22—
DEVELOPING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR RIPARIAN LANDS IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

Developing Management Strategies for Privately Owned Riparian Land^[1]

Lee Fitzhugh^[2]

Abstract.—Riparian system management may be defined with preservation or use orientation, depending on the manager's goals. The problem is that goals and values differ. Neither the public values of privately owned riparian lands nor the full extent of private values of those lands are fully recognized. Attitudes and other noneconomic factors are as important as economic factors in determining the management of riparian lands. Changes in attitude will be necessary before major programs can succeed. Educational approaches, however important, should not be the exclusive means to preserve privately owned riparian systems. Incentive programs, changes in taxation, agency budget processes, agency organization, commodity price and market situations, international treaties, and many other factors will determine the outcome of any effort to preserve riparian lands in private ownership.

Introduction

I have three objectives to meet in this introductory paper: 1) briefly outline how a riparian system needs to be managed in order to preserve it; 2) define the problem we face in preserving riparian sites on private lands; and 3) summarize methods available for resolving riparian preservation problems on private land.

Riparian Management

If riparian systems are defined as the vegetation that would naturally occur in moist situations in the complete absence of man's influence (not always an appropriate definition), then management constitutes maintaining, as nearly as possible, the natural land topography; the flow, volume, and timing of water; and eliminating any of man's impacts. It is absolutely necessary to maintain a representative sample of such undisturbed systems in each region in order to answer land management questions which will arise in the future and which will be unanswerable without reference to undisturbed areas. However, to predicate all riparian system management on such a definition is a practical impossibility, especially on private lands used for other purposes.

A more appropriate definition of riparian management on most private lands would involve maintaining the riparian system with stand structure and plant species composition resembling, to an agreed-upon degree, the undisturbed state. Thus, there would be flexibility in use, volume and timing of water flows; grazing; recreation; logging; and other uses to the extent that the plant community could maintain itself or could recover from such use. The specific nature of uses and community resiliency are site-specific and must be determined at least regionally.

As a generality, riparian management must continually take into consideration the biologic nature of the system, including both its natural resiliency and vulnerabilities, if the riparian vegetation is to be preserved. Consumptive uses are permissible as long as the basic requirements for plant growth and reproduction exist. For example, in desert areas where streams are dry on the surface during summer, upstream water use during periods of flow may not harm the riparian vegetation as long as sufficient flow reaches the riparian zone to recharge the perched water upon which the vegetation depends, and as long as the timing of the flow period is not unduly shortened. In other areas, grazing use may be permissible at proper intensities and during certain times of the year, when it does not change the basic nature of the herbaceous vegetation or shrub structure. Tree removal in logging operations may be permissible as long as the basic natures of the system structure and regeneration are not changed.

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981].

[2] Lee Fitzhugh is Extension Wildlife Specialist, University of California, Davis.

Another level of riparian management would allow the riparian vegetation to be purposely altered to suit agreed-upon objectives. A site used for recreation and for public educational tours might benefit by periodic grazing designed to open the understory and provide better visibility and access.

Riparian management then can be defined at various levels of intensity. In each of them some resemblance is necessary between the undisturbed and controlled conditions.

The Problem

Riparian Preservation and Private Rights

The basic problem in preserving riparian lands in private ownership is that these lands have different values for different people. Thus, goals for management vary. Differently stated, the problem is in the fact that privately owned riparian lands have certain public values not always recognized by private landowners in decisionmaking, and they have private values to the owners insufficiently recognized by the public.

A few examples will suffice to show that there are public values on these lands. Certainly the game and nongame birds and animals that nest in or otherwise use riparian sites fly off the private land and are harvested by hunters, frequent the bird-feeders in our cities, or provide exciting experiences for vacationing campers. DeGraaf and Payne (1975) reported that birdwatchers alone spent $500 million annually on birdseed, binoculars, and cameras. Riparian vegetation enhances habitat for anadromous fish and thus provides a benefit for the sport and commercial fishing industries. Rafters and fishermen using our waterways certainly benefit and receive value from the natural vegetation of riparian sites along the banks. From a scientific point of view, loss of riparian sites will eliminate gene pools, baseline sites for comparison with treatments, and any hope of knowing what would happen if nothing were done to a certain kind of site. As the number of undisturbed riparian sites diminishes, each site becomes more valuable to the public. Because we now have only about 10% of the original riparian forests in the Central Valley (Katibah 1983), the point of scarcity is already upon us.

Private values of riparian sites are greater than many people realize. The 1981 rice crop in Butte County returned about $130 per acre, including return to management, plus $236 land rent, if the land is owned by the farmer, for a total of $366 per acre per year.^[3] The net return on walnuts in 1980 was about $200 per acre.^[4] Taxes have been deducted from these figures; to be fair, the taxes should be added back as an item of value to the farmer, since they would have to be paid if the land were not farmed.

Unfarmed riparian lands may have certain negative values for farmers. For example, odd-shaped field boundaries may make machine operation, land leveling, and irrigation more difficult and costly. Unfarmed riparian lands may harbor insect or plant pests, provide roosts for blackbirds, intensify flooding of farmland, and encourage human recreational use against the farmer's wishes. All land owned by a farmer represents capital investment. If a farm can be viewed as a corporation, unfarmed riparian land can be viewed as an unprofitable subsidiary. If the farmer considers public values of riparian land in his decisions it is a matter of personal preference, not of farm economics.

The essence of the problem is not found in the economic facts, however, but in the behavior of people. That people do not always behave according to their best economic interest was demonstrated by Leitch and Danielson (1979) in an analysis of incentives for preserving prairie wetlands. They found that economics was perhaps not even the primary determinant of the future of wetlands. Attitudes, politics, misconceptions, and lack of knowledge were also important factors in determining whether or not farmers preserved wetlands. It is important to recognize, from the Leitch and Danielson research, that landowners with a pro-drainage attitude had a strong commitment to farming, whereas those with pro-preservation attitudes were more interested in retiring than in farm expansion. Each side of the comparison may just be a different way of saying the same thing, but the California agricultural industry is obviously not "interested in retirement." The comparison leads to the conclusion, then, that even with economics on the side of riparian preservation there might be an uphill battle to achieve preservation on private lands. Stated another way, economics is important, but we must not neglect education and other methods of changing attitude.

There is a problem in preserving riparian lands because there is a spectrum of people with different values, attitudes, and economic interests, all concerned about the same piece of land. It is probable that none of these people are thoroughly conversant with the needs or values of the others.

Resolving the Problem

This section is intended only to stimulate thought in the area of broad policy considerations, not to definitively list methods of resolving the problem.

[3] Wick, Carl M., Janning D. Kastler, Lynn A. Horel, and Patricia Thomas. 1981 (revised August, 1981). Sample costs of rice production for Butte County. Unpublished report. University of California, Cooperative Extension, Butte County office.

[4] Carl Wick. Personal communication.

What Influences Riparian Management on Private Lands?

United States Government programs have been variously designed to influence agriculture. Some have promoted land conversion into agriculture, and some have done the opposite. All of the Government powers of taxation, expenditure, regulation, eminent domain, and direct ownership have been used at one time or another. Some Government programs that have pervasive influence over agricultural expansion are:

1. export markets, including treaty agreements;

2. taxation (tax credits, investment incentives, inheritance taxes, property taxes, etc.);

3. price supports and commodity reserves;

4. pesticide regulation and use;

5. administrative organization (influences policy formation, budgeting);

6. agency budgeting;

7. zoning;

8. health standards, environmental protection, pesticide regulation;

9. credit policies (direct credit, credit guarantees, interest rates);

10. subsidies and incentives;

11. water rights legislation and adjudication;

12. information manipulation (program advertising, news releases, agency policy direction);

13. special governmental bodies (commissions, districts, etc.)

14. regulatory power.

Nongovernmental influences over agriculture include the pervasive influence of custom and religion, very important in forming attitudes. Information transfer through farm bureaus, cattlemen's associations, the Soil Conservation Service, and cooperative extension services can help influence custom and attitude, provide new technology, and influence agricultural management.

In California there are various governmental tools available, intended to influence wildland use generally. These include such programs as the water quality regulations, both Federal and State; US Army Corps of Engineers dredge and fill regulations; and taxation regulations such as the Williamson Act and Timber Preserve Zone legislation.

With all of the above tools, why do we have a riparian problem? One obvious reason is that many of the tools are being used to promote agricultural expansion, rather than to assist in riparian preservation. The reasons discovered by Leitch and Danielson (1979) are not so obvious. They found that the major reasons for landowner nonparticipation in wetland preservation programs were lack of information about the programs, the level of incentive payments, the methods used to tax wetland acreage, and the tax burden of wetland acreage. They found that fee-simple purchases of wetlands by the Government were often blamed for weed control problems and led to a dislike of Governmental interference. Easements were more acceptable when management of the land remained with the landowner. Leitch and Danielson (ibid .) found that the owner's attitude toward drainage and preservation perse was critical to making drainage decisions.

Suggested Programs

It is probably neither desirable nor feasible to change broad national economic and trade policies solely to protect riparian lands. However, people also are increasingly concerned with some of these policies as they influence wildlife, soil protection and conservation, and continued long-term agricultural production. A moderating influence may be developing on broad national economic policies. One interesting suggestion was made by Higbee (1981) for the formation of local "Conservation Banks," funded by low-interest subscription for the purpose of providing low-interest production loans to producers who followed certain conservation procedures.

There are at least four basic approaches for government in resolving the problem of riparian preservation. They are: regulatory, administrative, financial, and psychological.

Regulatory Programs

Certain types of regulation, mentioned above, are designed for application on private land. These include zoning and environmental regulations of different kinds. These types of control over privately owned riparian lands generate antagonism and resistance by landowners. Exercise of this kind of control will require that the agencies enforce regulations on a body that disapproves of them. Prospects for success of such programs are not good. The easiest way for landowners to avoid the adverse impacts of regulation of this nature is to not have riparian land. There have been similar experiences with regulations concerning endangered species. In too many cases, the easiest way to avoid a problem has been to get rid of the animal. In order to be successful, it will be important to work with friends toward a common or at least an acceptable negotiated goal.

Administrative Programs

It may be overly optimistic to expect to realign major state and Federal agency organization to facilitate riparian preservation. However, the formation of committees, task forces, fact-finding bodies, etc., within agencies can focus administrative attention and budgetary allocation on the problem. Suggestions for these types of changes are appropriate.

Financial Programs

Financial solutions to the riparian preservation problem may range from fee-simple

purchase of lands, alterations in tax policy, or a variety of incentive or subsidy programs, to alteration of agency budgets. Generally these kinds of programs will be better accepted than most directly regulatory programs. Examples of existing incentive programs in California include the tax programs mentioned previously, the Water Bank programs, the California Forest Improvement Program, wetlands easements, and others.

Alteration of agency budgets involves administrative changes as well as financial changes. The relative status of law enforcement and habitat improvement budgets of two agencies was determined for comparative purposes. In approximate terms, the California Department of Fish and Game budgets 73% as much for habitat improvement as for law enforcement.^[5] The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service budget for California allocates only 30% as much to law enforcement as to habitat improvement.^[6] The reason for the large habitat improvement budget for the Fish and Wildlife Service is largely the extensive waterfowl refuge system in the state. Other agencies, such as the California Department of Forestry and the US Army Corps of Engineers, can strongly influence riparian management on private lands, and some attention to budgetary allocations in those and other agencies might assist in riparian management.

Psychological Programs

People's attitudes were found to be of major importance in determining their responses to various programs for preserving wetlands (Leitch and Danielson 1979). Attempts to change attitudes are psychological as much as educational. While the term "psychological" may be distasteful when discussing various public programs, using it does allow us to recognize the true nature of the intent and to place appropriate limits on government activity in psychological programs. That there should be limits is clear. What the limits should be is outside the scope of this paper. The major goal of such programs would be to instill a desire among both public and private riparian landowners to preserve riparian lands. Necessary educational steps must include helping landowners recognize and accept their full share of costs involved, and helping the general public recognize and accept their full share of the costs involved.

Conclusion

The problem of preserving riparian lands in private ownership is critical and very difficult. Factions have formed, and some of these barriers must be dismantled before cooperation can take place. Federal and State programs varying from multi-national treaties to individual personal contact can have major effects on riparian preservation. Changes in attitude will probably have to occur before any major state-wide program will be successful. Educational approaches will be important but should not be the exclusive means. Incentive programs, changes in taxation, agency budget processes, agency organization, commodity price and market situations, and dozens of other factors will determine the outcome of any effort to preserve riparian lands in private ownership.

Literature Cited

DeGraaf, Richard M., and Brian R. Payne. 1975. Economic values of non-game birds and some urban wildlife research needs. Trans. North Amer. Wildl. and Natural Resources Conf. 40:281–287.

Higbee, Michael. In press. Farmers and wildlife—why is there a rift and how can we bridge it? In : Wildlife management on private lands, symposium proceedings. [Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 4–6, 1981].

Katibah, Edwin F. 1983. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. In : R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix (ed.). California Riparian Systems. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981.] University of California Press, Berkeley.

Leitch, Jay A., and Leon E. Danielson. 1979. Social, economic, and institutional incentives to drain or preserve prairie wetlands. Economic Report ER79-6, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota Inst. of Agric., Forestry and Home Economics, St. Paul. 78 p.

[5] Robert Schulenberg. Personal communication.

[6] Edward J. Collins. Personal communication.

A Management Strategy for the Kern River Preserve, California^[1]

Richard P. Hewett^[2]

Abstract.—The recently acquired Kern River Preserve has offered The Nature Conservancy an opportunity to design from the ground floor a riparian forest nature preserve. Management plans were formulated, sanctuary areas designated, livestock exclosures constructed, and several research and experimental efforts initiated. Future plans include research, forest restoration, and education.

Introduction

In July, 1980, The Nature Conservancy acquired the 607-ha. (1,500-ac.) Kern River Preserve. It is located along the South Fork Kern River near Weldon, California. Along its 16-km. length the South Fork Valley contains the single largest remaining stand of riparian forest in the state. The true essence of our sanctuary is the riparian forest. Indeed, it is because of this extremely productive resource that we are in the South Fork Valley at all. The Preserve comprises 105 ha. (260 ac.) of old growth cottonwood/willow woodland that provides habitat for a wealth of flora and fauna, including bear, mountain lion, beaver, and over 200 species of birds, especially the rare Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Scattered around the Preserve are 502 ha. (1,240 ac.) of grazing pasture that are presently leased to a cattle rancher. A resident preserve manager was hired in January, 1981.

Developing the Strategy

From its inception, the Preserve's primary management goal has been preservation and restoration of the riparian system and adjacent marsh and meadow areas. Beginning in January, 1981, an intensive three-month program was initiated to compile the information necessary to produce an annual operating management plan. Several sources were utilized, including proceedings and technical data from other riparian conferences, Nature Conservancy plans for other preserves with riparian systems, and personal communications with research experts in the field (e.g. Gaines 1976; Johnson and Jones 1977; Laymon 1980; Warner 1979). These sources provided us with the information to answer the question: what is the best procedure for allowing a natural order to return to a disturbed riparian zone?

Typical of many riparian areas throughout the West, our land exhibited moderate to extreme effects from grazing. Few young or medium-age trees were observed and most shrubs were grazed back to a high level, leaving the area in a diminished condition. We identified four separate, noncontiguous parcels of forest and removed them from livestock as of May 1, 1981.

Our present management plan is the result of this three-month search. It focuses on three major categories: 1) preservation and restoration; 2) scientific study; and 3) public visitation and education. Within each category the current situation was assessed and the 1981 goals and objectives were then formulated.

Implementing the Strategy

Throughout the implementing process we had two key factors to keep in mind. One was that community involvement was essential to the success of our project. If people in the area were personally involved in our programs then we would have a better foundation upon which to operate. The second factor was that the Nature Conservancy maintains a set of policies and rules for all of its sanctuaries across the country, including the prohibition of fishing, hunting, collecting, wood gathering, or any other blatant form of resource depredation.

Putting plans into action is never an easy, straightforward venture. But at least I had a set of detailed plans from which to work. Here is an example of what the plans required:

1) by April 15 begin and by April 30 complete construction of a 1-km. (.625 mi.) section of barbed wire fence along

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981].

[2] Richard P. Hewett is Preserve Manager at The Nature Conservancy's Kern River Preserve, Weldon, California.

the north side of riparian grove.

2) by May 1 begin and by December 15 complete a vegetation survey of the Preserve, including species inventory, statement of overall forest condition, and description of trends and threats.

3) by May 1 close off all four riparian tracts to livestock grazing.

This type of management implementation also makes for easy review and evaluation, since it is so specific in the dates and objectives. Supervisory personnel could utilize this system for monitoring the effectiveness of their staff and programs.

Below are listed the highlights of our 1981 management plan.

Preservation and Restoration

The 105 ha. (260 ac.) of riparian forest were posted with official Nature Conservancy signs as of April 1. Fences and gates were finished by May 1, thus excluding livestock from the protected areas. An experimental planting program using native cottonwood and willow saplings was initiated, patterned after the reforestation program begun at the nearby US Army Corps of Engineers South Fork Wildlife Area. Local volunteers were included in these activities and formed an integral part of our work force.

Scientific Study

Our primary goal for this category is to generate scientific information that will better enable us to protect and enhance the Preserve's natural values. Biological monitoring and scientific research are the backbone of this program: the monitoring because it documents over time the biological changes, and the research because it provides us with management-oriented information to accomplish our goals.

In 1981 we contracted for:

1) a flowering plant inventory, including a collection of botanical specimens now located at the California Academy of Sciences, with a duplicate collection at the Preserve;

2) a reptile and amphibian inventory, which produced a brochure, checklist, and set of color slides;

3) a system of permanent bird survey routes and Emlen transects, marked and mapped in the four Preserve areas; and

4) an avifaunal survey of the entire South Fork Valley riparian forest, with special focus on the State-listed rare species Yellow-billed Cuckoo.

In addition to this contract work we initiated a biological monitoring program featuring aerial photographs, permanent photo-points, and resource base mapping.^[3]

Selected universities, junior colleges, agencies, and organizations were sent detailed information about this contract work. Interested individuals were encouraged to submit research proposals.

Public Visitation and Education

Several major programs have been initiated this year that give the public information about and access to the Preserve, thereby utilizing the area's inherent educational values. These include:

1) quarterly publication of a Preserve newsletter, the RiparianRag ;

2) a regular schedule of trips, classes, and tours;

3) involvement of a local school in construction and placement of Wood Duck nesting boxes; and

4) refurbishing of old buildings for use as a visitor's center, research lab, and overnight quarters.

Public participation in these programs was encouraged by appeals from myself made at monthly meetings of conservation groups, and radio and newspaper announcements. We also developed a Friends of the Preserve group to enhance the community's involvement. Our public education programs have proven very successful. I would encourage those of you in similar situations to develop this part of your operation, even if it is only to run a couple of articles in your local newspaper or to host some meetings at your preserve.

Other Considerations

One of the most important factors affecting our operation is county government. Both the Kern County Planning and Building Inspection Departments have required the lengthy and expensive filing of forms and plans for our project. The delays experienced already have been on the magnitude of four to six months, it is easy to see how crippling these requirements can be.

However, the reverse is also true. We submitted a formal request to the Kern County Wildlife Resources Commission for fencing materials to enclose one of the riparian zones from grazing. The commission granted the request and provided over $1,100 worth of barbed wire, fence posts, and metal T-posts. This public support of a private agency's project was justifiable due to

[3] W. Burley. September, 1980. Biological monitoring of Conservancy preserves in California. In-house memorandum. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California.

the inherent educational potential of Nature Conservancy lands and the public's access to them.

Looking Ahead

Our plans for the remainder of 1981 and on into the future will continue to focus on the proper management of our riparian resources. The backbone of our efforts will include forest restoration, native species reintroduction, research, biological monitoring, public education, and resource protection.

The Nature Conservancy hopes to add additional riparian lands to its Preserve in the near future, thereby insuring the continued preservation of one of California's most productive ecosystems.

Literature Cited

Gaines, D. (ed.). 1976. Riparian forests of the Sacramento Valley: Abstracts from the conference. [Chico, California] Davis and Altacal Audubon Societies.

Johnson, R. Roy, and D.A. Jones. 1977. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium. [July 9, 1977, Tuscon, Ariz.] USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43. 217 p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo.

Laymon, S.A. 1980. Feeding and nesting behavior of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in the Sacramento Valley.

Warner, R.E. 1979. California riparian study program. 177 p. California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Riparian System Restoration by Private Landowners

an Example of Coordinated Interagency Assistance^[1]

Ronald F. Schultze^[2]

Abstract.—An informal task force of private landowners, private organizations, and public agencies has worked together to develop methods and determine programs and funding resources available to help landowners solve erosion, fish and wildlife habitat, and irrigation problems on a manaltered stream. These programs and the coordination technique may assist others in developing a program to reestablish and manage riparian systems.

Introduction

A major emphasis of the "riparian movement" should be directed toward repairing and reestablishing riparian systems that have been damaged by adverse actions, or inactions, of man. Unfortunately, this task is often extremely expensive and usually beyond the capabilities of private landowners to implement on their own. Most of the values provided by riparian systems benefit the public at large and not just the individual landowner. I think this fact has been amply supported in this conference. It therefore seems appropriate that the general public, through various public agencies and their programs, should accept part of the burden of repairing and re-establishing valuable riparian systems. An example of this cooperation has been the recent efforts to repair damage on Willow Creek, a tributary of Goose Lake, Modoc County, California. Past management, or lack of it, has resulted in devastation of a once-valuable stream and riparian system. A cooperative effort between private landowners, various federal and state agencies, and California Trout has been set in motion to renovate the system.

Project Area and History

Willow Creek is a tributary of Goose Lake, located in northeastern California about 9.7 km. (6 mi.) south of the California/Oregon border. It drains a 90.6-sq. km. (35-sq. mi.) watershed in the Warner Mountain Range. The upper watershed consists of ponderosa or yellow pine (Pinusponderosa ) forest with numerous volcanic rock outcrops. The upper 9.7 km. (6 mi.) of Willow Creek transects several mountain meadows with stands of willow (Salix sp.) and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides ). The lower 4.8 km. (3 mi.) of Willow Creek historically meandered over deep alluvial soils covered by mountain meadow with dense stands of willow bordering the creek. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, heavy timber harvesting and livestock overgrazing resulted in diminished resources and serious erosion in the Willow Creek watershed and elsewhere.

In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt established the Warner Mountains Forest Reserve and Modoc Forest Reserve. These were combined to form the Modoc National Forest in 1908. Conservation measures have been implemented to improve management of timber and range resources on both federal and private lands in the upper watershed.

The lower portions of Willow Creek and adjoining lands are primarily privately owned. In the early 1960s much of the meadow area was converted to irrigated pasture and cropland. Willow Creek was channelized, irrigation diversions and drop structures were installed with planning assistance from the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and costs were shared with the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS).

Not all of the structures required for adequate grade control were installed by the landowners. In addition, extremely high runoff occurred the spring after construction; as a result, deterioration of instream structures and erosion led to failure of some of the structures, followed by accelerated erosion in the channel. Streambank erosion and headcutting threaten remaining structures, as well as the downstream

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981.]

[2] Ronald F. Schultze is State Biologist, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Davis, Calif.

apron on the US Highway 395 bridge. The structures have become barriers to upstream migration of fish, including the native Goose Lake redband trout (Salmo sp.). Sediment deposited at the mouth of Willow Creek has further hindered fish migration. Streambank erosion has caused loss of riparian vegetation, destroying fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, erosion is resulting in the loss of valuable cropland and pasture. The area is highly visible from US Highway 395, and its deteriorated condition has thus created an adverse visual impact in the area.

Project Proposal

Private landowners and individuals in various public agencies have been keenly aware of the seriousness of the Willow Creek problem and the threat to various natural resources. There have been numerous attempts at evaluating means of solving this problem. Heretofore, all attempts have been unfruitful. What could be the final effort to arrive at a solution was initiated earlier this year. With the USDA Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D) acting as the catalyst, representatives from the landowners, California Trout, and various public agencies were drawn together to evaluate their programs and resources to see what could be done.

The questions raised were: 1) is there something that can be done; and 2) how can it be paid for. Subsequently, a proposal has been developed which we hope will get the job done before it is too late.

The proposed project includes: 1) stabilizing the lowest diversion structure below US Highway 395 and reestablishing the grade of Willow Creek in the portion lying immediately below the structure; 2) repairing the downstream apron of the US Highway 395 bridge; 3) stabilizing diversion and grade structures upstream from US Highway 395; 4) shaping and protecting with natural rock riprap in the main channel and in eroding laterals; 5) revegetating with woody and herbaceous plants; 6) reestablishing fish passage over instream structures; and 7) possibly restocking with Goose Lake redband trout. The project could ultimately reach an estimated cost of $200,000.

Representatives from various public agencies and California Trout, as well as the landowners, have indicated the extent to which their programs and resources can be used to assist in the proposed project. A summary of potential cost-share amounts is shown in table 1.

Stream improvements were placed in three categories for evaluation of agency programs. The general categories included: 1) providing fish passage over instream structures; 2) controling erosion, stabilizing structures, and providing habitat for fish and wildlife using rock riprap and vegetation (riparian revegetation); and 3) re-establishing an irrigation water diversion which washed out.

RC & D Program could have shared costs on all of the proposed work. However, the budget for this program has been severely cut. The future for this program is considered very dim with phase-out proposed in about two years. However, SCS anticipates being able to continue providing technical assistance for planning and installation of improvement measures.

ASCS can share costs on habitat improvement, erosion control, and the irrigation diversion through the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). However, budget constraints and program restrictions appear to limit assistance to the agricultural irrigation water development at present.

The California Department of Forestry (DF) administers the California Forest Improvement Program (CFIP). It can pay up to 90% of the cost of fish and wildlife habitat improvement and erosion control measures. In general, this program is restricted to forest lands or lands adjacent to forest lands affected by timber management practices. Prospects for funds through this program for the Willow Creek project look fairly good.

As with other agencies, the resources of the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) are very limited. Representatives of DFG have indicated the possibility of assisting in design of new fish passage structures and fish screens, and with labor and materials to re-establish passage

over existing instream structures. Dingell-Johnson funds (from a federal tax on fishing equipment and supplies) can be a source of money for fish habitat improvement, but they are not being pursued at this time. Theoretically, with the 50% cost-share under RC & D Program, Dingell-Johnson funds could provide an additional 25%. Thus the federal government could fund up to 75% of the cost of fish and wildlife habitat development. Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, the RC & D Program is slated for termination.

The California Department of Transportation (CAL TRANS) is going to improve the US Highway 395 bridge apron to ensure fish passage.

California Trout, a private, nonprofit organization devoted to the preservation and enhancement of trout and other salmonids, has offered to provide up to $5,000 to help re-establish Goose Lake redband trout in Willow Creek if the stream is ever repaired. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has offered to cooperate in a reestablishment effort.

The private landowners have expressed a willingness to pay their share of the cost. Some of their cost-share can be made in the form of inkind services, that is, by providing manpower and equipment to do the work. They have also agreed to provide operation and maintenance services to ensure the system will not fail as it did in the past.

Summary

This brief presentation summarizes various programs and a cooperative approach which can be helpful in restoring riparian resources. I have pointed out that some of these programs are presently limited by guidelines or budget constraints, or even destined to be abolished altogether. A renewal of public support is needed for public cost-sharing programs and adequate funding if cooperative efforts to conserve and restore riparian systems are to grow or even continue to exist.

Vector Control in Riparian/Wetland Systems^[1]

Don J. Womeldorf^[2]

Abstract.—Riparian/wetland systems can support mosquitoes, rodents, ticks, and other animals which may have a deleterious effect upon human health. Proper design and maintenance of developments for waterfowl habitat, recreational facilities, and other onsite activities will reduce vector problems. These provisions should be included during the process of planning riparian development and restoration.

Introduction

"Environmental protection" means protecting the environment from people. "Environmental health protection" means protecting people from the environment. A problem in managing riparian systems is to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks to both the environment and people. This can be done, and with very little pesticide use.

In California's environmental health usage, the term "vector" is defined to include not only the classic carrier of a disease pathogen from a reservoir animal to man, but also those biting, stinging or venomous organisms that injure people. These have been labeled "vectors of trauma".

Delivery of community-wide vector control services is principally a function of government. In California, special districts and local (primarily county) environmental health entities are involved, with a few cities and other public agencies providing limited vector control services. These local agencies receive training, technical assistance, and laboratory support from the California Department of Health Services, and benefit from research conducted by the University of California.

Riparian Vector Problems

Three major vector problems are identified with riparian/wetland systems. In descending order of frequency of occurrence, they are those associated with mosquitoes, rodents, and ticks. Some problems, minor from the statewide view, could be highly important in localized areas. One example is murine typhus; a second is biting gnats such as Leptoconops and Culicoides . This paper discusses the major vector problems and offers suggestions for their mitigation.

Mosquitoes

Mosquitoes are vectors of western equine encephalitis, St. Louis encephalitis, malaria, dog heartworm, and a great deal of trauma. We know of nearly 50 species in the state, including those produced in coastal saltmarshes, those which breed in rain-filled cavities in trees, the many which are associated with irrigated agriculture, and those produced each spring in high mountains in snowmelt water. All these species have in common the need for water in their immature stages. However their habitats vary tremendously. Riparian systems can be highly productive of many of these species.

The principal vector of the encephalitides, Culex tarsalis , and the vectors of malaria, Anopheles spp., are similar in that the female deposits eggs which must remain in the water for a week or more, depending upon temperature, for completion of the life cycle. The water habitat most conducive to reproduction of these species is quiet but not stagnant; not very deep and with "feather edges"; heavily overgrown with emergent vegetation and weedy edges to protect the larvae and pupae from wind and wave action, predators, and mosquito-control people; and relatively permanent to allow several generations to develop. The best way to prevent reproduction is to channelize the water to facilitate its movement and to prevent ponding. If ponding is necessary or desirable, the design and maintenance of the ponds should minimize breeding and encourage predation. Specifically, the water depth should be at least 1.2 m. (4 ft.) deep, side slopes should be steep, and vegetation should be controlled to minimize the water/vegetation interface and reduce the amount of brushy canopy.

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981].

[2] Don J. Womeldorf is Chief, Vector Biology and Control Section, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento.

Several Aedes spp., injurious and annoying, occur in riparian systems. These mosquitoes differ in habitat from Culex and Anopheles in that the female lays eggs in places where water will be present later. When the area is flooded, the eggs hatch and development begins. The aquatic stages may be completed in only a few days. The simplest way to reduce production of these species is to design and maintain water channels so that floodwater recedes rapidly back into the main channel without being held in temporary puddles, pools, and ponds. If floodwater does become impounded, the same criteria for minimizing reproduction as listed for Culex and Anopheles apply.

Rodents

Riparian systems, with heavy growths of shrubs and vines, are excellent habitats for roof rats, Norway rats, and several species of native wild rodents. Probably the most important rodent-associated disease in these areas is tularemia. Plague is less likely to be found because of the particular rodent species inhabiting the systems. Norway and roof rats are undesirable commensal cohabitants with man. They not only pose the threat of disease, but contaminate food, cause economic damage, and compete with native fauna. Blackberry tangles are especially important in providing food and cover for commensal rats. In the immediate vicinity of human habitation or high-density use, such vegetation should be eliminated entirely. In more remote areas consideration should be given to using other types of vegetation which would enhance wildlife propagation but not support populations of commensal rodents.

Several species of ixodid ticks are common in riparian systems. Tularemia and rickettsial diseases, principally in the Rocky Mountain spotted fever group, present a hazard to day users and campers. While it is not easy to reduce tick populations without drastically disrupting the vegetation, it is possible to cut down on human/tick contact by removing underbrush along trails and in the vicinity of camps. The chances of people being "caught" by ticks waiting for a passing host are thereby diminished.

Discussion

This is a very brief, noncomprehensive discussion of vector problems in riparian/wetland systems and what can be done to mitigate them. None of the mitigating measures suggested for vector control needs to be incompatible with other proposed uses of the systems. In every instance, biological understanding of these problems is basic. This, coupled with sound engineering design and adherence to a maintenance plan, can reduce or preclude riparian systems management from conflicting with vector control concerns.

When, in developing or restoring riparian/wetland systems, should vector concerns be considered? The best answer is, before the problem occurs. If development or restoration is being planned, vector prevention should be one of the considerations in the review and permitting process. Preventing a problem is much simpler and economical than curing it. The California Environmental Quality Act requires full disclosure of all environmental impacts of projects. Many riparian projects may be categorically exempt from the act because they are considered to be for the protection of the environment. But if vector problems are created by development of a riparian system, for example in creating ponds for waterfowl, legal action through the Health and Safety Code may be a recourse. However, it is much better to mitigate a problem during planning and construction than to have a court confrontation after the project is completed. The project planner would be well advised to contact the local vector control agency early in the process.

Pest and Beneficial Insects Associated with Agriculture and Riparian Systems^[1]

Vernon M. Stern^[2]

Abstract.—Vast changes have occurred in the California landscape over the past 100 years. In agriculture, many of these changes favor the buildup of pest populations over biological control. The manipulation of pest populations is a complex study in applied ecology.

Introduction

The species of insects, spider mites, and their close relatives far outnumber all other species of animals in the world. Insects are a complex group, with complicated life histories and interrelationships with other animals and plants. There are more than one million insect species, but only a relatively small number are pests. In the United States there are several thousand such species. These range from those that appear sporadically to major "key" pests that appear annually (Knipling 1979). These pests cause billions of dollars in losses each year in the United States (US Department of Agriculture 1965).

There are also thousands of insect parasites and predators that are natural enemies of pest species. Many crops, such as alfalfa, have a rather large complex of these biological control agents that feed on actual pest species, as well as feeding on an even larger number of potential pests. Often these potential pests can be very important in providing alternative hosts for parasites or food sources for predators. In this way potential pests help to stabilize and maintain populations of natural enemies when the pest population is at a low level, absent, or otherwise unavailable.

There are, of course, many "indifferent" species present in natural and agroecosystems. Their population numbers are not necessarily related to the numbers of pests or natural enemies. These include the scavengers, decomposers, pollinators, and other forms that may provide some useful function in agroecosystems, as well as in riparian and other natural systems. An example of these is the insects that provide food for birds and fish. However, the precise function of the vast majority of "indifferent" species is generally unknown.

In California, the replacement of natural communities with monocultures of agriculture has caused general faunal impoverishment, while certain species of phytophagous arthropods have become extremely abundant (Smith and Allen 1954). Many of these pest species have developed a high degree of mobility (Southwood 1966). Being good flyers, they often colonize the disrupted agroecosystem ahead of their natural enemies (van den Bosch and Telford 1964).

Burnett (1960), Odum (1971) and many others comment that as biotic complexity increases, particularly with reference to the number and kinds of trophic or feeding interactions, the stability of an agroecosystem will increase. An opposing, although not widely accepted, viewpoint of this ecological "dogma" is taken by van Emden and Williams (1973). They argue that species diversity does not necessarily cause greater stability. However, there are many examples of crop environment diversification which do make it more favorable to natural enemies and less favorable to a pest (Stern etal . 1976).

In general, rich, diverse, biotic complexes should be fostered and maintained. However, the function of the various elements must be understood before they can be intelligently employed or manipulated. The fact that most crop monocultures are threatened annually by pests and the diverse climax vegetation of many natural environments is little harmed has led to a general assumption that maximum diversity is desirable in all agricultural areas. It is thought that this will preserve the continuity, stability, and diversity inherent in the natural environment. There is an element of truth here, but it can be overstressed. In some cases, the "semi-natural" vegetation that adjoins crops can provide overwintering sites, sheltering places, and food for certain crop pests. Such vegetation may also benefit natural enemies if it supports their

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981].

[2] Vernon M. Stern is Professor of Entomology, University of California, Riverside.

alternative hosts, but this will not automatically provide a marked increase in biological control. Much depends on whether these benefits to the natural enemies counteract the benefits to the pest population. Once the delicate stability of a climax vegetation has been disturbed by man, even if only slightly, the vegetation, although still complex, may have been sufficiently altered to provide greater benefit to a pest in relation to the natural enemies that previously regulated it (Billiotti etal . 1968). Obviously, the manipulation of insect pest populations is a complex study in applied ecology.

Pests of California Agriculture

The hundreds of insect and spider mite pests attacking California agriculture have come from two sources. These are native species and exotic or introduced species.

Introduced Pests

Introduced pests comprise about 66% of our arthropod pests. Two problems of immediate concern are the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitiscapitata ) and the gypsy moth (Lymantriadispar ). The Mediterranean fruit fly was apparently transported to California in 1979. In some way adults or maggots inside infested fruit escaped detection at quarantine inspection stations. This devastating fly is one of the most serious entomological problems ever encountered by California agriculture. It attacks many crops and will cost many millions of dollars for various types of chemical control and in food loss each year if not eradicated.

On the other hand, the gypsy moth was intentionally brought to the United States by a Professor L. Trouvelot from Harvard. In 1869 he collected gypsy moth egg masses in France and brought them to the United States. His intention was to breed the gypsy moth with the silkworm to overcome a wilt disease commonly plaguing silkworm cultures in France and Italy. For whatever reason, he laid the egg masses on a window ledge, and evidently the wind blew them away.

Professor Trouvelot then published a notice, warning other citizens to be alert for the insect. The incident was forgotten until numerous shade and forest trees in the area were completely defoliated by the voracious caterpillars. Harassed by his irate neighbors, the professor left Harvard and headed west into entomological history.

By 1891 about 518 sq. km. (200 sq. mi.) north and west of Boston were infested. Even though the female moths cannot fly, the insect has steadily spread and now infests nearly all of the New England states and has extended into the Ohio River drainage system.

Through 1972 the gypsy moth had defoliated more than 810,000 ha. (2 million ac.) of forestland and killed over 5 million trees. The leaves of over 500 species of trees and other plants are eaten by these caterpillars. Important hosts that can be completely defoliated along riparian zones, in and around parks, homes and streets, and in forestland areas include alder, all species of oak, gray birch, basswood, willow, river birch, all species of poplar, box elder, hawthorne and apple. Less defoliation will occur on all species of maple, yellow birch, and elm. The larger caterpillars will also attack all species of pine, hemlock and spruce (Brown 1978).

The first gypsy moth infestation was detected in California in 1976 (Eichlin 1981). Over 400 egg masses were found in Santa Clara County. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) conducted an apparently successful eradication program against the infestation using two aerial applications of the insect growth regulator diflubenzuron (Hoy 1982).

During 1981, 41 male gypsy moths were trapped in Santa Barbara County. Lesser numbers were trapped in other southern and northern California counties—Los Angeles (3 moths), Marin (7), San Diego (3), Santa Cruz (2), and Ventura (2). Capture of male moths in sex-lure pheromone traps does not prove that the gypsy moth has become established in an area, because they may have developed from eggs or pupae brought into the state from infected areas in the eastern United States. However, intensive surveys in Santa Barbara during the fall and winter (1981–82) revealed four egg masses, indicating that a breeding population of the gypsy moth exists there (ibid .).

Professor Trouvelot's seemingly harmless 1869 venture occurred before the Plant Quarantine Act was passed in 1912. This federal legislative act established regulatory measures dealing with insects and plant diseases. All the states now have regulatory measures in force forbidding the movement of certain plants into or within the state, at least until such plants have been inspected or fumigated, or both. In many cases reinspection is required at the point of destination. Further, it is illegal to ship nursery stock anywhere in the United States unless it is accompanied by a certificate of inspection, stating that it has been found apparently free from certain seriously destructive insect pests and plant diseases.

However, with national and international passenger and cargo aircraft (including military aircraft) constantly entering California, as well as a domestic population coming into California as tourists or to live, it is a monumental task to keep out pests of agriculture and natural ecosystems.

Today, California has hundreds of examples of established exotic insect pests. A few of them are: Egyptian alfalfa weevil, pink bollworm, green peach aphid, codling moth, peach twig borer, Oriental fruit moth, citrus red scale, and

olive scale. In addition, there is a wide array of plant pathogens, weeds, and nematode pests that have been inadvertently introduced. The best estimates from some of the author's colleagues are that the vast majority of plant pathogens, nearly all of our weeds, and most of the nematode pests were brought into California from other areas.

The successful establishment of hundreds of exotic pests ties in perfectly with California's wild mosaic of climatic conditions. These range from the hot Imperial Valley, where cotton growers fight the pink bollworm (introduced in 1965) with 10 to 12 spray applications each season, to the cold winters in Modoc County, where cattlemen spray their alfalfa once or twice each spring to control the alfalfa weevil (introduced in the 1930s). The wide array of climates also gives rise to more than 230 commercial crops grown in the state, providing an ample variety of food for pest insects.

Native Pests

When the first Spanish explorers entered the San Joaquin Valley in the late 1700s, they found a large population of Yokut Indians existing on an abundance of elk, antelope, fish, tule roots, acorns, pine nuts, and other seeds. Two huge lakes, Buena Vista (formed by the Kern River) and Tulare (formed by the Tule and Kaweah rivers), and their surrounding tule marshes covered most of the lowlands, at least in the spring months (Kahrl 1979). Large areas of grassland and oak savannah, together with smaller amounts of saltbush desert, chaparral, and riparian communities, were essentially undisturbed by man. A number of insects we know today as crop pests—the western yellow-striped armyworm, alfalfa caterpillar, lygus bug, western spotted cucumber beetle, grape leafhopper, corn earworm, salt marsh caterpillar, several grasshoppers, and a number of other species occurred there, but they could not be considered pests because no agricultural crops existed in the valley.

These insects were greatly influenced by the seasonal occurrence of rain and the limited distribution of native annual vegetation. None of the Mediterranean winter annual herbs and grasses, such as bur clover, filarees, wild oat, and foxtail, were present.

In 1836 the first cattle ranch was established by the Spanish in the northwest fringes of the San Joaquin Valley; animals were produced largely for their hides. The discovery of gold and the rapid influx of settlers from the eastern United states created a demand for beef and other food. The period of 1850–70 was one of huge cattle holdings. Overgrazing began to take its toll, especially in drought years, and the introduction of Mediterranean grasses and forbs changed the composition of the range. The white man had now developed huge pastoral agroecosystems and the indigenous Indian had virtually disappeared.

The discovery in the 1850s that the winter and spring rains were sufficient to produce tremendous crops of wheat brought an era which lasted until about 1890. Huge grainfields displaced extensive areas of native grasslands.

The establishment of railroads also permitted the development of general agriculture along the rivers where water was available. Irrigation systems had small beginnings and were continually threatened by problems involving riparian rights to water, financing, land frauds, large corporate landholdings, and state laws concerning water rights and irrigation districts (ibid ).

With the introduction of extensive irrigation systems, using water from snowpack runoff and deep wells, the grasslands and alkali deserts of the San Joaquin Valley were transformed into an intensive irrigated agriculture. Along with grains and alfalfa came tree fruits (deciduous and citrus), grapes, cotton, melons, sugar beets, rice, and vegetables. A variety of native insects found the lush irrigated fields or orchards an ideal haven. An abundant food supply was now available year-round, and their period of increase was no longer confined to the spring.

Indeed, the corn earworm (Heliothiszea ) (fig. 1) was just another night-flying moth in the ancient pristine habitat. It undoubtedly dispersed to lay eggs on various annuals germinating from the winter and spring rains. When the rains ceased and the annuals set seed and dried up, there was probably high mortality of the younger larval stages. The moth population emerging from cocoons retracted to riverine and marsh areas to complete two or three summer generations on host plants near water. Undisturbed by today's chemicals, parasites and predators undoubtedly took a heavy toll of the summer generation larvae.

Today, with over 3.6 million hectares (9 million acres) of lush, irrigated farm land and a wide variety of commercial host crops, the native corn earworm is now "King of the Hill;" the scourge of vegetable growers; "number one" agricultural pest in California. It costs growers $80–100 million in chemical control and crop loss annually (California Department of Food and Agriculture 1977).

All of these changes have had an impact on the buildup of insect pest populations in areas of intensified agriculture. There are, of course, many ecological reasons why pest problems are more severe in intensified agriculture than in natural communities (table 1). Indeed, with our intensified production of food, fiber, and forage, we have created our own arthropod competitors.

Man in the Environment

We must recognize that all organisms are subjected to the physical and biotic pressures of

Figure 1.
Corn earworm (Heliothis  zea ) larva feeding
on an immature cotton floral bud.

the environments in which they live, and these factors, together with the genetic makeup of the species, determine their abundance and existence in any given area. Without natural control, a species which reproduces more than the parent stock could increase to infinite numbers. Man is subjected to environmental pressures just as other forms of life are, and he competes with other organisms for food and space.

Utilizing the traits that sharply differentiate him from other species, man has developed a technology permitting him to modify environments to meet his needs. Over the past several centuries, the competition for food and space has been almost completely in favor of man, as is attested by the decimation of vast vertebrate populations, as well as populations of other forms of life. But, while eliminating many species as he changed the environment of various regions to fit his needs for food and space, a number of species became his direct competitors. Today, as the human population continues to increase and civilization to advance, man numbers his arthropod enemies in the thousands of species (Knipling 1979).

Arthropod pests of agriculture are those species present in a crop in sufficient abundance to reduce the quality and/or quantity of food, forage, or fiber. The numbers of a pest may be in balance with their arthropod predators and parasites. However, at various times the pest population level may be sufficiently high to cause crop loss. Some control measure is then required to decrease its numbers. During the period of crop growth, pesticides are often the only way to prevent crop loss or decreased marketability of the product. Fruits and vegetables present the most serious marketability problems because of state and certain federal regulations relating to

product quality. Consumers are also involved, because they usually avoid buying food that shows signs of any type of insect damage which spoils the appearance of the product, even though there may be no nutritional loss to the product.

The increase to pest status of a particular species may be the result of a single factor or a combination of factors. The most significant factors of the last century are discussed below (Stern etal . 1959).

First, by changing or manipulating the environment, man has created conditions that permit certain species to increase their population densities. For example, when alfalfa was introduced into California in the 1850s to feed horses, the alfalfa butterfly (Coliaseurytheme ) (fig. 2), which had previously occurred in low numbers in native legumes, found a widespread and favorable new host plant in its environment. It soon became an economic pest.

Figure 2.
Alfalfa caterpillar (Colias   eurytheme ) larva consuming alfalfa. This $800 million forage
crop is the main food for California's multi-billion dollar dairy and beef cattle industry.

A second way in which arthropods have risen to pest status has occurred by their being transported across geographical barriers while leaving their specific predators, parasites, and diseases behind. The increase in importance through such transportation is illustrated by the cottonycushion scale (Icerya purchasi ) (fig. 3). This scale insect was introduced from Australia on acacia in 1868. Within the following two decades, it increased in abundance to the point that it threatened economic disaster for the entire citrus industry. Fortunately, the timely importation and establishment of two of its natural enemies, a lady beetle (Rodolia cardinalis ) and a parasitic fly (Cryptochaetumiceryae ), resulted in the complete suppression of I . purchasi as a citrus pest.

A third cause for the increasing number of pest arthropods has been the establishment of progressively lower economic thresholds. For example, prior to the discovery of the insecticidal properties of DDT and development of other organic pesticides, the blotches caused by lygus bugs feeding on an occasional lima bean were of little concern. However, with a cheap and readily available method of chemical control of lygus bugs for the first time ever, and with the emphasis on product appearance in the frozen food industry, a demand was created for a near-perfect bean. For this reason, lower economic thresholds were established and lygus bugs came to be considered a serious pest of lima beans.

A fourth cause has been the indiscriminate use of pesticides. As mentioned, the corn earworm (Heliothiszea ) is a native insect species and the single most damaging pest in the state. In the late 1950s through the 1960s, cotton was treated widely in the San Joaquin Valley for lygus bug control. Chemical treatments were often started in early June and continued through August. The corn earworm frequently increased to devastating numbers in August and September. From 1967 through 1972, University of California cotton research entomologists demonstrated that lygus bugs were not a pest of cotton after late

Figure 3.
Schematic graph of fluctuations in population density
of the cottony-cushion scale (Icerya  purchasi ) on citrus
from its introduction into California in 1868. Following
the successful introduction of two of its natural enemies
in 1888, it was reduced to noneconomic status except
for a local resurgence produced by DDT treatments.

July. This and other knowledge reduced lygus bug treatments by nearly 50%, and as a consequence, the corn earworm has been reduced to minor pest status on cotton in the San Joaquin Valley.

Pest Interactions between Riparian Systems and Intensified Agriculture

Pierce's Disease

Pierce's disease (PD), which kills grapevines, is caused by a bacterium. This pathogen is spread by a family of leafhoppers known as sharpshooters. The disease had been present in California since the 1880s (Winkler etal . 1949). It initially broke out in southern California, destroying 14,000 ha. (35,000 ac.) of grapes. In the Central Valley the disease was first noted about 1917; from 1933 to 1940 a major outbreak devastated many Central Valley districts. Today the most dramatic vineyard losses to PD occur in the Napa Valley and parts of the San Joaquin Valley. During severe epidemics, losses to PD may require major replanting.

For many years PD was thought to be caused by a virus (ibid .). However, in 1973, University of California researchers, using the electron microscope, discovered the bacterium in infested grapes. This bacterium infects many different plant species in addition to grapevines. The host plants serve as reservoirs from which the sharpshooter vectors pick up PD bacterium for transmission to grapes. Many host plants of the bacterium also are important food or egg-laying places for the sharpshooter vectors. Some of these include Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon ), watergrass (Echinochloacrusgalli ), blackberry (Rubusvitifolius ), willow (Salix spp.), and stinging nettle (Urticaholosericea ).

Different grape varieties show different sensitivity to PD. Some of the more sensitive varieties include Mission, Pinot Noir, Pinot Chardonnay, and Barbera. Moderately resistant are Gray Riesling, Petit Sirah, Sauvignon Blanc, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Napa Gamay. Relatively resistant varieties are Thompson Seedless, White Riesling, Chenin Blanc, and Ruby Cabernet. Unfortunately, a number of California's varietal wine grapes are moderately to very sensitive to the disease (Purcell 1981).

Thus, the answer to the PD problem is not quite so simple as ripping out the more sensitive varieties and replanting with resistant varieties. This method of control is often used with field and vegetable crops which are planted for a single season. However, these latter crops are not required by law to carry a varietal label as are varietal wines.

Management of the Disease

Most dispersal of PD seems to develop directly from outside source areas and is then vectored to individual grape vines within vineyards. Studies in both coastal and interior areas have shown that rigorous removal of infected vines is not beneficial in reducing the spread of PD within a vineyard, although removal and replanting may be necessary to keep up vineyard productivity. Therefore, the only way to reduce or prevent PD spread through vector control is to prevent sharpshooters from entering vineyards.

Insect Vectors of Pierce's Disease

The green-headed sharpshooter (Draeculacephala minerva ) and red-headed sharpshooter (Carneocephala fulgida ) are the primary vectors of PD in the Central Valley. The two sharpshooters feed mainly on grasses, where they pick up the bacterium. These grasses occur commonly along irrigation ditch banks, roadways, pastures, and irrigation drainage sumps. In alfalfa fields, orchards or field-crop areas, it is the grass weeds growing in or at the margins of the crops that result in increased sharpshooter populations. If the PD bacterium is present, vineyards adjacent to such locations may suffer a high incidence of PD (ibid .). Unfortunately, control of weed areas or weedy alfalfa plantings may not be the prerogative of the vineyard owner. However, the owner can eliminate weed grasses on his or her own property to help reduce PD.

Insecticidal treatment is only temporarily effective against adult sharpshooters and of little value overall in the Central Valley. There is a considerable overlap of generations; eggs are present inside protective leaf tissues of host plants from January through the fall.

Coastal Areas—Napa Valley

The blue-green sharpshooter (Graphocephala atropunctata ) (fig. 4), unlike the grass-feeding sharpshooters of the Central Valley, will feed and reproduce on many plants. However, it prefers woody or perennial plants such as wild grape, blackberry, elderberry, and stinging nettle. The blue-green sharpshooter is most common along streambanks or in ravines or canyons that have dense growth of trees, vines, and shrubs, where it feeds on succulent new growth in areas of abundant soil moisture and shade. It is seldom found in unshaded dry locations.

Figure 4.
Blue-green sharpshooter (Graphocephala   atropunctata ),
an important vector of Pierce's disease (PD) of grapes
in coastal areas of California.

Vineyards in the immediate vicinity of environments favorable to this sharpshooter are frequently PD "hot spots" with a very high incidence of the disease. Unfortunately, removal of the host plants carrying the bacterium is usually impractical because often they provide refuges for wildlife, protect against erosion and flood damage, and contribute substantially to the beauty of the countryside.

To combat the blue-green sharpshooter, which has only one generation per year, insecticide applications of dimethoate have been used in early spring, before the leafhoppers move into the vineyard. At that time, feeding and most flight activity near vineyards is concentrated in relatively small and well-defined locations. Treatment consists of applying the pesticide to a band of native vegetation about 15–30 m. (50–100 ft.) wide along the vineyard edge. At the same time that the natural vegetation is treated, adjacent portions of the vineyard should be treated if new shoot growth is longer than a few centimeters (ibid .).

While blackberry acts as a host to the PD bacterium in the Napa Valley, this riparian plant species can be beneficial in other ways, including its influence on the grape leafhopper.

Grape Leafhopper

The grape leafhopper (Erythroneuraelegantuala ) (fig. 5) is the most common insect pest of grapes in the San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Napa valleys. Before the development of organic insecticides in the 1940s, severe damage occurred in some years, followed by periods of low populations. Now, with more effective pesticides, losses are primarily due to the cost of treatment plus the side effect of secondary outbreaks of other insect and spider mite pests resulting from the chemical treatment. A good example occurred in the 1960s when the leafhopper developed resistance to DDT and other chemicals. Growers began using the pesticide Sevin for leafhopper control. This material often caused severe outbreaks of spider mites, and in many cases the mites were more damaging to the grapes than the original leafhoppers.

Figure 5.
Grape leafhopper (Erythroneura   elegantuala ) is the most common and
most frequently treated grape pest in central and northern California.

Injury

Both adults and nymphs of the grape leafhopper have piercing mouth parts with which they puncture leaves and suck out the contents. Heavily damaged leaves lose their green color, dry up, and fall off the vine. In addition, in table grapes excessive fruit spotting from the leafhopper excrement can lead to unmarketable fruit before any effect on yield is noted. The crop is then sold for crushing, which is far less profitable than table grapes.

Natural Control

The important natural enemy of the grape leafhopper is a tiny, almost microscopic wasp Anagrusepos (fig. 6). This tiny wasp lays its eggs in the eggs of the grape leafhopper, resulting in the death of the leafhopper egg. These parasitic wasps are particularly valuable because of their amazing ability to locate and attack grape leafhopper eggs. Also, their short life cycle permits them to increase far more rapidly than can leafhopper populations. Their nine to 10 generations during the grape season make them capable of parasitizing 90–95% of all leafhopper eggs that are laid after July (Jensen and Flaherty 1981).

Anagrusepos overwinters on wild blackberries (Rubus spp.) on which it parasitizes the eggs of noneconomic, harmless leafhoppers (Dikrella spp.). These overwintering wasp populations tend to be along rivers that have an overstory of trees sheltering both wild grapes and wild blackberries. When the blackberries leaf out in February, the lush, new foliage apparently stimulates heavy oviposition by the Dikrella leafhoppers. The Anagrus populations increase enormously in these eggs, so that by late March and early April there is widespread dispersal of the newly produced Anagrus adult females. Fortunately, their dispersal occurs at the same time that grape leafhopper females begin to lay eggs. Vineyards located within an 8- to 16-km.

Figure 6.
Adult parasite (Anagrus  epos ) of grape leafhopper eggs.
The male, shown above, is blackish-brown, while the
female is straw colored. This microscopic wasp often
reduces the grape leafhopper to nonpest status in
vineyards adjacent to riparian systems.

(5- to 10-mi.) range of an overwintering population will usually benefit immediately from the immigrant parasites. Vineyards distant from actual blackberry refuges may not show Anagrus activity until midsummer or later.

Efforts to establish blackberry refuges near vineyards in Tulare County have been only partially successful. This is attributed to the lack of a sheltering overstory of trees as would normally occur in riparian zones. In full sun, blackberry plantings gradually become dry thickets, with only surface foliage that becomes tough and leathery. Dikrella , wintertime host of Anagrusepos , is a shade- and moisture-loving insect that breeds on leaves inside blackberry vines were it is generally cooler and more humid. Old mature thickets, therefore, become less desirable Dikrella habitats and are, consequently, poor producers of Anagrus . A vineyard located within a natural dispersal area will, therefore, receive early important activity from the Anagrus parasites.

Where blackberries occur naturally, the commercial vineyards in the vicinity are not seriously troubled by grape leafhopper populations, and parasitism by Anagrus begins early in the season. This situation was first evident from studies in the Napa Valley, where blackberries are common, as well as in vineyards near the Stanislaus River, in the northern San Joaquin Valley. Certain locations along the Kings, Kaweah, and St. Johns rivers are also excellent sites for Anagrus where blackberries are common.

By contrast, the vineyards in the southern San Joaquin Valley are established in locations that are virtually reclaimed desert. They are miles from naturally occurring blackberries and chronically suffer from excessively high leafhopper populations. Parasitism by Anagrus does not occur until late in the summer, if at all.

Doutt and Nakata (1973) concluded that a vineyard situated within the predictable early dispersion range of Anagrus from overwintering sites can reasonably expect the parasite activity to be a substantial mortality factor on the first two broods of leafhoppers. This element is important in pest management programs of vineyards in the area, and any practice disruptive to this particular host/parasite system should be avoided.

Grapeleaf Skeletonizer

The western grapeleaf skeletonizer (Harrisina brillians ) (GLS) is an introduced pest (fig. 7). It was first found in California in 1941, near San Diego. In canyon areas, wild grapes (Vitisgirdiana ) were severely defoliated; in a short time GLS became a serious pest in commercial vineyards. By 1943, crop loss in some vineyards reached 90%, but the average was a loss of about 50%.

A state-imposed eradication program, using cryolite dust, was tried, but it was not successful. Meanwhile, emphasis was placed on biological control. University of California entomologists at Riverside imported parasites from Mexico and Arizona. A parasitic wasp, Apantelesharrisinae , and a parasitic fly, Ametadoria (= = Sturmia ) harrisinae , were soon established. A granulosis virus that attacks GLS larvae was soon found in GLS-rearing laboratories in Arizona and in San Diego County.

By 1961, GLS was found on backyard grapes at Kerman (Fresno County). In spite of another try at eradication, by 1975 devastating infestations could be found in central and northern California on wild grapes in riparian systems, on backyard grapes, and in commercial vineyards. It has spread slowly in the Central Valley because GLS adults tend to remain in the area of their larval development (Stern etal . 1981).

Figure 7.
Larvae of the western grapeleaf skeletonizer
(Harrisina  brillians ) feeding on a grape leaf.

To deal with these new infestations, Apanteles and Ametodoria parasites from San Diego County were introduced, and explorations were made for new parasites from outside of California. So far only the parasitic fly appears to have become established, and this only in Siskiyou and Shasta counties where grapes are not commercially important.

Injury

Leaf damage continues to increase through the season in untreated GLS populations. Second and third generations (there are three per year) have defoliated entire vineyards in the central San Joaquin Valley. If vines are heavily or completely defoliated before harvest, fruit maturity can be adversely affected. Heavy defoliation in mid-summer usually destroys the entire crop. Defoliation after harvest is less damaging, but it can affect the food reserves of the vine and weaken it for the following year. At present, biological control is inadeqate and growers have no recourse other than to treat GLS infestations.

Riparian Systems as Biological Controls

When wild grape foliage is abundant, adult GLS moths tend to remain in the area and flitter about in the process of mating and laying eggs. The conspicuous bluish-black moths are caught easily by hand. However, when larvae have defoliated the wild grapes in a spot, adults emerging from the cocoons of these larvae change their flight habits. In seeking out new egg-laying sites, they become very swift fliers. With this unusual flight habit on the part of the moth, wild grapes along riparian zones are a constant source of infestation for commercial vineyards in the area.

On the other hand, the wild grapes along the rivers, streams, and creeks east of Visalia have been extremely beneficial in the attempt to establish biological control agents of GLS. These areas, some in permanent pasture, are never treated with insecticides which would possibly wipe out the released GLS parasites. This author has taken advantage of these riparian systems in cooperation with the private landowners for research projects. None of them grow grapes. One cooperator has walnut groves, another is a dairyman, and still another raises beef cattle and is a descendent of a family that homesteaded and bought property along the Kaweah River in the 1880s.

When the GLS parasites become firmly established in riparian vegetation, they can then spread by themselves into commercial vineyards. It might be noted that about 20% of the vineyards in the Central Valley are never treated with insecticides.

Even more promising, in terms of biological control of GLS, has been the work with the granulosis virus of GLS. During the mid-1950s, Edward Steinhaus, then Professor of Insect Pathology, University of California, Berkeley, purified about one-fourth teaspoon of the GLS virus and placed it in a refrigerator. In 1979 this small bit of virus was sent to the author at Riverside. The virus was tested in Tulare County on single grape leaves containing early larval stages of GLS. The virus proved to be just as potent as when Professor Steinhaus put it in the refrigerator 25 years earlier. Following this, the virus was propagated, and field tests were conducted in 1980. The virus was just as effective on GLS as commercial pesticides. Equally important for these biological control efforts was the effect of the virus at low dosages. These data suggested that the virus could be incorporated as a biological control and could contaminate the GLS population in the San Joaquin Valley. In this study the desired effect is not to kill the GLS larvae outright. Instead, the aim is to apply a sufficiently low virus dosage as to permit the infected larvae to survive so the adults will become carriers of the virus and spread it through the valley.

Adults arising from such larvae are one-half normal size. In 1981, it was found that some of these moths do not lay eggs. About 75% of the eggs that are laid do not hatch. Larvae that do hatch have abnormal feeding habits and eventually all die in the third larval stage. This gives 100% control from exposure to the virus in the previous generation.

During the summer, riparian areas were sprayed with low dosages of the virus. A unique and key feature of the GLS granulosis virus is

that it attacks the gut of the larvae. This gives rise to diarrhea which contains millions of virion particles. Other insects crawling over this material will pick it up on their legs and help spread it through the system.

Conclusion

In little more than a century, the land- and waterscape of California has been remade through construction of a great network of artificial lakes and rivers. However, the present water system and its domestic, agricultural, and industrial use is far more than these physical elements. It is also constructed of the legal and institutional structures that Californians have erected to govern water use and the social and economic development it has helped to foster. The money invested has led to the transformation of grassland prairie, as well as arid and semiarid land, into cities, towns, and irrigated cropland and has made California the most populous and agriculturally productive state in the nation.

The past changes as well as current and proposed changes in land use and waterscape are disturbing to a good number of Californians, and rightly so. The original grassland prairie, marshlands, and forests of willow, oak, cottonwood, and sycamore along rivers and streams, and their accompanying flora and fauna have largely disappeared. To resurrect a portion of the original habitat present when the Spaniards and settlers from the eastern United States arrived would require huge expenditures of public funds. To complicate matters even more is the vast array of public and private agencies (about 3,700) with administrative authority to respond to the political, social, and economic rights of various citizens with respect to water supply, delivery, use, and treatment (Kahrl 1979).

Strict conservation and maintenance of existing riparian areas is certainly needed. Limited restoration of riparian systems is also possible and can be accomplished through the legal process. This mainly concerns private donations in perpetuity of deeded land to an institution, such as the University of California, to remain as or to return to natural riparian habitats. Good examples occur in southern California through the efforts of Dr. William W. Mayhew, Professor of Zoology, University of California, Riverside. At present, donations of deeded land to the University far exceed those that the state legislature and the general public would be willing to purchase outright.

Aesthetic values aside, much remains to be learned of the beneficial as well as adverse effects of crop plant diseases, pest and beneficial arthropods, birds and other flora and fauna associated with riparian and agricultural systems. Riparian areas which harbor specific agents detrimental to adjacent agricultural crops will often have another array of beneficial agents affecting the same or another crop. Long-term ecological studies are needed toelucidate these relationships, and special funding to the University of California from the state legislature for this specific purpose seems most appropriate.

Acknowledgments

All photographs in this manuscripts are by Jack Kelley Clark, Principal Photographer, Cooperative Extension Service, University of California, Davis.

Literature Cited

Billiotti, E., and V.M. Stern etal . 1968. Report of the second session of the FAO panel of experts on integrated pest control. [Rome, Italy, September 19–24, 1968.] 48 p. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Brown, L.R. 1978. Insects of ornamental shrubs, shade trees and turf. p. 535–571. In : R.E. Pfadt (ed.). Fundamentals of applied entomology. 798 p. Macmillan Company, New York, N.Y.

Burnett, T. 1960. Control of insect pests. Proceedings of Federal American Society Experimental Biology 19:557–561.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 1977. Estimated damage and crop loss caused by insect/mite pests: 1976. 24 p. California Department of Food and Agriculture Publication, Sacramento, Calif.

Doutt, R.L., and J. Nakata. 1973. The Rubus leafhopper and its egg parasitoid: an endemic biotic system useful in grape-pest management. Environmental Entomology 2(3): 381–386.

Eichlin, T.D. 1981. Location of gypsy moth finds in California—1981. p. 81–83. In : Cooperative plant pest report 4(8). California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, Calif.

Hoy, M. 1982. The gypsy moth—here again. California Agriculture 36(7):4–6.

Jensen, F.L., and D.L. Flaherty. 1981. Grape leafhopper. p. 98–110. In : Grape pest management. University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences Pub. 4105, Berkeley, Calif. 312 p.

Kahrl, W.L. (ed.). 1979. The California water atlas. Prepared by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, State of California, Sacramento. 118 p.

Knipling, E.F. 1979. The basic principles of insect populations, suppression and management. US Department of Agriculture Handbook 512, Washington, D.C. 623 p.

Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 574 p. Saunders, Philadelphia, Penn.

Purcell, A.H. 1981. Pierce's disease. p. 6269. In : Grape pest management. University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences Pub. 4105, Berkeley, Calif. 312 p.

Smith, R.F., and W.W. Allen. 1954. Insect control and the balance of nature. American Science 190:38–42.

Southwood, T.R.E. 1966. Ecological methods. 391 p. Chapman and Hall, London, England.

Stern, V.M., P.L. Adkisson, O. Beingolea, and G.A. Viktorov. 1976. Cultural controls. p. 593–613. In : Theory and practice of biological control. 788 p. Academic Press, Inc., New York, N.Y.

Stern, V.M., W.L. Peacock, and D.L. Flaherty. 1981. Western grapeleaf skeletonizer. p. 140–146. In : Grape pest management. University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences Pub. 4105, Berkeley, Calif. 312 p.

Stern, V.M., R.F. Smith, R. van den Bosch, and K.S. Hagen. 1959. The integrated control concept. In : The integration of chemical and biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid. Hilgardia 29(2):81–154.

US Department of Agriculture. 1965. Losses in agriculture. US Department of Agriculture Handbook 291, Washington, D.C. 120 p.

van den Bosch, R., and A.D. Telford. 1964. Environmental modification and biological control. p. 459–488. In : P. DeBach (ed.). Biological control of insect pests and weeds. 844 p. Reinhold, New York, N.Y.

van Emden, H.F., and G.F. Williams. 1973. Insect stability and diverstiy in agroecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 19:455–475.

Winkler, A.J., W.B. Hewitt, N.W. Frazier, and J.H. Frietag. 1949. Pierce's disease investigations. Hilgardia 19(7):207–264.

Timber Operations Along California Streams^[1]

Jere L. Melo^[2]

Abstract.—Commercial forestlands occupy about 16% of California's 100 million acres and about half are managed by private owners. These private lands contribute substantial amounts of forest products and amenities to the state economy. Private operations are controlled by numerous laws; the purpose and results of several important state laws are presented.

Introduction

Commercial forestlands^[3] occupy a substantial portion of California's mountainous terrain. Because these lands receive relatively high amounts of precipitation, streams and riparian areas are common in commercial forests. California's forest industry ranks second in national lumber production, contributing about 12% of the total. Despite this substantial production, consumers in the state annually use about 30% more lumber than is produced and substantially greater quantities of plywood, particle board, poles and piling, and pulp and paper products. Industry estimates that in 1979, 2,458 firms provided direct employment for 100,000 persons in all types of forest product and byproduct manufacturing (California Forest Communicators Council 1979). Commercial forests occupy about 16% of the state's 100 million acres (table 1).

Background Information

Timber lands feature a diverse set of stream and vegetation patterns within relatively small areas on any particular timber harvest unit (fig. 1). Depending on soil and moisture conditions, vegetation near streams can range from dense, redwood groves as found along the North Coast to more open stands of pine and fir as found in the Sierra and Cascade mountains.

Figure l.
Oblique view of forestlands showing stream
patterns and developed road system.

Historically, stream routes have served the industry as a logical basis for development of transportation systems. Pioneer lumbermen used water to move logs to the sawmill (fig. 2). Development of roads, railroads, manufacturing sites, and ownership patterns is substantially based on topography, and major streams strongly influence all development. The process of devel-

[1] Paper presented at the California Riparian Systems Conference. [University of California, Davis, September 17–19, 1981].

[2] Jere L. Melo is Division Forester, Northern California Division of Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Fort Bragg, Calif.

[3] Commercial forestlands are generally defined as those capable of producing at least an average of 20 cu. ft. of merchantable wood, per acre per year, during a "rotation" or between timber harvests. Thus, an acre capable of growing 20 cu. ft. for a "rotation" of 100 years will yield 2,000 cu. ft. at harvest of the timber.

Figure 2.
Pioneer timbermen used streams to move logs to the mill. All
summer, logs were piled in front of splash dams. With winter
freshets, dams were tripped, and the river drive began. Hell
Gate Dam on the South Fork of Big River, Mendocino
County. Built in 1902; last used in 1937.

opment on commercial forestlands is quite similar to that for public transportation routes.

Commercial Forest Uses

From the perspective of a timberland owner, forest uses may be grouped into activities that produce an economic return and those activities that produce no economic return. Economic returns may be stated in positive (profit) or negative (loss) cash flows, depending on market conditions, volume and quality of inventory, and the particular cost structure of individual owners. Activities that produce no economic return are generally those factors where there is an overabundant supply, relative to market demand. Some or all of these non-economic activities may be factors in the business cost of timberland owners, but the consumer enjoys a zero cost for resource or amenity use.

Economic Returns to the Owner

The most obvious economic return to a timberland owner is the harvest and sale of forest products. Today, the largest dollar volume of forest products is for saw logs and veneer logs, but others include posts, poles and piling, split products, burls, greens, Christmas trees, and fuel wood. During the past two decades, substantial gains in timber utilization have been accomplished through increased use of harvested trees. More defective logs are used, given improved manufacturing facilities and marketing efforts. Development of pulp and paper manufacturing and cogeneration of electric power has permitted increased use of mill residue and some specific uses of logging slash.

Timber, similar to agricultural crops, develops best in a good soil with plenty of moisture during long growing seasons. The commercial redwood forest is the most dramatic demonstration in California of the influence of water and deep soils can be demonstrated (table 2).

In the redwood forest, the best soils are the silty deposits along main streams. When rivers reach flood stage, slack water develops above the streambanks, resulting in deposits of fine soil particles. Soil deposits up to 30 ft. are common, and water marks on trees range from 2 ft. to 15 ft. above soil levels. Thus, it is quite common that riparian zones are the most productive commercial timber sites by a substantial margin.

Other economic uses enjoyed by timberland owners include transportation facilities such as roads and railroads, mining of gravel from streambeds for construction and site hardening, and some fee recreation. Where an owner controls a road or railroad, wood products and other freight are subject to tolls. Gravel mining is common in streambeds throughout the state, and some timber owners are able to use gravel on timber operations or for sale for other construction. Fee recreation is not well developed on California timberlands, but some owners have been able to obtain income from railroads, hunting clubs, campgrounds or livestock grazing.

Owner Subsidized Uses

The supply of areas for camping, hunting, fishing, bird watching, and similar activities is so far in excess of demand that these uses have

not provided substantial income for most timberland owners. The consumer enjoys a zero cost for resource use, including the capital developments on a property such as roads, bridges, and, perhaps, developed camp sites. A characteristic of most of these types of activities is that the riparian sites are the most desirable areas of use.

A recent development by major timber owners along the North Coast has been to support salmon restoration (fig. 3). Several companies have provided funds for egg-taking facilities and rearing ponds in local streams. This represents a capital investment in fisheries of funds generated from timber harvest.

Figure 3.
Salmon egg-taking station on Hollow Tree Creek in Mendocino
County. Station was designed by California Department of Fish
and Game (DFG), constructed and installed by timber industry,
and operated by commercial fishermen. Eggs taken are hatched
by DFG, and fish are raised in rearing ponds on industry lands.
Local non-profit groups purchase feed for young fish.

Primary State Laws and Regulations

The forest products industry is among the most regulated industries in California. Management strategies during the past decade have largely been in the form of responding to legislative and regulatory initiatives. These have been complicated by interpretations of law by various courts and competition among public agencies for regulatory control. Provided below are discussions of several prominent state laws that directly affect timber operations.

Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973

The Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973^[4] became effective in 1974. It is adminstered by the Board of Forestry. The board consists of nine members, five representing the general public (and without financial interests in timber operations or lands), three representing the forest industry, and one representing the range and livestock industry. There are three technical advisory committees representing regional differences in forest conditions and operations. The board is required to consider public and technical advice prior to adopting rules under which timber operations must be conducted.

The act authorizes regulation of timber operations by the use of board-adopted rules for each forest district. Prior to the conduct of a timber operation, a Timber Harvesting Plan must be prepared by a Registered Professional Forester and be approved by the California Department of Forestry (DF) after consulting with other state agencies. Usually, harvest plans are reviewed by DF, DFG and the staff from a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

The board rules are intended to be used as standards for preparing Timber Harvesting Plans and judging the results of logging operations. The act and rules provide standards for several harvest and reforestation systems, operations of logging equipment, road and trail construction, erosion control, stream and lake protection, fire hazard abatement, insect and disease control, and fire prevention and control.

Timber operations described in an approved Timber Harvesting Plan may be conducted during a three-year period following approval. A completion notice must be filed within a month after all work is finished. After completion, the landowner has five years to restock harvested lands with commercial species of trees.

Silvicultural methods allowed include a broad range of cutting intensities, from clearcutting to minor salvage of dead or infested trees. Reforestation may be accomplished by using commercial timber left after a partial harvest; natural or artificial planting of trees and seed is also accepted. The basic requirement is to have 300 seedling trees per acre established within five years after completion of the harvest. If trees larger than seedling size remain after harvest, there are equivalence tables for computing stocking levels.

The act and rules specifically address operations around streams. Essentially, equipment is limited from operating within 50 ft. of streams,

[4] Chapter 8 of Division 4, Public Resources Code, Sections 4511–4628, adopted by Statutes of 1973 and amended through 1980.

in an effort to protect streambanks. Vegetation must be left along streams to provide shade and reduce raindrop impact and resulting surface erosion. Erosion control measures include standards for construction of roads and trails, drainage, and winter operations. Most practices are keyed to an erosion-hazard rating system, calculated from soils, slopes, rainfall, and other factors that can be identified on-site.

The concept for administering the act has been revised as a result of a court decision. In 1975, the Humboldt County Superior Court found that the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applied to timber operations in addition to the provisions of the act.^[5]

Operations within the coastal zone were revised with adoption of the Coastal Act of 1976.^[6] Early in 1977, the California Coastal Commission was required to identify specific timberland areas that were designated as "special treatment areas," and in 1978, the Board of Forestry adopted restrictive regulations for the conduct of timber operations (Melo 1979).

Perhaps the most far-reaching revision of the act and the board rules is currently being debated. Silvicultural operations are identified as nonpoint sources of water pollution, and as such they fall under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977). Each state is required to conduct a planning effort to minimize nonpoint sources of water pollution, and the board has responded by proposing repeal of most existing district rules and major revisions of the Forest Service Act. Numerous regulatory and legislative proposals are now being processed.

The Z'Berg-Nejedly Act is considered the most stringent forest practices act in the nation. Court interpretations and various legislative and regulatory proposals have resulted in some modifications to the program since it became effective.

Professional Foresters Law (1972)

The Professional Foresters Law (1972)^[7] provides for professional licensing of individuals who wish to practice forestry. There are minimum requirements for education and experience. The primary influence of this act on timber operations is that only a Registered Professional Forester may prepare a Timber Harvesting Plan.

Z'Berg-Warren-Keene-Collier Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976

This complex act^[8] made numerous revisions to the assessment and collection of taxes for timber and timberlands. Its primary features include: creation of the Timberland Preserve Zone (TPZ), where only timber production along with certain compatible uses are allowed, and a shift of tax collection of timber taxes by the State (Board of Equalization), based on regional (market area) timber values.

Creation of the TPZ is by contract between a county and an individual timberland owner. Although the owner agrees to restrict his development of forestland to certain limits, the county must then tax the land based on its productive capacity. The "highest and best use" concept of valuation, based on sales of nearby lands, has been abandoned. Abandoning this concept relieves the landowner from the pressures of a tax spiral simply because adjacent owners might sell at a high price.

The tax shift on timber from the standing tree (inventory) to the cut log (yield) allows the timber owner to pay taxes at the time when a cash flow is created. Particularly for private, non-industrial owners, the inventory tax often forced liquidation of timber in order to provide sufficient funds to avoid tax delinquency. Owners can now "play the market" by attempting to sell at perceived high demand (and price) periods while retaining inventory during the low demand periods.

Collection of property taxes has long been a function of local county assessors and tax collectors. The act removed value determination from the local level and placed it with the State Board of Equalization. The Board of Forestry determines average timber values twice yearly, based on transactions within defined market areas of the state. Funds are distributed to counties based on tax collections during past years.

Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600–1606

The Fish and Game Code requires that private and public projects which propose to modify streambed or streambanks or to divert water from streams must have an agreement with DFG before planning construction.^[9] Many timber operations have stream crossings on road systems, and numerous applications are made to DFG under Section 1603.

Normally, the process to reach an agreement for work in and around streams can be completed within 30 days. A written application is submitted to DFG describing the proposed work, and after a visit to the site, DFG and the operator

[5] Natural Resources Defense Council vs. Arcata National Corporation (1976) 131 Cal. Rptr. 172, 50 C.A. 3rd 959.

[6] California Coastal Act of 1976, Division 20, Public Resources Code, (SB 1277, Statutes of 1976)

[7] Article 3, Public Resources Code, Sections 750–783 (Statutes of 1972).

[8] AB 1258, Statutes of 1976.

[9] Chapter 6 of Division 2, Public Resources Code, Sections 1600–1606 (AB 2210, Statutes of 1976).

sign a binding agreement. This process features few written rules, and it relies heavily on good will between agency and operator personnel. This regulatory procedure has given minimum difficulty to private operators because it is so simple and its goals are understandable.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act^[10] provides for regional water quality control under supervision of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). RWQCBs adopt water quality basin plans which prescribe and define beneficial uses of water, those water standards necessary to maintain the beneficial uses, and an action plan to attain necessary water standards. An interesting feature of the act is that neither a regional board nor the SWRCB may prescribe the method for attainment of water quality goals. In fact, specific practices may not be prescribed.

Staff members of regional boards review timber harvest plans and are advisory to the DF. Up until 1979, the North Coast RWQCB adopted water quality standards (waste discharge requirements) for certain timber operations that were considered controversial. Most of these actions occurred after approval of harvest plans by DF, following objection by the water quality staff. Currently, the major effect on the North Coast of RWQCB action has been a modification of the proposed aerial application of phenoxy herbicides for brush control on timberlands. At the present time, there are proposals before the SWRCB to conduct a study in cooperation with the industry, where standards will be set for application of herbicides.

Food and Agriculture Code

Registration, prescription and application of pesticides statewide is under the control of the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA). It has registered programs for pesticide dealers, pest control advisors, pest control operators, and agricultural pilots. DFA provides for state registration of pesticides for various uses; county agricultural commissioners represent DFA by issuing permits and inspecting applications.

Application of pesticides in forest management is generally limited to grass and brush control for reforestation or for suppression of undesirable plant species after reforestation. For specific forest types, under epidemic insect attacks, pesticides have been applied as a control effort.

Research, Development, Equipment Application

Research and development within California's forest industry has been very limited during the past decade. Legislative, regulatory, and legal initiatives have been so frequent and time-consuming that forest managers have not devised many new techniques for operations.

Capital investments in land acquisition, reforestation, and road improvements have been substantial during the past decade. A stable land base, stocked with trees and featuring permanent access roads, is the emphasis of major timber owners today. Given a more stable political and regulatory climate at some point in the future, coupled with fiscal and monetary policies that encourage housing and construction, California timberland owners look forward to production of young timber and amenity benefits from their lands.

During the past decade, particularly for operators in the North Coast area, there has been a shift from moving logs by tractor to cable machine methods. Particularly on steep slopes, cable yarding of logs produces much less soil disturbance, and it allows roads to be located uphill from streams. Although cable yarding methods are more costly than ground-travelling machines, their employment has become quite common in recent years. Log production costs have increased, as has vegetative disturbance, but soil erosion and stream damage risks have been minimized.

Literature Cited

California Forest Communicators Council (CFCC). 1979. California Forest Facts. 12 p. California Forest Communicators Council, Sacramento, Calif.

Lindquist, James and Marshall Palley. 1963. Empirical yield table for young-growth redwood. 47 p. California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 796, University of California, Berkeley.

Melo, Jere L. 1979. California's "Coastal commission special treatment areas." In : Loggers Handbook, Vol. 39. Pacific Logging Congress, Portland, Oregon.

[10] Division 7 of the California water code, adopted by Statutes of 1969 (chapter 482) and amended through 1980.