TRTNITY RIV ER BASIN

us TRINITY cou.r. y IIB~ARY RESOURCE LIBRARY

\VE • '' , .. ~ ' Library
• FS- ST Use
Only
S6

1992

• Soldier Creek
Watershed lnventorY
• · 1991-92

• USDA Forest Service

Pacific"' S9u!.hw~.§l. Regipn
'':- · ·····.:1:;·'·' .,,

Shast~1Trinity National Forest

•
Big Bar Range Dist~ict

•
• Soldier Creek
TRINITY RIVER BASIN
RESOURCE LIBRARY

Watershed Inventory
1991-92
• Big Bar Ranger District
Shasta-Trinity National Forests
Trinity County, California

• Lead Agency:
USDA Forest Service
Star Route 1, Box 10
Big Bar, California 96010
• Cooperating Agencies:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

• Responsible Official:
Charley Fitch, District Ranger
Big Bar Ranger District
Shasta-Trinity National Forests

For Further Information Contact:

Linda Spencer McCaslin, Biological Technician (Fisheries)
Big Bar Ranger District
Shasta-Trinity National Forests

• Abstract: This document is a progress summary of watershed assessment work completed during fiscal year
1991-92 by the Shasta-Trinity National Forests under a contractual agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation.
The purpose of this work was to identify existing and potential erosion problems in the Soldier Creek watershed
on the Big Bar Ranger District and develop a prioritized list of project areas to address identified problems .

• Prepared by: ~e-~

Forestry Te~
Date: llf&dz 2 1l??:Z 7

Reviewed by: ~Ndf&h

~ilSCientist
Date:
3/;;i--/c;z_
I

•
Approved by:
~~ Distric anger
Date: y~~z
7

•
•
•
Soldier Creek
• Watershed Inventory
1991-92
•
USDA Forest Service
• Pacific Southwest Region
Shasta-Trinity National Forest
•~ Big Bar Ranger District

•
•
•
Contents

• SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... !
Purpose ............................................................ .......................................................................... 1
Inventory and Results ................................................................................................................. 1
Recommended Watershed Treatments ........................................................................................ 1

• BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 1
Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 2

STUDY AREA ............................................ ................................................ ... ................................. 2

Geography ............................................................... ................................................................... 2
• Logging and Road building ......................................................................................................... 2
Geology ............... ...................................... ............. ............ ....................................................... 2
Soil Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 3
Hydrology .................................................................................................................................. 3
Fisheries ......................................................................................................... ............................ 3
• PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................................... 4
Aerial Photos ............................................. ...... ............................. .............................................. 4
Field Inventory and Site Analysis ............................................................................................... 4
Data Analysis and Results .......................................................................................................... 5
• Prioritization Criteria ................................................................................................................. 5

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 6
Prescribed Treatments ................................................................................................................ 6
Maintenance Recommendations ................................................................................................. 8
• CONCLUSION .............................................. .................................................................................. 8

REFERENCES ............................................ ............................ ........... ............................................. 8

• APPENDICES
A. Watershed Inventory Data Sheet
B. Project Priorities
C. Maps of Proposed Project Sites

•
•
•

•
•

•
•
• SUMMARY
Purpose
• The Soldier Creek watershed assessment project
was undertaken to develop both an inventory of
sources of sediment and a practical, cost-effective
plan for the prevention and control of erosion on
• Forest Service lands, Bureau of Land Manage-
ment lands, and private land holdings within the
basin. Recommended projects are designed to
enhance the long-term, permanent recovery of
anadromous, fish-bearing stream channels.
• tional $3,630. The low priority for immediate
Inventory and Results
Approximately 38.9 miles of roads in the 7530
• acre study area were mapped and inventoried for
existing and potential erosion problems that
threaten to deliver sediment to stream channels
·-
and adversely impact anadromous fisheries re-
sources.
Following field review and identification of po-
tential project work sites a computer database of
182 inventoried sites was developed in which each
• site was identified and described in detail. This
database was queried and the resulting informa-
tion was used to prepare a prioritized list of
problem sites and recommended treatment projects.
• A total of 40 sites were identified as having present
or potential erosional problems that, if left
untreated, could lead to the introduction of a total
of 8470 cubic yards of sediment to local stream
channels.
• significant quantities of sediment to fish-bearing
Recommended Watershed
Treatments
• Watershed assessment work has lead to the devel-
opment of 40 recommended work sites. Nine sites
have been classified as having either a high or
moderate need for immediate treatment. Recom-
• -- 1 --
mendations for treatment of these sites include
brief descriptions of appropriate erosion preven-
tion measures and cost estimates for performing
the treatment work .
Treatment of all nine high and moderate priority
sites is expected to prevent 4840 cubic yards of
sediment from entering streams and being deliv-
ered to Soldier Creek. Total costs for treatment of
the high and moderate priority sites are estimated
to be $26,845. Treatment of the remaining 31 low
priority sites, which would prevent 1861 cubic
yards of potential erosion, would cost an addi-
treatment, combined with the nature of proposed
treatment work, indicates that these remaining 31
sites might best be treated as maintenance projects.
BACKGROUND
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 For-
ests contracted with the United States Department
of Interior Bureau of Reclamation to conduct an
assessment of watershed conditions in the Soldier
Creek watershed and to plan appropriate erosion
control projects. The Soldier Creek watershed
falls under Action Item #5 of the Trinity River
Basin Three-Year Action Plan .
The purpose of a watershed assessment and ero-
sion control planning project is to identify sources
of sediment which have the potential to deliver
streams, and to outline erosion control and preven-
tion measures designed to reduce the quantity of
sediment delivered. The focus is limited to the
identification and prioritization of the major, cost-
effectively treatable, potential sources of erosion
and sediment yield that are most likely to directly
impact fish bearing streams if left untreated.
• Objectives 35 to 70 inches and the mean annual temperature
is 52 degrees Fahrenheit. Of the 38.9 miles of
roads in the area, 32.3 miles are Forest Service
The objective of this watershed assessment project

• was to perform an inventory of existing and poten-

tial sediment sources to local streams within the
roads, 2.3 miles are Bureau of Land Management
roads, and 4.3 miles of roads are private.
Soldier Creek watershed, and to develop a priori-
Vegetative cover is quite variable as influenced by
tized listing of cost-effective erosion control and
various factors such as slope gradient, aspect, and
prevention projects. These projects are aimed at
soil characteristics. Throughout much of the area
• accelerating the long-term, permanent recovery
and protection of anadromous, fish-bearing stream
vegetative cover is primarily mixed conifer forest,
dominated by Douglas fir, associated with pon-
channels.
derosa pine, sugar pine, and a vigorous hardwood
understory of madrone, tanoak, and canyon live
This inventory focused on wildland erosional prob- oak. Abundant digger pine, canyon live oak, and
• lems including roads. The road network provides
ready access for equipment to reach work sites.
incense cedar characterize harsh sites particularly
on south to southwest aspects and elsewhere below
Roads, especial! y those that cross stream channels, about 2000 feet.
are the cultural feature with the greatest potential
for erosional problems. They are the most serious,
• and readily treatable sources of sediment. Logging and Roadbuilding
An accurate, prioritized list of treatable areas, such
In 1965 approximately 25 million board feet of
as stream crossings and log landings on roads
timber were harvested and seven miles of roads
located low on the hillslope, is essential in deter-
• mining potential work sites for watershed stabili-
zation. Potential sediment lost from these roads
were constructed on the Rat Gap Sale. The Ranch
Sale in 1985 produced 1OMBF with 1. 7 5 miles of
roads built. Over the years there have been
generally reaches watercourses due to the close
numerous small salvage sales in this area, with all
proximity of these roads to stream channels.
cutting by individual tree marking within salvage

• STUDY AREA
prescriptions. The Forest Service plans to imple-
ment the Divide Sale in 1992. This sale will
involve approximately 99 acres of clearcuts and
1.5 miles of new road construction.
Geography
• The study area consists of the Soldier Creek
watershed on the Big Bar Ranger District of the
Geology

Shasta-Trinity National Forests, in Trinity County, In general, the geomorphology of the project area
California. It covers an area of approximately appears to have been influenced by widespread

• 7530 acres. The watershed lies on primarily north-

to-east-facing slopes, although all aspects are rep-
resented in the area due to dissection by the major
streams and their tributaries. Elevations range
from 1500 feet adjacent to the Trinity River to
regional faulting and shearing. Nested rotational
slides and ''hummocky'' earthflow features are
prevalent along faults, within shear zones, and
along lithologic contacts. There is inner gorge
development along the major streams, where de-

• 5000 feet in the upper reaches of the watershed.

According to the Divide Timber Sale Report-
1983, which is on file at the Big Bar Ranger
District office, annual precipitation ranges from
bris sliding and surface dry-ravelling are dominant
processes posing significant hazards. Steep upper
watershed concave "headwall" slopes are
susceptable to debris sliding and dry ravelling.

• -- 2 --
• Mass wasting occurrs primarily on toeslopes, adja-
cent to streams and wet areas. The inherent
instability of numerous land forms significantly
increases the potential for natural and manage-
• ment-related mass wasting.
Soil Characteristics
• Soils were identified from the Shasta-Trinity Na-
tional Forests Order 3 Soil Survey Maps compiled
in 1983. Copies of these maps are stored attheBig
Bar Ranger District office. The predominate soils
• in the Soldier Creek watershed are the Neuns very
gravelly loam and associations of the Neuns with
other soils, mainly Goulding, Deadwood, and
Hugo. The locations of these soils are mixed
throughout the watershed.
• The Neuns and associated soils occur at elevations
of from 1500 feet to 5000 feet on generally very
steep (60 to 80 percent) dissected mountain
sideslopes. General soil depths are up to 23 inches
• over highly fractured, slightly weathered, meta-
morphic rock. Dunnings Site Index classes (tim-
ber site classes) range from 3 to 5 and typical
vegetation is a Douglas fir-pine-mixed conifer
• forest with adapted species of Douglas fir, pon-
derosa pine, and sugar pine. Due to relatively low
available water content in the soil, plantability is
low and the potential for seedling survival is low
to moderate. The erodibility of these soils is
• generally low, while the compaction hazard and
potential for roadbed damage are both moderate.
Other soil types are present in lesser quantities and
in widely scattered locations. Weitchpec and the
• Weitchpec-Dubakella association are found in the
Carter Ranch area and in the upper reaches of
Soldier Creek near Hayfork Divide on slopes of
from 40 to 80 percent. Soil depth can be up to 25
inches over highly fractured ultramafic rock. Tim-
• ber site classes range from 4 to 5. Typical vegeta-
tion consists of Jeffrey pine, incense cedar, Dou-
glas fir, and species associated with chaparral.
Soil erodibility, compaction hazard, and potential
• -- 3 --
roadbed damage are moderate to high. Plantability
and expected seedling survival are moderate.
Speaker gravelly loam can be found along the
lower reaches of Soldier Creek in the vicinity of
Bell Gulch, and, in lesser quantities, in the Mill
Creek area. Soil depth is up to 26 inches over
highly fractured, slightly weathered, metavolcanic
rock. Vegetation typically consists of Douglas fir,
ponderosa pine, and sugar pine. The timber site
class is from 2 to 3. Soil erodibility is moderate
and compaction hazard and the potential for road-
bed damage are both high. While plantability is
low, seedling survival expectancy is moderate.
Speaker soils are generally found on slopes of
from 40 to 80 percent.
Hydrology
Soldier Creek and all other streams within the
study area are characterized by rocky and cobbly
channels, moderately steep to steep channel gradi-
ents, and very steep banks and sideslopes. The
lower reaches have somewhat less steep gradients,
sideslopes, and channel banks. Water quality is
generally considered to be good.
Inherent watershed sensitivities are moderate based
upon peak flows, soil types, and geology. Existing
disturbance levels, expressed as equivalent road
area (ERA) values are well below assumed thresh-
old levels. Although natural and management-
related watershed impacts have been observed,
cumulative watershed impacts do not yet appear to
be significant. However, the potential for cumu-
lative effects is a concern during consideration of
any proposed management activity .
Fisheries
Soldier creek is rated as a Class II stream support-
ing a moderate population of juvenile steelhead in
the lower reach and a small population of rainbow
trout above. In 1980, a fisheries habitat stream
• survey was conducted on Soldier Creek. A copy
of this survey is stored at the Big Bar Ranger
District office. Soldier Creek was visually sur-
• veyed on foot from the mouth to a point three miles
upstream.
Fish habitat was rated fair overall with the lower
two miles of stream providing access to migrating
• steelhead. Few spawning areas and a low pool-to-
riffle ratio (25:75) were the primary factors limit-
ing fish habitat. Pools formed by rocks and logs
averaged eight feet in diameter and had fair fish
cover. Dense canopy cover (70%) was provided
• by alder, maple, yew, and Douglas-fir. Aquatic
insects and vegetation were common. Juvenile
steelhead and resident trout were common (301100
feet) in the lower reach. Trout fry were also
occasionally observed in the lower survey reach.
• emphasis on roads located along streams and roads
PROCEDURES
Aerial Photos
• The analysis of the watershed condition in the
Soldier Creek basin began with the assembling of
historic aerial photos. Acetate overlays attached to
each photo were used to record site information.
• Analysis of the photos detailed the following
information:
a. road locations,
• b. landslide locations and mass movement
history,
c. road-related erosion such as stream cross
ing washouts, gullies, and landslides,
• d. expected locations of all stream crossings.
Aerial photos were analyzed to delineate the worst
existing erosion sources, and to provide evidence
• of how landuse, road construction, road mainte-
nance, and storms have each influenced erosion
processes in Soldier Creek and its main tributaries.
This analysis was also used to locate areas where
• -- 4 --
more detailed field inventories could more effec-
tively identify existing and potential, treatable
erosion sources.
Field Inventory and Site Analysis
Big Bar watershed specialists systematically sur-
veyed most roads within the Soldier Creek water-
shed. Portions of some roads, located in the central
and western parts of the Soldier Creek drainage
were not included in the assessment because per-
mission for access through private land was not
granted .
A total of 182 potential problem sites, including
each culvert on all surveyed roads in the basin, was
assessed. The assessment was conducted with the
with a number of stream crossings. This was the
most time consuming element of the assessment
project. Existing and potential erosion problems
were identified and described along every road in
the assessment area. Roads with many sites likely
to contribute sediment were investigated as well as
those farther away from fish-bearing streams where
potential work sites are less common.
A variety of data was collected for each field site .
Appendix A shows a copy of the three-page data
sheet that was completed for each of the 182 sites.
Basic information was recorded for each site,
including an assigned site number and its location,
date of assessment, air photo information, and ease
or difficulty of access to the site.
Depending on the classification of a site (stream
crossing, debris slide, gully, etc), different por-
tions of the form were filled in with the relevant
information. The three site classifications were:
Sheet 1, Sheet 2, and Sheet 3:
Sheet 1 sites include those that have either
delivered, or have a definite potential to
deliver eroded sediment to stream channels in
the future. These sites are the ones most
likely to damage fisheries resources down-
• stream by delivering significant volumes of
eroded sediment. This is particularly true for
sites on roads that are abandoned or under-
maintained. Roads that are not sufficiently
• maintained may eventually wash out at every
stream crossing during large storm events.
Sheet 2 sites consist of both stream crossings
and ditch relief culverts (cross drains) that
• have either a history of past erosion or the
potential for future erosion but are not ex-
pected to deliver sediment to local streams.
Sheet 3 sites include landslides, fill failures,
• gullies,and surface erosion sites that have no
past history or future potential for delivery of
sediment to streams. Erosion at these sites
has, or could cause, local hillslope damage,
disruption of road systems, and loss of site
• productivity, but will not significantly im-
pact fisheries resources.
Brief prescriptions for actual treatment measures
were also recorded on the data sheets for each site.
Each form had space provided for the field inves-
tigator to sketch and describe the erosional
problem(s) and to recommend one or more alter-
natives for specific project work designed to either
• reduce or eliminate the cause of erosion. A
common example of an identified problem would
be for the inlet to a culvert at a stream crossing to
be partially crushed and plugged with debris. This
reduced capacity and plugging would likely cause
• runoff to be diverted and erode part or all of the
loose fill associated with the crossing. In this
instance, the field investigator would likely rec-
ommend that the inlet to the culvert be repaired
and that loose fill or debris plugging it be removed.
• Simple measures such as these are often all that is
needed to prevent the delivery of a considerable
amount of sediment to local streams. For more
complex problems, a sketch can be made, and
more involved treatment methods can be outlined.
• The original data sheets are on file at the Big Bar
Ranger District, Star Route 1, Box 10, Big Bar,
California 96010.
• -- 5 --
Data Analysis and Results
Information from the field data forms was then
entered into a Lotus 123® computer database. This
database included information on all 182 sites
inventoried whether they had erosional problems
or not. The data was queried to develop a list of
sites requiring restoration work. The result was a
narrowed-down list of 40 sites with specific, treat-
able erosional problems.
Prioritization Criteria
Not all sites with erosional problems have the
same need, or urgency, for treatment. Many sites
show potential for substantial future erosion and
sediment delivery, but the liklihood of the erosion
occurring is low. In some cases, such erosion is
dependent on the occurrence of an extremely large
storm. In other cases, the erosion may be immi-
nent, but the site may be a long distance away from
a stream channel that could be damaged. These
could be classified as having a relatively low
treatment immediacy. In contrast, sites which
have a high potential for significant erosion and
sediment yield in the near future, or are already
contributing sediment to a stream, would be clas-
sified as having a relatively higher need for imme-
diate treatment.
The 40 identified work sites on the list were then
sorted into three categories of priorities for erosion
control and prevention treatment needs (high,
medium, and low) based on the following criteria:
High Priority Sites - all those described on
Sheet 1 of the field inventory form. These
have delivered, or are likely to deliver, if
not treated, some sediment to fisheries streams.
These are the sites with the highest potential
for causing damage to fisheries resources and
the highest need for immediate treatment.
Medium Priority Sites - all sites found on
Sheet 2 of the field inventory form with
stream crossing or ditch relief culverts a high
•
RECOMMENDATIONS
Appendix B outlines the resulting final prioritized
• list of problem sites and associated project work.
Nine of these sites are categorized as having either
a high or moderate priority for project work.
Treatment of all nine sites is expected to prevent
approximately 4840 cubic yards of sediment from
• entering streams.

The Big Bar Ranger District recommends that

funding from the Trinity River Restoration Project
be used to implement proposed project work on all
• nine high and moderate priority sites. The total
cost is estimated to be $26,845. This represents a
cost of $3.17 per cubic yard of sedimentation
prevented. Implementation of project work is
scheduled for the 1993-94 field season .
• It is also recommended that the single site located
on private land be referred to the United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser-
vice for further investigation and specific recom-
• mendations on treatment project work. Copies of
this report and the appropriate data sheets will be
provided to the Soil Conservation Service.
Photo 1 - Th is large slide at Site #47 on Road 33N47 has a
high priority for treatment. Sediment traps , revegetation,
and restoration of the road drainage will prevent 1350 cubic

• yards of further sedimentation.

Prescribed Treatments
or medium potential for plugging during a
large storm. These do not have the same Erosion control and prevention work prescribed in
immediate need for treatment as high priority this report focuses on treating high and medium

• sites because they are not expected to actually

deliver sediment to downstream fisheries.
Low Priority Sites - either those found on
Sheet 2 having culverts with a low potential
• for plugging, or those found on Sheet 3,
consisting of sites that have no past history or
future potential for delivery of sediment and
will not likely impact fisheries resources.
priority sites located primarily along forest roads.
Most erosion problems in the Soldier Creek water-
shed are associated with stream crossings or ditch
relief culverts in these types of areas:
· in accessible hillslope locations,
· along low order stream channels,
· in steep headwater swales, and
·along steep, potentially unstable inner gorge
slopes accessed by existing road systems.

• Field measurements indicate that treatment of

these 40 sites could could prevent the introduction Proposed treatments for these sites are designed to
of a total of 8470 cubic yards of sediment to local significantly diminish sediment inputs to the chan-
stream channels. nel system during future major (generally 25-

• -- 6 --
• nel system during future major (generally 25-
year) storm events. A variety of procedures will be
used to stabilize and reduce accelerated erosion in
• this watershed. Each of the treatments prescribed
has been tested and evaluated in erosion control
and prevention projects in nearby north-coastal
amount of erosion.
Debris removal. During a storm, debris and
sediment poised above a stream crossing can
be rapidly transported downhill and plug an
otherwise fully functional culvert.

watersheds (Watershed Restoration in Redwood Ditch cleanout. Inboard ditches are de-
signed to transport runoff from cutslopes
above a road to culverts and eventually to
• natural stream channels. When the ditch
becomes clogged with sediment or debris, the
runoff can be diverted across the road and
erode the road surface, or it can be trans-

• ported to the culvert and plug the opening .

Dissipators. Runoff from a culvert outlet

can erode fill material below the culvert and
initiate rilling and even gullying. Placement

• of several rocks on the surface below the

outlet can dissipate the force of the runoff and
prevent the erosion.

Photo 2 - Another typical low priority/maintenance problem,

Channel Armoring. Stream channels above

• this culvert outlet extension at Site# 1 on Road 33N51 needs

to be reattached.
or below crossings can often be lined or

National Park, 1990).

Proposed treatment methods can be effectively
• implemented using a combination of heavy equip-
ment and hand labor. Specifically, the proposed
projects include the following methods:

Culvert repair. Often the opening becomes

• crushed by rocks or vehicle traffic. This
restricts the capacity of the culvert to handle
the design volume of runoff. The opening
then needs to be re-shaped .

• Culvert inlet or outlet clean-out. When

culverts become plugged with rocks, sedi-
ment, or debris, the culvert capacity is de-
creased and the flow of runoff can erode the

• fill associated with the culvert or be diverted

down the road causing surface erosion and/or
rilling. Cleaning out the openings on either Photo 3 - The lid on this drop inlet at Site #18 on Road 33N51
needs replacement. This is a typical low priority problem that
end of the culvert can prevent a significant should be treated as routine maintenance.

• -- 7 --
• armored with locally available rocks in order
to prevent further down-cutting, side-cut-
ting, or gullying. This is a labor-intensive
process and is only warranted if the amount of
• sedimentation prevented is significant.
Sediment Traps. Often, when sedimenta-
tion has occurred or is expected, small rock or
log dams can be constructed in stream chan-
• nels to trap further sediment and prevent it
from being transported downstream. Be-
cause of the wide variety of methods used,
projects involving sediment traps are best
designed by experienced technicians .
•
Maintenance Recommendations
A program of regularly scheduled maintenance of
• roads can prevent a significant amount of sedi-
mentation. Failure to maintain drainage structures
(such as culverts) and stream crossing or ditch
relief facilities can, over a period of years, result in
eventual stream crossing failure and washout.
Also shown on Appendix Bare proposed treat-
ments for 31 low priority erosional problem sites.
These are either sites that have culverts with little
• potential for plugging or other non-road related
sites with little or no potential for delivery of
sediment to streams. Erosion at these sites is not
expected tosignificantlyimpactfisheriesresources.
• The Big Bar Ranger District recommends that
treatment of these low priority sites be incorpo-
rated into future routine road maintenance plans
and that the cost be borne solely by the Forest
Service.
• Assessment Report. September, 1991 .
CONCLUSION
The assessment of the Soldier Creek watershed led
• to the development of a list of 40 erosional prob-
lem sites with recommended treatment measures.
Of these 40 sites, 9 are recommended for treatment
in the 1993-94 field season. Treatment of these
• -- 8 --
sites, using funds from the Trinity River Restora-
tion Project, will cost $26,845 and will prevent the
introduction of approximately 4840 cubic yards of
sediment to local streams. It is recommended that
the remaining 31 sites be treated as maintenance
work paid for by the Forest Service. This mainte-
nance work would prevent an additional 3630
cubic yards of sedimentation.
A project proposal detailing the recommended
treatment work will be submitted to the Trinity
River Restoration Project in fiscal year 1992.
REFERENCES
Bryant, L. USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity
National Forests. Soils and Watershed- Divide
Timber Sale Report, 1984.
California Department of Fish and Game, USDA
Forest Service, and California Trout, Inc. Model
Steelhead Stream Demonstration Project Plan.
September, 1985.
California Department of Water Resources. South
Fork Trinity River Watershed Erosion Investiga-
tion. November, 1977.
Haskins, D. and Irizarry, R. A Holistic Appraisal
of Cumulative Watershed Effects on Watershed
Condition and Fisheries, South Fork Trinity River,
Northwestern California. August, 1988.
Pacific Watershed Associates, Arcata, California.
New River and Big French Creek Watershed
Spreiter, T. Watershed Restoration in Redwood
National Park. Redwood National Park, August,
1990.
Trinity County Task Force Technical Coordinat-
ing Committee. Three Year Action Plan Fiscal
Years 1991-93. August, 1990.
• Trinity County Task Force Technical Coordina-
tion Committee. Three Year Action Plan Fiscal
Years 1989-91. August, 1989.

• USDA, Forest Service, Big Bar Ranger District.

Canyon Creek Watershed Inventory. 1990.

USDA, Forest Service, Big Bar Ranger District.

Soldier Creek Stream Survey. May 14,1980.
• USDA, Forest Service, Hayfork Ranger District.
Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Inventory 1990-91.
July, 1991.

• USDA, Forest Service, Hayfork Ranger District.

South Fork Trinity River Watershed and Fisheries
Monitoring 1990 Progress Report. 1990.

• USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National

Forests. Draft Land Management Plan. 1990.

USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National

Forests. Soil Resource Inventory Report. Novem-

•·- ber, 1982.

• -- 9 --
•

•
...
Appendix A
•
Watershed Inventory Data Sheet

•
•

•
• site Numbet! Minor_ Major IDale mapped_ _ by_! Photos_ _ roll
Mlleage/Jocat.....lo_n_:__ ROaa name=--------..,.,.~~.,......,.....,,,...,,,~~~,---
SITE LOCATION ANO ACCESS:
Watmhd l'gal M:ap 1h,et'------
• Alr Photo Us~ ID
1!0.1d Accu1 ltJ Site: abandOnedl Y
Oat'
H
Scale
maln1.1..,...ln-ed"""f-ny- N
Eau ol accus: ddveable? Y - N - how far a wafl«Tml) - -
~Ire minor 7'biilld? Y N_ --
requlr' major rebuild? Y _ N _
Com~nt: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

• NATURE OF PRQDl™ AT SIH Cr.robable sediment delivery);

Source (If more than one, number In order or Importance)

.
=c.
· A. Existing debris slide
- 8 . Polentlal debris slide
Check :applic:able: _landlng __st~p 1wale ro:ad 1111
__cracks _wet veg __ponded ditch _s.carps: _:avg dtsplac
Deep sealed landslide _leaning lr"s - - complete rv:acuatlon (Its gone)
0. Gully
otlm

·• - E . Rllllng/Surface erosion
- - F . Slreambank erosion / Enlarged stream channel
~G. Stream crossing _High DP ,...--,-High FP _Now diverted _Now failed
CMP diameter (In): Humboldt xing? Y_ N_ Have trash rack? Y_ N_
Comment
1.. est di-ve_r_s....
io-n-d"""i.-s-t.:--<-5_0...,.'_o_r_>_,5~0~,--,2=-.-r_,d'""".-g-ra-dTT"le_n_t-------=%-r- .---
• 3. past history: Diverted_, Washed out_, None
4. Judged llkelyhood of CMP plugging in slorrn: l-ligh , Moderate_, Low_ _
sed transport: High : Med_, Low_·_ d1annel gradient:_
, Unknown_

· _%
pl~cause: woodyCfebris , sediment , vegetation .
Qp _ " SGC. 6J o-0- ®D..r. :::e:J~/g~· @Ost>. _ _
OTHER SITE I FQRh1ATIQN
•-- Cause: natural
Activity level: Active
cutblock road related
Inactive, but wailing--
other or combo
Inactive
BHrYI

--E-n~la-rg~i-n_g_ __
For active or enlarging fealures ... change appears gradual __ fast __ episodic__
Most recent activity (list in order of volumetric importance):
landsliding__ gullying surface erosion other_ __

• Sile Info: slope above_ _ % slope below_ _% · springs present? Y

bedrock depth lo bemock
N_

Important soil characteristics (check): _few coarse rock fr:ags, _v,ry cohes-lve_(_cl_ay-,y-J,-
_low cohesion (sill or DG-lik,), _mollled or gl,y,d, _detp colluvial or landslide deposits
hillslope position (circle): Inner gorge, at BIS, convex. concav,, straight, headwater swale, :and
upper, middlt, lower or streamslde position
Comment:
•
P.1ST EROSION ANO FUTURE EROSION POTENTIAL:
A .Estimated size and volume of past erosion: LxWxD(ft) - - -x- - -x
PAT ( comm,nt! __ /27= ----Yd'
_,

How m-u-c~h-,-en_,t-e-re-d...-st-re_a_m_d~1-a_n_n~el~7----3...---s-lo-r-ed...--o-11-sl~o-p-e7----3.-----~
• B. tstlmated potential for additional erosion: High, Moderate, or Low? H
Wlll It erode or move imminently? or Might It move In next big slorm-7- . -
M L

C Estimated slz.e and volume of fulure erosion LxWxD(fl) x x /27 = _ _ _Yd'

toml'!Wnt:
D. 'Nlll fu~tu_r_e_e-ro-d~e-dr-se-d~i-m_e_n~t-e-n-le_r_a_s_lr-ea_1_n~c~J-1a_n_n_e~l7~y,...,..--~N.----;-~h-o-w-m-u-c~h~7:------=cy.,

• 0
F.
Could you control the erosion? Y_ N_ ... with Equlplrient7_, by Mand?_, Both?_
Could you correct Div Polen!? Y N ...with Equipment? , by Hand? , Both?
G. Immediacy of needed treatment:- needs lo be done ASAP1,- moderate,- low -
{ Treat~ent: none_, replace CMP_ , larger CMP__, add CMP , clean ditch/CMP_,
. . ~oiling dip_, add TR/OS , PULL XING_ _ J PULL Fl.LL , Other . .
Comment: -- -- -------

•
•
_Sleep colluvial swale, pocencial debris slide
. Stream Crossings and Ditch Relief Culverts: No D.P,
Date: By: Site No: SUMMARY COMMENT
• Road:
Ditch flow? _ Stream flow? _
Mileage:
==-
Spring . ,. .fe_,.d.,-7
CMP present? CMP dia(in}: Trash rack?
Failure Potential? "Fail" volume (yds): _ _
Plugging potential? sediment_ wood_ veg_
% Coarse sed transport.? ~ M_ l _
• Channel gradient
Gully or slide at CMP outlet? Volume ,(yds):
Treatment: __repair/replace cmp __install CMP__/.,....la-r-ger CMP install TR
NONE install E.D. or D.S. clean CMP clean ditch - install rolling dip
--other tmt:

•
Erosion Problems With NO DELIVERY to Streams
Date: By: Site No: SUMMARY COMMENT
Road: Mileage:
• 1. Debris slide: existing
2. Deep seated slide
p-o-t-en-t-ia.....I ___
3. Other
Location: landing_ road ~II_ otl~1e_r_ _ __
Activity: active inactive

.... Slope gradient- o/o

Slope type: inner gorge
Volume eroded: w d
springs
BIS
I
bedrock -~------
head swale . other
Volume: -y.ds
. . ._ _ _ _ __
Future erosion potential: H_ M_ L_ Storm dependent? Y_ N_,_
Future erosion: w d I Volume: yds
Treatment: None Pull unstable road/landing fill __

• Other
----------------------------
. Comment:

SKETCH Of FEATURE (current condition): Site No .

•
•

•
•

•
,.
Appendix B
•
Project Priorities

·- .

•
• Appendix B
Soldier Creek Road Assessment
Project Prioritization
• High Priority Sites
(Sheet One)
Road# Site Sht CMP Plug Fut. % Del Problem Type Work

• Diam Pot . Eros.

Pot.
to Stm needed

. 33N47 44 2400 80% slides sed.traps,seed,roadwork

33N47 47 1 1350 50% large slide sed.traps,seed,roadwork
33N47 73 1 480 80% slide clean IB,berm,dams,seed,dip
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·
Total# 4230 Total Cu.Yds. of
of Sites: 3 Future Erosion

•
Medium Priority Sites
(Sheet Two with High or Medium Potential for Plugging)
• Road# Site Sht CMP
Diam
Plug
Pot.
Fut.
Eros.
% Del
to Stm
Problem Type Work
needed
Pot.

33N23A 2 18 H 170 cmp too small remove fill

• 33Nl9
33N23A
33N47
2
1
28
2
1
3
24 L 150
120
100
rilling blockng cmp
gully
gully
remove fill
remove fill
osd, dip
33N47 39 3 40 gully osd, dip
33N47 27 2 18 H 30 cmp buried find,clean cmp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·-------------------------------------------------------·
e Total#
of Sites: 6 610 Total cu.yds. of
Future Erosion

• Legend
CMP =corrugated metal pipe (culvert)
DI =drop inlet
18 = inboard ditch
• OSD
SEED
= over-side drain
= vegetative establishment

•
•
Appendix B (continued)
• Low Priority Sites
(Sheet Three, or Sheet 2 with Low Potential for Plugging)
Road# Site Sht CMP Plug Fut. Problem Type Work
Diam Pot. Eros. needed

• Pot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·
find.clean outlet
33N48 10 2 30 L 300 outlet buried
33N47 56 2 18 L 256 sect.in cmp clean cmp
33N47 48 2 18 L 240 outlet gully armor gully
clean IB ditch

• 33N47
33N47
33N47
38
23
69
2
2
3
18
36
L
L
180
160
120
IB ditch buried
debris> inlet
gully
cmp & ext apart
remove debris
fix berm, dams
re-attach
33N51 1 2 18 L 90
33N47 34 2 18 L 90 inlet plugged clean inlet, ditch
33N47 46 2 18 L 90 outlet gully armor gully
inlet plugged clean inlet

• 33N51B 2 2 18 L 60
33N47 36 2 96 L 25 slide at outlet berm, plant
33N47 62 2 18 H 25 inlet buried add cmp
33N29B 2 2 18 L 24 debrisxmp clear debris
33N05Y 2 2 18 L 20 outlet buried uncover outlet
33N51 4 2 24 L 20 gullying armor ,seed,dissipator
new lid
• 33N19 11 2 18 L 20 DI broken lid
33N48 12 2 18 L 20 DI buried.debris clean DI,inlet,ditch
33N47 32 2 18 L 20 gully<outlet dissipator, clean outlet
33N47 57 2 48 L 20 debrisxmp rmv debris
33N19 5 2 18 L 12 debris> inlet remove debris
33N48 9 2 18 L 10 shotgun gully large dissipator
berm.seeding
• 33N51 10 3 10 gully
33N47 75 2 18 L 8 DI has no lid new lid
33N03Y 1 2 18 L 7 inlet plugged clean inlet
33N03Y 3 2 18 L 6 inlet plugged clean inlet
33N48 7 2 18 L 6 IB debris clean IB
33N03Y 2 2 36 L 5 sect.at outlet armor

• 33N51
33N51
33N47
7
18
79
2
2
2
18
18
18
L
M
L 5
5
5
DI plugged
DI lid broken
DI, cmp plugged
clean DI
fix DI lid
clean DI, cmp
33N48A 4 2 2 gullying 2 waterbars
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·
Total#

• of Sites: 31 1861 Total Cubic Yards of

Future Erosion

•
•
•

•
• Appendix C
Maps of Proposed Project Sites
.
•
. -

•
•
•

•
•
--- -- '
I (
r I
\ I
v-,I
I 'f (
I I 0.. E
CD
'
I 11 ~t
~
CJ) 2
() .0
I, ( 0
I 0: O> 0.. '- .
. \ \) c: 2 0.. C\I
......
en () ,...
-
c:
ro en 0
Q) 0 Q) · -
rn
·- en
0:
'- "-
<( () -
Q)
0
"-
Q>
·--
~
>. E a: w
-UJ Q) ro .c• "-
Cl
- oo-
Q)
> Q)
~ .c
0
- "- "-
_J ::::J
CJ) CJ) ·-
0 .c
i·
O>
en I
·~
• •
 I
I
w
I
I- E
I
11
I
I
/ l-

I
~ -
Cf)
0...
:2 <l>
c
UJ en 0 ..0
-
( / 0
UJ I- Q) O'> 0... i....
c :2 0...
a:
'
' I
00 C\I
......
1 / ,'
w CJ) ()
c .....
~ () -
Cf)
a:
-:> x
-0
c
Q) 0
-
~
i....

ro
<l>
i....
<(

Cf)
0
i....
0 Q) 0L.
<l>
0
en C/l
<I>
·--
~
UJ
- 0. ·;::
0. 0...
~
Q)
E 0: w
ro .c L.
-------=
,,.,~~ I
~
I

0
_J
0
<(
3:
0
_J

>
L.
::J
(j)

Q)
L.
......
(j)
--
q
0

Q)
.c
0

0
(/)
i· ·~
I