Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed Inventory Hayf ork Ranger District 1991-92 Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed lnventorv,, 1991-92
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service P.O. Box 159 Hayfork, California 96041 (91 6) 628-5227
Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Responsible Official: Karyn Wood, District Ranger Hayfork Ranger District
For Further Information Call: Annetta Mankins, Watershed Specialist Hayfork Ranger District
Prepared by: /'Ji Fi'ZJ ' --- ... -~e~---··- 1cfl.'L Forestry Technician ...__/ Oate
Reviewed uy:
Reviewed by: Date
Approved by: Date INTRODUCTION
This is a final report that summarizes assessment work by the Hayfork Ranger District on erosional problems on the Lower Hayfork Creek Subbasin of the South Fork Trinity River Basin. It includes descriptions of inventory work, data analysis, prioritization of specific problems, and recommendations on specific enhancement and restoration work projects.
The Trinity River Basin project began in 1984 with Public Law 98-541. The goal was to assist in the restoration of fisheries resources to conditions that existed prior to implementation of the Central Valley Project.
The Shasta-Trinity National Forests contracted with the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a basinwide watershed assessment of the South Fork Trinity River Basin. This basin falls under Action Item #6 of the annually updated Trinity River Basin Three-Year Action Plan. The South Fork Trinity River is located in Northern California in Trinity and Humboldt Counties. The Federal Government, principally the U.S. Forest Service, administers approximately 79% of the total basin area of 970 square miles. The balance, approximately 21%, is in private ownership. There are about 675 miles of stream course in the basin- approximately 90 miles in the South Fork itself, and 585 miles in tributaries.
Historically, the South Fork has enjoyed runs of salmon and steelhead in the tens of thousands. These runs were severely decimated by the flood of 1964. Pre-flood runs in excess of 10,000 adult chinook spawners have dwindled and leveled out at between 50 and 100 adult spawners. Natural erosion, and the devastating wildfires in 1987, have added to the potential habitat loss because of the large areas affected.
Sedimentation of the South Fork Trinity River and its tributaries poses a significant threat to fisheries and water resources on the Hayfork Ranger District. Inadequately designed road systems and burned stream channels have the potential to contribute large volumes of sediment. Under present conditions, there is high potential for the introduction of large amounts of sediment during moderate to large storm events .
The reduction of canopy cover along stream courses has increased the level of thermal pollution. The increase in direct solar radiation can produce large changes in the temperature of small streams (Brown , 1970). Water temperature is one of the most important environmental factors affecting fish because they are cold-blooded and their internal temperature must adjust to the temperature of the external environment (Lantz, 1970). N
FIGURE I Subbasins within the South Fork Trinity River basin Hayfork Ranger District Shasta-Trinity National Forest 17. Lower South Fork 18. Middle South Fork 21. Butter Creek 22. Rattlesnake Creek 24. Upper South Fork 27. Lower Hayfork Creek 28. Corral Creek 29. Tule Creek 30. Salt Creek 31. Middle Hayfork Creek 32. Big Creek 33. East Fork Hayfork Creek 35. Upper Hayfork Creek
The South Fork Trinity River Basin is divided into ten subbasins, (Figure 1) which include both private and federal acreage. (TRB) Subbasin #27 is the Lower Hayfork Creek Subbasin. Watershed department personnel of the Hayfork Ranger District have identified it as having a high priority for remediation project work.
Page 2 LOWER HAYFORK CREEK SUBBASIN
General Description and Location The Lower Hayfork Creek subbasin is located in the northwestern portion of the Hayfork Ranger District approximately between the towns of Hayfork and Hyampom in Trinity County (Figure 2). The subbasin includes a portion of Hayfork Creek and numerous tributaries i ncluding Mi ners Creek , Jud Creek, Rusch Creek, Olsen Creek, and Bear Creek. The 87 miles of watercourses in the subbasin drain approximately 69,582 acres, 48,147 (about 69%) of which are on Federal land. The remaining 21,435 acrgw are privately held.
The elevation ranges from approximately 1100 feet in the Hyampom area to 6271 feet at Pickett Peak. Hayfork Creek joins South Fork Trinity River near the town of Hyampom, California. This watershed could be best characterized as being a steep canyon , with sideslopes typically being 70 percent or greater. The Hyampom Road is located along the southern slopes of the watershed, for the most part, at midslope. The canyon north of the road is primarily unroaded.
The following 10 watershed compartments lie wholly or partially withing the Lower Hayfork subbasin: Jud Creek, Grassy Mountain, Deep Gulch, Corral Creek, Olsen Creek, Bear Creek, Miners Creek, Pasture Gulch, Drinkwater, and Rusch Creek.
Geology Generally speaking, extensive unstable areas are present within the entire South Fork Watershed. Active mass-wasting has led to local damage of soil productivity and significant stream channel degradation both in tributaries and within the main stem. These unstable areas include active landslides, valley inner gorges which have developed adjacent to incised channels and some dormant landslide features which are highly susceptible to further activation. The eastern portion of the Lower Hayfork Creek watershed is underlain by the Ironside Mountain Batholith which is composed of highly erodible diorite. The western half of the watershed lies generall y within the Rattlesnake Creek terrane. Both contribute to sign ifi cant local eros i on and sedimentation. Tributaries such as Jud Creek, Bear Creek, and many of the minor streams com i ng off the Hal f way Ridge and Pattison Peak areas drain the diorite, transporti ng significant amounts of sediment to Hayfork Creek. Within the Rattlesnake Creek terrane, there are a series of large Page 3 Figure 2- Location Map Lower Hayfork Creek Subbasin, #27 (Showing Watershed Compartment Boundaries)
,,,.. 1t6 -€:____,f\_ - ~S;mmojs r 7 Co~p a •1J t I '-·~,;; 1 Q ., " ! earthflows, some of which are presently active. Major earthflows are found within the Grassy Flat watershed, along the west side of the Olsen Creek watershed, and in the lower, southwest portion of the Lower Hayfork Creek subbasin. These earthflows have contributed to local channel instability and sedimentation.
Fisheries
The majority of Hayfork Creek within the Lower Hayfork Creek subbasin flows through a steep wooded canyon. Fish habitat within this stream section is good. Pool:riffle:run ratio is 35:25:30 with an abundance of Class A pools. Inpool shelter is good. A large percentage of sand (25%) is found in the pools. Spawning riffles are common, with the riffle substrate heavily weighted toward large gravel and rock. Potential spawning areas are generally free of sand, silt, and mud. The gorge is steep and narrow in many areas providing shade for the stream. Above the canyon, Hayfork Creek flows through lowermost Hayfork Valley where the stream becomes wide and shallow. Riffles and runs predominate and pool habitat is lacking in this portion of the creek.
In 1988, Hayfork Creek was surveyed for fish abundance and habitat condition from Nine Mile Bridge (T31N,R8E,S33) to approximately two miles upstream from Hyampom (T3N,R7E,S19). Although Hayfork Creek is generally considered a Class I stream because of winter steelhead production, some sections of the creek had no fish whatsoever. Other sections had habitat which favored dace over salmonids. It was observed that considerable sediment has filled in pools and reaches of low hydrologic energy.
Watershed
This basin has a history of problems related to excessive sediment production. Much of the problem is due to natural causes such as: bank cutting, rotational sliding, and debris flows as well as natural erosion on bare slopes on unmanaged land. This has been compounded by the widespread fires of 1987. Consequently, this watershed is highly susceptible to excessive sediment production.
The 1987 wildfires have increased the potential for rain-on-snow type storm events due to the creation of large contiguous openings greater than two square miles . These openings significantly effect snow accumulation and melt patterns, which can cause large storm events such as that which triggered the cumulative effects observed on South Fork Mountain during the 1964 floods.
Page 4 The Bear fire burned in the northwestern portion of the Lower Hayfork Creek watershed, in the vicinity of Rays Peak, and the Trinity fire burned within portions of the Grassy Flat Creek on the southern side of the watershed. Also, a portion of the Gulch fire burned within the Olsen Creek watershed. The effects of the Bear and Trinity fires are not expected to cause significant watershed problems due to their limited extent and lack of high intensity burn effects. However, Olsen Creek was severely affected by the Gulch fire. In spite of extensive BAER and post fire recovery work, this watershed is still considered vulnerable to cumulative watershed effects. The TOC for the lower Hayfork watershed is considered to be 16 percent ERA, while the projected levels are estimated to be 5 percent.
PROCEDURES
Overview
Initial review of aerial photos, topographic maps, and historical information gave a broad overview of watershed disturbances and identified areas of concern needing focused field evaluation. Hayfork District watershed field crews investigated potential sources of large volumes of sediment by surveying roads with stream crossings.
Roads
Inadequately designed forest roads , especially those that cross stream channels, have great potential for causing or adding to erosional problems. Numerous studies have concluded that in the temperate forest environment, poorly designed dirt roads are the largest sediment producing locations (Reid,1981, Madej,1982, Swanston, 1978). Fortunately , these probiems are more treatable than others such as large landslides. Stream crossing failures can be caused by clogged culverts or the inability of undersized culverts to handle high flows associated with large storm events. Bank erosion of stream channels in roaded, or burned over areas often occurs due to increased debris and sediment in the channel, or from increases in peak discharge. Headwater swale crossings often slump or slide out because of lack of drainage structures. Inboard ditches on insloped roads concentrate runoff diverting it out of its established drainage. These flows may contain large amounts of sediment from raveling cutbanks or they may discharge onto unprotected slopes causing gullies and landslides. Poorly designed or maintained roads may concentrate flows in rills over the side and rapidly erode fill slopes.
Page 5 It is critical to the long-term quality of fisheries habitat to prevent sedimentat i on of streamcourses caused by forest roads. Project work must be undertaken on many roads within the subbasin in order to floodproof them. This means to disperse the runoff generated by large storm events.
A variety of treatments are possible for erosional problems on roads, particularly at stream crossings. All culvert inlets should be protected from plugging by the installation of a trash rack or drop inlet. Large, driveable rolling dips near stream crossing culverts prevent diversions. The installation of additional or larger culverts, overside drains, downpipes, and waterbars disperses runoff. Rock dissipators at culvert outlets and removal of shotgun culverts reduces erosion of the fill slope. In some situations more aggressive insloping guides storm runoff into ditch relief culverts. Stream crossings of forest roads present many erosional problems, for which a variety of treatments are proposed.
Data Collection
Hayfork District watershed personnel systematically assessed all stream crossings of Forest system roads in the Lower Hayfork Creek subbasin. Field investigations of each site were conducted in order to identify those that met the following criteria:
-substantial potential for diversion of runoff
-existing and/or potential erosional problems associated with the road such as drainage or poor location
-potential road prism failure during large storm events
-groupings of lesser problems that, when considered together, had potential for significant sedimentation.
Each of these sites was visited and assessed by field personnel who recorded their observations and recommendations on a watershed inventory data sheet developed by geologists at Redwood National Park and adapted for use on the Hayfork Ranger District. This form documented erosional problems such as surface erosion, potential for plugging of culverts and subsequent diversion of runoff, gully i ng, and landsliding. The field data form also allowed the observe r to record s i te location and access information , the nature of the erosion problem and its activity level, and informat i o n assessing the potential for erosion. The quant i ty of f ill associated with each culvert , and volumes of past and
Page 6 potential future erosion, were recorded in order to be able to predict the amount of sedimentation that could be prevented by appropriate enhancement measures.
Data Analysis and Results Certain roads, identified in the field investigation as having numerous serious erosion problems, were selected for potential closure or obliteration. The Hayfork Ranger District engineering department reviewed these roads. Those that were determined to be needed for resource-related management activities in the foreseeable future were removed from the list. No through roads were selected. A total of 64 roads were selected for potential closure and 6 were selected for potential obliteration.
The field inventories generated a list of 111 individual surveyed sites. The original data sheets are on file at the Hayfork Ranger District, P.O. Box 159, Hayfork, California 96041. The information on the field data sheets was entered into a Lotus 123 database. The database was queried for factors such as: diversion potential, culvert size, future erosion potential, likelihood of culvert plugging, and quantity of fill volume. Using the criteria established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the query generated a worklist of problem sites in need of specific rehabilitation measures. Problem sites were withdrawn from consideration if they were slated for maintenance project work by the Hayfork Ranger District engineering department, or located on a road which might be obliterated or closed. The database then consisted of the remainder of the sites on the list (those not chosen for potential closure or obliteration). This was then queried a second time, producing an ir, ;~ ~tory of erosional problem sites prioritized according to the actual amount of sedimentation that could be prevented by completing the specified rehabilitation measures. This inventory was then examined by various Hayfork Ranger District personnel to verify the prioritization generated by the query process.
The end product was a distilled list of 31 individual reconstruction sites with the highest priority for improvement work aimed at reducing the highest amount of future sedimentation possible (Append ix C).
Page 7 POTENTIAL ACTIONS
Significant benefits to fisheries streams could be gained by completion of the following measures in the Lower Hayfork Creek Subbasin:
-Obliteration of 6 roads and/or spurs for a total of 4.3 miles
-Closure of 64 roads and/or spurs for a total of 41.1 miles
-Individual reconstruction projects on 31 specific road related erosion problem sites.
This total package of projects would result in the stabilization or erosion prevention of 90,138 cubic yards of sediment for a cost of $140,275 at a rate of $1.56 per cubic yard of sedimentation prevented. There are many other sites within the subbasin that are in need of treatment. However, given the foreseen funding levels, the projects which are proposed are those which are the most cost effective and beneficial to the anadromous fish habitat.
Specific locations of roads to be closed or obliterated, and individual reconstruction projects are indicated on maps of watershed compartments included in Appendix D.
Road Obliterations
The purpose of road obliteration is to approximate the pre existing topography and drainage patterns, effectively reducing the erosion caused by the existence of roads to zero. Although initially costly, it is considered to be the most cost-effective long-term treatment method in terms of the amount of sedimentation prevented per dollar spent.
Installation of rolling dips at strategic locations assists in dispersing runoff from the road surface. Removal of culverts restores the original channel to its pre construction configuration. Not only is the possibility of the culvert plugging and diverting runoff down the road prism eliminated, but the threat of stream channel crossing fill being subject to mobilization and transport downstream is removed. The installation of overside drains and flumes effectively removes water from the road surface without eroding the fill slope.
Ripping of the road surface to a minimum depth of 18 inches negates the effect of compaction thus reducing total runoff while improving infiltration. This, combined with mulching the
Page 8 ripped surface with straw, significantly speeds the re establishment of native vegetation and encourages the growth of trees planted as part of the treatment process.
Outsloping (or recontouring) the ripped surface of the road between stream crossings is a permanent erosion prevention treatment. It disperses runoff and minimizes the potential for future fill failures and surface erosion. Outlsloping does not divert or concentrate flow as do ditches, waterbars, or culverts, and requires no maintenance.
The potential obliteration of all 6 roads and spurs, for a total of approximately 4.3 miles or 12.9 acres of road surface restored to its natural landscape, would prevent approximately 23,220 cubic yards of sedimentation. This would cost $34,615 for an average cost of $1 .49 per cubic yard of erosion prevented. Appendix A consists of a complete list of roads that could possibly be obliterated.
One of the roads listed for potential obliteration (4N04A) is classified as Road Maintenance Level 2 which means that it is open only to use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. The five remaining roads are classified as Level 1 which means that they are currently closed to vehicle traffic.
Road Closures
Substantial benefits can be obtained by the closure of roads, both seasonal and permanent. Gates or barriers reduce damage caused by vehicle operation, especially during the wet season. Winter vehicle traffic can result in wheel ruts which aggravate or induce surface erosion, rilling, or diversion of surface runoff.
The closure of all 64 roads and spurs, for a total of approximately 41.1 miles would prevent approximately 59,184 cubic yards of sedimentation. This would cost a total of $94,530 for an average cost of $1.60 per cubic yard of erosion prevented. Appc ~ ~ ~ x B consists of a comp l ete list of roads that could possibly be closed.
Four of the r oads l isted for possible closure (2N12, 3N38, 32N29A, 32N30 ) classified as Road Maintenance Level 2 which means that they are open only to use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. All 60 remaining roads are classified as Level 1 which means that they are currently closed to vehicle traffic.
Page 9 Individual Road Site Reconstruction Projects There are 31 individual sites listed for possible reconstruction work on erosion problems associated with stream crossings and culverts. These sites are located only on through roads not listed for possible obliteration or closure. Specific measures include those mentioned above for road c l osures as well as realignment of culverts, seeding and mulching, and tree planting. Completion of all 31 specific projects, costi ng a total of $11 ,130 would prevent 7734 cubic yards of future sedimentation at a rate of $1.44 per cubic yard. Appendix C consists of a complete list of specific work project locations.
Page 10 ~pp _~p_cJ_i~e s
A- List of Potential Road Obliterations ' B- List of Potential Roa a Closures c- List of Potential Road Site Reconstruction Proiects
D- Maps of W~tershed Compartments (showing project locations) Appendi.x A T,0wer T-fRvf0rk Creek Subbasin- TRB #27 Possible Road Obliterations
,, # of Est.of ' '· CMP's Eros. T.Pngth Area to be Prev. Total Road (omp::i.rtment (mi . ) ( ;:ir. ) rmvrl (cu Yds) Cost ------4N04A 46-0Jsen Ck 0.3 0.9 0 1620 2415 3N20H 43-GrRSSV Mtn 0 . 5 1 . 5 1 2700 4025 3N41A 43-Grassy Mtn 0.2 0.6 0 1080 1f)10 3N07A ..J.2-.Turl C:k () . 7 2. 1 0 3780 5635 32N30A 48-Rear Ck 1.3 3.9 2 7020 10465 32N30B 48-BP. Average cost/ cub]c yard of erosion prevented: $1.49 (Total Cost includes 15% AdrninistrRtive Costs) e A.!>:r'P'!dix B Lower H,qvfnrk Creek Subbasin - TRR :it27 PotentiA] Ro Ari Closures Est of lfi% Length Erosion Adm in Tot.al Rn nrl \()mp :=ir tmPnt (\fil ..,. s) PrPvent 0 rl l o st Costs Cost ------1N03 42-Jud Creek 0.h Rf14 1 2 0 () 180 13RO 3N03A 42-Jud CrPek 0.2 2RR 400 60 460 3r-.rn7g 4 ? -.Turi \'.rPPk 1 . R ?fig2 3 f300 540 4140 3N07C 42-Jl}d Creek 1 . !) 2Jno 3000 450 3450 3N07D 42-Jnd \rPPk O.R 1 1 !) 2 1600 240 1840 3N07E 42-Jud Creek 0.4 576 .800 120 920 3N07F 4':'-T11rl rrPek 1 . 3 1R7? ?f100 1qo 2Cl90 3N07G 42-Jud Creek 0.4 576 800 ]20 920 3N01B 43-Grassv ~tn 0.1 144 200 30 230 3NOJD 43 - GrASSV Mtn 0.6 864 1200 180 1380 '.H.f () 1 F 4 3-Gr.<=1.ssy Mtn 0.3 432 nOO 90 690 3N04 43-Grassy Mtn 0.7 1008 1400 210 1610 3N04A 43-Gr.<:issy Mtn 0. 1 144 200 30 230 3N20A 43-Grassy Mtn 0.9 1296 ]ROO . 270 2070 3N20D 43-Grassy Mtn 0.5 - 720. - 1000 . 150 1150 e 3N20F 43-Grassy Mtn 0.7 1008 1400 210 1610 3N20G 43-Grassy Mtn 0.2 288 400 60 460 3N21A 43-Grassy Mtn 0.9 1296 1800 270 2070 '.'-lN21C 43-Grassy Mtn 0.5 720 1000 . 150 1150 3N21D 43-Grassy Mtn I. 0.4 ._576: ;; .! 8PO 920 '. -'., 120 3N22H 43-Gnissy Mtn· 0.2 288 400 f)O 460 3N34A 43-Grassy Mtn-. 0 . .3 432- ,600 90 ... 6~0 :--JN37 43-Grassy Mtn 0.6 8fl4 l.200 180 13-80 3N37A 43-Grassv Mtn -. 0.9 1296 1800 270 2070 3N3R 43-Grassy Mtn l. 2 . 1728 2400 360 2760 , ,. 3N38A 43-Grflssy Mtn 0.4 576 800 · ]20 ~20 3N39 43-Grassy Mtn 1. 1 1584 2200 · 330 '' 25 , ~0 ( . ~ 3N39A 43-Grassy Mtn 0.4 576 ,800 -- 120 ,920 3N20R 44-Dl?e p G11lr.h 0.4 57n 800 120 9.20 3N20C". 44-Deep Gulch 0.4 576 . 800 -. J 20 ' 920 3N28A 44-Deep Gulch 0.2 288 - 400 60 - 460 3N05A 46-0lsen Ck 0.4 576 800 120 · 920 3N05B 46-0lsen Ck 1- • 3- 1872 2600 - 390 - -2-9-90 3N05C 46-0lsPn Ck 0.7 1008 14-00 -. 210 16JO ) ~ 3N05F. 46-0]sen Ck 0.3 432 .600 . ,,._ 90 6_90 3N43 46-0lsen Ck O . ~ 7- 1008 1400 210 1610 .. • 3N54A 46-0lsen Ck .. . o-. 5 . 720 1000 150 ,J..150 . 3N57 46-0lsen Ck ·-. 0.3 432 _· 6 _00 ' 90 6 .90 - 4N03A 46-0lsen Ck ·l ~·J ! ':. ~ ·\ Oy 2 ·.:;,- ' 288 - 400 •:"> 60 .4·60 4N03R 46-0lsen Ck 0.2 '' 288 . 4~0 0 60 . 460 r: 4t\f2f) 46-0lsen Ck 0.7 1008 1,4-00 210 1610 4N2 6 _A 46-0lsen Ck 0. 2 - 288 400 60 4,60 5N60K 4f)-()l Sf'n Ck 0.6 - 864 ,1 ,2 0 0 '' 180 1380 32Nl4C 48-Bear Ck 0.8 llp2 · 1_600 . 240 18:40 - } .. 32N2ClA 48-Rear Ck 0 . ·6 ., ·8·64 :l.4_-00 r:1 \..; i · 180 , J .3JW 32N29B 48-Rear Ck -0 .• 4 576 800 ·- 120 _,_, 920 32N30 48-Bear Ck 3. 1 4464 ~200 _j_ 930 ' 71130 e 180 1380 4N08A 48-Bear Ck 0.6 864 1200 230 2N02A 57-Drinkwater 0.1 144 200 30 1150 2N02B !'>7-DrjnkwAter 0.5 720 1000 150 :mo 2300 2M1~ '1A-Rnsrh (' k 1 1440 2000 2N28 !18-Rusrh r:k 0.5 720 1000 150 1150 2N28A 58-Rusch \k 0. 1 144 200 30 230 2N35 58-Rusrh c J;- 0.8 11 R2 1600 ?40 . 1 840 2N35A. 58-Rusrh rk 0.7 1008 1400 210 1610 21\1191\ 58-Rusch Ck 0.3 432 f)00 90 690 1HJ10!\ "iR-R11c:rh ('le 0.5 7 2 0 1000 1 !'i o 1 1 !) 0 1Jl'Jl0R 58-Rncrh Ck 0.3 432 600 90 690 58-Rnsch Ck 1 . 4 2016 2800 420 3??0 ~1N66C 4370 3 1Nfi6D '18-Rusrh r1, 1 . 9 2736 3800 570 920 31N6f1E SH-Rn sr h Ck 0.4 576 800 1 ?0 1840 32N11A 58-Rusrh Ck 0.8 1 1 fi 2 1600 ? 4 () 32N11\: R8-Rusch Ck 0.6 8f)4 1200 l 8() 1380 1380 32N1JD 58-Rusrh \:k 0 . f) 864 1200 180 ------'T'ota]s: 4 1 . 1 59184 $82.200 512.:no $94,530 r11. Yrls. $1,GO Total Cost. per Cubic Yflrrl of Ero~d on Preventred: e \ Appendix C ~ ower Havfork Cref>k Snbbasj n. 'J'RB 1±27 ~ otential Road Site -Reconstruction ~roi~ct~ IMP f) i". Pl110.· F.st . nf lost Lnr'.a t j on Dj ;:im. Pnt.? Pot. Sdmnt. Total per (Site) rnmr:>;:i rtmt=?nt. ( in. ) (Y/N) (L,M,H) Prev. Cost Cu.Yd. ------~---- · ------1l\T07H-1 42-.T11rl CrPPk 1 1 7 ?SO 2. 14 3N07-1 .1A 42-J11rl rrPPk ·r, 218 150 o.69 3N07-1f) 4?-.T11rl (' r pr-- k .'~ () y \,( 1 0 7S 7.50 :iN07-21 42-.T11rl ('rpp ];- 48 l\.f H 54 7S l. 39 3N07-22 42-.Tnrl CrPe k ?4 v tvf :rn 60 2.00 1~07- 2.i 42-.T11rl (' rPP k T .1 () 4 s 1 . ;::; n 3N07-2-1 42-Jurl Crf>f>k 20 y H ;::; 3 120 2.26 3N07-2fi 42-.Jnrl CrPPk 1 8 y H 74 250 3. :rn .1N07-26 42-J11d Crt?!ek 24 y M 4fl .'i 3 4;::; 0.75 :il\!07- ? 7 42-J11rl Cre ek 72 N M 444 1SO 0. 7Cl 3N07-13 4 2-.Jnrl CrPek 1 4 ------~------31 Sites 77~4 $ J 1 ,130 $1 .44 Cu.Yds. . .. (Total Cost incJudPs 15% Administ.r;:it.ive Costs) M_~s oL.KaJ:e:r... s.Q.ed (()Jl}2~K.:tll!ent _$_ _(showin_q 2.rQject _lQ_gations) 42- Jud Creek 43- Grassy Mountain 44- Deep Gulch 45- Corral Creek 46- Olsen Creek 4.R- Bear Creek 40- Miners Creek 50- Pasture Gulch 57- Drinkwater 58- Rusch Creek Legend ' e JN24- 7 • Rttonst S•t~ • ·" 2N4$ - Road Obl1t JN289 • Rood CIOH ""' a .s% 0 u >, "'O c e VJ c j VJ QI ] l 0 I I.... CJ' QI ... <.:> _J ~ ~ .: ~ . ~ I ~ " ~ t') • I ' 2N45 • Rood Oblit. 3N288 - Rood CloH ~~· / - \ · / ~. / - - ·~ - . .J -~-.::::.-r--_ Creek 1;-S7 Legend I · 1.t' e 3N24- 7 • Reeon:tl. Stte ' I 2N<4-~ - Road Obht. .~ lur' 'r,' . . .. ___ , ·,~"' .....: