Model Steelhead Demonstration Project

Situation Report

April 1983

Prepared by: Stephen T. Kucas,- Jr. Editorial Associates:

Mary E. Bacon J:bnald M. Haskins Richard A. Irizarry ABSTRACT

This report is predominantly a summation of existing information concerning the anadromous fish populations and their habitats within the South Fork Trinity River. Its purpose is to provide the South Fork Trinity River Hodel Steel head Advisory Q:lmmittee with a concise overview of known data and point to the areas where additional data collection is required. This report will be used as a primer in the developnent of a manage:nent plan to restore the quality of the fish habitat and reclaim the potential for steelhead production in the river. It is also anticipated that value will be accrued for salmon from most of the work done for steelhead.

The history of the South Fork Trinity River geology, especially the events surrounding the 1964 flood, is discussed. Geology is placed into context with the anadromous fishery habitat changes and the subsequent decline in steelhead and salmon populations.

Fisheries data is compiled frorn past surveys and sunmarized. Migration dates, population counts, habitat preferences, and stocking records are included. Recommendations on additional survey requirements, rehabilitation projects, and an implementation scheme conclude the report.

i .·.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT • • i

INTRODUCTION • • ......

Purpose Model Steelhead Stream Demonstration Project 1 Acknowledg ements • • • 1 Background •••••• 2

WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS 2

Study Area • • • • • • • • • • 2 Sedimentation Problems • 4 Fisheries Habitat 5

FISHERY RESOURCES 5

Fish Populations 5 Steelhead Trout 5 Chinook Salmon 6 Q:, ho Salmon • • 10 Rainbow Trout • 10 Stocking History • 10

WATER QUALITY 15

PROPOSED SMALL HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT • 16

WATERSHED REHABILITATION 16

Riffle Sifting ••• 16 Side Cllannel Developnent ...... 17 Streamside Incubation of Eggs ...... 17 Sediment QJntrol • • • • 17 Migrational Barrier Modification • • 18 Pond Rearing • • • • • • • • • • • 18 Rearing in Underutil i zed Tributary Reaches • 19 Stream Cllannel M:>d ification 19 Rehabilitating Tributaries •• 20

RECOMMENDATIONS 20

LITERATURE CITED • 21

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 23

ii .·. .. .~ ...... ' . > ·. ... ~ . : ..

TA.BLES

Table No. Page

Chinook Salmon Surveys of the South Fork Trinity River, 1958-1982 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7

2 Fish Stocking History of the South Fork Trinity River Basin, 1930-1982 . • • • • • • · 11

3 Hydro-therrnographs in the South Fork Trinity River Basin, 1982 • • . • • . • • • . • • • • · • 15

4 Streams in the South Fork Trinity River Basin Filed on for !:mall Hydro Develo pnent Projects • • • • • • ••• 16

FIGURES

Figure No. Page

South Fork Trinity River \;latershed • • • • • • • • • • • 3

iii . ·· :"· .: . . . . · ...... · ...... ~ -· .. . ··- .:.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

This report predominantly summarizes existing information concerning the anadromous fish populations and their habitats within the SJuth Fork Trinity River. Its purpose is to provide a concise compilation of data which will serve as a primer in the develop.nent of a management plan to restore the quality of the fish habitat and reclai~ the potential for steelhead production in the river. It is also anticip~ted that value will be accrued for salmon from most of the work done for steel head.

Model Steelhead Stream Demonstration Project

In August 1981, a t-bdel Steel head Trout Project Agreement to restore and improve the habitat and the runs of steelhead in the SJuth Fork Trinity River was signed by representatives of the USDA Forest Service, Department of Fish and Ga11e, and California Trout, Inc.

The project was initiated to demonstrate that production of fishery values and timber harvest values can occur concurrently as long as both renewable resources are managed properly.

Objectives of this long-term project are:

1. To utilize and demonstrate the best management practices and technology in fishery and resource management.

2. To improve the productive capacity of the South Fork Trinity River for native steelhead trout.

3. To demonstrate the protection and enhancement of fishery habitat while mana15ing for :nul tiple resource outputs (i.e., timber, wildlife, etc.).

4. To attract broad local and statewide public support and understanding for this demonstration project, and for principles underlying the project.

To implement these objectives, an Advisory OJmmittee consisting of representa­ tives from the original signatories and Humboldt State University was formed.

The Advisory OJmmittee determined that the first step toward implementing the project objectives was to gather all existing information on the fisheries habitat and populations of the South Fork Trinity River, consolidate it, and assess the present situation. A plan would then be formulated to allow for the selection of a preferred alternative geared to the restoration of the watershed and enhancement of steel head trout.

Acknowledgments

To assist the Advisory OJmmittee in its initial task, Stephen Kucas was hired by California Trout, Inc. and assigned the responsibility of compiling existing fish habitat and population data on the South Fork Trinity River utilizing all available sources. This information was gathered and has been filed at the ,.-' 1

Shasta-Trinity National Forests Supervisor's Office in Redding. A summation of that data is presented herein to develop and recommend means for maintaining, mitigating, and enhancing the fish populations and their habitat and to achieve the overall objectives of the project.

This report encompasses data relating to all salmonid fishery resources in the basin, not just steelhead. Intensive data . compilation and management concerns prompted the inclusion of other fish species in this synopsis.

Background

As one reviews the historical backg round of anadromous fish stocks in the Klamath-Trinity River Basin, the conclusion is drawn that a series of impacts through time have led to the decline of salmon and steelhead habitat in the basin, and thus to a reduction in the numbers of these species. Such factors as the commercial harvest of fish, road construction, catastrophic floods, Indian fishery, dam construction, timber harvesting, mining, and grazing, as well as others, may well have contributed significantly at one time or another through­ out the years to the presently low habitat capability and population levels.

The South Fork Trinity River was adverse"!.y affected during the severe storm of 1964. Some privately owned tributary watersheds which had been intensively managed for timber production during the late 1950's were catastrophically gutted by land sliding processes. Millions of yards of material were transported into the South Fork Trinity River in a very brief period of time. This tremendous pulse of sed iment filled in pools and destroyed riparian vegetation through scour processes and terrace deposition (Haskins, 1981).

In 1974, 30 spring-run king salmon spawners were recorded in the upper reaches of the South Fork, compared to 11,600 in 1964, a 99% decrease in the fishery (DFG, 1974). Habitat was still in poor condition with many pools partially filled and some rocky areas completely covered by sand and gravel (Miller, 1974) •

A 1980 survey (LaFaunce, 1980) indicated that spring-run salmon levels remain low. However, the habitat in holding pools was reported to be gradually improving in portions of the upper watershed.

Habitat continues to improve as channels degrade the 1964 storm deposits. However, a major concern is whether the watershed remains vulnerable to large storm events. Are physical instream habitat improvements or stock enhancement prudent at this time or should we be attempting to stabilize major sediment sources to prevent future impacts? These are critical questions facing us at this time.

WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Study Area

The South Fork Trinity River is located in Northern California, 70 km (45 mi.) west of Redding a~d 90 km (~0 mi.) east of Eureka (Figure 1). The drainage basin is 2, 460 km (970 mi. ) . The South Fork is part of the California Wild and Scenic Rivers System with the Wild and Scenic Rivers section co'llprised by the 90 km (60 mi.) reach of river from Forest Glen downstream to the mouth. The

2 .. : : . . ··. • : · :· •• • t .\ . -.·. • . ' · -~ • •

__o•rcao•__ .. ______i .. :; .( I • STUDY I D I. AREA

'

Location Map

Figure 1. South Fork lrinity River Watershed.

3 ·.,. . : · . .. ' . .·

headwaters of the South Fork Trinity River are within the Yolla Bolla-Middle Eel Wilderness area. The Wild and Seen ic River and wilderness classifications may limit management activities on designated portions of the drainage.

The headwaters of the South Fork Trinity River originate in the North Yolla Bolly r.buntains, which have a maximum elevation of 2, 397 m (7, 863 ft.). The river flows in a northwesterly d.ire.ction for a distance of 145 km ( 90 mi.) to its confluence with the Trinity River. Precipitation is highly seasonal in ·the basin, with 90 percent falling between October and April. The mean annual rainfall varies from 100 em (40 in.) on the east side to 200 em (80 in.) on the west side along South Fork M::luntain. Basinwide, the average annual rainfall is approximately 130 em (52 in.). ?3e average seasonal flow of the South Fork Trinity River is 1.74 million dam (1.41 million ac.-ft.) which is about 10 percent of the total stream flow of the B:tsin.

The most characteristic natural vegetation are stands of Douglas-fir intermixed with ponderosa and sugar pine and, less commonly, incense cedar. At elevations above 1,200 m (4,000 ft.), white fir shares the overstory with Douglas-fir in proportions that increase with elevation. Hardw:Jods are frequently found as intermediate associates (USFS 1977).

Sedimentation Problems

The South Fork Trinity River is located within and along a fault zone that was created when the Coastal Range crustal plate was thrust under the ICI. amath plate over 100 million years ago. South Fork M::luntain lies to the west of the fault zone. The South Fork Trinity Watershed is underlain by different types of bedrock which vary as to their surface erosion and mass wasting potential. Landforms mapped across the watershed have developed primarily through mass wasting processes, however, the vast majority of these features are considered dormant. Yet, certain formations are more noted for their landslide hazards than others.

The Department of Water Resources ( 1979), in their reconnaissance study of the South Fork Trinity Watershed determined that the South Fork M::luntain Schist, which underlies the western portion of the watershed, has a severe mass wasting hazard, greater than any other formation in the watershed. They showed that tributaries draining the schist are significant contributors to turbidity problems in the South Fork Trinity River each winter, with turbidity persisting well past storm peak flows.

Haskins ( 1981) reports that the persistent turbidity is due to a number of factors including: 1) the micaceous lithology of the schist; 2) the large number of active inner gorge landslides which supply sediment directly to streams throughout the winter; and 3) the continuous fluvial degradation of aggraded reaches contributed during the 1964 flood.

Other bedrock terranes also contribute to sedimentation problems within the watershed. The Franciscan Formation, in the southwest portion of the watershed; the Galice, in the central portion; and the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane, in the east central portion of the watershed, are all noted for significant mass wasting problems (Haskins, person. comm .) • Even though mass wasting hazards within these formations are more limited in area, the mass wasting features are

4 . ·...... ·...... ~ ...... • .. ·.

just as hazardous and many active landslides have been mapped which presently contribute vast quantities of sediment to the watershed.

Fisheries Hab-itat

There is insufficient data available at the present time to quantify salmonid fisheries habitat. A more coordinated attempt is needed to locate, quantify, ·and qualify the available fisheries habitat in the South Fork Trinity River · ·. basin. This information will be essential to successful future land management planning, i.e., development of a habitat improvement plan in conjunction with timber harvest, road construction, and other multiple use activity plans.

Prior to the flood of December 1964, the South Fork was characterized by scattered large, deep pools interspersed with shallow pools, riffles, and rapids. Gravel and fine sediment deposited during and after the 1964 flood destroyed most of the large pools .and aggraded the streambed. Continued excessive sedimentation since the flood has delayed recovery of the stream channel. Presently, the stream contains wide, shallow riffles and shallow pools occasionally interspersed with deeper pools. Debris slides line many parts of the river. Additionally, millions of cubic yards of sediment still remain in the lower reaches of the tributaries of the South Fork Trinity River in the form of terraces or channel fill (Haskins 1981). This material is seasonally mobilized through scour and lateral erosion. Approximate! y one-half of the material that was released during the 1964 flood is still located in the basin (Buer, Person. Com.).

In contrast, most of the rock types which underlie the watershed (the largest tributary to South Fork Trinity River) are relatively stable. Landslide features are relatively stable and there do not appear to be serious sediment problems in the watershed. As indicated by past surveys, Hayfork Creek and its tributaries support substantial populations of steelhead trout juveniles. At present, water diver ions cause low flow and high temperature impacts that adversely affect the fishery. In spite of these problems, the Hayfork Creek basin may be the most important contributor of steelhead trout to the South Fork Trinity River watershed at this time.

FISHERY RESOURCES

Fish Populations

Steelhead trout apparently enter the South Fork Trinity River as spring-run or fall/winter-run fish. Spring-run fish enter the South Fork between February and May and h:>ld in the cooler waters of the upper river (above Hyampom) and its tributaries until they spawn the following spring. The fall/winter-run is probably confined to November, December, January, February, and possibly March.

There is little information available on the size of past spring-runs of steelhead in the South Fork Trinity River. Freeze and Taylor (1979) surveyed the mainstem South Fork from 1 mile above the confluence with the East Fork of the South Fork downstream to the mouth and found only 5 spring-run adult steelhead. A more intensive survey was conducted in 1982 (Kucas, 1982) with 27 spring-run adult steelhead observed. Most of these fish were in the deepest part of the larger pools, located under boulders or bedrock ledges. Many juvenile steelhead were also seen in the surveyed sections and it was assumed

5 . .... : ... . . · .. . . · ... . - ;.

that all of these were not spring-run progeny because of the high numbers present.

Similarly, little information exists on the fall/winter-run steelhead in the main South Fork Trinity River. Several spawning surveys have been concluded in the Hayfork Creek watershed (LaFaunce 1965, Rogers 1972 and 1973, Miller 1975). This information indicates the drainage is one of. the maJor spawning and nursery grounds for steel head in the South Fork Trinity River basin. Even though there were factors inherent in their survey design that make the comparison of results difficult (varying survey areas, different water years, confusing lamprey redds for steelhead redds, etc.), these surveys do indicate a significant reduction in the size of the fall/winter-runs of steelhead between 1965 and 1975.

Chinook salmon enter the South Fork Trinity River in two well defined spawning runs-- one in the spring and one in late summer through early fall. The spring-run chinook begin to spawn in September, and the fall-run fish begin spawning in mid-October. The spring and fall-run spawning areas are segregated. Spring-run salmon spawn in the South Fork Trinity River from about 3 km ( 1.9 mi.) above Hyampom upstream for 74 km (46 mi.), and in Hayfork Creek upstream for 3 to 11 km (1.9 to 6.8 mi.) from its mouth. The fall-run spawns in the lower 48 km (30 mi.) of the South Fork Trinity River downstream of Hyampom and in the lower 4. 3 km ( 2. 7 mi.) of H3yfork Creek (La Faunce 1967).

The South Fork chinook salmon stocks have been studied rather intensively. During early surveys from 1955-1959, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (1960) estimated that as many as 6, 000 salmon redds occurred in the South Fork Trinity River annually. Since that early study, more specific and comprehensive surveys have been conducted. The California Department of Fish and Game's report on sal'nonid habitat studies (California Departl'nent of Fish and Game, 1982) provides an excellent historical background on these previous works. For simplicity, Table 1 is a compilation of all known chinook salmon surveys and population estimates for the South Fork Trinity River.

6 - e -

Table 1. Olinook Salmon Surveys of the South Fork Trinity River, 1958-1982

:_. Number Salmon, Redds, Date Source Section Surveyed or Carcasses

10/30/58 Jack Savage, USFWS Mainstem S.F. Trinity River (Aerial redd count) 101 redds

10/1-3, 8/63 Terry Healey, CDFG Mainstem S.F. Trinity River - 1 mile above con­ 669 live fish n uence with East Fork South Fork, and 2 miles 432 redds of the East Fork, to 9 miles below Forest Glen 118 carcasses

10/28/63 Earl Gibbs, CDFG Mainstem S.F. Trinity River - from mouth of the 1~00redds East Fork to the mouth

-..J 8/25-27/64 Don La Faunce, CDFG Chinook Salmon Population Estimate - South 11,600 (spring-run) Fork Trinity River 3, 300 (fall-run)

9/28/67 Terry Healey, CDFG Mainstem S.F. Trinity River- from mouth of the 0 live fish ,, East Fork to the mouth of Bierce Creek 1 redd

9/25/68 Terry Healey, CDFG Mainstem S. F. Trinity River - from mouth of the 0 fish East Fork to 3 miles downstream

9/25/69 Terry Healey, CDFG Same section as in 1968 live fish redd ·.

8/11-13/70 Dave lbgers, Dave Mainstem S. F. Trinity River - from mouth of the 36 live fish t-b Leod, CDFG East Fork to Forest Glen 50-75 redds - e e

Table 1. Olinook Salmon Surveys of the &Juth Fork Trinity River, 1958-1982 (Cont ' d.)

Number Salmon, Redds, Date Source Section Surveyed or Cqrcasses

_:.· 8/17-19/71 Dave Rogers, CDFG Main stem S. F. Trinity River - from mouth of the 98 live fish East Fork to 1 mile above Forest Glen

8/2/72 Cliff Fox, Roger Main stem S. F. Trinity River - from mouth of the 3 live fish · Willmarth, USFS East Fork to 9 miles upstream

7/22-26174 Dave Rogers, &l Main stem s. F. Trinity River - from mouth of 36 live fish (6 were adults) Miller, CDFG East Fork to Forest Glen co 9/ 5/74 Dave Rogers, Ed Main stem S. F. Trinity River - fro.'ll Forest Glen 23 live fish (15 were adults) -...·· Miller, ~i l Grunert, to Plummer Creek Mike Jonckheere, CDFG

8/11-13/75 Don La Faunce, &l Main stem S. F. Trinity River - from mouth of 289-299 live · fish Miller, Yount, CDFG East Fork to Ostrats (Silver Cr. Ranch) ;--.

917-8176 Dennis Lee, John Main stem S. F. Tr i nity River - from mouth of 342 live fish (10 were grilse) Thomas, CDFG East Fork to Hyampom

11/13-16, Tom Payne, USFWS Main stem S. F. Trinity River - area around 18 live fish 28, 29179 Hyampom Valley 14 carcasses

9/22, 10/2179 Line Freese, Tony Mainstem S.Fk. Trinity River - mouth of 230 live fish Taylor, USFS Rasberry Gulch to mount and lower Hayfork Creek (Snorkeling Survey) • .i::

:f

.-::.. - e e

Table 1. Olinook Salmon Surveys of the South Fork Trinity River, 1958-1982 (Cont ' d.)

Number Salmon, Redds, Date Source Section Surveyed or Carcasses

8/15-17/30 Don La Faunce Mainstem S. F. Trinity River - from Forest Glen 25 live fish upstream 8 miles

10/27-11/28/80 Terry Mills, CDFG Mainstem S.F. Trinity River - from Hyampom to Estimated 317 fall-run mouth Chinook

10/31-11/12/81 Terry Hills, CDFG Main stem S. F. Trinity River - from Hyampom to No estimates made :··. mouth and lower 2.5 miles of Hayfork Creek

\.0 8/1-3/82 Steven Heimleich, Mainstem S.F. Trinity River - from mouth of 58 live fish CDFG East Fork to Forest Glen (Snorkeling Survey)

8/9-13/82 Stephen Kucas, Mainstern S.F. Trinity River - from mouth of 167 live fish & 8/31/82 Cal Trout/USFS East Fork to mouth, and lower Hayfork Creek (Snorkeling Survey)

..

.··

[-:

'~· ·., .. .. : ...... _, _

Coho salmon begin entering the Trinity River system in September with the bulk of the run occurring mainly in November and December. Information on the · numbers and distribution of these fish in the South Fork Trinity River drainage is limited. Residents of Hyampom and Fisheries Biologist Millard Coots (Pers. Comm.) have reported that coho salmon migrated to Hyampom Valley one year when unusually early fall rains occurred. Past surveys have also detected cohos, but these fish are rarely seen. More information is needed to. accurately assess the condition of the coho run in the South Fork Trinity River.

Rainbow trout are found as resident populations in parts of most of the perennial tributaries of the South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek which are not accessible to the anadromou~ species. They are also found in the mainstem of the South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek. Resident rainbow abundance is highly variable and is dependent on local habitat conditions.

Other species of fish occurring in the basin include: Klamath smallscale sucker, speckled dace, Pacific lamprey, and green sunfish.

Stocking History

Table 2 displays the stocking history for the South Fork Trinity River basin. The status of the planted exotics (Eastern brook trout, Loch Leven brown trout) is not known.

10 - e e

Table 2. Fish Stocking History of the South Fork Trinity Basin, 1930-1982 .

Stocking Record

Number Creek Date Species..!./ Size of Fish Hatchery Planting Locality

Big (Trib. to SF) 8/13/47 RT 15/oz. 1' 440 Mt. Shasta ? Big (Trib. to Hayfork) 8/4/39 RT 81/oz. 3,000 Mt. Shasta ~ <ter 1938 EB 8/oz. 1 '000 ? ? II 8/8/40 EB 7. 5/oz. 5,000 Mt. Shasta ? II 8/13/41 EB 10/oz. 1' 500 ? ,, 8/12/47 RT 19/oz. 1' 596 ? II 8/1/53 EB 12/oz. 2,016 ? II 7/7/54 EB 12/oz. 2,160 ? II 1969 EB 320/lb. 960 ? Corral 9/7/40 SH 65/oz. 10,000 ? 8/7/43 RT 16/oz. 8,500 ? 8/10/44 RT 23/oz. 3,000 ? 1-' II 1-' 9/7/45 EB 5/oz. 2,500 ? 8/12/47 RT 19/oz. 4,788 ? 8/28/47 RT 21/oz. 7,560 ? 10/10/49 RT 17/oz. 7,650 Head waters 8/28/50 RT 16/oz. 6,400 II 9/16/51 RT 20/oz. 5,000 10 miles above jet with Hayfork 9/7/52 RT 22/oz. 7' 920 II 8/3/53 RT 10/oz. 7,000 II II 1959 EB 16/oz. 4,000 II ? 4/19/82 ss 364/lb. 100,000 Trinity River 12 miles above confluence with Hayfork Eltapom 8/13/47 RT 15/oz. 720 Mt. Shasta ? II 10/10/49 RT 17 /oz. 1' 530 II Headwater II 8/11/50 RT 20/oz. 1' 500 II Near mouth II 7/11/53 RT 15/oz. 1' 995 II ? _ll. EB - Eastern Brook .i, KS - King Salmon (Chinook) LL - Loch Leven (Brown Trout) RT - Trinbow Trout SH - Steelhead SS - Silver Salmon (Coho)

,. e e e •

Table 2. Fish Stocking History of the South Fork Trinity Basin, 1930-1982 (Cont'd)

Stocking Record

Number 11 Creek Date Species- Size of Fish Hatchery Planting Locality Gates 8/12/47 RT 19/oz. 3,192 11 ? Grapevine 8/13/47 RT 15/oz. 720 11 ? Grassy Flat 8/12/47 RT 19/oz. 1,596 11 ? Grouse 8/4/39 RT 81/oz. 10,500 11 ? Hayfork 1932 RT ? 25,000 ? ? II 1 9 3 3 RT ? 1 5 , 0 00 ? ? II 1933 SH ? 10,000 ? ? II 9/10/38 RT 40/oz. 10,000 Mt. Shasta ? II 917/40 SH 65/or 20 10,000 11 T30N, R11W, Sec. 36 II 8/10/44 RT 23/oz. 9,000 11 T29N, R1Hl, Sec. 1 II 9/3/47 RT 22/oz. 31,680 11 From dam on Edstrom Ranch to Wild\oK.lod II 7/29/49 RT 10/oz. 5, 600 11 From Wildwood Inn to head of creek II 7/29/49 RT 23/oz. 15,720 II II ~ II II 1\) 10/11/49 RT 17/oz. 7,650 From \-lildwood Inn down about 3 miles II 8/11/50 RT 13/oz. 24,999 II From Wild\oK.lod Inn to Hayfork II 7/27/53 RT 12/oz. 8, 004 II ? II 9/12/51 RT 21/oz. 16,002 3 mi. upstream from WildWJod II 9/12/51 RT 21/oz. 1, 008 II II 9/9/52 RT 18/oz. 3,240 6 mi. above Wildwood II 9/11/52 RT 19/oz. 13,680 3 mi. above Wildwood II 8/1/53 RT 10/oz. 12,000 ? II 7/7/54 RT 29/oz. 10,150 T1N, R11W, S 24, .. 25, 26 II 7/9/54 RT 25/oz. 10,000 T29N, R 11W, S 15 II 517/65 SH ? 400 Trinity River 6 mi • above Wild wood Inn II 3/23/65 SS 1.5/oz. 20,400 Gerrill Gulch II 3/24/65 SH 3.3/oz. 20,100 Trinity & Eel 1 00 yd s. above bridge at Wild wood II 11/26/68- 12/4/68 ss 19/lb 62,700 Trinity R. Mouth of Chanchelulla Gulch Hya:npom 9/16/51 RT 20/oz. 2,000 Mt. Shasta 2 mi. above jet with Corral Cr. Indian Valley 10/12/38 EB 8/oz. 4,000 II ? II 8/13/41 EB 10/oz. 1' 500 II T2, R7E II 7/21/42 EB 16/oz. 5,000 II 1 mi. west of Indian Valley (}} Station II 9/6/50 EB 4/oz. 5,220 II Below FS guard station

•· e e -

Table 2. Fish Stocking History of the South Fork Trinity Basin, 1930-1982 ( Q)nt;' d)

Stocking Record ... Number Creek Date Species]./ Size of Fish Hatchery Planting Locality Indian Valley 8/1/53 EB 12/oz. 2,016 Mt. 31asta ? II 717/54 EB 12/oz. 2,160 II ? Mill 9/26/78 RT 8/oz. 800 II ? .. II 10/2/49 RT 23/oz. 920 II above falls .. Mosquito 7/1/54 RT 27 /oz. 2,997 II 1/4 mi. above mouth Naufus 717/54 RT 29/oz. 3,045 II T1N, R7E, S13 II 1969 EB 320/lb. 960 II ? Olsen 8/13/47 RT 15/oz. 1, 440 II ? Pelletreau 8/13/47 RT 15/oz. 1, 440 II ? II 10/10/49 RT 17 /oz. 1, 530 II headwaters II 7/11/53 RT 15/oz. 2,010 II ? II 7/1/54 RT 27 /oz. 1, 998 II ? Plummer 7/7/54 RT 29/oz. 3,045 II T31N, R7E, S9 t-' II II \...oJ 1969 EB 320/lb 960 ? Rattlesnake 1/26/79 SH 25/lb 500 TR ? South Fork 1930 SH ? 40,000 ? ? Trinity River 1932 SH ? 40,000 ? ? II 1932 RT ? 35,000 ? ? II 1932 LL ? 15,000 ? ? II 1933 SH ? 30,000 ? ? 1933 RT ? 10,000 ? ? 9/11/38 RT 30/oz. 40,000 Mt. Shasta ? r· 9/12/38 EB 8/oz 25,000 Mt. Shasta ? 8/14/39 RT 81/oz. 25,000 ? ? 717/40 SH 65/oz. 20,000 Mt. 31asta Forest Glen 8/13/47 RT 15/oz. 1, 440 II ? 8/11/50 RT 15/oz. 3,003 Mt. 31asta 1 mi. above Forest Glen 5/22/73 KS 97/lb 87,300 TR at mouth of East Fork South Fork 5/23/73 KS 97 /lb 87. 300 II II 5/24/73 KS 97/lb 281,300 II II

·. e e e

Table 2. Fish Stocking History of the South Fork Trinity Basin, 1930-1982 ( Cont' d)

Stocking Record

Number Creek Date Species-!/ Size of Fish Hatchery Planting Locality Trinity River 5/25173 KS 97 /lb 281,300 TR below bridge at Forest Glen " 11/9/76 KS 7.8/lb 19,500 " " " 11/10176 KS 7.8/lb 19,500 " "

1-' ~ .. · . . • ,.. . . 1"!,"' ·;· . :··..

\-lATER QUALITY

Temperature

It has been shown (Reiser and Bjornn 1979, Thompson 1972) that unfavorable temperatures could delay or prevent salmonids from completing their spawning . migration. The . South Fork Trinity Riv .er and Hayfork

Table 3. Hydro-thermographs in the &,uth Fork Trinity River Basin, 1982

Q:lte Installed Thermograph Location Agency

6-25-82 &,uth ForkTrinity River, 9 miles up­ CDF&G stream of Forest Glen (Ostrats)

6-25-82 &,uth Fork Trinity River, 9 miles CDF&G downstream of Forest Glen (Hidden Valley Ranch)

7-16-82 South Fork Trinity River, just up USFS - Hayfork District from mouth of El tapom Creek

7-16-82 South Fork Trinity River, at Wintoon USFS - Hayfork District Flat

7-15-82 Hayfork

7-14-82 South Fork Trinity River, 1/8 mile USFS -Lower Trinity above Madden District

8-12-82 South Fork Trinity River, above Grouse USFS - Lower Trinity

7-16-82 Grouse Q-eek, 150 yards above the USFS - Lower Trinity mouth of the creek District

7-22-82 South Fork Trinity River, at mouth USFS - Yolla Eblla District of East Fork &,uth Fork

7-22-82 East Fork of the South Fork Trinity USFS - Yolla Eblla District River, below mouth of Dark Canyon Creek

7-22-82 South Fork Trinity River, below USFS - Yolla Eblla District Bierce Creek

7-27-82 Dubakella Q-eek above mouth USFS - Yolla Bolla District

15 ...... ·. - ;o . · .· . . :=. :. . -...... ·. . . -~ ..

It is recommended that the thermographs be used every year, and their locations and time of placement standardized since temperature information collected over · several years could be very useful for understanding fish distribution in the basin. The temperature data could also be used for identifying future rehabilitation projects •

... . . PROPOSED SMALL . HYDROELECTRIC . DEVELOPMENT

Table 4 lists all streams in the &>uth Fork Trinity River Basin for which hydroelectric po~r developnent project applications have been filed.

Table 4. Streams in the &>uth Fork Trinity River Basin Filed on for &tall Hydro Developnent Projects

Creek FERC* Number

Madden 4547 Grouse 5013· 4992, 4907, 4419 El tapom Un , 4389, 4871, 4925 Butter 4879. 4396, 4837. 5015, 4076, 4837. 4959 Olsen 5532 2 Corral 4991, Un, 5808, Un ex , 4095, 4203 Big 6003, 4395, 4962, 4843, 4104, 5253 Gates 4095 Summit Un 14ingo 5700 Bear 4385 Swift 4952, 4516, 5585 Dubakella 6416

*FERC Faderal Energy Regulatory Commission ~Unnum~er;d Unnunbered and exempt for environmental assessment

WATERSHED REHABILITATION

Riffle Sifting

One of the main problems facing salmonids in the South Fork Trinity River is the lack of suitable spawning gravel. Gravel is available throughout the basin, but much of it is severely impacted with fine sediments. Therefore, the feasibility of using a riffle sifter to remove sediment from the river was explored. In a study on the Trinity River, this machine proved unable to satisfactorily remove significant amounts of the heavier sand from the riffle areas (Hubbell, 1973). Ho~ver, improved models of the riffle sifter now available may be more effective in sediment removal. The adhesive nature of the sediment particles in the river may make riffle sifting more difficult in the South Fork Trinity River than it would be in other streams which contain less adhesive materials. Also, the extensive distances of river which are impacted with sediments, access to these areas, and other logistics should be considered in evaluation of the riffle sifter as a means of sediment removal.

16 · ·· .. · ·. : ·.. ·· ·... • ; • ' - : {'.., .• l~ ...

Side Channel Development

The lack of quality spawning gravels. in the lower mainstem of the South Fork . Trinity River prompted a casual feasibility analysis of a spawning channel facility. Artificial spawning channels have been constructed on other anad­ romous streams. These structures often parallel the natural stream and are usually, constructed where conditions of gqod. .acces& ., channel stabili.ty_, w;;1ter . quality, etc. are met. An in-depth feasibility analysis of a S:luth Fork Trinity River artificial spawning channel was not possible because of time and monetary constraints. However, it is felt that serious consideration must be ~iven to the severe erosional problems in the lower basin. The mere bulk of sediment being transported from the tributaries on S:luth Fork t-buntain and the unstable floodplain deposits could have a detri:nental effect on any side channel developnent. Further study is necessary to determine if sedimentation and bedload movement will pose major problems in side channel developnent.

Streamside Incubation of Eggs

One of the major limiting factors for salmonid production in the lower portion of the S:luth Fork Trinity River (from Hyampom downstream to the mouth) is the lack of suitable spawning gravels. t-bst of the gravel in the mainstem South Fork Trinity River is highly compacted with fine sedi11ents. In some cases these gravels are probably cleansed when salmonids commence redd-building activities, but additional fine material is deposited when winter rains occur.

Recently, more emphasis has been placed on the use of streamside egg incubation boxes on northern California, , and Washington anadromous fish streams as a relatively inexpensive, 1 ow maintenance method of fry production. Incubation boxes have been shown to produce fry which compare favorably in size and condition to wild fry(Bams 1970, Allen et al1981), and are of greater quality than hatchery fry (Parkinson and Slaney 1975). Incubation boxes have the capability of providing an egg-to-fry survival rate five to ten times greater than natural production. The Six Rivers National Forest has been experimenting with incubation boxes since 1980 and have achieved a 98 percent egg-to-fry survival rate with steelhead trout (OVerton et al 1981).

The method for obtaining eggs to i.rnplement an incubation box program should receive considerable forethought. Assuming that natural fish stocks from the South Fork Trinity basin will be utilized, many questions arise as to the capturing, holding, and spawning of these fish. Two of the fish stocks that could greatly benefit by incubation boxes, spring-run steelhead and spring-run chinook salmon, are recognized as sensitive species. LaFaunce (1967) stated that many chinook salmon died from handling stress when they attempted a mark/recapture experiment in 1964. Therefore, the low numbers of these two species may preclude artificial fish management techniques.

Sediment Control

Roads, active landslides, and aggraded channel deposits are documented as being the largest sources of sediment in the watershed (Haskins, et al, 1980; Haskins, 1981; California Department of Fish and Game, 1982). Specifically, surface erosion off a road base, cut, or fill is a problem, especially adjacent to stream crossings. Additionally, older stream crossings often contain undersized culverts or do not have drop inlets or risers to prevent blockage and failure.

17 .. ·. . .- .. ;. •• ;... •_ !.1 ' • ... · ,..":; . ..-~· - .. ·~ . . . ., - ~ .. ./. ..

Many road systems on private lands are poorly maintained, and thus aggravate drainage problems. Also·, many of the older stream crossings on private lands were constructed with log fills and culverts which remain highly vulnerable to failure either through blockage, saturation, or decomposition.

Logging practices of the 1950's and 1960's have also resulted in sedimentation pr.oblems •. Ski-dding .1ogs:·UP drainages, pl.acing landings in draws, and cutting over large contiguous areas have led to cumulative impacts which persist even today.

Active lands! ides by far are the largest sedL'Ilent contributors in the watershed. The vast majority of these were initiated by the 1964 flood. Slides range from a few cubic yards to hundreds of thousands of cubic yards. The majority of active slides are located within tributary inner gorges and along the primary inner gorge of the South Fork Trinity River. Although many have become partially revegetated, portions do remain active and contribute sediment annually to the watershed.

To mitigate these sedimentation problems we need to first identify problem areas, then select an appropriate mitigation. Opportunities such as rocking roads, revegetating cuts and fills, out sloping road seg!'llents, reconstructing stream crossings, adding drop inlets or risers, identi fying unnecessary road segments which can be "put to bed," and stream crossings which can be pulled must be catalogued.

To stabilize landslides, intensive evaluations wil l be needed in order to identify opportunities based on probability of success, access, and cost. This will be no easy matter and the cost of w:Jrking with landslides which are even feasible to stabilize will be quite high.

Aggraded channel deposits occur both in tributaries and along the main channel. These deposits continue to be mobilized by seasonal high flows. Stabilizing these deposits through the introduction of riparian vegetation could be feasible within certain reaches, but again will have to be evaluated site specifically. The feasibility of stabilizing alluvial terrace deposits with gabions, riP-rap, or other structures should also be evaluated.

Migrational Barrier Modification

During the 1982 survey of the main stem South Fork Trinity River, a 6 foot falls was located in the gorge upstream of Hyampom. This partial barrier could be a problem for migrating spring-run chinook during low water flows.

When reviewing the file information for more data on this barrier, some confusion surfaced. Evidently, a partial barrier previously identified in the same area was modified. However, the photo documentation was not adequate to ascertain if the barriers are the same. This matter needs further investigation.

Pond Rearing

The massive quantity of fine sediment that impacts the rearing capacity of the South Fork Trinity River leads to the feasibility investigation of pond reari ng

18 .·.·· ... • • . 1" •• · •• ...... : • • • , .J. • • - ~ ~· ·~ · .

juvenile salmonids. Ponds have been used successfully on tributaries to the Klamath River, primarily for raising chinook salmon (Gallagher, Person. O:>m.).

To utilize pond rearing in the South Fork, several criteria have to be met. The locations should have a tributary with an adequate base now of cold water. The stream should also be moderately steep to provide the necessary head pressure for a free-flowing system. The. snaller facilities,like tho~e on the IQ.amath . River, use a fish species (chinook salmon) that does not require long-term rearing, whereas to rear steel head trout to s.nol t size they would have to be retained for at least a year. These ponds would also need to be monitored constantly for maintenance and predation problems. There is also the problem of where the fish will com~ from. To preserve the gene pool of the South Fork Trinity River stocks, the fish would have to be trapped in the system and spawned, hatched, and then transported to the pond sites. This could be a very expensive venture and handicapped by low spring-run chinook and spring-run steel head populations.

Rearing in Underutilized Tributary Reaches

Several tributary reaches have been identified in past stream surveys as being underutilized by present fish species, usually rainbow trout. These reaches are often located above anadromous fish migrational barriers. One of these areas is in Hayfork Creek, above the fish ladder that California Departrnent of Fish and Game removed because of passage problems (T. 1 N., R. 11111., S12). There are approximately 20 miles of stream above the ladder site which are presently underutilized that could be used for rearing anadromous salmonids. There are also many other tributaries that have barriers that could possibly be used as rearing areas. A survey of creeks with adequate base flows could reveal a significant quantity of underutilized area.

Stream Channel Modification

The Forest Glen and Hyampom Valley areas of South Fork Trinity River exhibit extremely long, shallow riffles that would be difficult to negotiate by migrating spring-run steelhead and spring-run chinook salmon. These areas also have high water temperatures and concentrated human activity. During years of low water, fish can be heard and seen going through these long rifnes and are highly vulnerable to anglers and poachers.

The feasibility of modifying the shallow riffles to facilitate fish migration should be investigated. If high water flows do not preclude heavy equipnent entry, the channel could be temporarily deepened by a bulldozer before the peak migr ation period (May, June, July) to ease passage. It might also be possible to place large boulders in the river to scour and deepen the channel. Although these modifications would have to be done seasonally, their benefits could be considerable. However, placement of boulders in the South Fork Trinity River and into some tributaries would probably be L~practical because of the almost annual channel changes. The situation is not analagous to Horse Linto Creek and other streams where this practice has shown value. The feasibility of installing other instream structures such as gab ions, H:!wi tt ramps, etc. to constrict and deepen the stream channel, should also be investigated.

19 '•\ . .. : . . ' . . ... : .. .}' . ~ - • • ~ :.. • ... ,...... ' ol•' • •

Rehabilitating Tributaries

. In the early sunmer of 1982, a meeting was held to discuss the problems of the. South Fork Trinity River basin and the steps to be taken to remedy those problems. It was decided that the tributaries of the river should be investi­ gated for future rehabilitation work because of the enormous sediment problems in the mainstem South Fork Trinity River. The evaluation criteria for the selection of tributaries was: 1) historical presence of fish, 2) basin erosional stability, 3) capability for bioenhanceability, 4) migrational problems, 5) ownership, 6) accessibility, 7) small hydro developnent and i'llpact, 8) diversions, and 9) general habitat suitability. Unfortunately, time constraints prevented the exploration of potential tributaries and the developnent of an evaluation matrix.

Personnel discussions, however, indicated several streams which warrant further attention for future rehabilitation work. Foremost is Rattlesnake Creek, a large tributary in the upper watershed which has a substantial sunmer baseflow during most years and was probably used in the past by spring-run steelhead and spring-run chinook salmon. This basin has a moderate a'llount of siltation from nunerous small slumps and landslides, but overall the lower reaches are in fair shape and have good fishery potential.

Hayfork Creek and several of its tributaries could also be improved for fishery production. Salt, Big, Barker, and Carr creeks are all large tributaries with fair populations of steel head trout. These streams run through private land with their lower reaches displaying a combination of impacts including riparian vegetation removal, water diversions, and grazing which may have limited fish production.

RECCMHENDA TIONS

1. The lv1odel Steelhead Advisory Committee should give further consideration to another emphasis species, the chinook salmon, in their management plan. The spring-run population of steelhead in the basin, for example, is so small that management would be difficult. The winter-run is more prolific, but very little is known about them. Juvenile steelhead are found throughout the basin, especially in the Hayfork Creek drainage. The adults of this run spawn in the spring, when high flows usually prohibit assessment of the spawning stocks. Therefore, quantification of these stocks will be very difficult and future management planning restricted.

Perhaps the Advisory QJmmi ttee should recognize all salmon ids (chinook, coho, and resident rainbow) as part of its organizational charter rather than steel head only. This will provide a more comprehensive management approach to restoration of the South Fork Trinity River anadromous stocks.

2. A major portion of the basin still needs to be surveyed for watershed rehabilitation opportunities. Old stream survey reports are not adequate to describe future rehabilitation possibilities. A specialty team consisting of a fish biologist, a hydrologist, and a geologist could accurately describe enhancement opportunities in the watershed. other specialists, as needed, could generate input to the specialty team, thus providing an interdisciplinary approach. Specific watershed rehabilitation projects must be identified.

20 ·.·· .•; .. :· ·. . .· ..: ...... ~ I . . :,· .. •::. ' :·.. ..

3. There should be a more coordinated attempt with other agencies to quantify and qualify the available fisheries habitat in the South Fork Trinity River basin with unnecessary duplications of effort. · Data on the miles of fish habitat available to different species, the a~ount and quality of spawning gravel in a given stream reach, and the acres of rearing habitat should be gathered during field surveys. This type of information is vital for cost/benefit analyses and future land .managem.ent planning.

4. A snorkelling survey of the mainstem South Fork Trinity River, from the East Fork of the South Fork to Hyampom, and lower Hayfork Creek should be conducted annually in late August. A count of the adult spring-run steel head trout and spring-run chinook should be made during these surveys.

5. Hydro-thermographs should be installed annually in the same locations and at the same time of year to collect baseline temperature data for the watershed.

6. Spawning survey efforts should be considered annually in the lower basin during the fall. Although these surveys result in only a limited amount of data, they are the best information available on fall-run salmon and steelhead with present survey techniques.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, R., K. Bauerfeld, L. Cowan, T. Burns, and J. Wilson. 1981. Salmon Natural Production Enhancement Prograrn, 1976 to 1978. Washington Dept. of Fisheries. Progress Rep. No. 105. 62 pp.

Bams, R. 1970. Evaluation of a revised hatchery method tested on pink and chLr!l fry. J. Fish. Res. &L Canada 27:1429-1452.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1982. South Fork Trinity River Salmon id Habitat Enhancement Studies. Prepared by California Department of Water Resources. 175 pp.

1974. Press Release, December 10, Region 1, Redding, CA, 2 pp.

California Department of Water Resources. 1979. !:outh Fork Trinity Watershed Erosion Investigation. fuer, K. and S. James Memorandum Report. 83 pp.

Freeze, L. and A. Taylor. 1979. Summary Report - !:outh Fork Trinity River Stream Survey, !:hasta-Tr ini ty National Forests.

Haskins, D. 1981. Effects of Valley Inner Gorge Mass Wasting Through Time, South Fork Trinity River, California. USFS, !:basta-Trinity National Forests. 17 pp.

Haskins, D., J. Brown, and P. Seidelman. 1980. A Preliminary Report on the Mass Wasting Processes, Geomorphic Zonation, and Landslide Hazard Analysis, South Fork t-buntain Schist, !:basta-Trinity National Forests. Unpublished In-house Report. 43 pp.

21 : . : , ...... ·.· ~ ·· ...... ··......

Hubbell, P. 1973. Program to Identify Anadromous Fishery Problems in the Trinity River Basin and Develop Bases for Correcting these Problems (Draft) • . California ~pt. Fish and Game. 56 pp.

Kucas, S. 1982. &lorkeling Survey -South Fork 'li-inity River. Shasta-Trinity National Forests. In Preparation.

LaFaunce, D. 1965. A Steelhead Spawning Survey of the Upper Trinity River System. Cali fbrn ia ~pt. of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Administrative Report No. 65-4, 5 pp.

1967. A King Salmon Spawning Survey of the South Fork Trinity River, 1964. California ~pt. of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Branch Administrative Report No. 67-10.

1980. "Spring-Run King Salmon, South Fork Trinity River. California ~pt. of Fish and Game, Memorandu.'!l, August 20, 1 pp.

Miller, E. 1975. A Steelhead Spawning Survey of the Tributaries of the Upper Trinity River and Upper Hayfork Creek Drainages, 1973. California ~pt. of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Mministrative Report No. 75-5, 8 pp.

1974. "Spring-Run King Salmon Survey on South Fork Trinity River." California Department of Fish and Game, r~morandun, September 23, 2 pp.

CNerton, K., W. Brock, J. Moreau, and J. Boberg. 1981. Restoration and Enhancement Program of Anadromous Fish Habitat and Populations on Six Rivers National Forest. Six Rivers Na tional Forest. 18 pp.

Parkinson, E. and P. Slaney. 1975. A Review of Fnhancement Techniques Applicable to Anadromous Gamefishes. Fish Management Report /166. British Col unbia Fish and Wildlife !ranch. 100 pp.

Reiser, D. and T. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat Requirements of Anadromous Salmon ids. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USFS, Portland. 54 pp.

Rogers, D. 1972. A Steelhead Spawning Survey of the Tributaries of the Upper Trinity River and Upper Hayfork Creek Drainages, 1971. California ~pt. of Fish and Ga:ne, Anadromous Fisherie:s Mministrative Report No. 72-12. 6 pp.

1973. A Steelhead Spawning Survey of the Tributaries o.f the Upper Trinity River and Upper Hayfork Creek Drainage, 1972. California Dept. of Fish and Ga'!le, Anadromous Fisheries Administrative Report No. 73-5A. 7 pp.

Thompson, K. 1972. Determining stream flows for fish life. In Proceedings, In stream Flow Requirement Workshop, Pac. Northwest River Basin Comm., Vancouver, WA. p. 31-50.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1960. Natural Resources of Northwestern California •

US Forest Service. 1977. Draft Environmental Statement, South Fork Mountain Planning Unit. 362 pp.

22 . , · -:- . ' .. ·: . . . ·: :. . ~ ; ..: "' ' .. .~ :. .. . , ·.· ... ·. ~ ...... •' :-:·.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

{k)n Haskins, Geologist' · Shasta-Trinity National · Forests ·

Millard Coots, retired, California Department of Fish and Game

Koll Buer, Geologist, California Department of Water Resources

Jerry Beddell, Manager, Trinity River Fish Hatchery

Ken Gallagher, Fish Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game

23