---

• LAND MANAGEMENT
• TIMBER HARVESTING
• MINING
• AGRICULTURE

Issues

* Concern about both short and long term effects of public and private forest management activities on fisheries resources.

* Habitat degradation from granitic sand accumulation as a result of logging activity on decomposed granitic soils.

* Effect of logging on riparian canopy over streams.

* Need to distinguish between impacts of past and current timber harvesting and road construction practices.

* Cumulative effects of timber harvest activities on watershed and stream habitat condition.

* Adequacy of current forestry regulations to protect fish habitat.

History

Early Years: Pre-1900

The commercial harvesting of timber in the lower Klamath Basin began about the same time as the commercial harvesting of fish in the river. One of the earliest ventures, in fact, was the "Klamath Commercial Company" in 1881, whose purpose was both lumbering and fishing at or near the mouth of the Klamath River. This first sawmill shipped only "hard lumber -- cedar, laurel, oak, etc." to Crescent City for reshipment to San Francisco (McBeth 1950). In 1890, another mill was built on Hunter Creek.

Upriver, the gold mining areas required "a great deal of timber," and by 1860, about 30 mills were located in Siskiyou County (Wells 1881). The arrival of the railroad in 1887 near Yreka helped develop the markets for timber in the upper Klamath area (Figure 2-5). As a result, a very large sawmill was built about 1889 on the river at Klamathon, near what is now Iron Gate Dam. The local paper reported at the time that 10 billion board feet of lumber was estimated "tributary to the Klamath River" (Jones 1953).

Figure 2-5 -- Logging in Siskiyou County in the late 1890s.

1900 - 1947

Logging began in the "Klamath Bluff" area about the close of World War I (Bearss 1981). Since no roads existed in the area, cedar logs were dropped into the Klamath River and floated to the mouth, to be made into ocean-going rafts. These large rafts were towed out to sea and down the coast from Klamath to Eureka during the 1920s and 1930s. The lumber industry "died prematurely" in 1939 in Del Norte County when a large mill shut down.

In Siskiyou County before World War I, local lumbermen had "only thinned the front ranks of the far-reaching files of forests" (French 1915). In Hilt, north of Yreka, the Fruit Growers Supply Company operated mills and a box factory in 1915 and planned that year to log and cut 30 million board feet of lumber (French 1915). Timberland sold for about $4-5 per acre in the 1920s and 1930s in the Scott Valley region, while timber sold for about $4.50 per thousand board feet in 1947 (O. Lewis personal communication). During the Depression, many new roads were built in the Klamath Basin with Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) labor, opening up new territory for logging. By 1934, automobile roads paralleled the Klamath (except from Klamath Glen to Pecwan Creek), Salmon, Scott, and Shasta rivers. In addition, roads had entered the smaller creek basins: Redcap, Indian, Elk, Seiad, Shackleford/Mill, French, Horse, Beaver, and Cottonwood (Taft and Shapovalov 1935).

A biological survey of the streams in the Klamath National Forest in 1934 made no mention of any aquatic problems related to logging. However, several instances of road construction cutting off spawning tributaries were noted: the road crews were "directing the streams through culverts whose lower ends terminate in vertical drops of fifteen to thirty feet, barring the way to spawning steelhead and salmon." Examples of such construction were located in Coon, Crawford, Little Grider, and Beaver Creeks (Taft and Shapovalov 1935).

Post-WWII Timber Boom to 1980

The post-war economy brought a boom to the lumber markets and local Douglas fir and redwood timber industry. Technological improvements also brought power saws, bulldozers, rafts, tugs, trucks, and trailers (Bearss 1981). From an annual level of 23.4 million board feet (MMbf) in 1947, timber production in Del Norte County rose to 305.7 MMbf in 1955 and, with annual fluctuations, peaked at 350.9 MMbf in 1964.

As a result of the rapid expansion, log rafting in the lower Klamath River came into conflict with sports fishermen, who claimed that this practice "contaminated the waterway with bark from the logs to an extent that the water was becoming untenable for fish life" (Bearss 1981). A bill was introduced in the 1955 California Legislature to prohibit all log rafting on the river between July 15 and October 15, but action was suspended while the industry tried to "do everything possible to make their operation ... compatible with the fishermen's right to use the river."

To investigate the issue further, the Assembly's Interim Committee on Fish and Game conducted local hearings and a field trip in August 1955. Where heavy logging was underway, they saw cases of "small creeks and streams tributary to the Klamath completely obliterated by earth moved into the stream bed from a 'cat' roadway and in other cases by being choked with logging debris" (California Assembly 1957). The damage from redwood slash and debris in some areas had been remaining for years. The results were presented in a 1957 Committee report, "Problems Relative to the Klamath River." While they concluded that there was insufficient bark in the river to harm fish life, the destruction of spawning grounds in the tributaries by current logging practices was a very great threat to fish life and "corrective action was urgently needed." (See "Regulations: Private Lands" for further discussion.)

Scott Valley's sawmill industry in the 1950s was a substantial source of local income, with four mills cutting 40,000 or more board feet per day, and about nine mills cutting 5,000 or more board feet per day (Mack 1958).

Not all of the region was opened up during this period. As of 1953, the state reported that in the southwest half of the Klamath River Basin, a "large portion of the timber resource is as yet untouched," with timber production about one-third of its sustained yield potential. This "untouched" condition was attributed to the rugged terrain, inaccessible timber, and lack of transportation (CSWRB 1954).

Areas of public lands in the Klamath Basin were first harvested at different times. The earliest logging was concentrated on the gentler terrain with easiest access, leaving the steeper areas for later development. In the Scott River Basin, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) records indicate that logging on public lands did not begin until about 1959. The remote Salmon River region initially opened up to road building and logging in the mid-1960s. The Hog Fire of 1977 burned 56,000 acres in that subbasin, with an estimated 450 million board feet being salvage logged over the ensuing five years (J. West, USFS, personal communication).

Land Ownership

Public Ownership

The U.S. Forest Service manages the majority of the forest lands in the basin. The Klamath National Forest was established in 1905 and covers 1.7 million acres, almost all of which is in the Klamath River Basin. The Six Rivers National Forest was created in 1947 from parts of the Klamath, Trinity, and Siskiyou national forests (USDI 1980). Public ownership of forest land in the basin was centered in the more remote areas, "especially on the upper watersheds of the many full-flowing streams." Originally, the U.S. Forest Service's activities were "largely devoted to the conservation of the water supply that means so much to the farmers in the valleys." By 1915, "large tracts" in Siskiyou County were being opened up for lumbering operations. (French 1915).

Some forest and range lands are also managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), primarily in scattered blocks in the eastern portion of the basin. The agency's records show that most of its forest lands have been logged during the past few decades.

Private Ownership

Private timberlands originally developed on the more accessible tracts, which were nearest the two ends of the Klamath Basin with access to interstate highways or railroads. Timber owners would usually buy up new land from their profits to expand their holdings. Within Siskiyou County, about 600,000 acres are private timberland (Siskiyou County Assessor). The trend in the last decade has been consolidation of timberland ownerships. Presently, three large timber companies control the majority of these lands, while one company controls much of the lands tributary to the lower Klamath.

Tribal Ownership

Each of the three tribes has some forest land within its jurisdiction, ranging from 76,000 acres for the Hoopa Valley Tribe, to 3,840 acres on the Yurok Reservation, to about 100 acres for the Karuk Tribe. Most of these sites were logged in recent decades.

Forest Management Practices

Types of Silvicultural Systems

In California, forest management uses both even- and uneven- aged silvicultural systems. Even-aged management has three basic systems: clearcut, shelterwood, and seed tree. In contrast, uneven-aged management is done by selective harvest of individual trees. As shown and defined in Figure 2-6, each system has certain advantages and disadvantages (CDFFP 1988).

"Clearcutting," or "High Grading" (e.g., high quality trees removed, low value trees retained) was a common practice on private lands before about 1930, when "donkeys" and railroads were usually used in hauling the timber. Between 1930 and 1960, selective cutting was the general practice in California when tractors and trucks began to be used. Starting in about 1960, clearcutting of the entire stand, using highlead and tractor yarding, became the predominant method in the redwoods but was also applied elsewhere (ESA 1980). It had become more attractive to private landowners for primarily economic reasons (Arvola 1976).

Figure 2-6 -- Advantages and Disadvantages of the Silvicultural Systems.
 

The type of silvicultural system used today depends on the forest characteristics and landowner, as well as the economic forces. For private lands harvested in 1985, 35% of the proposed harvested acres in the Northern District (includes most of Siskiyou and Trinity Counties) were using even-aged systems (primarily seedtree and shelterwood) while 90% of the acres in the Coastal District (includes Del Norte and Humboldt Counties) were applying even-aged systems. The differences in use of the silvilcultural systems are attributed to the relative success rate and cost-effectiveness of regeneration of the different species (e.g., redwood vs. Douglas fir vs. ponderosa pine) and the site quality. On the national forests, clearcutting became a larger share of the acres harvested, accounting for 46% of the total in 1986 in comparison to 28% in 1977 (CDFFP 1988).

Causes of Timber Harvesting Impacts

Although "any harvesting system will have some negative habitat impacts," the extent to which each type of harvest affects the stream habitat depends considerably on the choice of equipment, geographical layout of the harvest unit, and the mode of operation. These methods include tractor, highlead cable systems, skyline systems, and helicopters. (Hartsough 1989)

Roads associated with timber harvesting account for a sizeable portion of the erosion from logged areas (Weaver et al. 1987). Poor road design, location, construction, and maintenance can cause erosion of all types: mass soil movement (slide, slump, debris flow, earth flow), surface (sheet and rill), gullies, and streambank (Brown 1988). Harvesting has expanded from established roads into more difficult terrain, and therefore into areas of greater environmental risk.

One local study evaluated 237 miles of roads on 30,300 acres of commercial timberland in the Six Rivers National Forest (McCashion and Rice 1983). Total erosion averaged about 4.5 cubic yards per acre, while average erosion on the road rights-of-way was 47 cubic yards per acre, or 17 times the average erosion in the timber harvest areas. Overall, the road network contributed 40% (on less than 1% of the disturbed acres) and the logged area 60% of the total erosion, percentages which are similar to studies in Oregon. While roads recover more slowly than harvest sites, the harvest sites will be disturbed each time they are entered for additional cutting, the researchers noted, and will therefore add an increased proportion of erosion in subsequent years.

In a study of timber harvesting on private lands in interior northern California, soil loss measurements averaged about 80 tons/acre/year and sediment reaching the stream averaged 50 tons/acre/year, "mostly from roads" (USFS 1983). Mass wasting (landslides and debris slides) induced by roads was the major source of erosion and sedimentation, and culvert failures were the greatest single road-related problem. Unmaintained roads continue to plague many watersheds as private landowners are not required to maintain logging roads after completion of a timber harvest plan (Weaver et al. 1987).

Cumulative Impacts from Timber Harvesting

The issue of cumulative impacts first came to public attention primarily because of the requirement in the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to address such impacts in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Reports (EIRs). Recent court decisions in California have upheld complaints that timber harvest practices on private lands were ignoring cumulative impacts (Coburn 1989). Additionally, the 1972 federal Clean Water Act's Section 208 (as amended) requires water quality plans to cover "silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution ... and their cumulative effects" and "to set forth procedures and methods (including land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources."

During the past two decades, considerable effort has been made to better understand the subject. One such study describes how timber harvesting relates to cumulative impacts (Coats et al. 1979): "Cumulative effects are long-term effects that accumulate over space or time. In one sense, any lasting effects are cumulative over time, but because of the nature of watersheds, some effects of silvicultural activities may occur off-site, downslope or downstream from the area of the original timber harvest plan. Thus, the overall effect of an operation, and of multiple operations in the same watershed, may be quite different than the immediate on-site effects of a timber operation reviewed in isolation." The possible negative cumulative effects on the watershed from timber harvesting include streamflow changes and erosion and sedimentation effects.

In a 1972 North Coast stream study, sustained logging was found to prolong adverse conditions and delay stream recovery. The researcher recommended that logging operations "should be implemented in the shortest time possible and then the watershed left to recover." Recovery was also improved by scheduling the major logging operation after the stream had recovered from the road construction (Burns 1972).

Turwar Creek, located in the steep, unstable, and wet area of the lower Klamath River Basin, was the subject of several cumulative effects evaluations (ESA 1980, Leopold 1981, Coats et al. 1979, CDWR 1982a). Logging in the lower part of the basin began before 1962 and in the upper basin in 1975. Between 1970 and 1978, 32.5 percent of the watershed was clearcut, about half cable-yarded and half tractor-yarded (see Figure 2-7). Roads, landings, skid trails, and layouts amounted to 8.7 percent of the basin. An analysis of aerial photos over time revealed a "dramatic increase in frequency and activity of mass movement associated with progressive timber harvest," but with a delayed reaction time. With such a large amount of soil disturbance, the watershed was considered in 1980 to be at the point where increased stormflow peaks could result, "with implications for bank erosion and aggradation downstream" (Coats and Miller 1981).

Figure 2-7 -- Tractor and cable clear-cut units in the Turwar Watershed (1970-1979).

Such aggradation did result and was obvious in Turwar Creek in 1989 (Caltrans 1989, S. Downie personal communication). In the lower section, streamflow now goes subsurface during late summer and fall, blocking access to fall chinook and possibly other species. Only steelhead now have access to the stream. Habitat restoration efforts upstream are of questionable effect because of the continuing aggradation and lack of a permanent solution to the present blockage.

Eight lower Klamath tributaries were also analyzed for landslide frequency. The results (Figure 2-8) indicate a geometric increase in landslide frequency for all but two of the streams (Leopold 1981). Between 1940 and 1960, 77% of Little Pine Creek was harvested. Landslides in the watershed averaged 1 per sq. mile in 1950 but jumped to 30 per sq. mile in 1965. While the 1964 flood obviously exacerbated the situation, the watersheds were more vulnerable as a result of land management activities. Leopold concluded that "the effects not only accumulate with each increment of land surface disturbance, but each increment has a larger effect than the preceding one."

Such a rapidly increasing rate of change indicates a threshold being exceeded. As a result, the naturally resilient watershed system is finally thrown out of equilibrium.

Figure 2-8 -- Effect of various percentages of basin logged for timber harvest on number of landslides per square mile, Lower Klamath Basin, California.

Impacts of Timber Harvesting on Salmon and Steelhead

Over the years, many studies have been made of the effects of logging practices on water quality, streamflow, and aquatic habitat. It is not the intent here to provide an exhaustive review of the literature, but to highlight some of the latest findings, particularly those from case studies in the Klamath Basin. In California, biological concern initially focused on log jams blocking access by salmon and steelhead to spawning grounds. Later, interest expanded to streambed damage and to "erosion resulting from improper road and skid trail construction on steep terrains" (Burns 1972). Local examples of habitat damage in the Klamath Basin are also described in Chapter 3 -- Habitat Restoration.

Stream habitat impacts, potentially resulting from timber harvest activities, can be grouped into the following categories:

*Riparian cover
* Water Quality
* Streamflow/runoff
* Streambed quality
* Instream cover
* Stream channel stability
* Migration barriers
* Aquatic organisms

Riparian Cover

Riparian vegetation is called the "benchmark criterion for ideal salmonid environs," providing water-cooling shade, bank-stabilizing roots, sediment-trapping vegetative litter, and insect-bearing branches and leaves (CBOF 1987). If too much streamside vegetation is removed through logging practices, then the results could include: lethal or sub-lethal water temperatures (too hot in summer and too cold in winter), eroding streambanks, excessive fine sediment, and lack of food for fish. Such impairment of spawning and rearing habitat would then lead to lower salmon and steelhead production.

The functions of the riparian zone as they relate to the stream system are described in Figure 2-9a, while vegetation changes in the riparian zone through time following clearcutting, wildfire, or other disturbances are shown in Figure 2-9b.

Figure 2-9a -- Extent of riparian zone and functions of riparian vegetation as they relate to aquatic ecosystems.

Figure 2-9b -- Changes in the riparian zone through time.

Water Quality

Turbid water, high temperatures, low dissolved oxygen levels, and herbicides are the main water quality problems attributed to improper timber harvest and silvicultural practices.

Soil from bare slopes, skid trails, and logging roads can erode during storms and end up in streams if adequate protections are not employed. Fine sediment (clays and silts) can stay in suspension and cause turbid water conditions. Persistently high concentrations of suspended sediment can cause silt to accumulate on the fish's gill filaments and inhibit the ability of the gills to aerate the blood, which could lead to death (Cordone and Kelley 1961). In addition, muddy water impedes sport fishing. As flows diminish, the sediment will deposit on the streambed (see Streambed Quality discussion below).

Removing a significant amount of the riparian canopy will likely lead to more extreme stream temperature fluctuations as well as increased mean and maximum temperatures. Temperature changes affect the rates of salmonid egg development, rearing success, species composition, and other factors. For example; stressful temperatures will lower fish production by increasing the metabolic rate and decreasing disease resistance, thereby decreasing the ability of the fish to compete (Beschta et al. 1987). Young coho salmon prefer cooler temperatures than chinook salmon or steelhead trout and will therefore not compete as well in streams warmed from the effects of logging (Moyle 1976).

The amount of dissolved oxygen within the stream is inversely related to the temperature and the nutrient levels: the higher the temperature and nutrient concentrations, the lower the dissolved oxygen levels tend to be. Too little dissolved oxygen can be lethal to salmonids, with initial stress symptoms showing up at levels of about 6.0 mg/l (Reiser and Bjornn 1979).

Stream contamination from herbicides could prove toxic or growth inhibiting to salmonids. Studies of the effects of the herbicide 2,4-D by CDFG indicated that chinook salmon were more sensitive than steelhead-rainbow trout and that fry were more sensitive than smolts (Finlayson and Verrue 1983). Maximum safe chronic exposure concentrations of 2,4-D were determined to be 40 parts per billion (PPB).

Streamflow/Runoff

Historically, forest cover was viewed as helping to equalize the streamflow during the year by making the low stages higher and the high stages lower. As a result of this mitigating influence, forests were thought to reduce the severity and destructiveness of large floods. The national forests were originally established by Congress for the primary purpose of protecting the downstream water users from flooding and sedimentation (Hays 1974).

The relationship between forest removal and runoff patterns is considered more complicated today and studies continue on the effects. We do know that the streamflow increases in the first year following clearcutting, and that the increase is proportional to the reduction of the vegetation cover. As forest cover returns, runoff declines (Dunne and Leopold 1978). Peak discharge from storms is also increased as the result of timber harvesting and its associated soil compaction (which reduces infiltration rates), particularly for storms of moderate magnitude. Forest practices have only a small effect, however, on the discharge from heavy, prolonged storms (Leopold 1981).

Streambed Quality

Soil erosion can contribute fine sediment to the streambed, which can directly affect fish survival. By filling in the spaces between spawning gravels, the fines impede the circulation of oxygen to the embryos and fry lying in the spawning redds. Both laboratory and field studies have shown an inverse relationship between survival from egg deposition to emergence and the amount of fine sediment (Everest et al. 1987). In addition, increased sand concentrations resulted in earlier emergence, more prematurity, and smaller fry, all of which reduce survival. Food sources are also reduced, as lower densities or diversity of aquatic insects are found in heavily sedimented riffles.

By filling in pools, sediment reduces the amount of critical habitat for the rearing of juveniles or holding of adults (in both summer and winter).

Excessive sand deposits in spawning and rearing habitat of the upper Scott River, Cottonwood Creek, and Beaver Creek are attributed to upstream roads and logging on decomposed granitic soils and previous flood deposits (CH2M-Hill 1985). Sand in the Scott River continues to migrate downstream to the lower river, where it was not so extensive in the early 1980s (J. West, USFS, personal communication). The impact of the sand on spawning habitat in the Scott River is currently being evaluated in a study by the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District through Task Force funding.

Spawning salmon and steelhead can significantly reduce amounts of fines from redds. This is an adaptive trait to help survival in marginal habitats. One theory is that large annual spawning escapements are needed to maintain high quality spawning habitat. "When populations of spawning adults are reduced by habitat degradation or overfishing, the overall quality of spawning habitat may decline, because the annual cleaning effect exerted by spawners is diminished" (Everest et al. 1987).

Instream Cover

Instream cover provides places for fish to hide from predators, to find food, or to rest. Examples of cover include boulders, logs, deep water, overhanging vegetation, and tree roots. Logging practices could remove this cover by damaging the riparian vegetation or the streambank (Chamberlin 1982). Large trees that have fallen into streams ("large woody debris") can help scour out much needed pools and provide high quality habitat. In managed forests, however, the trend is toward smaller and fewer pieces of wood in the stream channels. The loss of instream cover in young-growth forests may have the most significant impact on over-wintering salmonid populations in some locations (Sedell et al. 1988).

Stream Channel Stability

Extensive channel changes resulting from past logging and road building have been well documented in certain North Coast watersheds (Kelsey 1980, Hagans et al. 1986). With the combination of steep slopes, erosive and landslide-prone soil, and intense rainfall, the coastal region is vulnerable to greatly increased rates of sediment deposition when large areas of vegetation are removed and bare soils are exposed (e.g., clearcuts, skid trails, landings, roads). The excess sediment in the channel causes the banks to erode, which undermines unstable slopes and stimulates mass movement of hillsides into the stream (Dunne and Leopold 1978). Large accumulations of logging debris in a stream (as opposed to intentional placement of large woody debris) can also deflect flows, accelerating streambank cutting, or it can temporarily trap sediment, damaging the downstream channel when it fails (Erman et al. 1977).

Migration Barriers

Historically, log jams were the most obvious migration barrier resulting from logging. The 1964 flood exacerbated the situation by bringing an excessive amount of logging debris into local stream channels and blocking access (CDFG 1965). Other potentially serious barriers to fish passage are: landslides, poorly designed culverts at road crossings, loss of resting pools due to sedimentation, and heat barriers in large open areas where riparian canopy is removed (Chamberlin 1982). Aggradation of the lower reaches of several heavily logged tributaries of the Klamath River (e.g., Blue Creek, Roach Creek) is making the water go subsurface or become shallow and braided at their deltas, which blocks access to spawners during low water (ESA 1980, Payne 1989).

Aquatic organisms

Stream invertebrates, which are the primary food source for young salmonids, are directly affected by certain stream conditions: sedimentation, water quality, and light. In a study which included 15 streams on the Klamath National Forest, the major change in the invertebrate community caused by logging in the riparian area was the decrease in community diversity (Erman et al. 1977). Less diversity, the researcher noted, usually means less ecological stability, implying that logged streams were less stable. Changes in the invertebrate community were most significant in streams without adequate stream protection measures: "those streams with narrow bufferstrips (less than 100 feet) showed effects comparable to those found in streams logged without bufferstrips" (Erman et al. 1977). Many of these documented impacts can reportedly be avoided or reduced with the "implementation of appropriate practices" (CBOF 1987).

Reducing Timber Harvesting Impacts

Some general principles for logging operations and forest roads have been recommended to limit or prevent damage to fish habitat (Hartsough 1989, Furniss and Roelofs 1989, Weaver et al. 1986):
 

•  Prevent erosion wherever possible.
•  Minimize the risks of eroded material entering streams.
•  Create little or no direct physical disturbance to the streams from logs or equipment.
•  Minimize reduction of shading of streams.
•  Retain larger trees in the riparian zone for future recruitment of large organic debris.
•  Ensure that fish migration is provided for at stream crossings.
•  Reduce or avoid the alteration of hillslope drainage patterns.

Remedial actions are also taking place on previously harvested sites: corrective road maintenance and improvement, drainage and erosion control on skid trails, reforestation, and revegetation. Cooperative Road Agreements help reduce adverse cumulative effects due to road construction by sharing roads between ownerships (R. Dragseth, Fruit Growers Supply Co., personal communication).

Herbicides used to control competing vegetation on timberlands are another concern. The chemicals 2,4-D and Garlon are presently the most commonly used, either through aerial spraying or hand application. They are mainly applied in the spring and fall months. With steep slopes and heavy rainfall typical in the Klamath Basin, risk is involved in the herbicides entering streams during or after use. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are currently being used to reduce the risk of water quality contamination on public and private lands, although debate continues over the effectiveness of the BMPs.

Timber Harvest Regulations for Private and Public Lands

Private Lands: Board of Forestry

Government regulation of private timber lands in California has a tortuous history and is still evolving. In 1885, California was the first state in the nation to have a State Board of Forestry. Initially, laws mainly addressed fire prevention and slash disposal (Arvola 1976). The first Forest Practice Act affecting forest management was passed in 1945, but its effort was "to be one of education and persuasion because of the philosophical tone behind its formulation and the lack of any misdemeanor, criminal, or civil penalties in the law."

Gradually, the Act was amended, although the intent remained to protect the productivity of timberlands and not other resources. In 1951, the Fish and Game Code was amended to prohibit the blockage of streams in the North Coast district and the California Department of Fish and Game began an education effort for timber operators about the new law. In 1953, the first erosion control rule was developed by the Redwood Committee of the Board. California Department of Fish and Game, along with various public groups, continued to advocate stream protection during the 1950s and 1960s, but these attempts were always defeated. The devastating effects of the 1964 flood, in the North Coast, definitely intensified public concerns about the relationship of forest practices to soil erosion and stream and fisheries damage (Arvola 1976).

Years of debate culminated in the passage of the Z'Berg-Nejedley Forest Practice Act of 1973, and in the adoption of the implementing Forest Practice Rules in 1974. This law provided a major change in the way forest practices were regulated in California and at last addressed some non-timber values. However, stream protection proponents and others were still not satisfied that their concerns were adequately resolved. Challenges to the rules were made the following year under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), demanding that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be made for each timber harvest plan. With the adoption of tighter controls, the Board of Forestry's regulatory program was exempted from the EIR requirement, following the program's certification by the Secretary for Resources. However, it remains subject to other provisions of CEQA, "such as the policy of avoiding significant adverse effects on the environment where feasible" (Section 15250 of State CEQA Guidelines). A forest policy observer concluded that "CEQA has been responsible for much of the change in forest practices that has occurred over the life of the Forest Practice Act" (Green 1982).

One of the most obvious improvements was the elimination of the common practice of dragging logs with heavy machinery down stream channels. Stream buffer zones must now be left in certain areas. Instead of focusing on penalties after the damage is done, the emphasis has shifted to prevention of damage. (Green 1982)

Other State laws have also resulted in significant improvement in timber harvest practices. These laws include: the Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976 (the Yield Tax Law), which eliminated the tax penalty for owning standing timber and has given a tax incentive for letting timber grow to a larger size by providing for restrictive zoning and reduced property taxes of timber producing land placed by counties in a Timberland Production Zone (TPZ); the Professional Foresters Law of 1972, which sets standards for registering and licensing foresters in the state who are responsible for management of private timberlands; Sections 1600-1606 of the Fish and Game Code, which require mitigation conditions be agreed to by California Department of Fish and Game for streambed alterations.

CEQA continues to be the basis for litigation concerning the adequacy of current forest practices. Recent court cases have ruled against CDF for its timber harvest plan (THP) review and decision-making process for failing to address certain CEQA requirements (e.g., Sierra Club vs. CDF, EPIC vs. Johnson, EPIC vs. MAXXAM).

Besides CEQA, the other most influential legal force is Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act and its amendments. This section deals with "nonpoint" sources of pollution, of which soil erosion is one of the most common. After more amendments in the rules, the State Water Resources Control Board in 1988 conditionally certified the Forest Practice Rules as being the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) to prevent stream sedimentation. Although a four-year monitoring and assessment program was placed on the certification, the program has not been done to date. The effectiveness of the new rules and their amendments in protecting the beneficial uses of water has only been evaluated by the Board of Forestry's interdisciplinary "208 Assessment Team," with the findings released in a 1987 report. The study team made visual observations and no quantitative measurements "because of study limitations."

One overall observation of the 208 team was the general improvement:

Severe and extensive damage to stream systems was still evident from timber operations conducted as late as the middle 1970s. With very few exceptions, the adverse effects of operations conducted under the current rules and process are minor compared to those of earlier operations. The team was impressed by the relative improvements which have been made under the current forest practice program in protecting water quality.

As a result, some significant changes have occurred since 1987. Improvements in the Forest Practice Rules for "Erosion Control and Site Preparation," "Watercourse Protection," and "Roads and Landings" have either been adopted or are pending adoption (J. Steele, CDFG, personal communication). Since these improvements are in a state of flux, the Task Force will need to monitor the changes and update this section of the plan periodically. As of January 1, 1990, review teams composed of staff from California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) are specifically allowed to participate in inspections of timber harvest plans (THP) with CDF staff, and their agencies now have the right to appeal a THP. Timber operators must now be licensed and complete a course about current forest practice rules. Continuing education classes are being offered on harvesting issues by CDF and others.

Other improvements still needing completion are: database development, watershed planning, surveillance monitoring and special studies, and guidance documents and training programs that discuss near-stream and in-stream conditions requiring protection measures by foresters and timber operators.

To date, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not certified the State Forest Practice Rules. It is reportedly waiting for a "cumulative effects assessment" procedure as well as a BMP effects assessment program to be adopted by the Board of Forestry. As follow-up, the RWQCB staff in the North Coast is directed by its Board to "investigate and review, on a continuing basis, logging operations, road building, and related construction activities within the region to determine the effect, or potential effect, of such activities on water quality" (NCRWQCB 1989).

In sensitive areas where the current rules have not seemed adequate, the Board of Forestry and CDF staff have promoted special measures. One example is the "Recommended Mitigation Measures for Timber Operations in Decomposed Granite Soils with Particular Reference to Grass Valley Creek and Nearby Drainages," which offers alternative yarding system and road location suggestions for these fragile soils (CDF 1986). These special measures are under constant review and modification.

Herbicide use is regulated by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the County Agricultural Commissioners. The county can issue a Cease and Desist Order and a fine of up to $1,000 for violations. It inspects some of the application sites (S. Thornhill, Siskiyou County Agricultural Department). The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has set a zero discharge level for 2,4,5-T and a 10 parts per billion discharge level for all other herbicides. It has waived waste discharge permits for most herbicide spraying on private lands, assuming that the Best Management Practices are adequate to protect water quality, but permits can be issued on a case-by-case basis when needed (NCRWQCB 1989). Monitoring over the past 5 years has detected only infrequent minor violations (C. Green, NCRWQCB, personal communication).

Public Lands: U.S. Forest Service

Timber harvest activities of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are regulated by many federal laws. Under the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, formal recognition was given to all types of resource uses in the management of the national forests. Timber production is one of the uses along with watersheds, fish, and others. In 1969, the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) promoted the thoughtful evaluation of potential impacts on the environment before a federal action, like a timber harvesting program on national forests, occurs. As a result, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and public involvement is required when a federal action may cause a significant impact on the environment.

Quite a few EISs have been prepared on proposed actions of the Klamath and Six Rivers National Forests over the last decade, with at least two currently pending on fire salvage sales (USFS 1989a; 1989b). Mitigation measures to prevent possible damage to fish and water quality must be included in each EIS.

As a result of public concern over logging practices on national forests, Congress passed the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-588). One major change was the specification of a new planning process for each forest. The new land management plans must follow policies to achieve the goals of the Act. For stream habitat, the pertinent policy is: (Sec.6 (g)(3)(E))

... insure that timber will be harvested from National Forest System lands only where--

(i) soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged; ....

(iii) protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat.

The land management planning process for the Klamath National Forest has been in development for about 10 years. One draft was released for public comment in 1982. That Draft EIS/Plan was withdrawn by the Regional Forester in mid-1983 because of the new Regional Standards and Guidelines (B. Rice, USFS, personal communication). The new draft is expected for public review in 1991. On the Six Rivers National Forest, the most recent Draft Land Management Plan was issued in 1987 and withdrawn in 1990 as the result of the spotted owl habitat conservation areas and the newly designated Smith River National Recreation Area. The new draft is expected for release in 1992.

As with the State Board of Forestry, the federal Clean Water Act's provisions for controlling nonpoint sources of pollution (Sect. 208) required the Forest Service to reevaluate its timber harvest practices and mitigation measures. "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) to protect water quality were also proposed in a 1979 document entitled "Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California." After review and negotiations with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board, the Forest Service's "208 Water Quality Management Plan," and its accompanying BMPs (including herbicide use) were certified by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by EPA. A monitoring program was not required of the USFS but its method to evaluate cumulative impacts was withheld from certification pending further review (G. Lee, SWRCB, personal communication). The USFS has deferred herbicide use since 1983 in California due to a court injunction. Resumption of use will be addressed in each LMP.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Methods are Still Debated

The "threshold of concern" is a key factor in the Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) analysis method now used by the U.S. Forest Service in California (Coburn 1989, USFS 1989b). It focuses on quantitative measurements of watershed disturbances (roads and landings, wildfire, harvest and site prep), weighted by equalizing coefficients, to come up with values for each subbasin. If this disturbance value exceeds the watershed's determined threshold value, then the stream system is at risk of damage, if it has not already occurred. Forest managers are to then decide whether to:

A. Adopt less intensive management activities.
B. Defer activities.
C. Initiate substantial watershed rehabilitation projects.
 

The California Department of Forestry (CDF) is in the process of revising its method of cumulative watershed impact analysis. In 1986, the procedure was a 14 point checklist to be completed by the registered professional forester doing the timber harvest plan. The presently proposed modification is a more complex questionnaire, which includes effect on fish habitat (Coburn 1989). In contrast to the USFS procedure, the CDF analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative, is prepared primarily by a professional from one discipline rather than a multi-disciplinary team, encompasses mainly one ownership rather than all lands within the study area, does not use the "threshold" concept, and has a shorter time frame for evaluation and decision-making.

A recent evaluation of CDF's timber harvest planning process concludes that the current cumulative impact analysis methodology is inadequate since the process has very rarely identified the occurrence of cumulative impacts, despite evidence to the contrary. The proposed rule modification also does not include the substantive changes which are required for CDF to improve its performance in the courts or to regain public confidence in its ability to adequately regulate the actions of the timber industry (LSA 1990).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Designation and Timber Management

Several sections of the Klamath River system are designated under both the State and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts: the mainstem Klamath below Iron Gate Dam, the lower Scott River, and the Salmon River (also portions of North Fork and Wooley Creek). (Also see "Water Development" section.) What this status means in terms of habitat protection has been the subject of considerable debate. In the California Act's original language, the Secretary of the Resources Agency was to develop a management plan for each river component of the system (including its "immediate environment") "which shall be administered so as to protect and enhance the values for which it was included in the system, without unreasonably limiting lumbering, grazing, and other resource uses, where the extent and nature of such uses do not conflict with public use and enjoyment of these values."

Draft Waterway Management Plans for the Scott and Salmon Rivers were released by the CDFG in 1979 and 1980, sparking much controversy with the extent and content of their recommendations (CDFG 1980 a,b). The focus of the debate was whether the Act is a watershed management directive or merely for the prohibition of water impoundment structures (UCLA 1980). Land and water users within these watersheds loudly protested the need for management plans.

Finally, the State Act was amended in 1982 (AB 1349) to remove the requirement for management plans, define the term "immediate environment" as "the land immediately adjacent" to the designated segments of the rivers, and remove the words "in a natural condition" from the "free-flowing" definition. A 200 foot zone on either side of State-designated rivers is considered a "Special Treatment Area" in the Board of Forestry's Rules.

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that detailed boundaries be established (of not more than 320 acres per mile on both sides of the river); appropriate sections be designated "Wild," "Scenic," or "Recreational"; and that a plan be prepared "for necessary developments in connection with its administration in accordance with such classification." The National Forests technically administer most of the Klamath River components in the National System. No management plans have been issued to date by either Forest.

Other eligible streams in the Klamath Basin are also being studied in the USFS Land Management Plan process for possible addition to the National System because of their "outstanding values," including summer steelhead and spring chinook: Salmon River tributaries, Kelsey Creek, Clear Creek, Grider Creek, Dillon Creek, and Ukonom Creek. While being considered for addition, "particular attention shall be given to scheduled timber harvesting, road construction, and similar activities which might be contrary to the purposes of the Act."

As the result of a recent lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District "permanently enjoined" in 1989 the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to salvage log 17,000 acres along the South Fork of the Trinity River, which is a "Wild" section of a designated Wild and Scenic River. The timber sale reportedly would violate the act because the Forest Service failed to: 1) designate the boundaries of the Wild and Scenic Corridor, 2) adopt a river corridor management plan, and 3) cooperate with federal and state water quality agencies to assure that the river's water quality and outstanding anadromous fishery resource were protected.

Conclusions

While over the years timber harvest practices on both public and private lands in the Klamath Basin have definitely improved, negative impacts to habitat continue to impair fish production. The lack of any quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of current forest practices on watershed conditions and stream habitat in the Basin is also very apparent. Although over 15 years have past since the new State Forest Practice Rules were adopted, the state agencies have not been able to collect the necessary baseline or post-harvest field data needed for such an evaluation. In addition, both private and public foresters are in need of accessible stream and watershed information, such as the quality and quantity of fish habitat and populations in the areas where they are planning timber harvests.

To help address these serious needs, the Task Force should promote the collection of useful habitat and population data on each tributary supporting anadromous stocks in the basin. Evaluation studies of timber harvesting impacts are also needed. To make this information available to the people making forest management decisions, a practical data base (e.g., the EPA Reach File system) should be used for data storage and retrieval of habitat and population information by Task Force funded projects.

Making the connection between studies and action on habitat protection will be critical. One notable example is the 1976 study by Six Rivers National Forest identifying the sensitivity of the inner gorge area and, subsequently, removing such fragile sites from the commercial timber base (J. Barnes, USFS, personal communication). As the distinguished hydrologist Dr. Luna Leopold cautioned in 1981:

To put it in simple terms, we are not learning from experience ... the feedback loop between research, policy, and regulations seems on the whole to be not only incomplete, but sometimes quite overlooked. The nature of the research program itself is often not directed to those effects of management that might do the most to lessen adverse impacts.

The second part of this problem is that even when research has shown how practices should be carried out in order to minimize impact, these results are often either neglected or disregarded.

Objective 2.A. Protect stream and riparian habitat from potential damages caused by timber harvesting and related activities.

2.A.1. Improve current timber harvest practices through the following:

a. Instigate local workshops and seminars on timber harvest methods, including erosion control and stream and riparian protection methods for timber operators and foresters by working with appropriate resource agencies and groups.
b. Develop salmonid habitat protection and management standards and guidelines (by the Technical Work Group) for agency endorsement and use.
c. Develop educational materials addressing stream protection measures for use by foresters, timber operators, and their employees.
d. Obtain existing fish habitat data and place into a data base system which can be easily accessed by agencies and field users.
e. Encourage foresters, land owners, and timber harvesters to view the existing regulations as minimum rather than maximum expectations.
f. Promote communication between timberland managers and salmon and steelhead users.
g. Foster Coordinated Resource Management and Planning in mixed ownership watersheds with important fish habitat (e.g., Blue Creek, Beaver Creek, French Creek, and others).

2.A.2. Contribute to evaluating the effectiveness of the current timber harvest practices in protecting stream habitat through:

a. Development of an index of habitat integrity to better understand the possible cumulative effects.
b. Incorporation of fish habitat and population data into clean water assessments of the State Water Resources Control Board and E.P.A.
c. Monitoring the recovery of stream habitat in logged watersheds.
d. Evaluating watershed and riparian conditions in logged areas.

2.A.3. If the results of the above and other evaluations reveal inadequacies, promote the necessary changes in:

a. The State's Forest Practice Rules and administrative actions.
b. The U.S. Forest Service's policies in its Land Management Plans, Best Management Practices, and administrative actions.

2.A.4. Anticipate potential stream protection problems by requesting:

a. Surveillance monitoring programs, which "208" certification requires, be conducted as soon as possible in Klamath Basin streams by the State Board of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service.
b. Modification of the State Forest Practices Rules to:

1. Protect highly erodible soils like the decomposed granitic soils.
2. Incorporate watershed planning in THP reviews.
3. Provide adequate protection of riparian areas.
4. Allow for a longer review period for THPs in critical watersheds.
5. Provide a meaningful level of cumulative impact analysis.
6. Provide damaged fish habitat adequate time to recover before new timber harvesting or roads occur in watersheds that are over threshold.

1. Give first priority to protection of salmonid habitat which is presently unimpaired (e.g., Clear Creek, Dillon Creek).
2. Protect highly erodible soils like the decomposed granitic soils.
3. Provide damaged fish habitat adequate time to recover before new timber sales or roads occur in watersheds that are over threshold.
4. Ensure the survival of anadromous salmonids through adequate protection of their habitat.
5. Provide adequate protection of riparian areas.
6. Provide a meaningful level of cumulative impact analysis.
7. Ensure the land base allocation and protective measure for water quality and fish habitat are adequate.

Issues

* Habitat damage from past mining activities.
* Impact of current suction dredge mining on fish and other aquatic life.
* Impact on fishermen's safety of new dredging holes.
* Resource impact of gravel extraction operations and batch plants.
* Potential of increased mining impacts with sharp rise in gold price.
* Need to educate miners about potential stream habitat impacts.

History

Early Gold Mining: 1850-1900

Many of the communities in the Klamath River Basin owe their origin to the gold mining boom of the 1800s in the Klamath and Trinity Mountains (Wells 1881). The towns of Happy Camp, Orleans, Somes Bar, Sawyers Bar, Hamburg, Callahan, Yreka, and Scott Bar were all located near the largest gold mining sites of the period. Beginning in 1850 with the exploratory mining by John Scott and his party at Scott Bar, the region mushroomed by 1852 with enough gold miners and other residents for the Legislature to form Siskiyou County.

Along with the placer mining activity came the development of a great many diversion ditches from the creeks and rivers to provide the water for sluicing the claims. Water was also pumped for hydraulic mining operations, which washed the gold deposits out of the hillsides (where the placer deposits also originated) (Albers 1966).

One of the earliest observations of the water quality impact of these gold mining operations was by George Metlar in 1856, who commented:
 

... the Klamath, being the larger, is usually clear and transparent, while Scott River, is turbulent and muddy on account of its extensive mining operations -- a line of demarcation is always perceptible where they approach each other.

During the night we heard continual splashing in the water near where we were sleeping, and couldn't imagine what kind of animal was in the stream all night .... In the morning we went to the place whence came the noise and found that all that splashing in the river was caused by salmon fish, from three to four feet long, flopping and jumping in, forcing their way up the stream over the riffles where the water was not deep enough for them to swim.

Floods in 1852-53, 1861 (a major flood of similar magnitude to the one in 1955), 1864, 1875, and 1880 all reportedly "swept the rivers clear of all mining improvements" (Wells 1881). According to a Scott Valley historian, the flood damage of 1861 was greatly affected by the upstream mining operations which "tore up the watershed" and "left nothing but piles of rock and debris in the upper valley and along tributary streams" (Jackson 1963). He claims that "many of the mountain slopes were stripped of their protective covering of trees" and then the heavy rains of 1861 "flushed soil, logs, trash, and mine tailings out of the watershed into the upper end of the valley." Forming a debris dam, the Scott River was diverted from the west to the east side of the valley. This historical channel can still be seen in current aerial photos.

Despite the repeated floods, they still did not deter further mining. An observer at Hoopa Valley noted in 1865 that the Klamath and Trinity were very muddy from upstream mining and "almost deserted" by salmon (McEvoy 1986). Whether this small population was attributable to the sediment or the effects of the 1861 flood, or both, is debatable. In 1880, 15 active mining claims were noted on the South Fork of the Scott River alone (Wells 1881). While hydraulic mining was outlawed by the state in the late 1880s for the rivers near Sacramento, the Klamath River was not regulated. Gold production reached a peak in 1894 but by 1900 many of the mining operations (in Scott Valley at least) had closed down due to low profits (Albers 1966, Jackson 1963).

Hedgpeth (1944) believed that this period of hydraulic mining, which "damaged hundreds of miles of rivers," had a greater effect on the state's salmon fishery than the large canneries of the era. Certainly the intensity of mining activity has since not been approached.

The Next Era: 1900-1970

Expectations of cheap power and motor transportation to reduce the costs of mining and milling helped revitalize the local mining industry in the early 20th century (Frank 1915). Although extensive hydraulic mining was still being conducted near Happy Camp and Forks of Salmon in 1915 (see Figure 2-11a), the "new era of placer mining" was to be the massive dredges which could profitably work the gold out of the old tailing dumps and other auriferous gravels. How these dredges worked is illustrated in Figure 2-10, while a picture of a dredger at work at the mouth of Humbug Creek in the 1940s can be seen in Figure 2-11b.

With the increase in the gold price from $20.67 to $35.00 a fine ounce in 1934, plus the Depression channeling many men into prospecting, gold production in the Klamath Basin began to boom again (Albers 1966). Dredging companies were very active throughout the Salmon and Scott Rivers and their tributaries. One Yuba-type dredge near Callahan on the Scott River was able to dig to a depth of 50-60 feet below water line, process 210,000 cubic yards of soil and gravel per month (24 hours per day) and use 10,000 gallons per minute of water, which was pumped from a pond to wash the gravel through screens (Averill 1946). Its tailing piles permanently transformed about 5 miles along the upper Scott River.

The resurgence in placer mining also brought renewed attention by fishery biologists and sportsmen over the effects of silt on fish (Smith 1939). Despite claims by miners that their silt load was similar to the natural silt load during flood stages, evidence showed that the duration of turbid conditions was quite different: placer mining creates continuously muddy water while storm turbidity usually clears up quite rapidly. The Scott River in sections was so muddy from mining pollution in June of 1934 that California Department of Fish and Game stream surveyors could not see the streambed. Observations of several mining streams in northern California and Oregon revealed that "streams which are always silty seldom have large populations of salmon or trout" (Smith 1939). The reasons for their absence are several.

One of the best documentations of mining impacts in the Klamath River Basin was performed in the summer of 1934 by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries (Taft and Shapovalov 1935). An analysis of hydraulic mine operations on the East Fork Scott River involved taking samples of streambottom organisms (larvae of mayflies, trueflies, caddisflies, beetles, and stoneflies) located on riffles above and below a tributary carrying considerable mining silt. Above the silted site, the gravels contained an average of 249 organisms per square foot while below the muddy tributary the average was 36 organisms per square foot.

These stream fauna represent important food for salmon and steelhead and their loss reduces the capacity of the stream to support fish production. In a Salmon River tributary (Merrill Creek), the investigators found the bottom of the lower portion of the stream to be composed largely of coarse "mining silt," which "was productive of almost no food except snails." Their final conclusion, following many quantitative bottom samples, was that "the average number of food organisms in the one square foot samples was always less in mined areas than in non-mined areas."

In addition to the reduction in fish food, studies in the 1930s found that silt would also cover the spawning nests and suffocate the salmon and trout eggs (Smith 1939). The level of egg mortality seemed related to the amount of "silt" (not defined as to size). Filled-in pools were another symptom of streams with excessive sediment, a condition which leaves no hiding or rearing places for fish.

Figure 2-10 -- Gold dredge at work and cross-section of dredge tailings.
 

Figure 2-11a -- Gold mining on the Klamath River, Early 1900s.

Figure 2-11b -- Gold dredge at mouth of Humbug Creek, early 1940s.
 

Many other problems were also noted: increased poaching in the small, clear streams where spawners were forced to congregate; reduced streamflows due to mining diversions into ditches; loss of juvenile salmonids in unscreened mining ditches; and habitat blockage by permanent and temporary diversion dams (Taft and Shapovalov 1935).

To help address the siltation problem, California made it unlawful "to affect the clarity of the water (greater than 50 ppm, by weight, of suspended matter) in the Klamath and Trinity districts for a distance of one mile or more between July 15 and October 15." Taft and Shapovalov felt that this law (Section 5800, Fish and Game Code) was only affecting the "most flagrant cases" in 1935.

Local gold production declined sharply during World War II and was slow to recover after the war due to the high cost of labor. Dredging operations continued for awhile but the bucketline dredge near Callahan ceased operation about 1949. Small individual claim activity continued, much of it for recreational purposes. Hydraulic mining continued in the Salmon River area until prohibited in about 1970.

No information is available on fish impacts in the Klamath Basin from the mining of other minerals (gravel, chromite) during this period.

Current Mining Practices

Commercial placer mines became scarce in California in the 1970s because of stricter environmental laws, such as stream discharge requirements. With the removal of governmental control on the price of gold, its price skyrocketed in the late 1970s and, not surprisingly, a phenomenal level of gold mining activity followed suit.

Suction Dredging

The primary extraction method in the region had now become small, portable suction dredges (though large scale "high bar" gold mining in old gravel bars occurs in some places on the Salmon River). Suction dredge permits issued by the California Department of Fish and Game quadrupled in number between 1975 and 1980 (Harvey et al. 1982). In 1982, there were 147 special suction dredge permits (large diameter or outside normal season) issued in western Siskiyou County by the Department, but the numbers dropped to about 35 permits on an average in the late 1980s (D. Maria, CDFG, personal communication). Although the price of gold dropped to less than half of its peak by the mid-1980s, the interest in small suction dredging as a recreational activity has not significantly waned. On one recent summer day, 22 suction dredges were counted in the Klamath River between Seiad Valley and Happy Camp (D. Maria, CDFG, personal communication).

A description of how and where a small suction dredge works is provided by Freese (1982), with an illustration provided in Figure 2-12:
 

The suction dredge operates like an underwater vacuum cleaner. Water is taken up through the pump intake, fed through a small-diameter pressure hose and then directed up through a flexible large-diameter hose. Gravel and water is taken up through the suction hose intake and fed through a baffled sluice box; it is here that the gold settles out. Gravel and small rocks continue on through the sluice box and are redeposited, as dredge tailings, in the stream channel. (Smaller fines are carried downstream and redeposited (Thomas 1985)). Dredges are classified according to the diameter of the suction intake; they range in size from 1.5 inch "mini" or "backpack" models weighing as little as 35 pounds, up to very large units, 10 inches or more in diameter.
 
 

Most bedload material is moved during large flood events. Since gold is very heavy, it tends to settle out first and is generally found in cracks in the bedrock which underlies the stream gravels. It is often necessary for dredge operators to remove voluminous quantities of overburden in order to reach bedrock. Gold is likely to be found in any area where the current suddenly slacks off, such as suction and pressure eddies, behind dikes, outcrops and boulders, wherever the channel widens or the gradient decreases, and under the gravels of point bars at the inside of bends in the river. These are the areas where dredging operations are concentrated.

Dredge capacity quadruples as intake diameter doubles (Griffith and Andrews 1981).

Placer Mining

In addition to suction dredges, small placer mines (panning, sluice box and/or power sluice operations) are still in operation throughout the middle Klamath Basin. McCleneghan and Johnson (1983) found that "placer mining of the streambank can damage the riparian and stream more than suction dredge mining" if adequate controls are not enforced. No direct discharge is presently allowed into the streams by placer mining (Lt. Franklin Cox, CDFG, personal communication). However, in Canyon Creek (Trinity River), placer miners were observed sluicing tailings into the stream (Hassler et al. 1986).

Gravel Mining

In-stream gravel mining activity fluctuates in the Klamath Basin. Commercial operations are primarily scattered in accessible tributaries near towns. In the 1970s, Cottonwood Creek was used as the gravel source for the construction of Interstate 5 north of Yreka and its spawning habitat has yet to recover (Lt. Franklin Cox, CDFG, personal communication). During the same period, the Army Corps of Engineers removed about 800,000 cubic yards from a large gravel bar in the lower Klamath River to build the flood levee at Klamath Glen, with reportedly "no change in the basic river geometry" as a result of that extraction (Caltrans 1989).

Concern has been expressed about the increased demand for Klamath River gravel in the lower river near Klamath to support the Redwood National Park/Highway 101 bypass project. During the 1980s, about 600,000 cubic yards of gravel were extracted from a few bars (Caltrans 1989). A recent proposal by Caltrans calls for the removal of up to 500,000 cubic yards from gravel bars on the mainstem or from Turwar Creek. These stream sections are thought to be in an aggraded condition: the Klamath River is reportedly aggrading at the rate of 100,000 to 150,000 cubic yards per year in the proposed reach while Turwar Creek has shown "substantial aggradation in the channel" over the last thirty years. The streamflow there goes subsurface during the summer and early fall, posing a barrier to upstream migrants in the fall (Caltrans 1989).

The potential for damage to spawning gravels is related to the extent and rate of removal as well as the methods used. While gravel bar skimming or deep dredging are the prevailing practices, permits may be issued which could cause, individually or cumulatively, the annual extraction rate to be greater than the annual replenishment rate (Sommarstrom 1981). In aggraded streambeds, this net loss may not be a problem or could be useful. However, in degraded streambeds any further removal could be a serious concern for channel stability and gravel quality.

To avoid damages to fish habitat and channel stability from gravel removal, Dunne et al. (1981) have proposed that the following four steps be taken before a gravel permit is issued: 1) define the historical activity of the river at the proposed site, 2) estimate bedload transport rate through the reach, 3) evaluate probable impact of bar scalping on channel stability, and 4) require explicit information on proposed mining procedure.

If construction needs increase significantly during the next 20 years, stream habitat could be adversely affected by intensive instream gravel removal if proper precautions are not taken.

Lode Mining

Gold, copper, and chromite mines (representing the largest scale operations) have been in production off and on during the past century. The Salmon River and Happy Camp areas have seen the greatest gold and copper mining activity in the past due to their massive sulfide ore deposits. Little documentation is available of the impacts except for one recent operation, the Gray Eagle Mine.

Once a very large operation, the Gray Eagle mine above Indian Creek was reopened for gold extraction in the early 1980s. While previous tunnel mining had created a large acid drainage situation, the new process used a cyanide leaching method. Although the mining company was required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to contain all waste in ponds with clay lining, cyanide seeped out of the dam in 1981 (D. Evans, NCRWQCB, personal communication). New requirements demanded a continuous treatment process below the dam, which still generates 1 ton of dry powdered sludge per day (stored on-site and then hauled off for ore value). Water produced from the process is within drinking water standards and released into Indian Creek through a leach field; no direct discharge is allowed.

Gray Eagle mine closed down in 1987, yet the treatment process for the seepage continues. Old mine tailings, which contain copper, were placed near Indian Creek and are still leaching copper (as shown by rust color) about a mile downstream. At this site, copper levels are lethal for fish, but the toxicity fades to low levels not far below. Concern is also expressed about the tailings pond location within the 100 year flood plain (D. Evans, NCRWQCB, personal communication).

With the present surge in copper prices, the mining company is expressing interest in once again opening up the Gray Eagle mine but this time for the copper. A joint EIS/EIR would likely be required, states the Siskiyou County Planning Department, due to the magnitude of the operation. Other copper and gold mines in the region may also show renewed activity with higher mineral prices.

Impacts of Mining on Salmon and Steelhead

Suction Mining

As during the previous gold mining boom, biologists and sportfishers were concerned, if not alarmed, by the possible effects of these new suction dredges on aquatic organisms. New studies were done to address the various concerns:

1. Spawning gravels.
2. Adult fish migration, feeding, and holding.
3. Early life stages of salmonids.
4. Aquatic invertebrates.
5. Water quality impacts.
6. Increases in bank erosion, changes in channel morphology, destruction of riparian vegetation.

The results of research to date, as well as the lack thereof, concerning each of these impacts is discussed below.

Spawning Gravels. Where winter flows are high enough to provide flushing action, the sand and dredge tailings are not evident the following year (Harvey et al. 1982, Stern 1985). However, "dredging-related substrate alterations could be long lasting below impoundments," cautions Harvey. Hassler et al. (1986) observed that salmon and steelhead did not spawn on dredge tailing piles in Canyon Creek (Trinity River), but there is concern about the ability of early run fish to spawn in these areas before the flushing flows of the fall occur, which may not be until November or December on the Klamath River.

Changes in the quality of spawning gravels, such as the percent of fines or degree of embeddedness, have not been measured after suction dredging. Observations seem to indicate an on-site improvement in porosity yet the fines may be transported only a short ways downstream. Fines that had filtered down through the gravels would be brought to the surface for redeposition. A lack of flushing flows could recreate the embeddedness condition and continued siltation would only refill the dredged gravels (Bjornn et al. 1977). However, some biologists believe that suction dredgers can enhance the spawning habitat, if clean gravels are a limiting factor (Stern 1985).

Another unknown is the ability of dredged gravels and tailings to provide a stable redd until emergence of the young. Elk Creek is one area of such concern (J. West, USFS, personal communication).

Impacts on Adults. Adult fish in holding areas, particularly summer steelhead, are quite vulnerable to poaching by miners. Dredging activity could force the adults to congregate in a few pools instead of being more dispersed (Freese 1982). During spawning season, dredging activity and tailing piles could impede access to upstream spawning sites by scaring the adults downstream or by physically blocking tributary access. This was not observed to be a problem in Canyon Creek, Trinity River (Hassler et al. 1986).

Pools which fill up with sediment from upstream dredging have a reduced capacity to hold adult fish (as well as young) (Harvey et al. 1982). Resident trout, however, did tend to occupy the holes created by dredging in the riffles in the Harvey study. Pool and riffle configuration can be altered, depending on the amount of dredged material (Thomas 1985).

Impacts on Eggs, Juveniles. In an Idaho study of a small (3 inch) suction dredge, un-eyed trout eggs (the youngest ones) experienced 100% mortality after entrainment through a dredge, while eyed eggs suffered 24-62% mortality (Griffith and Andrews 1981). Results could be different for eyed eggs of chinook salmon, the authors stated, as they are "generally considered more resistant to shock and might be less affected." Hatchery operators are well aware of the relative sensitivity of salmonid eggs at different stages and with various species. An increase in egg or alevin mortality could also result from a small decrease in gravel permeability in a stream where intergravel flow and dissolved oxygen is marginal to begin with (Thomas 1985).

For rainbow trout sac fry, 83% mortality resulted after passage through a dredge (compared to 9% in controls), primarily due to detachment of the yolk sac from the body of the fry (Griffith and Andrews 1981). The probability of survival would increase as the size of the yolk sac decreases and nearly complete survival of free-swimming fry would be expected. With small suction dredges (30 cm/second intake velocity or less), fingerling and larger trout could avoid being entrained but would still likely survive. In the middle Klamath River and tributaries, concern exists over the impact on the eggs and fry from late spawning steelhead as they would still be in the gravels at the June 1st start-up date for allowable dredging (Leidy and Leidy 1984).

Loss of summer rearing capacity occurs when sediment is deposited in pools, while winter capacity for juveniles is reduced when deposited within the streambed gravels (Bjornn et al. 1977). The questions to ask with dredging are, what is the net change in rearing habitat quality and quantity, and does the change have biological significance? Stern (1985) believes that suction dredgers can enhance rearing habitat, if limiting factors of a reach of stream are known (i.e., cover, woody debris, and low velocity refuges).

Impacts on Aquatic Invertebrates. Benthic invertebrates (larvae of mayflies, caddisflies, etc.) fared much better than salmonid eggs and fry, with a short-term survival rate of nearly 100% after dredge passage (Griffith and Andrews 1981). Only emerging insects appeared prone to damage. Long-term survival could be reduced, depending on the amount of physical damage, predation, and the suitability of their new habitat downstream. Other studies concluded that impacts of dredging on benthic organisms "appear to be highly localized" (Harvey et al. 1982, Thomas 1985). Part of the reason is that "different habitat requirements result in a range of effects on individual species (and life history stages)." For instance, if sand is dredged up to the surface, those insects which can use a sandy substrate may become more abundant if provided enough time to recolonize, whereas those organisms which require unembedded cobbles and boulders would decline in abundance. Smaller dredges (i.e., 2 1/2 inches) in a low sediment stream had a minimal impact on the benthic community (Thomas 1985).

Since most invertebrates are found in the top 4 inches (10cm) of the streambed, a dredge which covers a large area has a greater effect than one which excavates a deep pit to bedrock (Harvey et al. 1982). Insect density is usually greatest in riffles and shallow runs, where damage from sand would be great. On Butte Creek, riffle dredging created exposed stream bottom areas, "clearly reducing the area of productive insect habitat." Dredged sites were repopulated in Idaho streams from adjacent areas in slightly more than a month in one area, while in another area repopulation took 3 months to 1.2 years, depending on the distance upstream to a source or pool of invertebrates (Griffith and Andrews 1981). The amount of bedload movement in a stream also probably affects the benthic recovery time (Thomas 1985).

Water Quality Impacts. The degree of turbidity created during the dredging process, such as the sediment plumes observed downstream, is related to the amount and size of sediment deposited in the streambed as well as the capacity of the dredge. In streams with low levels of fines (size less than about 0.5mm) or only sand and gravel, turbidity may be nearly undetectable, while very noticeable turbidity increases occur when dredging clay deposits or silty stream banks (Griffith and Andrews 1981, Harvey et al. 1982, Stern 1985). Turbidities in the 10-50 NTU range, while noticeable, do not seem to impair feeding by trout yet levels over about 30 NTU do affect the "fishability" of the stream.

Where dredging is concentrated, turbidity plumes can become continuous from one operation to the next as the silt is constantly resuspended. This phenomenon was recently observed during the summer on the Klamath River between Seiad Valley and Happy Camp. The effect of such persistent levels of turbidity on salmonids and the benthic community is not known. Muddy water could also possibly be a contributing factor to the high water temperatures noted in the middle Klamath River (D. Maria, CDFG, personal communication).

Bank and Channel Impacts. Two surveys of suction dredgers in California found these adverse effects: bank undercutting, stream channelizing, riparian damage, removal of instream woody debris, and bank sluicing (McCleneghan and Johnson 1983, Hassler et al. 1986). These problems were considered greater and of longer-term impact than dredge holes or tailing piles (Stern 1985). While only a few of the miners caused damage, the investigators were concerned about the cumulative impact created by the great amount of dredging effort. In Canyon Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River, impacts were considered "moderate," though seasonal and site specific, at the current level of suction dredge activity (Hassler et al. 1986).

In addition, large boulders were moved from some of the dredge sites by miners using powered winches. The boulder removal could alter streambed morphology for several years (Hassler et al. 1986). Riparian damage was observed as a result of camping in the riparian zone (McCleneghan and Johnson 1983, Stern 1985).

Fishing Safety. Concern was expressed by several fishermen during the initial public comment phase of this plan that they, or a companion, had almost drowned after stepping into an unseen dredge hole. As a result of this experience, they strongly recommended that either dredgers should be required to restore dredging sites to their pre-dredged shape, or dredging should be stopped. No evaluations of this impact have been done.

Current Mining Regulations

Suction Dredging

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) takes the lead in regulating suction or vacuum dredge use in any river, stream, or lake by requiring either a standard or special (when intake is larger than 8 inches or to operate in waters otherwise closed to dredging) permit before any use. Through Fish and Game Code Section 5653, the agency primarily controls the activity by determining open and closed waters, the season of use, and the maximum size of dredge. A permit must be issued "if the Department determines that such operation will not be deleterious to fish."

For the Klamath River Basin, the 1989 regulations are shown in Table 2-3. The season restrictions are primarily designed to protect spawning grounds, while the dredge size restrictions are intended to limit turbidity. Closures in Clear, Dillon, and Wooley Creeks are aimed at protecting their sensitive summer steelhead populations. In proposed regulations for 1990, Yreka Creek is recommended by CDFG staff for closure because of all of the habitat restoration and education attention it is receiving. In addition, a 6 inch diameter will be the maximum allowed on all tributaries while the 8 inch size will be the largest for the mainstem Klamath River and mainstem Trinity River (D. Maria, CDFG, personal communication).

Standard suction dredge permits are issued by any CDFG regional office for any stream open to dredging while special permits must first be reviewed with recommendations by the local fishery biologist. As a result, record-keeping of the location of standard dredging activity is not available from the permits.

A "1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement" (Section 1603, F&G Code) is only being required for mining when heavy or motorized equipment is operated "which would substantially change the bed, channel or bank" of any river or stream. Several researchers have noted that this section of the code may need to be applied to suction dredging when operations become "substantial," but with clear guidelines (McCleneghan and Johnson 1983, Stern 1985).

On federal lands, the U.S. Forest Service requires that each suction dredger first obtain a CDFG permit. A Notice of Intent is then filed with the local ranger district. If the disturbance will be more than 25 cubic yards, or there is more portable equipment than can fit inside a pickup truck, or if a permanent campsite is involved, then the miner must also file a Plan of Operation. The agency may then place special conditions on the plan and require the posting of a reclamation bond before operations can begin (J. Power, USFS, personal communication).

The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has also deferred to the CDFG for impact regulation in most suction dredge cases (B. Rodriguez, NCRWQCB, personal communication). If a very large operation is proposed (e.g., 14 inch intake diameter or more), then the Board would likely require a waste discharge permit and set operating conditions through that procedure. While the Board's water quality standards require that "turbidity shall not be increased more than 20 percent above naturally occurring background levels," suction dredging activities have not yet triggered enforcement of this requirement. No turbidity monitoring is currently being done of suction dredging areas.

Stern (1985) claims that the current state suction dredge regulations are "vague, poorly understood, and minimally enforced," based on observations in a tributary of the Trinity River. He recommends that the most serious impacts of suction dredge mining could be reduced through education of miners of the reasons behind the CDFG regulations and the habitat needs of salmonids. By restricting mining to summer months, Stern also found that current CDFG regulations "eliminate conflicts with salmonid spawning, incubation, and fry emergence" in Canyon Creek. Procedural guidelines still need to be established in the following areas:

1) Working along and under stream banks.
2) Moving large rocks, boulders and organic debris with power winches.
3) Trimming and removing riparian vegetation.

Since suction dredges are so portable, Thomas (1985) recommends that "managers should concentrate their control efforts on very sensitive areas and areas of intensive dredge activity." More field inspections of permits and improved local availability of standard permits are suggested by a CDFG evaluation (McCleneghan and Johnson 1983).

The American Fisheries Society also made recommendations for "best management practices" for suction dredging operations (AFS 1982). While several of these recommendations are addressed in current CDFG or USFS regulations, others are not (as noted with **):
 

• Stream closures: seasonal limits to protect fish eggs and fry.
• Categories of dredges: "under no circumstances should 6 inch or larger dredges be classed 'recreational dredges'"; larger dredges should post a reasonable bond and pay the cost of periodic inspections (**).
• Zoning to restrict dredge size: smaller dredges limited to smaller streams.
• Frequency of dredging: to retain productivity, regulate frequency, "with a minimum of one year being allowed to elapse before redredging is considered (**).
• Dredge operation: a) do not excavate or wash streambanks; b) fill in pits excavated at end of each day to prevent becoming traps for fish (**); (c) do not disturb large instream materials (boulders, logs, etc.) (**); (d) do not allow fuel or lubricants to enter stream.

California regulates mining through the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975, as amended. Numerous problems with the Act and its implementation were recently identified by the California Department of Conservation (CDC 1989). Environmental problems were common in unreclaimed sites. The Department suggested several remedies to the law, which are included in the recommended policies for this section. The counties only get involved with mining activities that remove more than 1,000 cubic yards of material under their Surface Mining and Reclamation (SMARA) Ordinances. For gravel mining operations, the county permit and a CDFG 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement are the two principle controls.

Water quality protections from other mining activities are provided by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board through the issuance of waste discharge permits.

Conclusions

Research on aquatic impacts of mining has tended to follow the resurgence of mining brought on by increases in prices and improvements in technology. To adequately protect the habitat, it is important to anticipate the potential impacts if conditions favorable to increased levels of mining recur during the next 20 years (e.g., price of gold shoots to $800 per ounce or more).

No recent research has focused on the effects of suction dredging in the Klamath River Basin, only in tributaries of the Trinity River which have low levels of sediment (Freese 1981, Stern 1985). Research elsewhere has also focused on smaller dredges (1.5 to 4 inches), while the larger ones (6 to 8 inch) are commonly used in the Klamath River.

Concerns have been voiced by biologists and sportsmen over the present concentration of suction dredges in the mainstem Klamath River between Seiad Valley and Happy Camp, as well as the effects on steelhead eggs and sac fry in the mainstem and tributary gravels during June following the opening date. Much of the mainstem is also open year-round, which may have broader impacts.

Policies for Mining Activities

Objective 2.B. Ensure that mining activities do not cause habitat damage.

2.B.1. Seek to minimize impact of suction dredge mining on salmon and steelhead habitat and populations by:

a. Communicating with miners about fish habitat needs and possible impacts of dredging through personal contact as well as preparing a clear and concise illustrated handout to be distributed with suction dredge permits.
b. Evaluating the impacts of concentrated dredging activity, where cumulative effects may pose serious problems.
c. Supporting evaluation of the effects of the larger suction dredges (6 to 10 inch) on salmonid habitat.
d. Supporting CDFG in maintaining complete closure (no exceptions) of essential summer steelhead streams: Wooley Creek, Dillon Creek, and Clear Creek.
e. Requesting that the California Department of Fish and Game:
1. Change the season's beginning date from June 1 to July 1 to protect winter-run steelhead eggs and fry, which may still be in the gravels during early summer.
2. Require miners dredging in the river to mark the dredged site for safety reasons, and notify fishermen through the licensing process.
3. Promote a better record-keeping system through the permit process for collecting data on the numbers, locations, and sizes of dredge activity.
f. Based on the results of research, pursuing any necessary improvements in regulations and education to adequately protect the habitat.

2.B.2. Seek effective protections of salmonid habitat from potential impacts of other mining practices (gravel, lode, placer) by:
 

a. Promoting education of miners.
b. Supporting needed evaluations and monitoring.
c. Working with the appropriate regulatory agencies in establishing permit conditions.
d. Ensuring minimum reclamation standards be adopted, implemented and enforced.
e. Supporting a mandatory form of financial assurance (e.g., bond) to assure reclamation of mines.
f. Promoting the abatement of any water quality and habitat problems associated with abandoned mining operations.
g. Requesting lead SMARA agencies to assess penalties and fines for non-compliance with SMARA statute provisions, and also for failure to comply with reporting requirements.

2.B.3. Promote communication between miners and salmon and steelhead users.

See also Stream Diversions section.

Issues

* Impact of stream channelization on habitat.
* Loss of riparian vegetation as a result of livestock grazing.
* Stream pollution caused by runoff of livestock wastes, fertilizers, and pesticides.
* Impact of livestock on stream habitat.
* Need for a voluntary and cooperative approach with landowners.

History

While much of the lower Klamath Basin is timber country, the upper basin contains fertile valleys and hillside grasslands. Cultivation of crops and the raising of livestock began shortly after the mining settlements sprang up in the 1850s. (See also the discussion under "Water Diversions.") Valleys were cleared of trees and brush to provide more farmland.

After the turn of the century, Siskiyou County supported 30,000 sheep grazing on the hillsides: "The highlands of Siskiyou seem made by Nature for a paradise for sheep ... there is ample room for hundreds of thousands more without encroaching upon the agricultural and horticultural acreage of the valleys." An additional 50,000 cattle were being raised on the rangelands at the time, and often pastured in the summer on the mountain meadows of the "forest reserves" (French 1915).

According to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, "heavy grazing pressure and the widespread droughts of the 1860s" reduced the extent of the native perennial grasses on the grazing lands of Siskiyou County (USSCS 1983). They were replaced by various species of annual grasses and forbs (juniper, brush, medusahead) of less desireable quality for grazing. Under brushfields, less duff layer exists to hold water for percolation and runoff is more rapid, causing surface erosion and greater peak flows in streams. The same problem also results from soils compacted by intensive grazing (Platts 1981).

Besides livestock, the farms and ranches produced many annual and perennial crops: grains, alfalfa hay, potatoes, and corn, among others.

To address many soil and water conservation problems, farmers and ranchers in the Scott Valley joined together in 1949 to form the Siskiyou Soil Conservation District (now called the Resource Conservation District, or RCD), while a few years later farmers in the Shasta Valley formed the Shasta Valley RCD. As a result, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was able to come in and provide the districts needed technical assistance, such as providing soil surveys, engineering advice, irrigation system design, and improved forage plants (SSCD 1969).

The County Farm Advisor's Office (University of California Cooperative Extension) also provided information with which local farmers and ranchers could apply the lessons of soil and crop research to their lands.

Agricultural Practices

Flood Control and Stream Channelization

As farmland became more productive and valuable, the damages caused by each flood became less tolerable. Streambanks were eroded; fields were covered with silt, gravel, and debris; and fences, buildings, equipment, and livestock were destroyed (SSCD 1969). Floods recurred quite regularly since the first major post-settlement flood of 1861: 1881, 1890-91, 1900, 1926, and 1934 (Jackson 1963).

In 1938, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers came into Scott Valley to help prevent flood damage. It reportedly removed all of the riparian vegetation along certain portions of the Scott River (between Horn Lane and Meamber Bridge), straightened the channel, and constructed dikes. The following winter, a flood broke behind the dikes and could not get back into the channel. Rocks and other debris were again left behind in the pastures (O. Lewis personal communication).

To protect the streambanks from eroding and lessen the river's "punch while it was on the rampage," landowners would drive pilings by hand to make jetties or make revetments by piling trees and rock against the bank (Jackson 1963). Unfortunately, the straightening increased average water velocities which accelerated damage to unvegetated banks.

The flood of 1955 and the high water of 1958 widened the Scott River channel from about 120 feet to over 1000 feet across in some places (SSCD 1969). As a result, the Siskiyou Soil Conservation District (SSCD) helped landowners place very large rock riprap along the more critical reaches of the river banks. Of the 20 miles or so completed, only about 2 1/2 miles washed out in the 1964 flood. By 1969, the District had completed 158,700 feet (30 miles) of streambank protection.

After studying the problem, the Siskiyou Soil Conservation District and its SCS staff found that: 1) there was insufficient vegetation along the banks to protect them, 2) physical protection was needed on the banks until vegetation could be reestablished, 3) there was no way to contain the river within its banks, and 4) it would be "easier and less costly to stabilize this channel in a series of gentle curves than trying to keep it straight" (Jackson 1963).

Thus, the rock riprap projects of the District, which incorporated willow cuttings and required protective fencing, became the primary streambank protection effort. An evaluation of some of these projects on the Scott River showed that when riparian vegetation is established (3 to 5 years after construction), the streambank protection projects had "produced positive or beneficial effects on both fish and wildlife" (Patterson 1976).

Agricultural Runoff

Stream pollution from agricultural runoff is another concern. Animal wastes, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides can enter the stream during storm runoff or as a result of irrigation return flows. Livestock can also directly contribute to stream pollution when the stream is used for open grazing or watering, such as is often done in the Shasta and Scott Rivers.

The extent of pollution from runoff is related to soil type and depth, slope, rainfall amounts, and irrigation practices, as well as the quantities of these potential pollutants. Fertilizers are used primarily on pasture and grain in the local valleys, although saline soils and low rainfall limit their use in the Shasta Valley (B. Bartholomew, USSCS, personal communication). While pesticides and herbicides are also used locally, their use is becoming more difficult due to increasingly restrictive regulations and greater expense.

According to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the discharge of poor quality drainage water from agricultural operations is a problem in the region. There is a particular problem with high water discharge to the Klamath River from Butte Valley (the Klamath Project) via Meiss Lake drainage facilities (Klamath Straits Drain) (NCRWQCB 1989). The agency also noted the warming of stream water by irrigation return flows, which heat up due to solar exposure in open ditches and fields.

Nutrient levels in the Klamath and Shasta Rivers are "generally higher than those found in most other Northern California waters" and are "within the range found in agricultural surface drainage" (CDWR 1986). No detectable levels of pesticides have been found in the Scott and Shasta Rivers to date (R. Klamt, NCRWQCB, personal communication).

Impacts of Agricultural Practices on Salmon and Steelhead

The impacts of riparian vegetation removal, livestock, and agricultural runoff on salmon and steelhead can be categorized into the following:

1. Spawning habitat.
2. Rearing habitat.
3. Water quality.

Spawning habitat

Livestock can trample redds during or after the spawning season, which will disrupt the nest and cause egg loss. Sedimentation, such as from bank erosion and runoff, will fill in the spaces within the spawning gravels, creating poor quality sites for spawning and lowering the survival rate for the eggs and fry. Eroded streambanks also lack shrubs and trees. Without the downed wood which naturally fell into the stream, material is not present to scour out hiding and resting places for adult spawning fish (Reiser and Bjornn 1979).

Rearing habitat

As depicted in Figures 2-13 and 2-14, the removal of riparian plants creates a dramatic change in the availability and productivity of stream habitat. Young fish need pools and shelter, as well as terrestrial insect food, which riparian plants provide. Sedimentation will also fill in the pools and smother vital aquatic insect food. Juvenile steelhead and coho salmon are particularly vulnerable to loss of summer habitat since these species must spend at least one summer in the stream before migrating to the ocean.

Water quality

Maximum summer stream temperatures in the Shasta River were recently measured to be in the range of 22-29.5^oC (72-85^oF), which are levels stressful or lethal for salmon and steelhead (CDWR 1986). The Scott River is also known to have high temperatures (J. Power, USFS, personal communication). The cause is attributed to the lack of shading from riparian vegetation in many reaches, in combination with reductions in flow from irrigation diversions (CDFG 1965). With their location higher up in the Klamath Basin, these tributaries may affect temperatures in downstream reaches of the Klamath River. Such high temperatures also contribute to lowering dissolved oxygen levels in the water, another critical factor for survival (CDWR 1986, Reiser and Bjornn 1979).

Livestock wastes and fertilizer runoff contribute excess nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus) to the stream. As a result, aquatic plant and algae growth is stimulated. After these plants die, the decomposition process by bacteria can demand more oxygen than the living plants produce, which will lower the oxygen levels in the stream. In combination with high temperatures and low streamflow, these decreased oxygen levels can be stressful or lethal to both adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead (see Figure 2-23). Such critically low levels of dissolved oxygen have been measured in the Shasta River in recent years (D. Maria, CDFG, personal communication). While the State's water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is a minimum level of 7.0 mg/l, Shasta River has reached levels of 4.7 mg/l or less in the summer (CDWR 1986).

Riparian Benefits

Many studies have described the varied benefits of riparian vegetation, which can be summarized as follows (Bottom et al. 1985, Bjornn and Reiser 1979):
 

• Filters fine sediment, debris, and other pollutants in runoff from upland sources.
•  Root masses stabilize streambank and prevent erosion.
•  Provides shade, which help prevent water temperatures from reaching stressful or lethal levels for salmonids during summer.
•  Provides insulation in the winter time, helping to prevent stream freezing and loss of overwintering fish.
• Large woody debris from riparian trees offers cover for fish to escape predation and disturbance, and refuge from high velocity water in the channel.
• Shelters insects which fall into the stream and become food for fish; deposits leaves and other organic material into stream for food for aquatic insects.

Figure 2-13 -- Changes in cross-sectional channel profile due to riparian degradation.

Figure 2-14 -- Impact of loss of snags, instream and streamside vegetation on fish and benthos (bottom organisms).
 
 
 

Identifying Protective Alternatives

Riparian Area Practices

Protection of riparian areas on farms and ranches can physically be accomplished through many practices (AFS 1982):
 

• Development of offsite watering facilities or structures to prevent concentrations of livestock along streambanks.
• Keep bedding areas and corrals out of riparian areas.
• If access to stream for water is essential, limit access sites and provide bank protection structure for each site.
• Fencing riparian areas from livestock grazing temporarily or permanently.
• Instituting alternative livestock grazing systems.
• Providing an uncultivated "leave strip" next to a stream.

The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has found that, in many cases, fencing to exclude livestock will provide for the natural regeneration of riparian plants if seed is available from upstream or nearby sites. Replanting of sites with cuttings or nursery stock can speed up the process if properly done. Fencing along the Scott River to control livestock use of the streamside has contributed to some dramatic improvements in riparian growth in certain areas, as observed from comparing aerial photographs (1974 versus 1987) as well as field observation.

Riparian Protection and Economic Incentives

In addition, several economic options have been suggested: tax incentives, conservation easements, and land purchase. The State of Oregon has tried a Riparian Tax Incentive Program since 1981 to encourage private landowners to protect or restore streamside vegetation within 100 feet of the stream. Once a cooperative management agreement detailing approved protective measures is signed with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and implemented, the landowner will receive: 1) an ad valorem property tax exemption for riparian lands that are protected or enhanced, and 2) a 25% personal or corporate income tax credit for costs incurred in fish habitat improvement projects (Duhnkrack 1984).

However, the program has failed to live up to expectations. The tax incentives apparently were too confusing, insufficient, or too indirect to help obtain better practices by often cash poor farmers and ranchers (J. Charles, Oregon Environmental Council, personal communication). In California, the financial incentive would likely be even less since most farms and ranches are already receiving property tax breaks under the Williamson Act's agricultural preserve program. New tax credits are politically unpopular also.

Conservation easements are either donated by the landowner, in exchange for tax benefits, or are bought. The easement restricts certain activities on the land (e.g., livestock grazing in the riparian area) but conditions are flexible enough to suit the wishes of the landowner while providing the desired conservation benefit (e.g., riparian protection). Since the easement is only a "less-than-fee interest," the land itself is not sold. Through a deed listing the restricted uses, the landowner conveys these rights to another party, such as a non-profit organization or the local government. This "grantee" then assumes responsibility for enforcement of the agreed upon restrictions (Barrett and Livermore 1983).

To make the conservation easement a workable option, some criteria are needed: 1) the pursuit and enforcement of the easement should be viewed as non-threatening to the landowner and his neighbors, and 2) the easement should be of mutual benefit to the landowner and the grantee. If the tax benefits are not enough of an incentive for donating the easement, then the purchase price or the completion of improvements to the property in lieu of cash (e.g., development of a stockwatering system) must be attractive to the landowner. In exchange, the riparian land could be permanently protected (the easement stays with the land and not just the owner).

Runoff and Water Quality Protection

Besides protecting a zone of riparian vegetation, other methods can be used to reduce runoff and pollution problems from agricultural lands (Platts 1981, AFS 1982):
 

• For flood irrigated lands, use tailwater recovery systems which recycle irrigation waters through sprinklers for further application and soil filtering.
• Change from flood irrigation to a more efficient watering system, which will reduce runoff to the streams.
• Apply a grazing management system which does not use the riparian area and avoids the concentration of animal wastes; the Holistic Resource Management (HRM) model is one being used more frequently in northern California (Savory 1988; D. Patterson, SCS, personal communication).
• Reduce need for pesticides by using an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program or organic farming methods; both are becoming more popular in Siskiyou County.

As one stream researcher cautioned, "persuading land managers to recognize and implement management practices that protect streams and their riparian environments will be difficult" (Platts 1981).

Regulations for Agricultural Practices

No regulations presently exist in the Klamath Basin which require the protection of riparian vegetation on private agricultural land.

Streambed alteration is mainly controlled by the California Department of Fish me (CDFG), through its "1603 Agreement" provisions of the Fish and Game Code (Sections 1601-1606). The agency also has some water pollution control power through Section 5650, which prohibits depositing any substance or material into the stream "deleterious to fish." Any major channel work (including streambank protection or riprap projects) might additionally require a "404 permit" from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under authority of the federal Clean Water Act. The Siskiyou Resource Conservation District (RCD), for example, is seeking to renew a General Permit with the Corps for carrying out rip rap projects on the Scott River and some tributaries.

Water quality regulations primarily derive from the federal Clean Water Act and its amendments. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the State Water Resources Control Board to administer the permit system for discharges. While only very large agricultural operations are currently under permit, the State may prescribe waste discharge requirements for any "point source" discharger regardless of size (NCRWQCB 1989). If irrigation flows return to the stream from a ditch or pipe, for example, then it would be a "point source."

However, much of the agricultural runoff comes from numerous locations or extensive seepage. This "non-point source pollution" is more difficult to regulate but is still a serious concern of the agencies. The State Water Resources Control Board and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board have recently directed funds to the Shasta Valley RCD to implement agricultural and grazing BMPs along the Shasta River.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture is the lead agency in regulating pesticide use in the region. As of January 1, 1990, all growers must make monthly reports of all pesticide applications to the County Agricultural Commissioner's office.

Conclusions

Watershed conditions in the Klamath Basin exhibit the legacy of over a hundred years of livestock grazing, some of which was very intensive. Riparian vegetation has been extensively reduced or removed along the Scott and Shasta Rivers, as well as other tributaries, causing increased water temperatures and lack of instream cover for salmon and steelhead. Drainage water from agricultural operations has contributed to high nutrient levels in the upper Klamath and Shasta Rivers, which can lead to critically low oxygen levels for salmon and steelhead young in the summer months.

While conditions are improving in some areas, much remains to be done to provide protection to the valuable riparian zone and to protect water quality from agricultural runoff. Various tools are available to assist farmers and ranchers in improving agricultural practices.

Policies for Agriculture

Objective 2.C. Protect and improve the water quality of stream habitat from adverse agricultural practices.

2.C.1. Seek opportunities for farmers and ranchers to reduce their impact on stream water quality:
 

a. Instigate local workshops and seminars with local Resource Conservation Districts, County Farm Advisor, Soil Conservation Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Farm Bureau, Cattleman's Association, and others.
b. Encourage "best management practices" to reduce the amounts of animal waste and fertilizers entering watercourses, initially focusing on demonstration projects.
c. Promote the fencing of riparian areas in vulnerable sites to protect existing vegetation, to provide for natural regeneration, and to protect new plantings.
d. Explore the option of conservation easements to protect riparian zones.
e. Make funding available to help implement improvements which will provide a significant benefit to the fisheries.
f. Investigate and pursue other sources of financial assistance (e.g., ASCS, CDFG, SWRCB).
g. Promote communication between the farmers and ranchers and the salmon and steelhead users.

2.C.2. Monitor and assess stream quality to help evaluate the location, extent, and trends of water quality and riparian problems related to agricultural practices, particularly in the Shasta River, while coordinating with pertinent agencies.

See also: Policies in Stream Diversion section and Chapter 3 -- Habitat Restoration.
 

   

---