Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed Inventory Hayf Ork Ranger District 1991-92 Lower Hayfork Creek Watershed Lnventorv,, 1991-92
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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).