1999 when

the Peak Discharge reached 185 cfs. See bankfull indicator line on USGS hydrograph below.

Figure 4 – USGS Stream Gage – 07105000 – Bear Creek near Colorado Springs

Soil Resources

Field reviews were conducted and soil surveys were utilized to determine existing condition of

soil resources in the Bear Creek Watershed Analysis Area. In general, the analysis area is

characterized by rocky shallow, coarse textured decomposing Pikes Peak granite with thin

organic layers. Pikes Peak Granite is a coarse-grained biotite and hornblend-biotite granite

which is very susceptible to weathering. Generally rocky, coarse textured soils are not highly

susceptible to deep compaction. However, surficial compaction may occur where OHVs travel

extensively and/or where OHVs were operated while soil conditions were wet.

The primary function of these soils is to support plant growth and hydrologic functions such as

storing, filtering, transporting and releasing water. Soil function is influenced by the condition

of soil resources. The condition of soil resources is determined by the degree and extent of

impacts such as erosion, compaction, and nutrient cycling capability.

Soil loss reduces the productivity of a site by reducing soil depth and therefore water storage

capacity, nutrient rich surface soils and rooting depth. Eroded soil becomes sediment which is

transported into streams, reducing water quality and modifying channel morphology and aquatic

habitat.

These soils are particularly vulnerable to rill and gully erosion if protective ground cover is

removed. Erosion potential is higher on steep slopes and adjacent to less permeable surfaces

such as rock outcrops or compacted areas, such as roads. These soils are also sensitive to loss of

productivity through reduction of plant available nutrients when the organic rich surface layer is

disturbed or removed.

In summary, soil properties indicate that project area soils are highly susceptible to damage from

disturbance. Additionally, these soils are difficult to rehabilitate.

Potential Road and Trail Impacts on Watershed Hydrology

The Rocky Mountain Field Institute prepared the Bear Creek Watershed Trails Assessment in

November 2012. The RMFI field crew has been involved in improving Bear Creek habitat and

erosion control work since 2009. Monitoring has determined that frequent maintenance is

necessary for sediment catchments and trail drainage improvements. RMFI identified many

locations where additional risers and water bars could assist with the prevention of down cutting

and the concentrating of storm flows and sediment. In general the report identified that much of

the trail system in the watershed is poorly located, have non-functioning or poorly functioning

trail drainage, and have not been adequately repaired or maintained over time.

Field reconnaissance and my professional judgment determined that the road and trail system

within the Bear Creek watershed has increased soil compaction, concentration of overland flow,

soil erosion, sediment delivery and damage to stream channels. Sediment from roads and trails

is affecting the geomorphology, water quality and aquatic habitat of Bear Creek. The adverse

impacts increase with road/trail proximity to Bear Creek, number of stream crossings, slope,

frequency of use, frequency of maintenance and density. All of these indicators have been

quantified in GIS and/or ground truthed. Unauthorized trails have been inventoried for this

project as a part of the RMFI report but since they are being created all the time the data is

temporal.

The Bear Creek Watershed analysis area is 3,602 acres in size and has approximately 2.2 miles

of classified roads and 9.8 miles of classified trails. This is a density of about 2.13 miles/sq.

mile. Accounting for differences in widths due to cut and fill slopes, this translates into about 62

acres of bare ground (Table 1). Widths of road and cut and fill slope disturbance were ground

truthed and recorded. Field reconnaissance determined that many cut and fill slopes are steep

and lack the vegetation necessary to prevent rilling and gullying. RMFI reported an additional

9.1 miles or 29.3 acres of unauthorized trails in the project area (RMFI, 2012). The total

authorized and unauthorized road/trail density is about 3.75 miles/sq. mile. The total barren

ground from the GIS vegetation layer is an additional 113 acres. The total estimated acres of

bare ground are 204 acres or about 5.6% of the watershed. Compared to other areas on the Pikes

Peak Ranger District, like in the Hayman and Waldo Canyon Burn areas, this is a low

percentage, however the proximity of these acres to Bear Creek and the subsequent erosion and

deposition are affecting stream function.

Table 1 – Acres of Road and Trail Disturbance.

Trail or Road Number Length

(ft) Acres of

Disturbance

380 (High Drive) - Road 11588 34.08

666 (Bear Creek) 10756 9.40

720.A (Forester Cutoff - North Spur) 2622 0.98

701 (Foresters) 6685 2.15

720 (Foresters Cutoff) 3531 1.30

667 (Jones Park/Captain Jacks) 21933 11.17

665 (Penrose) 5513 2.02

668 (Pipeline) 758 0.66

Total 61.76

Barren Ground - GIS layer 113.00

Unauthorized Trails 29.30

The water influence zone and stream crossings are of particular concern when considering road

impacts because this is generally where roads have direct connectivity with the stream channel.

The water influence zone (WIZ) includes the geomorphic floodplain (valley bottom), riparian

ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) is the greater

of 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation. The WIZ protects

interacting aquatic, riparian, and upland functions by maintaining natural processes and

resilience of soil, water, and vegetation systems (Forest Service Handbook, 2509.25, the Region

2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook). There is estimated to be a total of 402 WIZ

acres within the Bear Creek project analysis area. About 40% of the system road and trails are

located within the WIZ indicating a higher risk of sediment transport (Table 2).

Table 2 – Percent Length of Road or Trail and proximity to stream

Trail or Road Number Length

(ft) % w/in 100'

stream (WIZ) % w/in 100 -

300' % > 300'

380 (High Drive) 11588 35% 31% 34%

666 (Bear Creek) 10756 50% 46% 4%

720.A (Forester Cutoff - North Spur) 2622 44% 46% 10%

701 (Foresters) 6685 11% 24% 65%

720 (Foresters Cutoff) 3531 4% 31% 65%

667 (Jones Park) 21933 57% 28% 15%

665 (Penrose) 5513 21% 33% 45%

668 (Pipeline) 758 34% 28% 38%

Average 40% 33% 27%

Trail 667 has the most number of all types of stream crossings and therefore is the greatest risk to

adversely affecting habitat and stream geomorphology through increased sediment deposition.

Table 3 - Number of road/trail crossings by type

Road or Trail Number Ephemeral Crossings

Intermittent Crossings

Perennial Crossings

Total Crossings

380 (High Drive) - Road 5 0 4 9

666 (Bear Creek) 1 1 3 5

720.A (Forester Cutoff - North Spur) 0 1 1 2

701 (Foresters) 2 1 0 3

720 (Foresters Cutoff) 0 0 0 0

667 (Jones Park) 6 4 13 23

665 (Penrose) 3 0 0 3

668 (Pipeline) 0 0 1 1

Total Crossings by Type 17 7 22 46

The slope of roads/trails (Table 4) increases the energy of flood flows and can increase rates of

erosion and risk of sedimentation into Bear Creek. According to Hesselbarth, et al., an average

slope of about 10 percent or 5.9 degrees is most sustainable depending on soils with typical

maximum grades of about 9 – 14 degrees for short sections. All of the system roads and trails in

the project area have average slopes that are greater than the recommended slopes in the forest

service Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook (Hesselbarth, 2007).

Table 4 – Road and Trail slopes

Road or Trail Number

Slope (Degrees) of Trail/Road

380 (High Drive) - Road 13

666 (Bear Creek) 15.5

720.A (Forester Cutoff - North Spur) 12

701 (Foresters) 10

720 (Foresters Cutoff) 16

667 (Jones Park) 11

665 (Penrose) 15

668 (Pipeline) 11

Total Crossings by Type

Over 80% of the hillslopes in this watershed analysis area are greater than 30% slope (Table 5).

It is hard to have stable cut and fill slopes on such steep slopes which is likely why much of Trail

666 and Trail 667 are located in the flat, riparian flood plain.

Table 5 – Acres of analysis area by Hillslope Percent

Hillslope Percent Acres

0-10% 76

10-20% 269

20-30% 364

>30% 2895

CH2M Hill is currently under contract to evaluate road conditions on High Drive and will

identify improvement opportunities. Improvements will be focused on reducing sediment

delivery to Bear Creek. Drainage features on High Drive need to be cleaned to protect the

culvert investment and keep them properly functioning. The spacing between culverts increases

the quantity and energy of storm flows. Road grading breaks up the surface, levels the road,

improves drainage, but creates a fresh source of sediment. High drive also has mounded berms

from road grading maintenance. These berms prevent water from outsloping uniformly and

force storm flows to concentrate. The storm flows pick up sediment from these berms and dump

large quantities of sediment once the flows reach lead out ditches. In other areas, the

concentrated storm water flows into ditches and at culvert outflows this has caused gully erosion

(Figure 5). This gully originated at a switchback and concentrating water and transporting

sediment down to the Creek. The gully is estimated to be a maximum of 15 feet deep and 20 feet

wide over 850 feet long. It is estimated that at least 42,500 cubic feet of eroded material or

over 2,000 tons of sediment has been eroded and deposited into Bear Creek.

Figure 5 – Gully forming as a result of poor drainage off of High Drive

(Photo by Denny Bohon, Dec. 2012)

In summary, hydrologically connected trails are altering aquatic habitat, stream bank stability,

geomorphology and flow regimes in Bear Creek.

Disturbed Areas

Increased surface area and lack of vegetation in disturbed areas leads to more exposed surface

area for sediment transport.

Existing disturbed areas within the project area:

Authorized and unauthorized mining activity (Figure 6)

The Bear Creek Fire - 3.5 acres July 4th, 2011 overlaps within the analysis area. The

burned area continues to revegetate and is more sensitive than adjacent unburned areas.

The Bear Creek Trail and Jones Park Trail are located in the valley bottom or adjacent to

intermittent stream channels.

Jones Park disturbed acreage has expanded in size due to heavy OHV, mountain bike and

horse rider use.

Roads that are already deeply entrenched present the greatest threat to soil and water

resources.

Entrenched sections of road are difficult to stabilize and tend to keep widening and

deepening.

Elevated erosion from user created road widening, camping areas and hill climbs cause

direct sediment delivery to the stream system.

Unauthorized expansion of the trail network

Figure 6 – Mining activity

Watershed Condition Ratings

In 2011, the Pike National Forest completed watershed condition class ratings utilizing the 2010

Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/wfw/watershed/classification/watershed_classification_guide-oct-25-

2010.pdf

The following indicators were given values by an interdisciplinary team of Forest resource

specialists (Table 6). The indicator values were weighted to develop the watershed condition

class ratings

Table 6 – Watershed Condition Indicators

AQUATIC PHYSICAL INDICATORS

1. Water Quality

This indicator addresses the expressed alteration of physical, chemical, and biological components of water quality.

2. Water Quantity

This indicator addresses changes to the natural flow regime with respect to the magnitude, duration, or timing of the natural stream flow hydrograph.

3. Aquatic Habitat

This indicator addresses aquatic habitat condition with respect to habitat fragmentation, large woody debris, and channel shape and function.

AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS

4. Aquatic Biota

This indicator addresses the distribution, structure, and density of native and introduced aquatic fauna.

5. Riparian/Wetland Vegetation

This indicator addresses the function and condition of riparian vegetation along streams, water bodies, and wetlands.

TERRESTRIAL PHYSICAL INDICATORS

6. Roads and Trails

This indicator addresses changes to the hydrologic and sediment regimes due to the density, location, distribution, and maintenance of the road and trail network.

7. Soils

This indicator addresses alteration to the natural soil condition, including productivity, erosion, and chemical contamination.

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS

8. Fire Regime or Wildfire

This indicator addresses the potential for altered hydrologic and sediment regimes due to departures from historical ranges of variability in vegetation, fuel composition, fire frequency, fire severity, and fire pattern.

9. Forest Cover

This indicator addresses the potential for altered hydrologic and sediment regimes due to the loss of forest cover on forest land.

10. Rangeland Vegetation

This indicator addresses impacts to soil and water relative to the vegetative health of rangelands.

11. Terrestrial Invasive Species

This indicator addresses potential impacts to soil, vegetation, and water resources due to terrestrial invasive species (including vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants).

12. Forest Health

This indicator addresses forest mortality impacts to hydrologic and soil function due to major invasive and native forest pest insect and disease outbreaks and air pollution.

Watershed condition classification is the process of describing watershed condition in terms of

discrete classes that reflect the level of watershed health or integrity. The Forest Service Manual

uses three classes to describe watershed condition:

Class 1 – watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their

natural potential condition.

Class 2 – watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to

their natural potential condition.

Class 3 – watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their

natural potential condition.

Within this context, the three watershed condition classes are directly related to the degree or

level of watershed functionality or integrity:

Class 1 – Functioning Properly

Class 2 – Functioning at Risk

Class 3 – Impaired Function

Bear Creek rated out as a Watershed Condition Class II, however this was prior to fish being

identified as a pure greenback cutthroat.

Table 7 - Project area watershed condition class and ownership

HUC12 Code HUC12 Name

Watershed Condition

Class Total Acres

FS Acres

Co Springs Utilities

Acres City

Acres PVT

Acres FS

Percent

101900030303 Bear Creek 2 3602 2331 840 406 25 65%

Existing Restoration Areas

Recent restoration efforts have benefited soil, water, and aquatic resources at highly disturbed

sites near Trail 666 – Bear Creek and Trail 667 – Jones Park. Extensive recreation use and

associated soil resource damage is concentrated in these areas. A combination of many different

rehabilitation techniques were implemented for these restoration projects. RMFI hand crews,

OHV user groups and other volunteers recontoured gullies, closed and revegetated unauthorized

trails and hill climbs, built small drainage ditches, small sediment catchments, log rollers,

installed erosion matting and hand spread seed. It is expected that a myriad of similar techniques

would be used for any future rehabilitation projects. Treatment effectiveness monitoring has

revealed that restoration strategies, such as trail drainage improvement, re-contouring, de-

compaction, gully and slope stabilization, and re-seeding have been successful, but require a

substantial commitment to maintenance. Additional monitoring will be implemented to provide

for an adaptive management approach.

References

CH2M. 2012. High Drive Roads Assessment.

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. 2005. Implementation Guidance for

Determining Sediment Deposition Impacts to Aquatic Life in Streams and Rivers. Water Quality

Control Division, Denver, CO.

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/StatutesRegsPolicies/Policies/98-1-2010.pdf

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. 2006. Classifications And Numeric

Standards for Arkansas River Basin, Regulation No. 32.

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2006_06_26_standards_wqslibrary_co

_reg32-200606.pdf

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. 2010. Colorado’s Section 303(d)

List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List. Water Quality Control Division,

Denver, CO.

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/100293wqlimitedsegtmdlsnew.pdf

Gallagher, J.P. Fin-Up Habitat Consultants, Inc. 2011. Aquatic Habitat Assessment - Bear

Creek - Fountain Creek Watershed - Pike National Forest Colorado.

Hesselbarth, Woody, Brian Vachowski, and Mary Ann Davies. USDA Forest Service, 2007.

0723-2806-MTDC - Missoula Technology and Development Center. Trail Construction and

Maintenance Notebook. (Accessed 12/17/2012)

http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm07232806/toc.htm

Kolka R.K. and Smidt M.F. 2004. Effects of forest road amelioration techniques on soil bulk

density, surface runoff, sediment transport, soil moisture and seedling growth. Forest Ecology

and Management 202 (2004) 313–323.

Rocky Mountain Field Institute. 2012. Bear Creek Watershed Trail Assessment.

Rosgen, Dave. 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply

(WARSSS).

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service Handbook - Soil Management 2509.18, Region 2

Supplement, August 15.

USDA Forest Service, 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States. Ed: Bailey RG.,

Avers P., King, T, and McNab H. USDA Forest Service. Available on the Internet at

www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ch43.html.

USDA Forest Service. 1984. Land and Resource Management Plan for the PSICC.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. FSH 2509.25 – Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook.

http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.25

USDA Forest Service, 2010. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide.

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/wfw/watershed/classification/watershed_classification_guide-oct-25-

2010.pdf

Wildland Hydrology. 2012. Valley Type Classification Key.

Winters, D.S., E.N.Bennett and J.P.Gallagher. – USDA Forest Service. 1994. Basinwide Stream

Habitat Inventory – Greenback Cutthroat Trout Streams of the Pike and San Isabel National

Forests in Colorado. Pike and San Isabel National Forests and the Cimarron and Comanche

National Grasslands. 57pp.

Winters, D.S. and J.P.Gallagher. - USDA-Forest Service. 1997. Basinwide Stream Habitat

Inventory - A Protocol for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and the Cimarron and

Comanche National Grasslands. 41pp.