Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning habitat quality
was evaluated in two Klamath River tributaries, Shasta River and South
Fork Trinity River (SFTR), in 1994. Sediment samples were collected using
a McNeil sampler and wet sieved through a series of Tyler screens (12.5
mm, 4.75 mm, 2.36 mm, 1.0 mm, and 0.85 mm); fines (<0.85 mm)
were determined after a 10 min. settling period in Imhoff cones. Thirteen
stations, located in the mainstem Shasta River between river km (RK) 0.8
and 59.1, were sampled. Eleven mainstem SFTR stations, located between
RK 0.2 and 118, were sampled; two other stations were sampled that were
located in tributaries to the SFTR. From a review of the literature, fines
in spawning habitat in excess of 15-20% can reduce salmonid egg survival
by preventing oxygen absorption and removal of metabolic waste. Small gravel/sand
(variously defined in the literature as <6.4 mm or between 1.0-3.35
mm) can entomb sac fry: if sediment particles <6.4 mm comprised 10-30%
of spawning gravel, or if 1.0-3.35 mm particles exceed 10-20% of spawning
gravel, emergence rates declined rapidly. Results indicate that fines are
present in quantities deleterious to egg survival in the Shasta River:
sample mean percent fines ranged between 20.8-55.0%. In the SFTR, small
gravel/sand (all sediment particles <4.75 mm) ranged between
38.7-52.5%; at those levels, decreased sac fry emergence rates would result.
This study found that levels of fines and other small sediment particles
are higher than those measured historically in both river basins. Reduction
of egg survival or sac fry emergence rates due to sedimentation in spawning
gravels is likely leading to reduced juvenile production from the Shasta
and South Fork Trinity Rivers.
INTRODUCTION
The Shasta River (Siskiyou County) and South Fork Trinity River (SFTR)
basins (Humboldt and Trinity counties) are major tributaries in the Klamath
River basin (Figure 1). Both watersheds support anadromous Pacific salmon
(Oncorhynchus sp.) and steelhead (O. mykiss) populations.
Runs of fall-run chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) into the Shasta
River, once numbering as high as 81,844 fish in 1931, had declined to 586
fish in 1992. Steelhead counts in the Shasta River exhibit similar declines:
8,525 fish were counted in 1932 (Snyder 1933), while 233 fish were counted
in 1978 (unpublished data). Spring- and fall-run chinook salmon escapements
into SFTR in 1964 were estimated at 11,604 and 3,337 fish, respectively
(LaFaunce 1967). Recent annual chinook salmon escapements into SFTR have
declined to runs numbering in the hundreds: 232 and 324 spring-run chinook
salmon entered the SFTR in 1991 and 1992, respectively (Dean 1994, Dean
1995). Fall-run chinook salmon escapement into SFTR was 345 fall-run chinook
salmon in 1990 (Jong and Mills 1993). Historic SFTR steelhead escapement
estimates are not available; however, during the 1990-91 and 1991-92 seasons
2,326 and 3,741 steelhead entered SFTR, respectively (Wilson and Collins
1992, Wilson and Collins 1994).
Several factors have been identified which contribute to the decline
of the anadromous fishery resource in the Klamath River basin (CH2M-Hill
1985). They include low flows, high summer water temperatures, unscreened
water diversions, degraded spawning gravels, over-appropriations of water,
commercial and sport harvest, poor water quality, loss of riparian vegetation,
dam-caused loss of gravel recruitment, alteration of flow regimes, overgrazing,
poor ocean conditions, urbanization, road construction, disease, mining,
predation, and other land management practices. Some of these factors have
the potential to affect stream habitat quality by accelerating erosion.
The resulting sedimentation can reduce the ability of a stream to produce
fish in several ways. For example, i) salmon spawning habitat can be clogged
or buried, reducing salmon egg survival, ii) juvenile rearing habitat could
become filled, reducing the stream's carrying capacity, and iii) aquatic
invertebrate (food) production could be reduced (Reiser and Bjornn 1979).
The effects of sedimentation, specifically the effects of excessive
amounts of small sediment sizes on salmon and steelhead spawning gravel
has been studied by several investigators (Wickett 1958, Cordone and Kelley
1961, McNeil and Ahnell 1964, Cooper 1965, Koski 1966, Bjornn 1969, Hall
and Lantz 1969, Phillips et al. 1975, Cloern 1976, Tagart 1976, McCuddin
1977 as cited by Reiser and Bjornn 1979, Reiser and Bjornn 1979, Tappel
and Bjornn 1983). High percentages of fines (<0.833 mm) in spawning
gravel reduces water movement through the gravelbed by filling intergravel
spaces, while fines overlaying spawning habitat can prevent water from
entering the subgravel environment. Wickett (1958) related egg survival
with permeability: survival increased with permeability. McNeil and Ahnell
(1964) report that permeability was low when gravel is comprised of 15%
fines. Incubating eggs suffer increased mortality from smothering or a
build-up of metabolic wastes as a result of excessive fines. An inverse
relationship exists between fines content and egg survival rates. Cloern
(1976) demonstrated that if percent fines (<0.85 mm) exceed 15%, coho
salmon (O. kisutch) egg hatching rates rapidly decreases. Tagart
(1976) reports that coho salmon egg survival to emergence decreases when
fines exceed 20%. Koski (1966) reports that gravel comprised of 35% or
more fines resulted in 0% coho salmon egg survival to emergence.
Sediment sizes larger than fines have also been shown to adversely
affect sac fry emergence. Koski (1966) reported that emergence was inversely
related to the amount of sediment <3.3 mm. Hall and Lantz (1969)
and Phillips et al. (1975) demonstrated that if 1-3 mm dia. sediments comprised
10-20% of the sample, steelhead and coho salmon fry emergence was reduced.
Also, chinook and steelhead fry emergence is reduced if 20-25% of sediment
is comprised of <6.4 mm dia. material (Bjornn 1969, McCuddin 1977 as
cited by Reiser and Bjornn 1979).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate chinook salmon spawning gravel
quality in the Shasta River and SFTR basins. Descriptions of physical habitat
in both basins are important to decision makers. These data serve as a
baseline from which to identify areas requiring habitat improvement, evaluate
the effectiveness of habitat improvement projects, give biologists an indication
of the relative health of the stream, and enhances the ability of the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to modify land management practices
to prevent habitat degradation. Coordinated Resource Management Programs
(CRMP) have been established in both watersheds, and are attempting to
protect and promote the recovery of their anadromous salmonid fishery resources.
Several management options exist (e.g., land acquisition, fencing, spawning
gravel augmentation, gravel retention structures, ripping). However, the
CRMP's limited budget requires that their activities be ranked. It is hoped
that data from studies such as this will assist their efforts. Furthermore,
several species or subspecies of anadromous salmonids in California and
along the Pacific coast are either categorized as subjects of special concern
or in extreme cases, threatened, or endangered. Habitat quality evaluations,
such as these, would be valuable during the status review process, and
during the development and implementation of any recovery plan.
STUDY AREA
Shasta River
The Shasta River basin (Figure 2) is located in northern California
and enters the Klamath River 284 river km from the Pacific Ocean. The river
drains an area of about 1,554 km2. It originates on the north slope of
Mt. Eddy and flows 81 river km to it's mouth. River valley configuration
varies considerably: small headwater streams drain onto the Shasta Valley
and meander northward before dropping through a steep gradient, V-shaped
canyon to the Klamath River. For purposes of discussion, the Shasta River
(between the mouth and Dwinnell Dam) was divided into three reaches based
on channel morphology (Table 1). Dwinnell Dam impounds Lake Shastina to
provide water storage for irrigation and recreational use; it was completed
in 1926 and is located at RK 64.5. The majority of the watershed is privately
owned; small parcels owned by the federal government are scattered throughout
the basin. The major land use is agriculture.
While general descriptions of spawning habitat distribution in the
Shasta River are available, little spawning habitat quality data is available.
Wales (1951) reported that: i) excellent spawning habitat was located in
the lower 9.6 river km (canyon section), ii) good spawning areas existed
in the 1.6 river km upstream of the canyon section, iii) Dwinnell Dam reduced
available spawning habitat by 22%; the gravel near Edgewood was deemed
excellent, iv) salmon and steelhead spawn in Big Springs Creek, and v)
considerable, suitable spawning habitat was located below Yreka-Montague
Road (RK 20.3) (the extent of this spawning habitat was not described).
Coots (1957) mapped two principal king salmon spawning areas; a lower spawning
area extended from the mouth to approx. RK 16.1, and an upper area primarily
including Big Springs Creek and portions of the Shasta River adjacent to
the confluence. Coots (1962) also noted spawning activity in the Shasta
River from the vicinity of Grenada (RK 45) to the mouth of Parks Creek
(RK 55.5), and in Big Springs Creek. Spawning activity was noted, from
aerial redd counts, between the mouth of the Shasta River and Dwinnell
Dam, and in Big Springs Creek in the late 1970s (Rogers 1978, Rogers 1979);
detailed locations of redds was not discussed. However, in 1975 and 1983,
no spawning was observed in the Shasta River from confluence with Big Springs
Creek to Dwinnell Dam; spawning was observed in the Shasta River between
the mouth of the Shasta River to the confluence with Big Springs Creek,
and in Big Springs Creek (Rogers 1975, Rogers 1983). West et al. (1990)
surveyed the Shasta River from the Klamath River to the confluence with
Oregon Slough (RK 18.7) in 1988; they report that this section is heavily
used for spawning.
More recently, CDFG's Klamath River Project and Region 1 personnel
conducted chinook salmon spawner surveys in the Shasta River in 1993 and
1994. The purpose of those surveys was to recover tags to estimate adult
escapement and to map spawning distribution. Surveys were conducted weekly
during the fall-run chinook salmon spawning season between Grenada Irrigation
District (GID) property (approx. RK 48) and the Klamath River (Figure 2).
The heaviest chinook salmon spawning occurred in the lower 14 river km
of the Shasta River; spawning activity was observed as high as RK 53.8
(Louie Road bridge), just 0.2 river km upstream of the confluence with
Big Springs Creek (B. Chesney, California Department of Fish and Game,
pers. comm.). In 1995, chinook salmon spawning activity was observed during
late October and early November in the Shasta River near RK 60, and in
the lower 8 river km of Parks Creek (B. Chesney, California Department
of Fish and Game, pers. comm.).
The only spawning habitat quality evaluation conducted prior to this
study was conducted in the lower section of the Shasta River, between river
km (RK) 1.4 and 11.7, by California Department of Water Resources (CDWR)
personnel in 1980 (Scott and Buer 1981). They used a core sampler to collect
a 35.5 cm dia. x 20.3 cm deep sample at ten stations located between RK
1.4 and RK 11.7. The quality of the gravel they sampled varied widely.
Overall mean percent sediment finer than 4.75 mm was 21.0%, which approaches
quantities associated with reduced fry emergence (20-25%) for <6.4 mm
reported by Bjornn (1969). Percent sediment <4.75 mm met or exceeded
20% at 4 of 10 stations, and 18% at 7 of 10 stations, measuring as high
as 43.5%. The smaller sized sieves used in 1980 do not match what typically
is used to measure fines (0.85 mm): the closest sieve sizes to 0.85 mm
were 1.18 and 0.6 mm, making direct comparisons difficult. However, those
data do indicate that sediment bracketing the 0.85 mm size class are generally
low. The overall means for sediment <1.18 and <0.6 mm were 9.4% and
6.2%, respectively.
West et al. (1990) visually evaluated quality of 9 habitat types in
the Shasta River between the mouth and Oregon Slough (Figure 2). Five of
9 habitat types evaluated contained significant amounts of spawning habitat.
Spawning habitat contained fines ranging from 14-52%; percent fines exceeded
15% in 4 of the 5 habitat types.
South Fork Trinity River
The SFTR basin (Figure 3) is located in northern California about 70
km west of Redding and 90 km east of Eureka. The SFTR can be broken into
three sections, roughly based on valley configuration: the upper and lower
sections are narrow, steep-sided V-shaped valleys and the middle section
(Hyampom Valley) is a wide U-shaped valley. For the purposes of discussion,
the SFTR is divided into three reaches (Table 1). The watershed encompasses
2,640 km2. The river originates in the Yolla Bolla Mountains at an elevation
of 2,397 m and flows about 145 km to its confluence with the main stem
Trinity River; the mouth of the SFTR is 120.5 river km from the Pacific
Ocean. The major tributary to the SFTR is Hayfork Creek which drains an
area of 982 km2 and enters near the town of Hyampom at RK 48.4. The watershed
is sparsely populated; land management practices have included timber harvest,
development, agriculture, and mining.
Anadromous salmonids spawn in the mainstem SFTR between the mouth and
the confluence with East Fork of the SFTR, and in numerous tributaries
located between those two points (Figure 3). Fall-run chinook salmon generally
utilize the mainstem SFTR from the mouth to the upper reaches of Hyampom
Gorge near RK 50 and the lower 4-5.5 river km of Hayfork Creek (LaFaunce
1967, Jong and Mills 1993). Spring-run chinook salmon held and spawned
in the SFTR between Grouse Creek (RK 30.2) and the confluence with East
Fork of the SFTR (RK 118.3) in 1992 (Dean 1995). In 1985, spawned coho
salmon carcasses have been recovered in mainstem SFTR at RK 3.2, while
unspawned carcasses have been recovered at RK 44.7 (Jong and Mills 1993).
Spawning steelhead have been observed in numerous tributaries in the Hyampom
Valley, Hayfork Creek drainage and East Fork of the SFTR (Wilson and Mills
1992, Hanson and Collins 1995).
Limited historical data indicates that spawning habitat in the SFTR
basin contains quantities of small sediment particles that are detrimental
to salmonid egg hatching and emergence rates. CDWR personnel described
sediment size distribution between the mouth and Forest Glen (Buer and
Senter 1982) (Figure 3). Bulk sampling was limited to five locations in
Hyampom Valley; 50% of samples was comprised of finer than 13.0-27.5 mm
particles, and 16% of samples was comprised of finer than 1.7-2.9 mm particles.
Sediment particles <1.0 mm comprised 1% of samples. Fines deposition
was assessed in the mainstem SFTR and tributaries. Cans containing clean
gravel (known particle size composition) were buried prior to winter storms;
they were retrieved after one or more storm events. Gravel quality before
and after the storm was used to predict percent egg survival. Mean predicted
egg survival rate (all stations combined) before the cans were buried was
87.3% (range 70-95+%); post storm event mean egg survival rate declined
to 63.3% (range 26-90%).
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) personnel have collected sediment samples
from several tributaries and mainstem SFTR. Barnes (In press) evaluated
potential spawning habitat quality in Grouse Creek in 1988 and 1989: mean
percent fines was 16.7%, and ranged from 13.2-21.5% (combined data for
all stations and years). Particles <6.3 mm comprised from 26.7-47.5%
of samples. He concluded that the level of fines in potential spawning
habitat was unlikely to cause steelhead egg mortality, while the level
of particles <6.3 mm could result in 0-55% survival to emergence.
Gravel quality in 13 tributaries and for 2 mainstem SFTR in stations (located
in the upper SFTR basin) was evaluated in 1989 (USFS 1990). Fines (<0.85
mm) content in tributary stations ranged between 2.03% and 11.81%, while
fines at two mainstem SFTR stations were 2.39% and 3.32%. Particles <3.35
mm ranged between 11.36% and 37.41% at 20 of 21 stations; one station contained
7.98%. Gravel quality was measured at 40 stations located between river
km (RK) 74 and RK 103 in the mainstem SFTR near Forest Glen in 1990 (USFS
1991). Fines ranged between 0.82-14.83%. Particles <3.35 mm ranged
between 11.6-35.3% at 37 of 40 stations. Proportions of larger sediment
sizes (e.g. >6.4 mm) in samples were not reported in either USFS (1990)
or USFS (1991).
CDFG personnel spot checked spawning habitat quality the SFTR at four
stations in 1992 and at one station in 1993 (unpubl. data) (Figure 3, Table
2). Percent fines ranged from 10.4-27.5%; fines exceeded 15% at 4 of 5
stations. Particles <4.75 mm ranged from 31.0-62.1% (all years
and stations). According to the literature, fines were present in quantities
at 4 of 5 stations sampled that are detrimental to egg hatching rates;
particles <4.75 mm were present in quantities at all stations
that are detrimental to sac fry emergence rates.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Personnel of CDFG Inland Fisheries Division's Natural Stocks Assessment
Project (NSAP) surveyed portions of the Shasta River and SFTR during the
1993 fall-run chinook salmon spawning season to locate and map redds. Distance
and compass bearing measurements from the individual redd to fixed points
on shore were recorded to allow samplers to locate that redd the following
year. Only a portion of those watersheds that is available to anadromous
salmonids was surveyed because of budget constraints;
also, landowners who control key access points and properties were
reluctant to grant access. Portions of the Shasta River, between the mouth
to the GID property (approx. RK 48), were surveyed by CDFG personnel in
1993. Redds were mapped between the mouth to RK 20. During the late summer
and fall months of 1994, NSAP personnel returned to the Shasta River and
collected sediment samples from 11 redds located between river km (RK)
0.8 and 14.8 (Figure 2, Table 3). Two additional stations were sampled
at RK 56.6 and 59.1 when landowner access was granted to property that
was not surveyed in 1993. Sediment samples were also collected from 10
redd locations (stations) located between river km (RK) 0.1 and 92.2 in
the SFTR (Figure 3, Table 3). Two additional stations were established
in unsurveyed sections of SFTR and East Fork of the SFTR based on descriptions,
provided by CDFG personnel, of spawning habitat either used in previous
years or currently in use. One station was sampled at the mouth of Hayfork
Creek; this station could be sampled periodically to give biologists a
picture of the relative health (in terms of gravel quality) of this tributary.
Sediment samples were collected and analyzed by a method similar to
that outlined by McNeil and Ahnell (1964) using a McNeil-type sampler.
This sampler collects a 15.2 cm (6 in.)
deep x 15.2 cm (6 in.) dia. sample. Because most of the redds mapped
in the Shasta River were still visible, samples were collected from the
gravel covering the egg pit; none of the redds in the SFTR were visible.
Five replicate samples were collected from each redd. Samples were either
immediately partitioned through 12.5, 4.75, 2.36, 1.0, and 0.85 mm sieves,
or placed in sealed buckets for partitioning at a later date. Sediment
retained by each sieve was quantified by volumetric displacement. The volume
of any material <0.85 mm dia. was determined after a 10 minute
settling period in Imhoff cones.
Samples from potential spawning habitat (locations where redds were
not mapped the previous year, but either are accessible to salmonids, or
was used in prior years) were collected from the riffle crest within the
thalweg. The number of replicates, and sample processing was the same as
described above.
River km (RK) data for the Shasta River were available from two sources:
Scott and Buer (1981), and Pacific Southwest Inter-agency Committee (1973).
Discrepancies were found between those publications; all RK data used in
this report are consistent with the former publication. RK data for the
SFTR were obtained from U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangles.
In this report, all sediment particles that pass through a 4.75 mm
sieve (sum of the particles retained by 2.36, 1.0, 0.85 mm sieves and fines)
will be referred to as small sediment (finer than 4.75 mm), and those passing
through a 0.85 mm sieve will be referred to as fines (<0.85 mm).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Shasta River
Sample mean percent fines ranged from 20.8-55.0% at all stations sampled
in the Shasta River in 1994 (Table 4, Figure 4). Most researchers agree
that salmon and steelhead spawning gravel are detrimentally impacted if
they are comprised of 15% or higher fines (Koski 1966, Hall and Lantz 1969,
Phillips et al. 1975, Cloern 1976). The level of fines measured during
this study at all stations exceed 15%; at these levels, egg mortality due
to smothering would be expected to occur at the stations sampled in the
Shasta River in 1994.
Mean percent fines appear to vary by reach: the highest (36.3%) was
measured in the Middle Reach, followed by 34.8% fines in the Lower Reach,
and 31.9% fines in the Upper Reach (Table 4). Unfortunately, percent fines
measured in this study (<0.85 mm) are not directly comparable
with data reported by Scott and Buer (1981). Their closest sieve size to
0.85 mm was 1.18 or 0.6 mm. Also, the 10 stations bulk sampled in 1980
are located in the Lower Reach. It is obvious that fines measured in 1994
in the Lower Reach are higher than levels of either <1.18 or
<0.6 mm measured in 1980 (Table 4). Average levels of fines measured
in 1994 are 3.7x and 5.6x higher than the <1.18 and <0.6
mm 1980 Lower Reach percent levels, respectively. Although, visual estimates
of percent fines in Shasta River spawning habitat surveyed by West et al.
(1990) in 1988 are not directly comparable to percent fines measured in
this study. Their estimates and these results agree that fines are present
in excessive quantities. These data and observations indicate that spawning
habitat quality has degraded since 1980.
Research has indicated that mixtures of small gravel/sand (<6.4
mm) can entomb chinook salmon and steelhead sac fry,
preventing emergence (Bjornn 1969, McCuddin 1977 as cited by Reiser
and Bjornn 1979, Tappel and Bjornn 1983). In general, percent emergence
ranges from 88-95% in gravel mixtures containing no small sediment. As
the percent of small sediment increases to about 20-25%, percent emergence
declined rapidly. Due to equipment limitations, this data analysis was
restricted to small sediment finer than 4.75 mm. In 1994, mean percent
small sediment was 52.6%, and ranged from 40.1 to 64.8% (Table 4, Figure
4). These data indicate that at the stations sampled in the Shasta River
in 1994, levels of small sediment exceeds levels that have been documented
to hinder fry emergence rates (20-25%). In 1980, Scott and Buer (1981)
found small sediment (finer than 4.75 mm) exceeding the 20-25% levels associated
with excessive hindrance of fry emergence (Bjornn 1969, McCuddin 1977 as
cited by Reiser and Bjornn 1979) in only 4 of 10 stations from the Lower
Reach of the Shasta River. In 1994, measured mean levels of small sediment
(52.6%) were 2.5x higher that those observed in 1980 (21%), a clear indication
that spawning habitat quality has degraded since 1980 (Table 4).
Mean percent small sediment appears to vary by reach; the highest (57.6%)
was measured in the Middle Reach, followed by 52.6% small sediment in the
Upper Reach, and 50.7% small sediment in the Lower Reach (Table 4).
South Fork Trinity River
Sample mean percent fines ranged from 13.3-23.5% at all stations sampled
in the South Fork Trinity River in 1994 (Table 4, Figure 5). Percent fines
did not appear to be related to location in the SFTR basin. The level of
fines measured at 9 of 13 stations this study exceed 15%. At these levels,
egg mortality would be expected to occur in the South Fork Trinity River,
and result in reducing juvenile salmonid production. Percent fines at the
other four stations approached 15%, and ranged from 13.3-14.6%.
Percent fines in this study are not directly comparable between this
study and data collected in 1981 by CDWR: CDWR reported 1.0 mm as the smallest
particle size (Buer and Senter 1982). However, 0.85 mm and 1.0 mm particle
sizes are closely alike and for purposes of discussion, those sizes will
be treated as the same. CDWR's bulk sample results (Hyampom Valley) indicate
that particles <1.0 mm comprise 5% of samples. Fines measured
in 1994 are between 2.7-4.7x higher than results reported by CDWR.
Fines measured by USFS in the SFTR basin were variable. Barnes (In
press) reported that in 1988 and 1989 in Grouse Creek, percent fines ranged
from 13.2-21.5%. This is nearly identical to those (13.3-23.5%) measured
during this study. However, in 1989 fines measured in 13 tributaries (range
2.03-11.81%) and at 2 mainstem stations (range 2.39-3.32%) were lower than
levels (range 13.3-23.5%) measured at all mainstem stations in 1994 (USFS
1990). In 1990, fines measured at 39 of 40 mainstem SFTR sampling stations
(range 0.82-10.02%) were lower than levels measured in 1994. Fines content
at one station (14.8%) was comparable to levels measured in 1994 (USFS
1991). The higher fines content in the mainstem SFTR in 1994 is an indication
that sedimentation has increased in recent years.
Levels of fines measured by CDFG at 4 of 5 stations sampled during
1992 and 1993 (Table 2) are consistent with those measured in 1994 (Table
4). At those 4 stations, fines ranged from 17.5-27.5%, while in 1994, fines
ranged from 13.3-23.5%. Egg mortality due to smothering would be expected
at those stations.
Sample mean percent particles finer than 4.75 mm ranged from 38.7-52.5%
at all stations sampled in the South Fork Trinity River in 1994 (Table
4). These data indicate that sac fry emergence is hindered at all stations
sampled in the South Fork Trinity River in 1994, and is consistent with
findings presented by CDWR (Buer and Senter 1982) and Barnes (In press).
It is clear that small sediment particles (finer than 4.75 mm) make
up a large proportion of the chinook salmon and potential spawning habitats
sampled, and that these smaller materials are present in quantities associated
with excessive salmon and steelhead egg mortalities and decreased emergence
rates. Such reductions are likely to lead to reduction of juvenile salmonid
production from the Shasta and South Fork Trinity River basins. Based on
the limited data collected, the quality of the salmonid spawning habitat
at the locations sampled is poor; furthermore, levels of small and fine
sediment measured in the Shasta River in 1994 has increased over levels
measured in 1980, indicating that sedimentation of salmon spawning habitat
has increased. These data indicates that sedimentation is one of the factors
limiting juvenile salmonid production in the Shasta and South Fork Trinity
Rivers. Future salmon and steelhead population restoration efforts through
habitat manipulation should include reducing spawning habitat sedimentation
as an objective.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A comprehensive sedimentation study should be planned and implemented
to provide fishery and land managers with a full picture of conditions,
in not only the Shasta and South Fork Trinity Rivers, but in the entire
Klamath River basin. The purpose of this study would be to measure the
effects of sedimentation on salmonid rearing habitat, aquatic invertebrate
production and spawning habitat quality. This study should examine the
interactions between sedimentation, flow regimes, livestock, development,
and other land management activities with the fishery resource. Fishery
and land managers would then be in a better position to determine the effects
of sedimentation on juvenile salmonid production. Specific management recommendations
to reduce the effects of sedimentation could then be formulated and implemented.
2. The use of different equipment or techniques by this study and other
field and laboratory studies reviewed above makes data comparisons and
trend analysis difficult. Future quantitative spawning habitat quality
sampling should, as a minimum, use a series of sieves that includes 6.4
mm, 3.35 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.85 mm. This should allow for direct comparisons
with data presented in the literature.
3. Annual, comprehensive stream surveys should be conducted to identify
areas contributing excessive sediment, and their causes. Once these areas
are located, remedial measures should be planned and implemented. Sediment
sampling could be used to identify the degree and extent of sedimentation.
This information can then be used to set priorities for restoration efforts.
Sediment sampling should be included in any habitat manipulations to monitor
it's effectiveness. Another benefit of stream surveys is that fishery managers
would be to identify and locate migration impediments and barriers (e.g.,
critical riffles due to low flows, diversion dams, debris jams, culverts,
and clogged fishways). Any passage problems located could then be alleviated.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act
(F-51-R-6, Project 33, Job 3) and the California Department of Fish and
Game.
The author is indebted to the following Shasta River basin landowners
for access: J. and M. Valcazar (Station 1), E. Peters (Stations 6-8), B.
Fiock (redd survey access), S. Sanders and Grenada Irrigation District
(redd survey access), and Bank of America (Stations 9 and 10). SFTR access
to Station 8 was granted by Shaom and the members of the River Spirit Community.
The author wishes to thank the following CDFG and CRMP employees, and
others who assisted with redd surveys, gravel sampling, obtaining landowner
permission, and sieving (in alphabetical order): S. Borok, B. Chesney,
D. Chesney, H.E.H. H.E.H. Chesney, J. Chesney, R. Chesney, C. Cloyd, B.
Collins, M. Dean, M. Elgen, L. Hanson, L. Harpham, J. Hopelain, B. Huber,
M. Marshall, K. O'Siggins, M. Pisano, S. Smith, J. Sullivan, Tulsi, M.
Wallace, D. Webb, and M. Zuspan.
B. Collins and M. Pisano are acknowledged for providing valuable editorial
comments.
LITERATURE CITED
Barnes, J. In press. Analysis of gravel samples taken in Grouse Creek
in 1988 and 1989. U.S. Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka,
California. Draft report. 15 p.
Bjornn, T.C. 1969. Embryo survival and emergence studies. Idaho Department
of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Restoration Job Completion Report. Project
F-49-R-7, Job 5. 11 p.
Buer, K.Y. and E. Senter. 1982. South Fork Trinity River salmonid habitat
enhancement studies. California Department of Water Resources, Northern
District. 175 p.
CH2M-Hill. 1985. Klamath River basin fisheries resource plan. Contract
Report to U.S. Bureau of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. CH2M-Hill,
Redding, California. 404 p.
Cloern, J.E. 1976. The survival of coho salmon (Oncorhynchuskisutch) eggs in two Wisconsin tributaries of Lake Michigan. American
Midland Naturalist 96(2):451-461.
Cooper, A.C. 1965. The effect of transported stream sediments on the
survival of sockeye and pink salmon eggs and alevin. International Pacific
Salmon Fisheries Commission Bulletin XVIII. 71 p.
Coots, M. 1957. Shasta River, Siskiyou County, 1955 king salmon count,
and some notes on the 1956 run. California Department of Fish and Game,
Inland Fisheries Branch Administrative Report No 57-5. 6 p.
__________. 1962. King salmon aerial spawning surveys, upper Shasta
River, Siskiyou County, October 30, 1962. California Department of Fish
and Game, Region 1 memorandum report. 1 p.
Cordone, A.J. and D.W. Kelley. 1961. The influence of inorganic sediment
on the aquatic life of streams. California Fish and Game 47:189-228.
Dean, M. 1994. Life history, distribution, run size, and harvest of
spring chinook salmon in the South Fork Trinity River basin. Chapter VII.
Job VII. p. 193-227. In: K. Urquhart and R.M. Kano (eds.). Annual
Report, Trinity River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Monitoring Project, 1991-1992
Season. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division,
Sacramento. 235 p.
LITERATURE CITED
__________. 1995. Life history, distribution, run size, and harvest
of spring chinook salmon in the South Fork Trinity River basin. Chapter
VII. Job VII. p. 187-226. In: R.M. Kano (ed.). Annual Report, Trinity
River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Monitoring Project, 1992-1993 Season.
California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Sacramento.
235 p.
Hall, J.D. and R.L. Lantz. 1969. Effects of logging on the habitat
of coho salmon and cutthroat trout in coastal streams. p. 355-375. In:
T.G. Northcote, ed. Symposium on Salmon and Trout in Streams. Institute
of Fisheries, University of British Columbia.
Hanson L. and B.W. Collins. 1995. Life history, distribution, run size
and angler harvest of steelhead in the South Fork Trinity River basin.
Chapter III. Job III. p. 53-91. In: R.M. Kano (ed.). Annual Report,
Trinity River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Monitoring Project, 1992-1993
Season. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division,
Sacramento. 235 p.
Jong, H.W. and T.J. Mills. 1993. Anadromous salmonid escapement studies,
South Fork Trinity River, 1984 through 1990. Final Performance Report,
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. Project No. F-51-R, Subproject
No. IX, Study No. 9, Job No. 1. California Department of Fish and Game,
Inland Fisheries Division, Sacramento. 130 p.
Koski, K.V. 1966. The survival of coho salmon Oncorhynchuskisutch)
from egg deposition to emergence in three Oregon coastal streams. M.S.
thesis, Oregon State University. 84 p.
LaFaunce, D.A. 1967. A king salmon survey of the South Fork Trinity
River, 1964. California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Admininstrative
Report No. 65-3. 18 p.
McNeil, W.J. and W.H. Ahnell. 1964. Success of pink salmon spawning
relative to size of spawning bed materials. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Special Scientific Report-Fisheries No. 469. 15 p.
Pacific Southwest Inter-agency Committee. 1973. River mile index-Klamath
River basin, California and Oregon. Water Management Technical Subcommittee.
56 p.
Phillips, R.W., R.L. Lantz, E.W. Claire and J.R. Moring. 1975. Some
effects of gravel mixtures on emergence of coho salmon and steelhead trout
fry. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104(3):461-466.
Reiser, D.W. and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous
salmonids. In: W.R. Meehan, ed. Influence of forest and rangeland management
on anadromous fish habitat in western North America. U.S. Forest Service
General Technical Report PNW-96. 54 p.
Rogers, D.W. 1975. Field note: Shasta River. California Department
of Fish and Game, Region 1. 1 p.
__________. 1978. 1978 aerial king salmon redd count. California Department
of Fish and Game, Region 1 memorandum report. 2 p.
__________. 1979. Aerial king salmon redd counts. California Department
of Fish and Game, Region 1 memorandum report. 2 p.
__________. 1983. Aerial king salmon redd counts, 1983. California
Department of Fish and Game, Region 1 memorandum report. 2 p.
Scott, R.G., and K. Buer. 1981. Klamath and Shasta Rivers spawning
gravel study. California Department of Water Resources Northern District,
Red Bluff. 178 p.
Snyder, J.O. 1933. A steelhead migration in Shasta River. California
Fish and Game 19(4):252-254.
Tagart, J.V. 1976. The survival from egg deposition to emergence of
coho salmon in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. M.S.
thesis, University of Washington. 101 p.
Tappel P.D. and T.C. Bjornn. 1983. A new method of relating size of
spawning gravel to salmonid embryo survival. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 3:123-135.
U.S. Forest Service. 1990. Progress report 1990: South Fork Trinity
River watershed and fisheries monitoring program. Shasta-Trinity National
Forest, Redding, California. 83 p.
__________. 1991. Progress report 1991: South Fork Trinity River watershed
and fisheries monitoring program. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding,
California. 49 p.
Wales, J.H. 1951. The decline of the Shasta River king salmon run.
California Division of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Administrative Report.
82 p.
West, J.R., O.J. Dix, A.D. Olson, M.V. Anderson, S.A. Fox, and J.H.
Power. 1990. Evaluation of fish habitat condition and utilization in Salmon,
Scott, Shasta, and mid-Klamath sub-basin tributaries 1988/1989. U.S. Forest
Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California. 90 p.
Wickett, P.W. 1958. Review of certain factors influencing the production
of pink and chum salmon. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
15(5):1103-1126.
Wilson, C.E. and T.J. Mills. 1992. Life history, distribution, run
size and angler harvest of steelhead in the South Fork Trinity River basin.
Chapter III. Job III. p. 44-81. In: K. Urquhart (ed.). Annual Report,
Trinity River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Monitoring Project, 1989-1990
Season. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division,
Sacramento. 140 p.
__________ and B.W. Collins. 1992. Life history, distribution, run
size and angler harvest of steelhead in the South Fork Trinity River basin.
Chapter III. Job III. p. 50-92. In: K. Urquhart and R. Carpenter
(eds.). Annual Report, Trinity River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Monitoring
Project, 1990-1991 Season. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland
Fisheries Division, Sacramento. 186 p.
__________ and B.W. Collins. 1994. Life history, distribution, run
size and angler harvest of steelhead in the South Fork Trinity River basin.
Chapter III. Job III. p. 56-102. In: K. Urquhart and R.M. Kano (eds.).
Annual Report, Trinity River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Monitoring Project,
1991-1992 Season. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries
Division, Sacramento. 235 p.
SHASTA RIVER AND SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER BASINS, 1994
Howard W. (Bill) Jong
Figure 2. Map of the Shasta River basin (Siskiyou County) depicting
the location of major landmarks and chinook salmon spawning habitat quality
evaluation study sampling stations, 1994.
SHASTA RIVER AND SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER BASINS, 1994
Howard W. (Bill) Jong
Figure 3. Map of the South Fork Trinity River basin (Humboldt and Trinity
counties) depicting the location of major landmarks and chinook salmon
spawning habitat quality evaluation study sampling stations, 1992 through
1994.
SHASTA RIVER AND SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER BASINS, 1994
Howard W. (Bill) Jong
Figure 5. Mean percent composition of chinook salmon spawning habitat
(Stations 1-10) and potential spawning habitat (Stations 11-13) sampled
in the South Fork Trinity River, 1994.
NOTE: THE TABLES IN THE DOCUMENT ARE STILL
UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THEY ARE NOT YET FORMATTED FOR WEB VIEWING.
TABLE 1. Reach descriptions, Shasta River and
South Fork Trinity River chinook salmon spawning habitat evaluation study,
1994.
Extent
Reach (RK) Reach characteristics
SHASTA RIVER
Lower 0 to 12.6 Mouth to Anderson Grade bridge: V-shaped canyon, steep
gradient
Middle to 53.6 Anderson Grade bridge to confluence with Big Springs
Creek: wide valley floor, channel meanders, low gradient
Upper to 64.5 Confluence with Big Springs Creek to Dwinnell Dam: numerous
riffles, moderate gradient
SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER
Lower 0 to 40 Mouth to lower end of Hyampom Valley: V-shaped valley,
steep gradient
Middle to 50 Hyampom Valley: wide valley, channel meanders, low gradient
Upper to headwaters Upper end of Hyampom Valley to headwaters: V-shaped
valley, steep gradient
TABLE 2. Salmon spawning habitat quality measured
by California Department of Fish and Game personnel in the South Fork Trinity
River, 1992 and 1993.
Percent finer than
Year RK Location 4.75 mm 0.85 mm
1992 43.4 Hyampom Valley 31.0 10.4
1992 71.6 near Plummer Ck 62.1 26.0
1992 71.9 near Plummer Ck 49.1 27.5
1992 89.5 Forest Glen 41.8 20.5
1993 1.3 Sandy Bar 41.6 17.5
TABLE 3. Sampling station numbers, locations,
and descriptions, Shasta River and South Fork Trinity River (SFTR) chinook
salmon and potential spawning habitat evaluation study, 1994.
Station RK Station description 1/
SHASTA RIVER
Lower Reach
1-A 0.8 100 m downstream USGS gaging station, redd #1
1-B 0.8 100 m downstream USGS gaging station, redd #2
1-C 0.8 100 m downstream USGS gaging station, redd #3
2 4.3 Side channel, Tire Flat Improvement Site, 0.6 river km below
Pioneer Bridge
3-A 9.0 Salmon Heaven Improvement Site, mid section, gravel retained
by rock weir, redd #1 and 2
3-B 9.0 Salmon Heaven Improvement Site, mid section, gravel retained
by rock weir, redd #3 and 4
4 9.2 Salmon Heaven Improvement Site, upper section, gravel retained
by rock weir, redd #3 and 4
5 9.2 Side channel, Salmon Heaven Improvement Site, upper section
Middle Reach
6 13.6 50 m below Interstate Highway 5 bridge
7 13.9 150 m above Interstate Highway 5 bridge
8 14.8 1.1 river km above Interstate Highway 5 bridge
Upper Reach
9 56.6 Hole in the Ground Ranch, 2.2 river km above mouth of Parks
Creek
10 59.1 Hole in the Ground Ranch, 5.5 river km below Dwinnell Dam
SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER
Lower Reach
1 0.2 100 m downstream of Highway 299 bridge
2 0.24 50 m upstream of Highway 299 bridge
3 1.3 Sandy Bar
4 1.4 Sandy Bar boat launch
Station RK Station description 1/
SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER
Lower Reach
5 23.2 0.6 RK upstream of Surprise Creek
Middle Reach
6 42.6 USGS gaging station, lower Hyampom Valley
7 49.1 100 m upstream of Curved Bridge, upper Hyampom Valley
Upper Reach
8 68.4 Road ford at McClellan Place (River Spirit Community)
9 89.5 250 m downstream of Highway 3 bridge near Forest Glen
10 92.2 0.5 RK upstream of confluence with Rattlesnake Creek
Potential Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat
11 118.0 SFTR, 300 m downstream of confluence with East Fork of the
SFTR
12 5.2 East Fork of the SFTR, approx. 250 m upstream of USFS Road 30
bridge
13 0.1 Hayfork Creek, approx. 20 m downstream of Garret Road bridge
1/ Unless otherwise specified, samples were collected from the main
channel of the Shasta River or SFTR
TABLE 4. Chinook salmon and potential spawning
habitat quality measured in the Shasta River and South Fork Trinity River,
1994. (Small sediment = all sediment particles passing through a 4.75 mm
sieve, Fines = all sediment particles passing through a 0.85 mm sieve)
Small
sediment Fines
Station 1/ RK (<4.75 mm) (<0.85 mm)
SHASTA RIVER
Lower Reach
1-A 0.8 56.6 31.6
1-B 0.8 57.3 36.6
1-C 0.8 50.1 29.8
2 4.3 48.6 48.2
3-A 9.0 40.1 32.9
3-B 9.0 62.9 55.0
4 9.2 43.1 20.8
5 9.2 47.2 23.6
Mean 50.7 34.8
Std dev 7.7 11.7
Middle Reach
6 13.6 62.4 39.3
7 13.9 64.8 39.8
8 14.8 45.5 29.8
Mean 57.6 36.3
Std dev 10.5 5.6
Upper Reach
9 56.6 54.4 41.5
10 59.1 50.8 22.3
Mean 52.6 31.9
Std dev 2.6 13.6
(Continued on next page)
TABLE 4 (continued). Chinook salmon and potential spawning habitat
quality measured in the Shasta River and South Fork Trinity River, 1994.
(Small sediment = all sediment particles passing through a 4.75 mm sieve,
Fines = all sediment particles passing through a 0.85 mm sieve)
Small
sediment Fines
Station RK (<4.75 mm) (<0.85 mm)
SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER
Lower Reach
1 0.2 44.6 18.7
2 0.24 43.9 14.6
3 1.3 47.8 15.6
4 1.4 38.7 13.7
5 23.2 43.5 13.3
Mean 43.7 15.2
Std dev 3.3 2.2
Middle Reach
6 42.6 41.2 18.5
7 49.1 44.4 18.0
Mean 42.8 18.2
Std dev 2.3 0.4
Upper Reach
8 68.4 42.7 17.5
9 89.5 46.3 17.6
10 92.2 50.0 20.7
Mean 46.3 18.6
Std dev 3.7 1.8
TABLE 4 (continued). Chinook salmon and potential spawning habitat
quality measured in the Shasta River and South Fork Trinity River, 1994.
(Small sediment = all sediment particles passing through a 4.75 mm sieve,
Fines = all sediment particles passing through a 0.85 mm sieve)
Small
sediment Fines
Station RK (<4.75 mm) (<0.85 mm)
SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER
Potential Spawning Habitat
11 118.0 42.7 18.9
12 2/ 5.2 37.9 14.1
13 3/ 0.1 52.5 23.5
1/ Unless otherwise specified, samples were collected from the main
channel of the Shasta River or SFTR
