Defining Riparian Areas

FORESTRY
AND THE
RIPARIAN ZONE
October 26, 2000

Wells Conference Center, University of Maine
Orono, Maine
Conference Proceedings
FORESTRY AND THE
RIPARIAN ZONE
October 26, 2000
Wells Conference Center, University of Maine
Orono, Maine
Conference Proceedings
Editors:
Robert G. Wagner
and
John M. Hagan
Hosted by:
Cooperative Forestry Research Unit, University of Maine

and
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences
INTRODUCTION
WELCOME TO THE "FORESTRY AND THE RIPARIAN ZONE" CONFERENCE!

A better understanding about the relation between forestry practices and the riparian zone has
been identified as a high priority by participants in the Forest Ecosystem Information Exchange,
members of Cooperative Forestry Research Unit, and others interested in forestry issues in the
state of Maine.
The purpose of this conference is to bring together scientists, forest managers, the environmental
community, and others interested in forestry practices and the riparian zone for a state-of-the-art
discussion about this topic as it relates to Maine’s forests. We have brought a variety of leading
experts from the Northeastern US, Canada, and other US regions to share their knowledge and
research results. This document includes papers presented by the invited speakers as well as
abstracts from the poster session.
FOREST ECOSYSTEM INFORMATION EXCHANGE STEERING

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Name Affiliation
Si Balch Mead Paper
Molly Docherty Maine Natural Areas Program
Andy Kekacs Maine Woodsman
Donald J. Mansius Maine Forest Service
John Hagan Manomet Conservation Sciences
Carl Haag Plum Creek Timber Company
Jeff Romano Small Woodlot Owners Association of Maine
Karin Tilberg Northern Forest Alliance
Robert Wagner University of Maine
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Chip Griffin and Dan McConville of the Cooperative Forestry Research Unit, and
Sacha Peeler, Darlene Siegel, and Andrew Whitman from Manomet Conservation Sciences, for
their assistance with conference logistics and the preparation of this proceedings.
Funding for the Forest Ecosystem Information Exchange has been provided by The Betterment
Fund, The Maine Forest Service, The Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund, the Cooperative Forest
Research Unit at the University of Maine, and Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Papers From Invited Speakers Page
Forestry and the Riparian Zone: Why Do People Care? 1

Elon (Sandy) Verry
USDA Forest Service, Grand Rapids, MN
Defining Riparian Areas 7

Bonnie L. Ilhardt, Elon S. Verry, and Brian J. Palik
USDA Forest Service, Milwaukee, WI
Forestry Effects on Water Quality 15

James W. Hornbeck and James N. Kochenderfer
USDA Forest Service, Durham, NH
The Effects of Timber Harvest on Insect Communities of Small Headwater Streams 19

Alexander D. Huryn
University of Maine, Orono, ME
Forestry and the Biodiversity of Fishes in Eastern North America 27

R. Allen Curry
University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB
Forestry Effects on Vertebrate Species Habitats in the Riparian Zone 31

Mariko Yamasaki
USDA Forest Service, Durham, NH
Cumulative Watershed Effects of Forestry 37

George Ice
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), Corvallis, Oregon
Abstracts From Poster Presentations
A Method For Evaluating Potential Forested Riparian Restoration Sites In Heterogeneous 53

New England Watersheds
Sally Butler
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Method to Determine Effective Riparian Buffers for Atlantic Salmon Habitat Conservation 55
Alan Haberstock
Kleinschmidt, Energy and Water Resource Consultants
Water Temperature Characteristics of 1st Through 4th Order Streams in Western Maine 57
John Hagan and Darlene Siegel
Rate of Stream Water Warming in Buffered-Clearcut and Intact-Forest Streams in 59
Western Maine
John Hagan and Andrew Whitman
Do Riparian Buffer Strips Maintain Interior-Forest Air Temperatures? 61

The Effect of Nitrogen Loading on Estuarine Ecosystems: A Stable Isotope Approach to 63

Food Web Analysis
Rachel Keats, Laurie Osher, Hilary Neckles, and Steve Kahl
University of Maine
Wildlife Use of Forested Riparian Areas in New England 65

Cyndy Loftin, Michael Bank, John Hagan, and Andrew Whitman
USGS-BRD Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Usage and Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices in Maine: Interim Findings 67
of Maine Forest Service's Statewide BMP Monitoring Project
Maine Forest Service (contact: Morten Moesswilde)
Soil Cation Distribution in the Near-Stream Zone of New England Forested Watersheds 69
B. Pellerin, J. Kaste, I. Fernandez, S. Norton, and J. Kahl
University of Maine
Aquatic Goals and Stream Buffering Practices for The Nature Conservancy's 71
St. John River Property
Joshua Royte and Nancy Sferra
Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy
A New Study to Test the Effectiveness of Different Buffer Widths for Protecting 73
Stream Physical, Chemical, and Biotic Integrity in Managed Forests
Darlene Siegel, John Hagan, and Andrew Whitman
Landscape Factors and Riparian Zones: Modification of Atmospheric Inputs 75

in A Paired Watershed Study at Acadia National Park, Maine
Sarah Vidito, Steve Kahl, Ivan Fernandez, Stephen Norton, Chris Cronan,
Alan White, and David Manski
University of Maine
Predic ting Leaching and in Stream Nutrient Concentrations in Small Watershed Before 79
and After Clear Cut
Zhu, Z., Meng, F.-R. Bourque C., and Arp, P.A.
University of New Brunswick
Forestry and the Riparian Zone 1
Forestry and the Riparian Zone:

Why Do People Care?
Elon S. (Sandy) Verry
USDA-Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Lab, 1831 Highway 169 East,

Grand Rapids, MN, USA. 55744
Tel: 218-326-7108 Fax: 218-326-7123 Email: [email protected]
In a world characterized by uncertainty, a few facts are clear: more people are demanding
healthier environments, greater recreational opportunities, and more products derived from
wood. The demand for wood and wood products has increased dramatically since 1980. The rate
of harvest (projected through 2005) is reminiscent of the wave of logging that surged through the
Eastern States from 1865 through 1905. Today, as in 1905, the public debate revolves around
questions of land use vs. protection. At the turn of the last century, many people were aware of
the benefits of well-managed forests: “If you live at a distance [from the proposed Adirondack
Forest Preserve], your benefits consist of not only wood in the form of houses, barns, furniture,
paper or the cheerful fire in the grate, for there is no substance so widely used as wood, but the
air you breathe and, in this instance, the stream that flows by or carries you or your product or
turns wheels to give you light, transportation and large variety of other things.” (O’Neil 1910).
The difference today is that more of us are closer, both physically and philosophically, to the
water’s edge in our eastern forests. From the viewpoint of society as a whole, the issues are
deceptively simple. We want it all: intact, functioning ecosystems; continuous supplies of high-
quality water; and lumber, paper, and other forest products. But as individuals, we see things
differently. As individuals we fear losses.
If we protect riparian areas, we fear the loss of:
• Wood and wood products

• Access to minerals and mining
• Opportunities for hydropower
• Grazing and cropland
• Water withdrawals
• Freedom to manage private land
2 October 26, 2000
If we do not protect riparian areas, we fear the loss of:
• Water quality and quantity

• Habitats for plants and animals
• Native plant and animal species
• Recreation and aesthetic qualities
• Natural filtering of sediment
• Connectivity with other landscapes
Quite naturally, we want the opposite of these losses. As we struggle to achieve our goals for
riparian area management, we need to know what the rules are. We need to know.
• How to define riparian areas

• How to classify waters and valleys
• How to assess the impacts that may have accumulated within a watershed
• How have riparian functions been impaired (what’s the problem?)
• What silviculture is appropriate for riparian forests
• How does forest and water management influence animal populations
• How to balance & sustain agriculture, forestry, recreation, and urban land uses
• How to recognize and evaluate a healthy functioning condition of riparian areas
• How to plan for desired future conditions
• How to work together across landscapes with many ownerships
• What techniques can we use to restore riparian ecosystems
• How we can enhance natural processes to manage the routing of water and sediment
The challenge is not to find the easy answer but to find the knowledge to read the land and read
the river.
SEEING WITH THE EYES OF A COMMUNITY
“Learn to read the land [the river], and when you do I have no fear of what you will do with it:
indeed, I am excited about what you will do for it.”
Aldo Leopold, 1966 — A Sand County Almanac
“There is a need to place such common resources as water, land, and air on a higher plane of
value and to assign them a kind of respect that Aldo Leopold called the land ethic, a recognition
of the interdependence of all creatures and resources.”
Luna Leopold, 1997 — Water, Rivers and Creeks
Clearly, Aldo Leopold called those in natural resource management to do two things: read the
land and manage it — “. . . I have no fear of what you will do for it.” Thirty-one years later,
Luna Leopold, Chief Hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, Dean of Geology at The
University of California-Berkley, and river restoration advocate, emulated his father’s “Round
River” when he called us to recognize the interdependence of land, water, air, and all creatures.
Neither rejected their past, and neither rejected the many uses nor many users of our forestlands.
Aldo Leopold worked to restore his cut-over and worked-out Sand County farm and woodland to
take a productive place in their Wisconsin community.
At the heart of managing for healthy riparian areas is seeing them with this same sense of
community. A central challenge to many of us is managing with shared decisions. This may be
the hardest task we have. To paraphrase Gifford Pinchot, first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service
and Dean of the Yale School of Forestry, be absolutely honest and sincere, learn to recognize the
point of view of the other person, and meet each other with arguments you will each understand.
The challenge of managing for healthy riparian areas means coming to grips with our heritage,
understanding how the land and streams change, dealing with diverse and divisive issues,
learning to read the land and rivers, expanding our set of management tools and most important,
seeing with the vision of community.
Can we bring an understanding of riparian values and riparian functions to a community vision
of place, a landscape that holds seasonal pools, ponds and lakes, grows forests, and gives of itself
in a river that runs through it? This is a place where living includes both work and play, where
working the land means improving the watershed’s landscape.
Our heritage is one of natural resource exploitation, of wresting from the forest a family living,
one of population movement, one of balancing the need for food, fuel, and transportation. Our
heritage now demands that we come to grips with sustainable resource use. Today we highly
value streams and lakes and the land at their edge. Nevertheless, we either take for granted, or
cannot see, the ties that bind a watershed to its streams and lakes.
Each of us sees riparian land and water differently; some of us see with eyes focused on
opportunities for commerce, water supply, harvest of trees, fish, or waterfowl. Others see
songbirds, willows, beavers and the subtle harmony of a natural community. Some see the power
of water and sediment to shape channels into predictable patterns of stream and valley geometry
(stream habitat and geomorphology). Some of us — a growing number — see people and
burgeoning demands for goods, services, and amenities. Our challenge is to see with a
community vision rather than the vision of single use. We must see beyond the simple
juxtaposition of trees and water. Our challenge is to understand how current forest and stream
conditions have come to be, how the land and water function together, how their functions can be
optimized, and how we can manage for a community vision of future condition.
EUROPEAN ROOTS
As recently as a century ago in Europe, concepts of land and water stewardship were widely
expanded, not unlike that occurring in North America today. The following are paraphrased from
various parts of Europe in 1886 and capture the origin of many issues, values, and processes
debated today (underlined below for emphasis) (Porter 1887).
4 October 26, 2000
From Germany: “squatters rights”, and thus private rights, began about the year 300 when
cleared-land on the river and the adjacent forests became a right of ownership for the heads of
families and tribes. By the early 1700's, in Europe, more wood had been consumed than could be
grown in several centuries. Tree planting was well established in the mid 1700's, and the
regulation of tree harvest by age and acreage (as opposed to wood volume) was well established
at the end of the 19th Century in parts of Germany.
From Italy: “Forests have been destroyed to gain lumber, pasture, and arable land. . . . the usual
results have followed: a decrease in the depth of navigable streams, an increase in rainy season
floods, avalanches, landslides and denudation of mountains.” Flooding, erosion and
sedimentation.
From Austria-Hungary:.. even on the steep rivers, stonework cannot withstand the torrents.
Whenever a communal forest borders on these rivers, its maintenance is held to be of especial
importance. In all these forests, therefore, not a tree can be felled without the consent of the state
foresters. No animals are allowed to pasture, and the greatest precautions are taken to guard
against fire. State regulation of land use with mandatory “BMPs.”
From France: The law of 1882 provides for both stream and slope work to prevent
sedimentation. The work is to be done directly by the state and by landowners with or without
state aid. “.. . . .State and private landowner mitigation (with or without state aid – subsidies, tax
breaks, or grants).
MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF THE 21ST CENTURY

Our challenge is first to understand current and healthy conditions for a wide range of riparian
forest and water resources. This is the melding of management experience and the research that
shows cause and effect along with the error of interpreting measured effectiveness. It is the base
that defines the realm of possibilities. Equally important, or perhaps more important, is the
common vision of what we want to see across our riparian landscapes. Deriving this vision, the
socially derived, desired future condition will not be easy because of the very feature that makes
it so powerful: all of us must participate.
Each of us realizes we must be competent in our own discipline, and each of us suspects we may
lose competence as time moves on in spite of our experience. A training course to keep up is
useful only when we apply our new knowledge with on-the-ground experience. Often, one
course is not enough. We may need two, three, four . . . and more. We should not see disciplinary
knowledge as the quiver of arrows carried into a consensus building session, but as our own base
of confidence we can share with other disciplines and with other viewpoints. A greater challenge
is to learn parts of other disciplines important to our own. Build not only your base of confidence
but also your base of understanding.
When we walk beside streams and through forests, we sometimes are proud of what we see. We
are sometimes discouraged by what we see. Sometimes we see evidence of stewardship and
integrated management. At other times, we see a landscape (or pieces of a landscape) dominated
by a single use. Is the integrated vision by chance? Or, did someone understand what it meant to
do integrated management?
While today we seek to understand forestry and the riparian zone, we must realize that each of us
needs the eyes of the other to develop a common understanding, a common appreciation, and
common vision of what our riparian community is and what it means to our human community.
Can we balance the avian cavity in large trees with a 2x4 to build our own home? Can the
forester become enough of an engineer to select, size and install the right culverts or bridges to
sustain a landscape of healthy fisheries? Can the fisheries biologist articulate fish and
invertebrate needs at the site and landscape levels to allow flexibility in the choice of forest
regeneration systems and a mix of old and new forests? Can the recreationist see the mosaic of
forest life stages needed to sustain both a quality walk in the woods and sustain a quality forest
products industry? I believe the answers are yes. I have seen it happen- - -one culvert, one
bridge, one trial of silviculture at a time.
It depends on trust and responsibility. Trust enough to take criticism and turn it to help.
Responsibility enough to not stop with saying “just do it right”, but to help plan the vision, to
commit time to installing the culvert, to commit money to carrying out the plans. Those I have
been associated with are cost effective, do reduce maintenance needs, and serve many resources
in the riparian area. Can the mill, the agency, or the landowner take responsibility for roads that
serve the community, and not “leave it to the logger”? Can these folks take responsibility to
train the logger, and use loggers with road building capacity to plan a limited road system, with
narrow rights of way, and build them no faster than they can stabilize in a day? Can they limit
access on a good, small, road system to walking or 4-wheeling after reforestation? I recently
talked with a paper company forester that did just that. I saw a road system that protected
riparian areas and ensured connection for fish communities throughout their landscape unit.
Trust and responsibility are a hard basis to adhere to. We are not completely trusting, and we
sometimes fail in our responsibilities, so that we always reserve a right to withhold trust, to
withhold doing our part. Some in our communities will not seek our trust, and we will not offer
our partnership, but for many we can have a common vision, a common commitment to
sustainable fiber, fish, and green space. I trust this conference will help to reduce the element of
chance we see in riparian area condition today, and build a common sense of community.
REFERENCES
For citations, charts, and pictures included in the presentation or this summary see:
Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. 2000. E. S.
Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL. 402 p.
Available from the website: crcpress.com.
6 October 26, 2000
Defining Riparian Areas

Bonnie L. Ilhardt 1, Elon S. Verry 2, and Brian J. Palik 3
1
USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, 310 W. Wis., Ave., Suite 580, Milw., WI 53203 Tel: 414-297-3697
Fax: 414-297-3127 Email: [email protected]
2
USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1831 Highway 169 East, Grand Rapids, MN 55744
3
2 USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1831 Highway 169 East, Grand Rapids, MN 55744
INTRODUCTION
What is a riparian area? Does it include the aquatic environment or only the transition between
aquatic and terrestrial environments? Does the transition include only lands with saturated or
seasonally saturated soils or all land that influences or is influenced by the aquatic environment?
Definitions vary with the perspective of the author and user. We review the many definitions
available from agencies and from several disciplines and offer a definition based on the long-
term sustainability of ecologic functions in riparian areas. We delineate riparian areas by
examining how the ecosystem function changes with distance from the water. Finally we offer a
field key to delineate riparian areas on the ground.
MANY DEFINITIONS
Many states define riparian areas to regulate land disturbance activities, to protect water quality,
and to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act. “Streamside management zones,” “buffer
zone” or “buffer strip” and “riparian management zones,” are the terms most frequently used and
minimum widths are usually specified.
As with states, many federal agencies define riparian areas and identify riparian-area
components. However, definitions are not consistent among agencies. The USDA-Forest defines
riparian area to include the aquatic ecosystem, the riparian ecosystem and wetlands (USDA,
Forest Service 1994), but the “riparian ecosystem” is restricted to those areas with soil
characteristics or distinctive vegetation that requires free or unbound water (thus an adjacent
upland area is not included. The Coastal Zone Management Act excludes the aquatic ecosystem,
as does the USDI Bureau of Land Management but the similarity stops here since both have
different definitions (USDI BLM, 1993).
The word “riparian” is drawn from the Latin word “riparious” meaning “bank” (of the stream)
and simply refers to land adjacent to a body of water or life on the bank of a body of water.
Following the Latin derivative, some authors exclude the aquatic component and apply the root
word literally; using only single factors such as soils, groundwater and surface water hydrology
8 October 26, 2000
or vegetative type (Karr and Schlosser 1978). Others support defining riparian areas more
broadly (Swanson et al. 1982, Gregory et al. 1991, Verry, 1992, and Gregory, 1997).
It is not obvious how all these views of riparian-area definition should be reconciled. Upon
closer examination, we see them as a reflection of how the professions dealing with riparian
areas have evolved in the last three decades. First was the separation of ecosystems by discipline
(aquatic vs. terrestrial). Next was the multidisciplinary approach (soils vs. hydrology) with
definitions giving equal footing to each discipline. The multidisciplinary definitions describe the
“state” or condition of an ecosystem. The most recent definitions deviate to include geologic and
landscape setting and the geomorphology of streams and lakes. These definitions focus not on
ecosystem state, but on ecosystem function.
Our functional definition of riparian area differs from those based on static state variables by
using the flow of energy and materials (an ecosystem function) as the basis. It asks the questions:
which linkages are important and where are they important enough to be included in a functional
definition of riparian area. It includes the aquatic and parts of the terrestrial ecosystem. We
consider the functional definition as an interdisciplinary approach that recognizes ecosystem
functions developed and applied from many professional disciplines in a common landscape
rather than the equal grouping of soil, water, and plant variables (multidiscipline).
A FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION
We offer the following function definition for “riparian area”:
Riparian areas are the three-dimensional ecotones of interaction that include terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems, that extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, outward across
the floodplain, up the near-slopes that drain to the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem,
and along the water course at a variable width.
This definition is appropriate for natural resources management because it recognizes riparian
areas by the ecological functions that occur at various scales. Riparian areas are more than just
buffers, and this functional definition recognizes this.
Adopting a functional definition means recognizing that the riparian boundary does not stop at an
arbitrary, uniform distance away from the channel or bank, but varies in width and shape. While
riparian areas can be mapped, a functional approach to delineating their boundaries is preferable
to applying a uniform width.
MOVING FROM DEFINITION TO DELINEATION
Delineating riparian areas requires that we see them in a landscape perspective. Landscape
geomorphology constrains the stream valley, lake basin, and vegetative type (Swanson et al,
1982; Goebel et al. 1996; Naiman et al. 1997). Understanding the geology and landscape of the
area will help us define riparian areas on the ground. It is in this context that we examine the
geomorphic and other physical controls on riparian function. The presentation will address the
specific factors that control longitudinal or downstream development and lateral development of
riparian areas.
Defining riparian areas functionally avoids problems associated with assessing whether a
terrestrial setting is part of the riparian area based solely on soils, or vegetation, or frequency of
flooding. The extent of a riparian area into the terrestrial setting varies with the strength of each
function rather than at a fixed distance from the water. The number of functions contributing to
riparian and aquatic ecosystem processes decreases with distance from the water ecosystem. In
other words, the probability of a function being riparian varies with each function across the
riparian ecotone (Fig. 1).
However, the distance at which a particular function is no longer important may be difficult to
determine with certainty. This is why professional judgment should be used, as needed, from site
to site. Finally, a functionally delineated riparian area may not, and likely will not, translate
directly into a riparian management zone designed to “buffer” the stream, but is usually larger.
On the ground assessments of riparian area width based on functionality would be costly and
complex, if not impossible, for natural resource managers. In addition, research on riparian
functional delineation has lagged behind the need managers have to locate and delineate riparian
areas. Modeling relationships between condition variables and riparian functions will assist
riparian delineations based on land features rather those based on lines at a fixed width.
However, until such models are widely available, understanding the geomorphic ecotone of
riparian areas is a practical approach to on-the-ground riparian area delineation.
The field guide is based on quantifying the econtonal structure of riparian areas and the
interrelationships among geomorphology, soil, and vegetation along this gradient. Understanding
natural variability in structure and function among riparian areas is also necessary for developing
functional delineation criteria of riparian area width; and for developing options for managing
riparian areas. Scale can also affect your judgment of the riparian area extent, as illustrated in
Figure 2.
IDENTIFYING FUNCTIONAL RIPARIAN AREAS ON THE GROUND
Features to understand and be able to recognize in the field include stream channels, floodplains,
and terraces. Stream channels have a defined bank and a scoured bed whether they have water in
them or not. Many are associated with a floodplain where the channel water spills at the flood
stage (the bankfull elevation). A floodplain is the flat depositional area adjacent to the channel of
some stream types. Terraces are abandoned floodplains and occur at a higher elevation than the
active floodplain but may have been deformed over time by slumping.
Identifying the floodplain, the terrace, and the slope between the floodplain and terrace (terrace
slope) in the field is the best way to define riparian areas. Always look for these features.
However, because in some landforms these features do not exist, “rules of thumb” tempered with
your professional judgment, can help delineate functional riparian area.
Consider the components in a functional riparian area. The water body (lake stream, pond,
wetland) is always included. Second, the floodplain of streams is always included (and the
10 October 26, 2000
highwater area of lakes), as well as the wetlands within the floodplain frequently adjacent to the
stream or lake. The floodplain elevation is easily identified on the inside of meander bends where
the slope of the point bar rising from the water flattens.
We have developed a dichotomous key for identifying functional riparian areas. One segment is
for streams and the other for lakes and wetlands (Figure 3). For streams, the key has two forks:
areas where the floodplain and terrace slopes are identifiable; and areas where either the
floodplain or terrace slopes are NOT identifiable. Under the second fork, there is a further
division based on slope (greater or less than than 5%); and where the slope is less than 5%, size
of stream is addressed. For lakes, the division is based on slopes: those with greater than 5%
slope and those with less than 5% slope. What remains is a key for vernal pools or ponds.
The key and some “rules of thumb” for identifying the features critical to using the key in the
field, will be discussed. The key is a guide, and should be tempered by your professional
judgment as to the importance of a particular ecosystem function. As Aldo Leopold said, “Learn
to read the land, and when you do, I have no fear of what you will do with it…” (Leopold, 1949).
In time, we have no doubt you will be able to read the land and the river, and we have no fear
what you will do for them.
REFERENCES
Goebel, P. C. et al. 1996. Geomorphic influences on riparian forest composition and structure in a karst landscape of
southwestern Georgia. In Proceedings of the Southern Forested Wetlands Ecology and Management
Conference, ed. K. M. Flynn. 100-114. Clemson, SC: Consortium for Research on Southern Forested
Wetlands, Clemson University.
Gregory, S. V. et al. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540-551.
Gregory, S. V. 1997. Riparian management in the 21st century. In Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the
science of ecosystem management, eds. K. A. Kohm, and J. F. Franklin, 69-86. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ilhardt, B. L. et al. 1999. Defining riparian areas. In Riparian management in forests of the continental Eastern
United States, eds. E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, 23-41. p. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.
Naiman, R. J. et al. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:621-658.
Swanson, F. J. et al. 1982. Land-water interactions: the riparian zone. In Analysis of coniferous forest ecosystems in
the western United States, ed. R. L. Edmonds, 267-291. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross Publishers.
USDA Forest Service. 1994. Watershed Protection and Management. Forest Service Manual Chapter 2520. WO
Amendment 2500-94-3, 26 p.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Riparian area management: process for assessing proper functioning
condition. Tech. Rep. 1739-9. USDI-BLM Service Center, Denver, CO. 51 p.
Verry, E. S. 1992. Riparian systems and management. In Forest practices and water quality workshop: a Lake
States Forestry Alliance initiative, 1992 May 27-29, Green Bay, WI. The Lake States Forestry Initiative,
Hancock, MI: B1-B24.
Functional Ecotone
Material Flows,
?
Habitat
Organic Matter
Input, Shading
Bank
Stability
Upland
Floodplain
Stream
Probability of Being Riparian
100% 0.5%
Figure 1 - The probability of a function being riparian varies with each function across the riparian
ecotone.
12 October 26, 2000
6 meters
20 feet
high
Stream is 1.3 meters

4 feet wide
Wetland Ecosystem
Riparian Area
with strong functional links
between the terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems
---------------------- Terrestrial Ecosystem-------------------------------------
60 meters
200 feet Stream is 10 meters
high 30 feet wide
Aquatic Ecosystem Terrace Slope

Terrace
Figure 2 - This diagram shows how the scale of the stream and its valley impacts the delineation of a
riparian area. The relative scale of the stream width and its valley are the same in each frame.
Figure 3 - Field key to define riparian areas for streams and for lakes and wetlands.
14 October 26, 2000
Forestry Effects on Water Quality

James W. Hornbeck 1 and James N. Kochenderfer 2
1
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, P.O. Box 640, Durham,
NH, USA. 03824 Tel: 603-868-7641 Fax: 603-868-7604 Email: [email protected]
2
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, P.O. Box 404, Parsons,
WV, USA. 26287
Over the past half century, knowledge about forestry effects on water quality has been gathered
through watershed ecosystem research. Such studies, usually conducted on small, experimental
watersheds, have shown how contributions of water, sediment, nutrients, heat, and organic
matter from forests to streams change as forests undergo succession or experience natural and
human-related disturbances. This paper reviews results from past studies and discusses how they
can be blended with management practices to protect water quality.
The contributions from forests to streams are continuous and ever changing, depending on forest
age and extent of disturbances. Table 1 summarizes how contributions from forests that affect
quality of streams from small watersheds might change during five primary stages of succession.
The five stages of succession are characterized by variables such as species composition, growth
rates, biomass accumulation, and production of litter and woody debris. Disturbances such as
harvesting, fire, or blowdown invariably occur at unpredictable times during any of the described
stages. Depending upon severity of disturbance, succession will usually revert to an earlier stage,
perhaps with a new species mix. As Table 1 and the following discussion show, each
successional change, along with any reverting caused by disturbances, has implications for
quality of forest streams.
Table 1. Contributions from forests to streams during successional stages.

16 October 26, 2000
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FORESTS
Water yield and peak flows. Disturbances over the course of succession will increase water yield,
but basal area must be reduced by at least 25% to produce detectable increases in water yield.
Unless large areas of forest are disturbed (on the order of square miles), increases in water yield
and peak flows during any stage of succession usually have minimal downstream impacts.
Erosion and sedimentation. Depending upon the type and extent of disturbance, erosion and
sediment yields will be greatest at the beginning and during the initiation stage of forest
succession. The critical factor with harvesting disturbances is not the intensity of harvest, but the
care taken during logging. The use of best management practices (BMPs) that minimize
compaction and other disturbances limits erosion and sedimentation to small amounts, mostly
along the stream channel.
Nutrient leaching. Immediately after a disturbance or early in the initiation stage, leaching of
base cations and nitrogen from soils to streams usually is at a maximum. Such increases are due
to increased nitrification in soil, increased decomposition stimulated by warmer and wetter soils,
and the absence of vegetation to sequester nutrients. In most eastern forests the leaching losses
are tempered quickly (usually within 5 years) as foliage production and plant uptake recover
rapidly.
Water temperature. The principal source of heat for streams draining forests is solar energy
striking directly on the surface of the stream. During the initiation stage, water temperature is
high if stream shading has been severely reduced or eliminated. Once the stream channel is
shaded by shrubs and regrowing trees, stream temperatures decrease and exhibit fairly uniform
annual and seasonal variations through the remaining successional stages, or until another
disturbance reduces or eliminates streamside shade.
Organic matter. After severe disturbances, organic matter contributions to and accumulations in
streams can take a century or more to recover. Toward the end of the initiation stage and during
the organization stage, contributions of litter and woody debris to streams begin a gradual
increase that continues through aggradation and early maturation. There is controversy over
whether logging slash should be retained in or added to streams. Arguments for leaving or
adding slash include improving habitat, stabilizing the stream, and adding an energy source;
arguments against include obstructing fish passage, plugging of culverts, blockage and rerouting
of existing stream channels, and the possibility of decreasing dissolved oxygen.
BLENDING FOREST CONTRIBUTIONS WITH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
As indicated above, there are good general understandings and sources of information about how
contributions from forests affect quality of streams. The challenge is to incorporate this
knowledge into management practices. This will be easier when pertinent information is
available about rates of the various contributions from forests to streams. In the absence of site-
specific information, computer models can be useful substitutes. In the absence of both site-
specific data and use of computer models, general guides discussed below can be followed to
protect streams. These guides have two things in common: (1) they emphasize protection during
disturbance and the stand initiation stage or the time when linkages between forest and streams
are most vulnerable (Table 1); and (2) they stress careful management of the riparian area that
links forests and streams.
Best management practices. Adhering to BMPs, including construction and restoration of

roads, landings, and stream crossings, before, during, and after logging, is a must in terms of
being practical, obeying the law, and protecting linkages between forests and streams. The
overriding goal should be the same as for any disturbance: limit impacts to the shortest possible
time. In the case of erosion and sedimentation, this may mean special attention to disturbances
such as landings, roads, and stream crossings that create chronic problems. In the case of nutrient
leaching or water yield, promotion of rapid regeneration through management techniques,
seeding, or planting may be necessary to help the site through the vulnerable initiation stage
(Table 1).
Managing riparian areas. A properly designed and managed riparian area can provide a variety
of amenities and still protect against stream temperature changes, assure a continuous supply of
organic matter, absorb nutrients, sediment, and water from upslope, and maintain a diversity of
species composition. Management of riparian areas is discussed more fully by other papers at
this conference.
Managing upslope forests. The protection capabilities of riparian areas must be supported by
careful management of forests upslope or outside the riparian area. In the case of harvesting,
application of BMPs is a given, but beyond that it is helpful to think holistically in terms of
forest-stream relationships. For example, will the harvesting disturbance affect streams? If yes,
what steps are necessary to minimize harmful impacts and maximize beneficial impacts? One
approach is to consider management objectives, including those for streams, in terms of present
and desired future conditions with regard to stand age, stocking, and species composition. This
can lead to selecting an appropriate silvicultural method, including cutting intensity and
configuration.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
• Evaluate the relative contribution of your forests to streams and lakes on the basis of its
successional stage (0 to 10, 11 to 30, 31 to 80, 81 to 125, and 126 to 250+ years old).
• Basal area of mature stands must be reduced by at least 25% to measurably increase the
yield of water on an annual basis.
• Forests free of recent disturbance are the best possible vegetative cover for protecting
against flooding. Peak flows usually increase after forest harvest, but effects of harvesting
generally decrease as the magnitude of storm runoff increases. Thus increases in flood
flows (flow levels exceeding bankfull) due to forest harvesting are relatively small.
18 October 26, 2000
• To protect water quality, intensify timber sale administration and use BMPs. Give special
attention to chronic disturbance problems at landings, roads, and stream crossings.
• Sediment yields from carefully managed forests are small, generally in the 25 to 40
lbs/acre/year range.
• Site nutrient loss via leaching to streams is highest immediately after significant
disturbances, and quickly moderates with regrowth.
• Loss of forest shade from stream channels can warm streams by as much as 9 to 18o F.
• Computer simulation models such as JABOWA, FORTNITE, LINKAGES, NED, and

BROOK can help assess changes in nutrients, woody debris, forest structure, and water
yield.
• Use the combination of Current Condition, Desired Future Condition, and BMPs to
manage riparian forests. Manage upslope forests first because they will change riparian
conditions. Consider emulating the early mature stage (80 to 125 years old) near streams
to provide a continuing supply of organic matter and large woody debris.
REFERENCES
Hornbeck, J.W., Adams, M.B., Corbett, E.S., Verry, E.S., and Lynch, J.A. 1993. Long-term impacts of forest
treatments on water yield: a summary for northeastern USA. Journal of Hydrology, 150:323-344.
Kochenderfer, J.N., Helvey, J.D., Patric, J.H., and Kidd, W.E. Undated. Woodlot management: an introduction to
water in the forest. Cooperative Extension Service, West Virginia University, Morgantown. 28p.
Verry, E.S., Hornbeck, J.W., and Dolloff, C.A. (editors). 2000. Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental
Eastern United States. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, 402p.
The Effects of Timber Harvest on Insect Communities

of Small Headwater Streams
Alexander D. Huryn
University of Maine, 5722 Deering Hall, Orono, ME, USA 04469-5722.
From the perspective of LURC, a stream is defined as “a channel between defined banks created
by the action of surface water …. containing waterborne deposits ….” As intended, this
definition clearly includes intermittent and ephemeral streams. However, surprisingly little is
actually known about the ecology of these “0-order” streams, how current guidelines suggested
for their management might influence the communities of organisms that inhabit them, or their
ecological interconnections with perennial reaches downstream. This abstract introduces the
community of insects that inhabit these streams, in particular, and then considers some of the
general connections between stream insects and the riparian zone, and how these might be
affected by timber harvest.
BIODIVERSITY AND INTERMITTENT STREAMS
The insect fauna of intermittent streams in the United States is surprisingly rich. One study
recorded >125 species from intermittent streams in Oregon, which exceeded the list of 100
species found in perennial streams of similar size (Dieterich & Anderson 2000). A similar study
of headwater streams in Alabama also showed minor differences between the species richness in
intermittent versus perennial streams (Feminella 1996). Although few hard data exist, it is
apparent that the richness of the insects of intermittent streams in Maine may be similar. A
preliminary survey of the insect fauna of two intermittent streams in the headwaters of the
Narraguagas River (Bear Brook drainage) has revealed 10 species of stoneflies and 32 species of
caddisflies (Chadwick & Huryn, unpublished). Six of the caddisfly species are known in Maine
only from this single location. These totals represent about 10% of the richness for both insect
orders in Maine. The headwater tributaries of the Bear Brook drainage are not accurately shown
on 1:24,000 USGS topographical maps, their combined catchment area is only 24 ha, and their
channels are usually dry from early July through late October. Nonetheless, they support a rich
insect community containing a number of species that appear to be rare in Maine.
The assessment of the biodiversity of 0-order stream communities, and the development of land
management schemes that ensure their protection should be of major concern to the state of
Maine. Clearly, one of the major threats to these habitats is timber harvest. Current
recommendations concerning such streams include maintenance of a buffer strip with a
minimum width of 25 feet (7.6 m), and crossings constructed in such a manner as to not cause
damage to the stream bank or erosion or sedimentation to the water body. Is this sufficient to
protect these communities? This is a critical consideration because approximately 95% of
channels within a typical watershed in northeastern North America are 2nd order or smaller
(Sweeney 1993). Management protocols that are not sufficient to protect insect communities of
20 October 26, 2000
small headwater streams have consequences for an unacceptably large proportion of total stream
habitat.
ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF HEADWATER STREAMS AND THEIR

INSECT COMMUNITIES
There is admittedly little information concerning the importance of 0-order streams to the overall
ecological attributes of drainage networks. By virtue of their drainage-wide abundance and their
close proximity to the surrounding forest, however, small headwater streams are thought to be
major sites for the accumulation and processing of leaf litter that enters their channels during
autumn. Much of this leaf litter is processed to fine organic particles by the feeding activity of
their insect fauna. These fine particles are then rapidly washed into downstream reaches where
they become available to insects that are specialized to feed upon them (Cuffney et al. 1990). In
Maine, the efficiency of this important ecological process appears to be both a function of the
number of species of litter-feeding insects present within a stream and the actual size of their
populations (Huryn et al., in review). Thus the conservation of the biodiversity of stream insect
communities in small headwater streams may be essential for maintaining drainage-wide
ecosystem function at levels characterizing undisturbed systems.
GENERAL RIPARIAN FACTORS AFFECTING INSECT COMMUNITIES IN

FORESTED HEADWATER STREAMS
Riparian management practices will influence stream insect communities most generally by
affecting habitat structure, food, and water temperature.
Larval habitat. Most stream insects require particular substrate and current conditions as habitat.
Thus any factor that affects the diversity and distribution of these habitat patches will be a
fundamental determinant of the structure of their communities. Management practices that cause
changes in patterns of discharge, sediment sources, or that disrupt other channel-forming
process, such as the input of fallen timber, may have major effects on stream insect communities.
Adult habitat. In studies of the effects of land management on stream insect communities,
essentially all effort is usually focused on habitat requirements of the aquatic larvae. What about
the terrestrial adult stage? Consider the stoneflies as an example. Following emergence, the
adults of many species of nemourid stoneflies(6 species in the Bear Brook drainage) disperse
into the surrounding forest to feed on terrestrial algae, lichens, and pollen. Females may double
their weight over a 2 to 6 week period before returning to the stream to lay eggs. Although
appropriate terrestrial habitat is obviously required for the completion of the life cycles of these
organisms, essentially nothing is known about exactly what such habitat requirements are.
Larval food. The primary energy source for stream insects in forested headwater streams in New
England is tree leaf litter. Management practices that affect the amount, type and timing of leaf
litter that enters a stream channel, and the ability of the channel to hold leaves in place, will
affect the structure and production of stream insect communities. The total biomass of leaf litter
entering a stream channel, and its nutritional value, will have large effects on the production of
stream insects. The species composition of trees in the riparian zone will determine the
nutritional quality of this leaf litter. For example, litter from the American beech is relatively
poor in nutritional quality when compared with that of sugar maple. The physical complexity of
the stream channel, particularly the frequency of debris dams formed from fallen trees, will
increase the retention, and thus the availability of leaf litter within a stream reach.
Light. The amount of light that reaches the bed of a headwater stream will influence the
production of algae on stone surfaces (periphyton). The level of response will depend on
concentrations of dissolved nutrients. Management practices that influence the balance between
the relative availability of algae and tree leaf litter will affect the structure and production of
stream insect communities. Although many stream insect species in New England are
generalized in their food requirements, others specialize on either tree leaf detritus or periphyton.
Changes in the relative amount of these food resources will elicit a change in the relative
abundance of the insects that specialize on them.
Water Temperature. The metabolism of stream insects is determined primarily by water

temperature, and different species of stream insects often have markedly different thermal
requirements for successful completion of their life histories. Changes of only a few o C (e.g. 2-
6o C) may have major effects on the growth rate and developmental time of insect larvae, and the
size, fecundity, and timing of the emergence of adults. Management practices that cause even
modest changes in stream water temperature may have strong effects on the structure and
production of stream insect communities.
GENERAL EFFECTS OF TIMBER HARVESTING ON STREAM INSECT

COMMUNITIES
There have been numerous studies documenting the effects of timber harvesting on stream insect
communities. The results of these studies are variable and sometimes contradictory (Brown et al.
1997). Nevertheless, useful generalizations can be made. Large-scale clearcutting, without
maintaining a riparian buffer strip, causes increases in light, summer water temperature, and
sediment input to the stream channel, while causing a decrease in inputs of leaf detritus.
Increases in light and water temperature often cause an increase in algal production, which
provides a high quality food source. In response, the abundance of selected stream invertebrates,
typically herbivorous midges and the baetid mayflies, increases disproportionately (Newbold et
al. 1980; Wallace & Gurtz 1986; Noel et al. 1986). These taxa are “weedy”, with rapid growth
rates and short life cycles, which facilitates rapid population build up (Wallace & Gurtz 1986).
Although an increase in insect abundance is usually reported, decreases also occur (Davies &
Nelson 1994). Decreases in abundance are apparently due to the effects of sedimentation or
decreased inputs of leaf detritus (Hartman et al. 1996). Compared with abundance, the response
of taxonomic diversity is variable, with decreases (Newbold et al. 1980), increases (Carlson et al.
1990; Brown et al. 1997), or no change (Silsbee & Larson 1983) being reported. Although long
term studies of invertebrate communities following clearcutting are rare, the few that exist
indicate that effects on community structure may persist for 5 years or more (Wallace et al.
1988).
22 October 26, 2000
BUFFER STRIPS AND INSECT COMMUNITIES IN HEADWATER

STREAMS
The extreme effects of clearcutting on stream insect communities are fairly well understood. The
effects of harvesting techniques that include maintenance of a riparian buffer strip are not. The
presence of a riparian buffer strip tends to moderate the most extreme effects of timber
harvesting, which causes them to be more subtle and more difficult to detect given the extreme
variability inherent among natural streams. However, some generalizations can be made based
on the few existing studies of the relationship between buffer width and stream insect
communities. Two comprehensive studies conducted on headwater streams in northern
California (Newbold et al. 1980) and Tasmania (Davies & Nelson 1994) concluded that buffer
strips >30 m (99 feet) were required to protect insect communities from the effects of timber
harvesting. Buffer strips <30 m wide had measurable effects on attributes of macroinvertebrate
community structure, such as abundance and diversity. A less comprehensive study based upon a
number of streams in New England (including Maine; Noel et al. 1986) supported the
conclusions of the California and Tasmania studies by reporting that an 8 to 9 m (26 to 30 foot)
buffer strip was not adequate to prevent changes in the density and community composition of
insect communities in streams draining logged catchments. In contrast to these studies, a study of
the invertebrate fauna of intermittent streams (“0-order”) and spring pools in Arkansas concluded
that 10 m (33 feet) buffer strips provided adequate protection from timber harvesting (Brown et
al. 1997).
THOUGHTS ON WHY BUFFER STRIPS CAN FAIL TO PROTECT STREAM

INSECT COMMUNITIES
Regardless of their dimensions, buffer strips will not necessarily mitigate the effects of land
management practices elsewhere within a watershed. For example, timber harvest may affect the
amount of water entering a stream channel regardless of buffer width. A study of an intermittent
stream in northern Arizona (Heede 1991) showed that timber harvest within the watershed
(~28% of basal area) resulted in a significant increase in annual discharge (48%) even though 50
m buffer strips were maintained and BMPs were closely adhered to. This increase in discharge
caused the channel sediments to readjust resulting in an enlargement of channel width and the
loss of nearly 50% of the debris dam habitat. Such changes in habitat structure will have
significant effects on the structure of stream insect communities.
Although buffer strips are assumed to provide shade to the stream channel, there have been few
studies that have actually measured their effectiveness. One study conducted in western
Washington (Brosofske et al. 1997) concluded that a buffer strip at least 45 m (148 ft) wide was
required for maintenance of the natural light regime for a headwater stream. This may have
important consequences for the relative abundance of herbivorous insects that specialize on
algae. For streams where algal production is limited by nutrients, or streams that are dry during
summer, the effect of light penetration of the canopy may be less critical for the insect
community.
Does buffer strip width affect the eventual species composition of riparian trees? If so, such
effects will have subtle but potentially important consequences for stream insect communities.
Although field data are limited, many laboratory studies indicate that the species composition of
the tree leaves that enter forested headwater streams will affect the species composition and
growth rates of stream insects (Sweeney 1993). Different species of detritivorous insects may
prefer different species of detritus. This preference is often correlated with growth rates and
ultimately, fecundity and population viability.
The effect of buffer strip management on the eventual species composition of riparian trees
should also be considered with respect to anticipated rates of debris dam formation. Present day
debris-dam habitats are the legacy of riparian conditions and management practices occurring 5
or 10 or more decades ago (Wallace et al., in press). The buffer strips established today will thus
be the source of habitat structure for invertebrates many decades into the future. The
management of buffer strips should be based on a long term (~100 yr) perspective.
Several studies have indicated that the maintenance of buffer strips clearly are effective in
maintaining temperature patterns similar to those of reference streams (e.g. Swift & Messer
1971). However, the temperature of headwater streams is strongly affected by the source of
water to the channel (e.g. groundwater versus interflow) as well as processes occurring within
the channel (shading, hydrological turnover rate, water clarity). Consequently the effect of buffer
strips on stream water temperature will vary with landscape geology and geomorphology. These
factors need to be incorporated as covariates in studies of the effects of buffer strip width on
water temperature.
There are few studies that have attempted to quantify the activity area for the adult stages of
stream insects. One study conducted in New Zealand (Collier & Smith 1996) indicated that the
main area of activity of adult caddisflies is within 30 m of the stream edge. Another study
conducted in West Virginia (Griffith et al. 1998) estimated mean maximum dispersal distances
ranging from 56 to 91 m for adults of a diverse assemblage of insects from several headwater
streams. The effect of buffer strip width on adult survivorship and reproductive success is
unknown, but the results of these studies indicate that present guidelines for buffer strips in
Maine (7.6 to 22.9 m, minimum) may not provide an optimal habitat area for the adult stage of
many stream insects. Another related factor that remains unstudied is the effect of predation by
birds. Birds are extremely effective predators of adult aquatic insects, particularly in the gallery
forests of streams in arid regions (Gray 1989). The presence of a buffer strip surrounding a
stream in a clearcut may mimic a gallery forest, perhaps resulting in unusually high levels of
predation of adults.
HOW WIDE SHOULD A BUFFER STRIP BE?
How wide should a buffer strip be? No one really knows, of course. However, in the absence of
information that is specific for a particular geographic region, it appears logical that buffer strips
>30 m (99 ft) should be a minimum target for the protection of insect communities of headwater
streams. The 25 foot (7.6 m) buffer strip suggested for 0-order streams in Maine is probably
inadequate for substantive protection of stream insect communities.
24 October 26, 2000
REFERENCES
Brosofske KD, Chen J, Naiman RJ, Franklin JF (1997) Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from small
streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications 7:1188-1200.
Brown AV, Aquila Y, Brown KB, Fowler WP (1997) Responses of benthic macroinvertebrates in small intermittent
streams to silvicultural practices. Hydrobiologia 347:119-125.
Carlson JY, Andrus CW, Froehlich HA (1990) Woody debris, channel features, and macroinvertebrates of streams
with logged and undisturbed riparian timber in northeastern Oregon, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 47:1103-1111.
Collier KJ, Smith BJ (1998) Dispersal of adult caddisflies (Trichoptera) into forests alongside three New Zealand
streams. Hydrobiologia 361:53-65.
Cuffney TF, Wallace JB, Lugthart GJ (1990) Experimental evidence quantifying the role of benthic invertebrates in
organic matter dynamics of headwater streams. Freshwater Biology 23:281-299.
Davies PE, Nelson M. (1994) Relationships between riparian buffer strip widths and the effects of logging on stream
habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research 45:1289-1305.
Dieterich M, Anderson NH (2000) The invertebrate fauna of summer-dray streams in western Oregon. Arch.
Hydrobiol. 147:273-295.
Feminella JW (1996) Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in small streams along a gradient of
flow permanence. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:651-669.
Gray LJ (1989) Emergence production and export of aquatic insects from a tallgrass prairie stream. The
Southwestern Naturalist 34:313-318.
Griffith MB, Barrows EM, Perry SA (1998) Lateral dispersal of adult aquatic insects (Plecoptera, Trichoptera)
following emergence from headwater streams in forested Appalachian catchments. Annals of the American
Entomological Society 91:195-201.
Hartman GF, Scrivener JC, Miles MJ (1996) Impacts of logging in Carnation Creek, a high-energy coastal stream in
British Columbia, and their impications for restoring fish habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 53 (Suppl. 1):237-251.
Heede BH (1991) Response of a stream in disequilibrium to timber harvest. Environmental Management 15:251-
255.
Huryn AD, Butz Huryn VM, Arbuckle CJ, Tsomides L. (in review). Catchment land-use, macroinvertebrates, and
detritus processing in headwater streams: taxonomic richness versus function. Freshwater Biology.
Newbold JD, Erman DC, Roby KB (1980) Effects of logging on macroinvertebrates in streams with and without
buffer strips. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:1076-1085.
Noel DS, Martin CW, Federer CA (1986) Effects of forest clearcutting in New England on stream
macroinvertebrates and periphyton. Environmental Management 10:661-670.
Silsbee DG, Larson GL (1983) A comparison of streams in logged and unlogged areas of Great Smoky Mountains
National Park. Hydrobiologia 102:99-111.
Sweeney BW (1993) Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in
eastern North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 144:291-340.
Swift LW Jr., Messer JB (1971) Forest cuttings raise temperatures of small streams in the southern Appalachians.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 26:111-116.
Wallace JB, Webster JR, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Siler ER. (in press) Large woody debris in a headwater stream: long-
term legacies of forest disturbance. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol.
Wallace JB (1984) Substrate-mediated response of stream invertebrates to disturbance. Ecology 65:1556-1569.
Wallace JB, Gurtz ME (1986) Response of Baetis mayflies (Ephemeroptera) to catchment logging. The American
Midland Naturalist 115:25-41.
Wallace JB, Gurtz ME, Smith-Cuffney F (1988) Long-term comparison of insect abundances in disturbed and
undisturbed Appalachian headwater streams. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 23:1224-1231.
26 October 26, 2000
Forestry and the Biodiversity of Fishes

in Eastern North America
R. Allen Curry
New Brunswick Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Biology Department and Faculty of
Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB. E3B 6E1.
Canada. Tel: 506-452-6208, email: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Forests and their lakes and streams are dominant features of the eastern North American
landscape. These natural resources have sustained the societies and economies of the east since
even before the arrival of the first European settlers. An intimate connection between forests and
humans exists and is a defining characteristic of this region. For this reason, there is a concerted
effort made by users of these resources to work together to protect and conserve the integrity of
the landscape. Timber harvesting has been the most extensive use of the forest. As forestry
practices evolved into the mechanized harvests of today, there was an early period of transition
when dramatic losses of aquatic habitats occurred. Operations tactics were improved to correct
problems, but concerns persist about the preservation of habitats and thus the biodiversity of
fishes.
Perhaps the best example of improved protection of aquatic habitats and the evolution of
operations came when it was recognized that the forestry activities such as road building and
heavy equipment travel had direct, detrimental impacts on streams and lakes. Regulations were
established to create riparian buffer strips and appropriately constructed roadways to protect
aquatic environments. These practices were specifically designed for and effective at minimizing
the deposition of sediments in watercourses and maintaining coldwater environments by leaving
trees to protect watercourses from direct solar heating. As long as industry is committed to these
management practices, aquatic ecosystems receive a reasonable level of protection. Today,
instead of chronic impacts, effects can be limited to acute events such as watercourse crossing
failures or riparian buffer strip blow downs that can be mitigated and overcome.
TODAY’S CHALLENGES
Appropriate designs and construction of watercourse crossings for larger systems > 1m in width
are well established and implemented by responsible industries. As long as crossings are
monitored and maintained on a regular basis, negative impacts on watercourses can be
minimized. Today’s problems with crossings occur in small, headwater watersheds.
Watercourses are defined differently among regulatory agencies in the region. The definition is
important because it dictates the management action to be applied. For example, watercourses <
0.5 m in width or draining areas < 600ha in New Brunswick, not existing on 1;50,000
topographic maps in Newfoundland, or 1:10,000 topographic maps in Ontario, are not insured of
28 October 26, 2000
receiving an appropriately constructed crossing. In other words, there are no guarantees these
small watercourses are protected at crossing locations. Research has established that these small
watercourses are critical aquatic habitats. In one lake system, an estimated 80% of the young
brook trout spawned in the lake migrated and resided in three tributary streams during the
summer at least (Curry et al. 1997). Ongoing studies in the Catamaran Brook Watershed Study
(Miramichi River, NB) are demonstrating similar residence in small tributary streams by brook
trout, Atlantic salmon, and slimy sculpins, of which the first two spawn in the main river (Curry
and R.A. Cunjak, unpublished data). The small streams appear to provide stable, coldwater
refugia during summer and potential warm water refugia in winter because of their forested
catchments, which sustain groundwater regimes and block direct solar inputs to the streams. The
input of sediment from improper crossing and the negative impacts are well established,
particularly for salmon and trout and benthic species such the slimy sculpin and including
alterations in fish fauna (Waters 1995). Other species also use these smaller streams as spawning
and incubation habitats. In Lake Utopia of southwestern NB, the “threatened” dwarf smelt is
dependent on two small streams as reproductive habitats (Curry, unpublished data). Such
increasing evidence demonstrates that small watercourses in forested landscapes can provide
significant habitats for fishes, at least.
The design of riparian buffer strips has been the focus of countless studies. Their function in
protecting watercourses from direct impacts is not questioned. Instead, we are learning that their
placement and structure within the landscape can influence their success at mitigating impacts
from forestry operations. Failures of buffer strips to meet their intended objectives generally
arise with their width in relation to the hydrological processes within the forest. Narrow strips are
prone to wind throws that can block stream flows and eliminate the original protective strip.
Narrow strips can also be navigated by runoff along overland pathways through the strip during
storm and snowmelt events delivering sediment from disturbed areas to watercourses. Earlier
studies suggested buffer strip width must be designed in the context of the hydrology of a
forest’s surface and ground waters (Curry and Devito 1995). Clear cut operations alter
groundwater regimes despite riparian buffer strips (Bren 1997, Peck and Williamson 1995).
Riparian buffer strips provide protection from direct solar inputs to watercourses (Rishel et al.
1982). Recent evidence indicates that even with a buffer strip, stream temperatures can be
elevated and more variable in catchments with < 30% clear cut, i.e., the effects of operations on
catchment scale groundwater regimes can be translated to the watercourse (Curry, unpublished
data).
Challenges with riparian buffer strips also exist in the small catchments where crossings are
problematic. Without a clear definition of a watercourse, it is difficult for managers to
appropriately delineate strip boundaries. If the catchment includes wetland areas, the boundaries
are further confused because there is no definitive watercourse and sometimes no apparent
surface water to aid in delineation. It is not uncommon for operations to invade wetland areas
when strip boundaries are inaccurately defined in the field (Curry, unpublished data). The
invasion brings the operations area in direct contact with the watercourse system and therefore
elevating the risk potential for damaging aquatic habitats initially identified for protection.
The greatest problem plaguing the application of riparian buffer strips is our lack of
understanding of hydrological process in forested catchments in relation to forestry operations.
Despite many studies, managers and regulators are still struggling to define useful protection
measures for aquatic ecosystems. The problem exists because past study designs addressed either
hydrological or biological issues, but not a full integration of both processes in aquatic
ecosystems. Our poor comprehension is apparent in our failure to appropriately manage small
watercourse crossings and protect small, headwater catchments. Forest managers will continue to
struggle and face opposition to harvesting until answers to hydro-biological questions are
answered. The best management plans will have to incorporate all elements of the ecosystem to
be successful socially and economically.
SUMMARY
The impacts that persist in today’s forests are acute incidences of sediment deposition, e.g.,
unrepaired watercourse crossing failures, poor understanding and design of buffer strips, and the
chronic and cumulative effects of not effectively protecting small, headwater watercourses and
watersheds. Good management that insures appropriate designs and diligence of maintenance
(even after operations have ceased) easily overcomes the first problem. In the small, headwater
catchments, the mechanisms of impact are sediment deposition and alteration of thermal regimes
at small scales we have yet to recognize as significant. Moreover, we have yet to determine how
we translate scale level effects across multiple scales, e.g., first to second order streams, or what
the cumulative effects of changes at small scales are on the whole watershed. Until these
problems are resolved, the effects on fishes must be accepted as real threats.
Sediment will impede reproductive success of species dependent on gravel and cobble substrates
such as trout, salmon, sucker species, and smelt. Species classified as benthic may be most
impacted by the loss of habitat structure from sedimentation, e.g., slimy sculpin (Curry and K.
Munkittrick, unpublished data). The increased sediment could create more habitat for juvenile
lamprey and foraging habitats for free-swimming life stages of suckers, but both species depend
on gravel substrates for spawning and incubation. Elevated water temperatures in summer will
result in loss of thermal habitats for coldwater species. Trout will be the first to disappear,
followed by salmon and sculpins. Cool and warm water species may initially benefit from rising
water temperatures, e.g., dace, perch, and sunfishes. However, replacement of indigenous
coldwater species with the latter group will not be well accepted by society, which has
traditionally targeted our forest’s cold and cool water species for recreational and aboriginal
purposes.
We don’t know how forestry operations in small, headwater catchments are affecting fish
habitats and fauna. We don’t know how to effectively use riparian buffer strips for complete
protection of aquatic habitats. We do know how poorly managed operations alter and eliminate
fish habitats. We do know how these habitat changes will translate into changes in the fish fauna.
The best management plans of the future need a resolution to some basic questions about
hydrological and biological interactions in small, headwater catchments and in relation to the
application of riparian buffer strips. The risk assessment for the loss of the biodiversity of fishes
will remain high until these issues are resolved.
30 October 26, 2000
REFERENCES
Bren, L.J. 1997. Effects of slope vegetation removal on the diurnal variations of a small mountain stream. Water
Res. Res. 33:321-31
Curry, R.A., C. Brady, D.L.G. Noakes, and R.G. Danzmann. 1997. The use of small streams by young brook charr
(Salvelinus fontinalis) spawned in lakes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 126:77-83
Curry, R.A. and K. Devito. 1996. Hydrogeology of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) spawning and incubation
habitats: implications for forestry and land use development. Can. J. For. Res. 26:767-72
Peck, A.J. and D.R. Williamson. 1987. Effects of forest clearing on groundwater. J. Hydrol. 94:47-65
Rishel, G.B., J.A. Lynch, and E.S. Corbett. 1982. Seasonal stream temperature changes following forest harvesting.
J. Environ. Qual. 11:112-16
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp.,
Monograph 7.
Forestry Effects on Vertebrate Species Habitats

in the Riparian Zone
Mariko Yamasaki
USDA Forest Service, Forest Sciences Laboratory, PO Box 640, Durham, NH 03824 Tel: 603-868-7659
Fax: 603-868-7604 Email: [email protected]
Three factors influence a coarse-filter approach to the providing wildlife habitat in riparian areas
in the northeastern United States. These are: 1) degree of riparian-upland forest connectivity; 2)
water regime; and 3) key vegetation structures present in riparian areas that are important to
terrestrial vertebrate species.
Nearly eighty vertebrate species in the northeastern US have a strong preference for riparian
habitats (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2000; Pauley et al. 2000). The degree of forest cover across a
watershed influences amphibian species richness in permanent wetlands in southern New
Hampshire (Givens 2000). As adjacent upland conditions and riparian habitats become more
similar (e.g., forest-forest edges as opposed to forest-nonforest edges) as in much of the state of
Maine (Hooper 1991), avian communities also become more similar to adjacent habitats. Higher
avian abundance and species richness occurs in boreal riparian conifer stands than stands farther
from water due to the presence of aquatic-dependent species and others associated with the shrub
and grass wetland habitat in boreal riparian forests (Larue et al. 1995).
Lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine habitats are important commuting, foraging, and roosting
habitats for northeastern bats (Krusic et al. 1996; Krusic and Neefus 1996; Sasse and Pekins
1996). Most small mammal species use a broad range of forest and nonforest types, stand
conditions, and stand ages (Miller and Getz 1977; DeGraaf et al. 1991; DeGraaf and Yamasaki
(in press)). Small mammal communities in extensive forests generally respond more dramatically
to changes in annual food availability and weather than silvicultural treatment (Healy and Brooks
1988). Riparian habitats are recognized as important to many furbearer species such as beaver
(Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), fisher (Martes
pennanti), weasels (Mustela frenata and M. erminea), mink (M. vison), and river otter (Lontra
canadensis) (Novak et al. 1987). Black bear (Ursus americanus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) and moose (Alces alces) find important seasonal habitat requirements in riparian
habitats (Schooley 1990; Banasiak 1961; Leptich and Gilbert 1989).
Timber harvesting effects in riparian areas influence the spatial presentation and duration of
elements of forest structure. Key considerations are: 1) effects on cavity trees (Leak 1982;
DeGraaf and Shigo 1985; Tubbs et al. 1987); 2) nesting and perching sites (DeGraaf et al. 1992;
Elliott 1988); 3) dead/down woody debris (Rabon 1994); 4) shrub and herbaceous wetland
inclusions (Elowe 1984; Larue et al. 1995); and 5) softwood composition (Banasiak 1961; Kelly
1977; Weber et al. 1983; Reay et al. 1990; Thomasma 1996).
32 October 26, 2000
Buffer zones are commonly used to protect riparian area values (Naiman et al. 1993; Small 1986;
Johnson and Brown 1990; Darveau et al 1995; 1998; Noble 1993; Vander Haegen and DeGraaf
1996; Meiklejohn and Hughes 1999). Criteria used vary greatly depending on agency or
company needs, riparian type, topography, slope, and soils. Common considerations in buffer-
zone design generally include a no-cut or lightly cut area of variable width that minimizes soil
erosion and maintains streambank stability (Small and Johnson 1985; NH Div. Forests and
Lands, DRED and SPNHF 1997) and an adjacent zone where some of the overstory remains over
time. There are many questions still to be investigated whether or not riparian management areas
serve as vertebrate species’ travel corridors, refugia, sources or sinks, and critical wildlife
habitats.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are no one-size-fits-all recommendations to guide habitat management guidelines in

riparian areas at present. Variety in buffer widths, disturbance regimes, adjacent land uses, and
vegetative structure is an important consideration. Habitat management of riparian areas includes
landscape-level, stand-level and within-stand or structure considerations.
Landscape-Level Considerations
At this scale, several items need consideration in developing habitat management plans:
a) Consider variable riparian area management widths with some regard to stream order
hierarchy or stream width.
b) Limit new roads in riparian areas; consider the reducing the traffic on existing roads in
riparian zones at certain times of the year (e.g. bear hunting season).
c) Avoid patterns of long linear clearcuts adjacent to riparian areas, especially if the other
side of the drainage was recently cut or soon-to-be cut.
d) Consider tree species composition potential -- are long-term changes in composition
warranted, possible, or necessary?
e) Consider using wider riparian management zones than those normally prescribed to
protect streambank stability, provide brook shading, and limit sedimentation where
agricultural or urban landscapes predominate.
f) Consider: 1) limiting grazing activities at the water’s edge with fencing when necessary;
and 2) limiting borrow pit development and reclaiming existing borrow pits with native
species.
Stand-level Considerations
Vertebrate species composition benefits from a variety and diversity of vegetative conditions,
forest types, sizes, and age-classes (DeGraaf et al. 1992). Again, there are no one-size-fits all
solutions. Site, slope, aspect, soil types, and seasonal limitations (e.g. raptor nesting concerns) all
bear on potential stand-level prescriptions. Opportunities are normally present with both even-
age and uneven-age management systems to meet wildlife habitat landscape goals; consider how
one might implement landscape goals at the individual stand level.
Within-Stand or Structure Considerations

The vegetation structures to be maintained or developed need to be based on the site specific
potential. For example, in seasonally flooded drainages, it might be very difficult to establish and
maintain a dense shrub zone or dense herbaceous ground cover; yet in other less frequently
disturbed drainages, the likelihood of success is much greater. To provide an array of structural
components over time:
a) Consider higher densities of cavity trees and snags, especially larger diameter trees; think
hard before immediately prescribing salvage harvests.
b) Consider a variety of canopy closures; raptor nesting and perching tree potential,
softwood-to-hardwood or mast-to-non-mast basal area ratios.
c) Consider the opportunity to increase the dead and down woody debris component in
drainages not only for stream channel modifications but also for terrestrial wildlife.
c) Encourage the development or maintenance of distinct shrub layers, thickets, and
grass/sedge and herbaceous ground cover. These add important habitat elements to any
riparian area.
REFERENCES
Banasiak, C.F. 1961. Deer in Maine. Game Division Bulletin. No. 6. Augusta, ME: Department of Inland Fisheries
and Game. 159 p.
Darveau, M.; Beauchesne, P.; Bélanger, L.; Huot, J.; Larue, P. 1995. Riparian forest strips as habitat for breeding
birds in boreal forest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 59:67-78.
Darveau, M.; Huot, J.; Bélanger, L. 1998. Riparian forest strips as habitat for snowshoe hare in a boreal balsam fir
forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 28: 1494-1500.
DeGraaf, R.M.; Shigo, A.L. 1985. Managing cavity trees for wildlife in the northeast. General Technical Report NE-
101. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 21
p.
DeGraaf, R.M.; Yamasaki, M. 2000. Bird and mammal habitat in riparian areas. Pages 139-153. In: Verry, E.S.;
Hornbeck, J.W.; Dolloff, C.A. (editors). Riparian management in forests of the continental eastern United States.
Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 406 p.
DeGraaf, R.M.; Yamasaki, M. In press. New England Wildlife: Habitat, natural history, and distribution. Hanover,
NH: University Press of New England.
DeGraaf, R.M.; Snyder, D.P.; Hill, B.J. 1991. Small mammal habitat associations in poletimber and sawtimber stands
of four forest cover types. Forest Ecology and Management. 46:227-242.
DeGraaf, R.M.; Yamasaki, M.; Leak, W.B.; Lanier, J.W. 1992. New England wildlife: management of forested
habitats. General Technical Report NE-144. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 271 p.
Elliott, C.A. (editor). 1988. A forester’s guide to managing wildlife habitats in Maine. Orono, ME: University of
Maine Cooperative Extension and Maine Chapter of The Wildlife Society.
34 October 26, 2000
Elowe, K.D. 1984. Home range, movements, and habitat preferences of black bears (Ursus americanus) in western
Massachusetts. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. M.S. thesis. 112 p.
Givens, H.L. 2000. Effects of upland landscape characteristics influencing amphibian use of wetlands in the
Merrimack River watershed, New Hampshire. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire. M.S. thesis. 150 p.
Healy, W.M.; Brooks, R.T. 1988. Small mammal abundance in northern hardwood stands in West Virginia. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 52:491-496.
Hooper, S.T. 1991. Distribution of songbirds in riparian forests of central Maine. Orono, ME: University of Maine.
M.S. thesis. 90 p.
Johnson, W.N.; Brown, P.W. 1990. Avian use of a lakeshore buffer strip in an undisturbed lakeshore in Maine.
Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 7:114-117.
Kelly, G.M. 1977. Fisher (Martes pennanti) biology in the White Mountain National Forest and adjacent areas.
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Ph.D. dissertation. 178 p.
Krusic, R.A.; Yamasaki, M.; Neefus, C.D.; Pekins, P.J. 1996. Bat habitat use in White Mountain National Forest.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 60:625-631.
Krusic, R.A.; Neefus, C.D. 1996. Habitat associations of bat species in the White Mountain National Forest. Pages
185-198. In: R.M.R. Barclay; R.M. Brigham, editors. Bats and Forests Symposium. October 19-21, 1995,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Working Paper 23/1996. Victoria, BC: Research Branch, British Columbia
Ministry of Forestry. 292 p.
Larue, P.; Belanger, L.; Huot, J. 1995. Riparian edge effects on boreal balsam fir bird communities. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research. 25:555-566.
Leak, W.B. 1982. Habitat mapping and interpretation in New England. Research Paper NE-496. Broomall, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 28 p.
Leptich, D.J.; Gilbert, J.R. 1989. Summer home range and habitat use by moose in northern Maine. Journal of
Meiklejohn, B.A.; Hughes, J.W. 1999. Bird communities in riparian buffer strips of industrial forests. American
Midland Naturalist. 141: 172-184.
Miller, D.H.; Getz, L.L. 1977. Factors influencing local distribution and species diversity of forest small mammals in
New England. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 55: 806-814.
NH Div. Forest and Lands, DRED and SPNHF (compilers). 1997. Good forestry in the Granite State: recommended
voluntary forest management practices for New Hampshire. Tilton, NH: Sant Bani Press. 65 p.
M. Novak; Baker, J.A.; Obbard; M.E.; Malloch, B. (editors). 1987. Wild furbearer management and conservation in
North America. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Trappers Association. P.
486-499.
Naiman, R.J.; Decamps, H.; Pollock, M. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity.
Ecological Applications. 3: 209-212.
Noble, S.M. 1993. Evaluating predator distributions in Maine forest riparian zones using a geographic information
system. Orono, ME: University of Maine. M.S. thesis. 54 p.
Pauley, T.K; Mitchell, J.C.; Buech, R.R.; Moriarty, J.J. 2000. Ecology and management of riparian habitats for
amphibians and reptiles. Pages 169-191. In: Verry, E.S.; Hornbeck, J.W.; Dolloff, C.A. (editors). Riparian
management in forests of the continental eastern United States. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 406 p.
Rabon, M.W. 1994. Management of the riparian zone to maximize accumulation of large woody debris in streams.
Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire. M.S. thesis. 97 p.
Reay, R.S.; Blodgett, D.W.; Burns, B.S.; Weber, S.J.; Frey, T. 1990. Management guide for deer in Vermont.
Montpelier, VT: Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, and Fish and Wildlife. 35 p.
Sasse, D.B.; Pekins, R.J. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the
White Mountain National Forest. Pages 91-101. In: R.M.R. Barclay; R.M. Brigham, editors. Bats and Forests
Symposium. October 19-21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Working Paper 23/1996. Victoria, BC:
Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forestry. 292 p.
Schooley, R.L. 1990. Habitat use, fall movements, and denning ecology of female black bears in Maine. Orono, ME:
University of Maine. M.S. thesis. 115 p.
Small, M.F. 1986. Response of songbirds and small mammals to powerline and river edges of Maine oak-pine forests.
Orono, ME: University of Maine. M.S. thesis. 58 p.
Small, M.F.; Johnson, W.N., Jr. 1985. Wildlife management in riparian habitats. Pages 69-80. In: J.A. Bissonette,
editor. Is good forestry good wildlife management? Orono, ME: Maine Agricultural Experiment Station
Miscellaneous Publication 689. 369 p.
Thomasma, L.E. 1996. Winter habitat selection and interspecific interactions of American martens (Martes
americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in the McCormick Wilderness and surrounding area. Houghton, MI:
Michigan Technological University. Ph.D. dissertation. 116 p.
Tubbs, C.H.; DeGraaf, R.M.; Yamasaki, M.; Healy, W.M. 1987. Guide to wildlife tree management in New England
northern hardwoods. General Technical Report NE-118. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 30 p.
Vander Haegen, W.M.; DeGraaf, R.M. 1996. Predation on artificial nests in forested riparian buffer strips. Journal of
Weber, S.J.; Mautz, W.W.; Lanier, J.W.; Wiley, J.E., III. 1983. Predictive equations for deeryards in northern New
Hampshire. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 11:331-338.
36 October 26, 2000
Cumulative Watershed Effects of Forestry

George Ice
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., (NCASI) PO Box 458, Corvallis, OR USA
97339. Tel: 551-752-8801; Fax: 541-752-8806; E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWEs) result when multiple actions, occurring at different
locations or at different times, combine to cause impacts that are usually greater than either of
the individual actions. In reality, the difference between cumulative and individual impacts is
largely artificial since all management practices interact with other practices and watershed
conditions. Several important principles can be used to guide management of CWEs. Perhaps the
most important principle to understand the link between specific management practices and
watershed response based on watershed conditions and processes. Three alternative approaches
have been developed for landscape management based on Best Management Practices (BMPs),
conservation biology, and historic disturbance patterns. Each approach has its strengths and
weaknesses. A practical management approach will fall somewhere in the middle of these
alternatives. Watershed Analysis provides some key central concepts for CWE assessments
including the needs to be systematic, structured, reproducible, defensible, and adaptive. Some
tools that are being developed to address CWEs questions are described including DHSVM,
SEDMODL2, BASIN2S and Habplan. An effective CWEs program for forestry must balance
between being so reductionist that essential processes and control options are missed and being
too detailed so that it becomes overly expensive and cumbersome to apply.
WHAT ARE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS?
Just what are Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWEs)? The definition has been the subject of
extensive debate and multiple definitions. For example:
The Idaho Forest Practices Act (FPA) defines CWEs (IDL 1995) as follows:
“Cumulative effects means the impact on water quality and/or beneficial uses
which can result from the incremental impact of two (2) or more forest practices.
Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time.”
Green et al. (1993) define cumulative effects from forestry as
“…changes to the environment caused by the spatial and temporal interaction of

natural ecosystem processes resulting from two or more forest practices.”
38 October 26, 2000
The Dictionary of Forestry (Helms 1998) defines cumulative effects as
“…the combined effects resulting from sequential actions on a given area—note

significant cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively
important actions taking place over a period of time because of their being
interconnected or synergistic.”
The central thought in these definitions is that multiple actions occurring at different locations or
at different times can combine to cause impacts that are greater than either of the individual
actions. In order to model and manage for cumulative effects we need to be able to predict the
scale and timing of individual impacts and route these impacts to critical locations in the
watershed. Unfortunately, concerns about “how much” management is occurring often
overshadows equally important questions about “how, where, and when” operations are carried
out and which are critical to predicting the magnitude and routing of individual impacts. To
successfully manage for CWEs requires that a few key principles be recognized. These are
described below.
PRINCIPLES FOR PREDICTING AND MANAGING CUMULATIVE

EFFECTS
Recent reports provide some key principles for understanding and managing for CWEs related to
forestry. These reports include: Cumulative Effects of Forest Practices in Oregon (Beschta et al.
1995), A Draft Proposal Concerning Oregon Forest Practices (NMFS 1998), Forest Practices
Cumulative Watershed Effects Process for Idaho (IDL 1995), Board Manual: Standard
Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis (WFPB 1997), and Status of the NCASI
Cumulative Watershed Effects Program and Methodology (NCASI 1992). A synthesis of some
of the key principles follows.
• Cumulative effects are real and logical, but it is very difficult to define in advance
thresholds beyond which significant effects will occur.
• The distinction between CWEs and individual effects is largely artificial.
• We typically can not measure small incremental changes and may not need to.
• CWEs move from a reductionist approach of cause and effect to complex multivariate
relationships.
• While everything is connected to everything else, impacts from management activities
are not all equal. We can generally identify and distinguish between those having large
and small effects.
• Forest management needs to be linked to water resource impacts through an
understanding of watershed processes. This will allow for the most efficient design of
management solutions.
• In general, the intensity of the cumulative effect is inversely proportional to the distance
between the activities and point of measurement. Pollutants are non-conservation.
• The ability to assign cause and effect diminishes with time and distance, and complexity
of the process linkage.
• Hazards on the watershed and risks in the stream system vary and must be understood to
effectively manage CWEs.
• An external event may be necessary to expose a cumulative effect, so plan for failure.
• Any CWEs assessment process should be systematic, structured, reproducible,
defensible, and adaptive.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES TO ADDRESS THESE PRINCIPLES
Given this long, and yet incomplete, list of CWE principles, just how does a forest manager
develop a method that will not be reductionist to the point that management impacts are
imprecisely, and even inaccurately, linked to water resource impacts, but not so cumbersome that
decisions can never be made? There have been three general approaches to managing for CWEs
and other landscape management values (Figure 1) (NMFS 1998; Swanson 2000). These are:
• the agricultural model of specific control practices to reduce impacts from management,
best represented by forest practice rules and BMP programs
• the conservation biology approach which is designed to manage forests to provide for the
needs of a specific species or group of species
• the ecosystem dynamics approach which seeks to restore the historic range of forest and
watershed conditions based on historic disturbance patterns
AG BMP Approach
State Forest Wash

•
Practice
WA
Program
• Augusta
• Creek Plan
FEMAT •
• •
HCP
Conservation Biology Ecosystem

Dynamics
Figure 1 - Management Triangle for Forest CWEs (based on Swanson 2000)
Which of these alternatives is the most appropriate approach? We believe that each brings
values and flaws and that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
40 October 26, 2000
BMP Approach
We know that specific management practices can be used to reduce the on-site impacts of forest
management activities. Reducing on-site impacts and their delivery to streams will reduce the
opportunity for impacts to accumulate (Ice 1986). In fact, there are only two ways to control
cumulative effects. One is to impose specific on-site management practices that reduce
individual management impacts or delivery of material and energy. The other is scheduling to
reduce the overlap of impacts.
The biggest problem with the BMP approach is that the same practice on different sites or in
different watersheds, or even with different weather patterns, can result in different impacts. This
means that in some sites, BMPs over-protect and are excessively expensive for the benefits they
provide. In other sites, they are underdesigned and result in undesirable impacts.
One solution to this dilemma is customizing BMPs to their setting. Usually this involves a
classification scheme. A simple example of customizing BMPs is spacing for waterbars based on
road grade. Table 1 provides an example from the Best Management Practices Field Handbook
for the spacing of water bars on roads, i.e., the steeper the grade, the closer the spacing of
waterbars. But, does road gradient capture the essential watershed conditions needed to space
waterbars to minimizing erosion? What about soil type or precipitation intensity? Research
from Oregon on roads shows that the soil makes an important difference in performance. The
trick is to design methods that are as simple, but as robust, as possible to set appropriate BMPs.
Table 1 - Waterbar Spacing from BMP Field Handbook (MFS 2000)
Road Grade Spacing

(Shown as percent) (Shown in feet)
1-2 250
3-5 200-135
6-10 100-80
11-15 80-60
16-20 60-45
21+ 40
Classification schemes are now beginning to look at connections between the managed site or
stream reach and conditions upstream or downstream. For example, small, non-fish-bearing
streams that deliver directly into fish-bearing streams may be treated differently than those
farther removed. This increasing level of classification sophistication requires an understanding
of the beneficial uses to be maintained, many having to do with fish, which brings us to the next
approach, using conservation biology.
Conservation Biology Approach
The conservation biology approach manages for a particular species or group of species. An
example is the Plum Creek Timber Company Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan (NFHCP)
(PCTC 1999). The NFHCP is designed to protect bull trout and other native salmonids on 1.7
million acres of Plum Creek Timber Company land in Montana, Idaho, and Washington.
Biological goals involve what are called the “Four C’s.”
• Cold - Protect stream temperatures and contribute to restoration where past management
has elevated temperatures to unsuitable levels.
• Clean - Protect in-stream sediment levels and contribute to restoration where impacted by
past management.
• Complex - Protect in-stream habitat diversity and contribute to restorations where past
management has impacted.
• Connected - Protect and contribute to restoration of connectivity in the project area.
There are 53 individual conservation commitments to achieve these four biological goals.
A concern about the biological conservation approach is that it ultimately selects specific species
and manages for conditions that favor those species. In the case of the NFHCP, decisions are
based on the biology of bull trout. Other fish or aquatic organisms not selected will either be
“brought along for the ride” (assuming they are co-dependent on the same conditions) or may
even be negatively impacted. Management targets may change over time. For example, lobster
was once considered a trash species that only the poor would eat. Kokanee/sockeye salmon were
once poisoned by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to promote trout fishing in lakes
(Buchal 1997). Now sockeye salmon are listed as endangered and severe management actions,
including removal of Snake River dams, is contemplated.
Some efforts using the conservation biology approach have focused on protecting reserves where
high quality habitat exists. Yet, ecologists know that ecosystems are not static and change over
time. In fact research has shown that in some cases, what is considered catastrophic in the short
term can be beneficial in the long-term (Burke and Nutter 1995; Miller and Benda in press). In
some cases, a sequence of conditions, such as changes in forest cover from conifers to
hardwoods and back to conifers, is necessary to achieve optimum habitat conditions (Connolly
and Hall 1994). This dynamic process is captured in a third approach based on historic
disturbance regimes and conditions.
Ecosystem Dynamics
Forests are dynamic and will never be static. Some forest managers are now trying to use historic
disturbance patterns and resulting conditions as a template for how to manage forests. The
objective is to develop a distribution of conditions across the landscape that mimic those created
by natural disturbance. An example of this approach is a management plan for Augusta Creek
(Cissel et al. 1998) in the Oregon Cascades, designed to mimic the conditions created by the
historic fire regime of the area. The August Creek Plan used a dendrochronological study to
interpret the fire patterns and forest conditions over the last 500 years. This information was used
42 October 26, 2000
to set different rotation ages (from 100 to 300 years), green-tree retention levels (15 to 50% of
canopy cover), and distributions of residual trees. This approach is challenged by public
preferences for certain conditions, a range of natural conditions that fully encompasses all
management impacts, and the need to produce commodities for an economic return on forestland
investment.
The public’s preference for specific forest and watershed conditions is highlighted in the recent
wildfire conflagration in the West. Clearly fire suppression efforts and selective harvesting
methods have allowed fuel levels to increase and dense understories of light tolerant species to
develop. Many of the problems can be addressed through mechanical and chemical treatment and
prescribed burns. But not all forest types are well adapted to both wildfire and people. Wet fir-
dominated forests burned infrequently but catastrophically. It is unlikely that we would accept
let-burn policies for these types of forests where human life and property are at extreme risk.
One of the reasons private investment has become attractive for forestry is the reduced risk of
having assets consumed in a wildfire. Other consequences, such as increased smoke, may also be
unacceptable to the public.
In some cases fish habitat may be closely linked to conditions that the public finds offensive. In
the Pacific Northwest debris torrents can scour fish habitat and result in temporary reductions in
fish habitat. However, they also create sediment waves in streams that result in the creation of
favorable off-channel habitat (Miller and Benda in press). Similarly, abusive agricultural
practices in the South choked streams with sediment but some watershed managers are now
concerned about wetlands (off-channel habitat) that are being disconnected from streams as
channels incise though these historic sediment deposits (Burke and Nutter 1995).
Putting These Approaches Together
Each of the approaches described above has its benefits and its drawbacks. An appropriate
management strategy for cumulative effects draws elements from each. Watershed Analysis
(WA), as developed in Washington, represents this type of combination. It uses the forest
practice rules as a primary control. Rules or BMPs are set for specific landscape conditions and,
in some cases, scheduling is used to avoid adverse accumulations of impacts. Materials and
energy are routed to critical stream reaches to address public resources at risk, including fish
habitat (based on the biology of key species). There is feedback between the management
activities on the watershed slopes and the predicted in-stream conditions in the stream that affect
fish biology. Historic conditions in the watershed are also simulated and used to compare outputs
and distributions of water, energy, and material. Thus WA uses elements from all three
landscape approaches. It also has monitoring to provide feedback on whether hypotheses about
watershed response prove realistic and formal protocol that make it systematic, structured,
reproducible, and defensible.
WA (or some modification of it) has been widely adopted in the Pacific Northwest as the method
of choice to assess CWEs. Yet it is interested to find that WA has essential ceased in
Washington. Companies that conducted WA still indicate that the information is the best
synthesis of how the watershed operates, where management can be improved, and if practices
are sufficient to achieve watershed goals. But the cost, time invested, political grief,
requirements for periodic updating, and meager management returns have not supported its
continued use. To overcome some of these problems, some companies have used detailed WA
combined with classification methods to extend assessments and BMP recommendations to
similar watersheds and conditions.
TOOLS FOR ASSESSING CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS
One of the most appealing tools for forester watershed specialists is the development of realistic
models that can simulate response to forest management practices at both the site and watershed
scale. Unfortunately, more work has gone into developing various watershed models, while little
work has gone into validating these models, calibrating them to different watershed conditions,
and making them user friendly.
DHSVM
NCASI has been working with the University of Washington and Battelle Northwest
Laboratories to refine and validate the Distributed Hydrologic-Soil-Vegetation Model (DHSVM)
using watershed data collected by companies for different conditions. “DHSVM accounts
explicitly for the effect of topography and the spatial distribution of land surface processes at the
scale of currently available Digital Elevation Models (30 to 90 m)” (Wigmosta 1996). Features
include a spatially distributed, digital elevation model grid-based approach; an automated model
setup using the GIS ARCINFO; explicit, spatially distributed representation of road networks;
spatially distributed vegetation and soils properties; topographic control on absorbed short-wave
radiation, precipitation, and downslope water movement; a two-layer soil rooting zone model; a
spatially distributed two-canopy evapotranspiration model; simplified topographically driven
surface and subsurface flow routing; GIS post-processing of model outputs; and channel flow
routing (Figure 2).
44 October 26, 2000
Figure 2 - DHSVM Model Utilizes GIS Data to Simulate Spatially Explicit Hydrologic Response
and Route Discharge Through Road and Stream Reaches
Testing of DHSVM is occurring on gaged industry watersheds, including the Little Naches in
eastern Washington, the Deschutes in western Washington, Mica Creek in northern Idaho, and
Carnation Creek on Vancouver Island (Figure 3). This model has been converted from requiring
a mainframe computer to a PC-based Windows NT environment.
Figure 3 - Comparison Between Observed Discharge for the Little Naches River in Central
Washington and Simulated Discharge Using DHSVM
(from Wetherbee and Lettenmaier 1996)
SEDMODL2
SEDMOD is a GIS-based road erosion/delivery model, developed by Boise Cascade

Corporation, designed to identify road segments with high potential for delivering sediment to
streams. SEDMODL2 is an updated version being developed by NCASI and Boise Cascade that
will be more user-friendly. The model uses an elevation grid combined with road and stream
information layers to produce a computer-generated version of the Washington surface road
erosion module (Figure 4). It estimates background sediment, generation of sediment for
individual road segments, finds road/stream intersections, and estimates delivery of road
sediment to streams. At the recent American Fisheries Society National Convention session on
Fish and Fiber: Can They Coexist, speakers consistently referred to the 20/80 rule: 20% of roads
cause 80% of the problem. SEDMODL2 identifies segments with a high potential for
contribution of sediment to streams.
46 October 26, 2000
ROAD SEDIMENT
Total Sediment Delivered from each Road Segment
(tons/yr.) =TREAD + CUTSLOPE
Tread = Geologic Erosion Rate * Tread Surfacing

Factor *Traffic Factor * Segment Length *
Road Width *Road Slope Factor *
Precipitation Factor *Delivery Factor
Cutslope = Geologic Erosion Rate * Cutslope Cover

Factor * Segment Length * Cutslope Ht *
Delivery Factor
SEDMOD
Figure 4 - Basic Framework of SEDMODL2 for Calculation of Road Sediment Delivered from
Each Road Segment (from Glass and Megahan 2000)
BASINS2
An emerging tool for modeling is BASINS2 (Whittemore and Ice 1998). BASINS2 is a
comprehensive EPA software package recently released by the Office of Water. It is designed to
enable water quality analysts and watershed managers to perform studies using a geographic
information system (ArcView), watershed landuse and water quality monitoring data, and state-
of-the-art environmental assessment tools. BASINS2 provides information for any of the 2,150
watersheds in the conterminous United States. It incorporates models such as HSPF,
TOXIROUTE, and QUAL2E. BASINS2 has much promise, but its coarse spatial scale and
treatment of land use activities do not support assessments of alternative forest management
activities at this time (Figure 5).
Figure 5 - BASINS2 Combines Easy Access to Data, Integrated Watershed Models, and a
PC-Compatible Windows Environment
Habplan
Habplan is a landscape management and scheduling model developed by NCASI

(http://www.ncasi-nerc.org/projects/habplan/). Habplan selects from management regimes that
the user indicates are allowable for each polygon on a landscape. Simulations are based on the
Metropolis Algorithm. Habplan is a random (within feasible criteria) schedule generator that
continues to run and generates alterations to the previous schedule until the operator is satisfied.
Habplan could be used to identify a harvest schedule that limits the amount of a watershed
harvested in sensitive soils at any time or that constrains harvesting of first-order drainages to a
targeted percent at any one time. It might also be used to maintain connectivity between streams
to minimize isolation of amphibians during a shift mosaic of harvesting.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
• A program to effectively and efficiently address CWEs requires a careful balance

between being so reductionist in the characterization of watershed processes that essential
mechanisms and control options are missed and being so detailed so that it becomes too
expensive and cumbersome to apply.
48 October 26, 2000
• Well-designed programs based on BMPs can find a high level of compliance, because
BMPs work and there is some certainty for planning future forest management activities.
• BMP-based programs are often viewed with skepticism by those focused primarily on
watershed concerns because BMPs may fail to recognize sensitive conditions, whether
hazards on the landscape or risks in receiving streams.
• WA has melded many elements from BMP-based, conservation biology, and historic
condition approaches and also provides a systematic, structured, reproducible, defensible,
and adaptive procedure for analyzing watersheds and identifying appropriate
management practices.
• WA has at least partially flopped because it was too complicated, too time consuming,
too expensive, and failed to diffuse the debate about appropriate practices, only changing
the scale where the debate occurred.
• Efforts to address cumulative effects should look at how to secure benefits for watershed
conditions and the landowners that manage those watersheds, so that the process, as well
as the health of the watershed, can continue to be sustainable.
REFERENCES
Beschta, R. L., et al. 1995. Cumulative effects of forest practices in Oregon. Prepared for the Oregon Department of
Forestry, Salem, OR.
Buchal, J.L. 1997. The great salmon hoax: an eyewitness account of the collapse of science and law and triumph of
politics in salmon recovery. Iconoclast Publishing Company: Aurora, OR.
Burke, M.A., and Nutter, W.L. 1995. Channel morphology evolution and riverine wetland hydrology in the Georgia
Piedmont. 463-75 in Versatility of wetlands in the agricultural landscape, Campbell, K.L. [Ed.]. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers: Tampa, FL.
Cissel, J.H., et al. 1998. A landscape plan based on historic fire regimes for a managed forest ecosystem: the
Augusta Creek study. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-422. USDA Forest Service.
Connolly, P.J., and Hall, J. 1994. Status of resident coastal cutthroat trout populations in maturing second-growth
basins of the Oregon Coast Range. COPE Report 7(2&3):10-13. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Glass, D., and Megahan, W. In press. SEDMODL2: A geographic information system (GIS) based model of road
erosion to determine priorities for control activities. In Proceedings of the 2000 NCASI West Coast Regional
Meeting. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.: Research Triangle Park, NC.
Green, K., Bernath, S., Lackey, L., Brunengo, M., and Smith, S. 1993. Analyzing the cumulative effects of forestry
practices: where do we start? Geo Info Systems 3(2):3-41.
Helms, J.A. [Ed.] 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Society of American Foresters: Bethesda, MD.
Ice, G.G. 1986. Managing cumulative effects: an industry perspective. 131-136 in Proceedings of the California
watershed management conference. Wildland Resources Center Report 11. University of California, Davis:
Davis, CA.
Idaho Department of Lands (IDL). 1995. Forest practices cumulative watershed effects process for Idaho. Boise,
ID.
Maine Forest Service (MFS). 2000. Best management practices field handbook. Department of Conservation:
Augusta, MA.
Miller, D.J., and Benda, L. In press. Effects of mass wasting on channel morphology and sediment transport: South
Fork Gate Creek, Oregon. Special Report. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.: Research
Triangle, Park, NC.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 1992. Status of the NCASI cumulative watershed
effects program and methodology. NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 634. National Council of the Paper Industry
for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.: Research Triangle Park, NC.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Draft proposal concerning Oregon forest practices. Submitted to
the Office of the Governor, Salem, OR.
Plum Creek Timber Company (PCTC). 1999. Plum Creek Timber Company native fish habitat conservation plan—
final draft. Seattle, WA.
Swanson, F.J. 2000. Three different perspectives on landscape management. Paper presented at National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement Northwest Landscape Study Workshop, Portland, OR.
Washington Forest Practices Board (WFPB). 1997. Board manual: standard methodology for conducting watershed
analysis. Washington Department of Natural Resources: Olympia, WA.
Wetherbee, P. and Lettenmaier, D.P. 1996. Application of the Distributed Hydrology -Soil-Vegetation Model
(DHSVM) to the Little Naches basin in the context of watershed analysis. Report to Plum Creek Timber
Company and the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. National Council of the Paper
Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.: Research Triangle Park, NC.
Whittemore, R., and Ice, G.G. 1998. Watershed management in the forest products industry: implementation of
watershed assessment methods. Paper presented at Watershed Management: Moving from Theory to
Implementation, Denver, Colorado. Water Environment Federation.
Wigmosta, M.S. 1996. A process-based GIS modeling system for watershed analysis. D38-D47 in Proceedings of
the 1995 NCASI West Coast Regional Meeting. Special Report No. 96-04. National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc.: Research Triangle Park, NC.
50 October 26, 2000
POSTER
ABSTRACTS
52 October 26, 2000
A Method for Evaluating Potential Forested Riparian

Restoration Sites in Heterogeneous New England
Watersheds
Sally Butler
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 3, Bangor, ME, 04401-2700;
Tel: 207-990-9557; Fax: 207-990-9599; Email: [email protected]
The close mix of urban/suburban/rural forested, privately owned, land uses typical of the six-
state New England region poses difficult challenges for inventorying and assessing highly
fragmented riparian areas. After evaluating remote sensing and existing methods, the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service New England Interdisciplinary Resource Team
(NEIRT) developed a Riparian Area Inventory Guide that is uniquely suited to fragmented
riparian areas. The method is designed to be useable by nonprofessionals, especially volunteer
landowner groups, working within a watershed coalition. It is designed for use in conjunction
with in-stream assessment procedures and incorporates socioeconomic information, and landuse
and ownership changeability, along with the potential for positive impacts on forested riparian
ecosystems. By identifying the highest potential for both ecological input and receptivity for land
use and management changes by current and future owners, a ranking of priority sites for
restoration and enhancement can be developed. The procedure is designed to allow different
groups to collect inventory information, and to make the assessment and watershed action plan in
a subsequent step. Testing of the guide was conducted on the Salmon Brook, Dunstable,
Massachusetts. This 14,000-acre watershed is mostly wooded with light to medium residential
and light commercial areas. Inventory and assessment worksheets were then adjusted to meet the
needs of the local volunteer group.
54 October 26, 2000
Method to Determine Effective Riparian Buffers for

Atlantic Salmon Habitat Conservation
Alan Haberstock
Kleinschmidt, Energy and Water Resource Consultants, 75 Main St., Pittsfield, ME 04967;
Tel: 207-487-3328
The ecological integrity of rivers is dependent upon effective riparian buffer zone management.
Natural resource managers, policy developers, foresters, local conservation groups, and others
require science-based information concerning the width at which a given buffer will be effective
for water quality maintenance and other desired functions. This poster summarizes a method
developed in 1999 to determine effective riparian buffer widths for Atlantic salmon habitat
protection as part of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan to protect critical salmon spawning
and rearing habitat, as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maine Atlantic
Salmon Commission, from potential land use impacts.
A major assumption of the method is that no two buffers are alike with respect to their
effectiveness and that various buffer characteristics dictate the required width for a given level of
effectiveness (Kleinschmidt, 1999). The method uses a predictive model that generates suggested
riparian buffer widths as a function of specific, measurable buffer characteristics (such as slope,
soil characteristics, and plant community structure and density) that affect buffer function. The
method utilizes a variable-width, two-zone approach and specifies land uses that are consistent
with desired buffer function within the two zones.
A forested cover type in the portion of the riparian buffer immediately adjacent to the
watercourse is necessary for buffer functions such as shading and large woody debris inputs to
reach their full potential for river and salmon habitat protection. A minimum undisturbed zone
(no harvest zone called Zone 1) of 35’ is recommended immediately adjacent to the stream.
Further, it is necessary to maintain minimum stocking levels in the larger riparian zone or Zone 2
(e.g., the portion of the riparian buffer more than 35’ from the stream edge) to ensure wind firm
conditions. The total width of Zone 1 and Zone 2 combined ranges from a minimum of 70’ to a
maximum of several hundred feet or more depending on buffer characteristics.
Land uses that result in impervious surfaces, removal of the duff layer, fertilization or chemical
use, alterations to the infiltration capacity of the soils, or tree removal sufficient to jeopardize
wind-firm conditions adjacent to the stream are not compatible with the desired functions of
Zone 2. However, limited tree removal using BMPs in the Zone 2 portion of the buffer (i.e.,
more than 35’ from the stream) is consistent with desired buffer functions such as shading,
woody debris inputs, and water quality maintenance. Non-forested systems such as meadow
have been shown to filter sediment from stormwater runoff as well or better than forested
systems in some situations because the dense, low vegetation discourages concentrated runoff
patterns and encourages diffuse flows and infiltration. Limited removal of timber in Zone 2
56 October 26, 2000
where proper BMPs are used can also result in vigorous re-growth (including rapid assimilation
of nutrients) and no increase in erosion. Buffer widths should not be relaxed for smaller streams.
Small 1st order streams are actually more vulnerable to impacts from sedimentation, solar
heating, base flow alterations (e.g., water withdrawals) and other potential effects of logging,
agriculture, and other land uses, because they are less able to dilute or buffer such impacts.
REFERENCES
Davies, S. and J. Sowles. Revised 1997. The Value of Headwater Streams and the Effects of Forest Cutting Practices
on Stream Ecology. Maine DEP. Augusta, Maine. 10pp.
Haberstock, A., H.G. Nichols, M.P. DesMeules, J. Wright, J.M. Christensen, and D. Hudnut. Method to Identify
Effective Riparian Buffer Widths for Atlantic Salmon Habitat Protection. 2000 (accepted but not yet
published). Journal of the American Water Resources Association. (to be published in special issue
entitled: “Watershed Management to Protect Declining Species”, December, 2000)
Kleinschmidt Associates. 1999. Method to Determine Optimal Riparian Buffer Widths for Atlantic Salmon Habitat
Protection. Report to the Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine, by Kleinschmidt Associates,
Consulting Engineers and Scientists, Pittsfield, Maine, 100+ pp.
Lyons, J., S.W. Trimble, and L.K. Paine. 2000. Grass Versus Trees: Managing Riparian Areas to Benefit Streams of
North America. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(4):919-930
Water Temperature Characteristics of 1st Through

4th Order Streams in Western Maine.
John Hagan and Darlene Siegel
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, 14 Maine St., Suite 404, Brunswick, ME 04011; Tel: 207-
721-9040; Email: [email protected]
Water temperature is an important habitat parameter for streams, yet basic stream temperature
information has been lacking in the region. In the summer of 2000 we placed 25 automatic
temperature probes in 1st to 4th order streams in western Maine. Probes were place in 2
watersheds, one heavily cut over in the past 10 years, and one with very little harvesting in the
past 40 years. The two watersheds joined at a 4th -order confluence. Streams in the harvested
watershed were typically protected with 75’ uncut or partial-cut buffers. Probes were
synchronized to record water temperature at the same time each hour of the day between July 1
and August 31. Our objectives were to (1) understand basic temperature changes as water moves
downstream from lower to higher orders, (2) understand whether water temperature exceeded the
thermal maximum for brook trout in a heavily harvested watershed, and (3) understand the
relationship between stream order and diurnal variation in stream water temperature.
Stream temperature results based on stream order are shown below:
Order # stations Mean daily Max Seasonal Max

o o o o
1 8 58.3 F (14.7 C) 63.9 F (17.7 C)
o o o o
2 12 61.7 F (16.5 C) 66.9 F (19.4 C)
o o o o
3 3 66.5 F (19.2 C) 70.3 F (21.3 C)
o o o o
4 2 67.6 F (16.6 C) 69.2 F (20.7 C)
As expected, stream water warmed as it moved into higher order stream channels. However,
neither mean daily maximum temperature nor seasonal maximum temperature for any stream
order exceeded the thermal maximum for brook trout (~75-80o F; 25-27o C ). Moreover, the
seasonal maximum temperature in the harvested watershed was slightly lower in 1st and in 2nd
order streams than in the unharvested watershed. This could be explained by many factors
unrelated to harvesting, but at least we demonstrated that the cut-over watershed did not cause
excessive stream warming.
Finally, we were interested in characterizing the diurnal fluctuation in stream temperature in

relation to stream order. We predicted that lower stream orders would display wider fluctuations
in daily water temperature because smaller volumes of water respond more quickly to
differences in air temperature, all else being equal. However, 1st order streams showed the lowest
daily fluctuation in temperature (mean = 3.0 o F / day), followed by 2nd order streams (4.2
o
F/day), and then by 3rd order streams (7.2 o F/day). Thus, some factor other than stream volume
appears to influence diurnal water temperature fluctuation. The most likely explanation for this
58 October 26, 2000
observation was stream exposure to sky. Higher order streams are more open to the sky, and thus
are more responsive to radiational heating (during the day) and cooling (at night). Normal
diurnal stream temperature fluctuation was maintained with the protective buffer strips used in
the cutover watershed.
Seasonal trace of stream water temperature

80 80
1st Order Stream 3rd Order Stream

70
Temperature F
70
Temperature F
o
o
60 60 Mean
Mean
50 50
40 40
July August July August
Date Date
Rate of Stream Water Warming in Buffered-Clearcut

and Intact-Forest Streams in Western Maine
Water temperature is a fundamentally important parameter for stream health. Increases in water
temperature can have undesirable effects on stream chemistry, aquatic insects, stream flora, and
fish behavior and development. Consequently, maintaining water temperature within acceptable
limits is a key goal of forest practices in the riparian zone. Small headwater streams are
considered more vulnerable to changes in temperature than larger streams because small streams
or normally shaded from solar radiation by the forest canopy.
To better understand whether forested buffer strips maintain stream temperatures, we studied the
rate of water warming in 6 headwater streams in western Maine during the summer of 1999.
Three streams were surrounded by extensive, intact mature forest (Control streams), and 3
streams were surrounded by clearcuts but protected with 75’ (each side) mature forest buffer
strips (Buffer streams). In each stream we placed temperature probes at 100 m intervals over a
300 m stream reach (0, 100, 200, and 300 m). All probes were synchronized to record water
temperature at the same time each hour.
Throughout the summer, water in 2 of the 3 Buffers streams was consistently colder than the
Control streams. The remaining Buffer stream was consistently the warmest stream. Thus, the
presence of adjacent clearcuts was poorly related to absolute stream temperature.
Normally, water warms as it flows downstream as a result of contact with air, the confluence
with other streams, and accumulated solar radiation. However, water in 2 of the 6 streams we
studied cooled rather than warmed over the 300 m study reaches (1 Control Stream and 1 Buffer
Stream). For the remaining 4 streams, water temperature increased. Water in the 2 Buffer
streams that exhibited warming, warmed at a rate 2 to 4 times that of the 2 Control streams that
warmed. But despite the greater rate of warming in 2 of the Buffer streams, they still remained
colder than all 3 Control streams.
It appears that 75’ buffer strips maintained water temperature at levels conducive to brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis), a key indicator of stream health. Moreover, two key factors unrelated (or
weakly related) to timber harvesting appeared to dominate stream water temperature behavior:
(1) subsurface inflow, and (2) stream source (e.g., seep vs. pond). Only if streams are near the
thermal limit for brook trout (75-80o F; 25-27o C) as they enter a harvest area, might 75’ buffer
strips be insufficient to keep stream water temperature within an acceptable range. However,
headwater streams small enough to be fully covered by canopy are often much colder than the
brook trout thermal limit. Such streams are unlikely to breach this threshold when 75’ intact
60 October 26, 2000
buffer strips are used, even if they warm at a faster rate than streams surrounded by extensive
forest.
Do Riparian Buffer Strips Maintain Interior-Forest

Air Temperatures?
A key reason riparian buffer strips are retained along streams in forest management is to protect
stream water temperature. If buffers are wide enough and cool enough, they also may maintain
terrestrial components of biodiversity. In 1998, we studied air temperature within a 75’ buffer
strip, in the adjacent clearcuts, and in upstream intact forest. Our goal was to determine whether
air temperature in 75’ buffer strips was similar to air temperature in interior, intact riparian
forest. If interior forest air temperature is maintained in buffer strips, then biodiversity
components might also be maintained.
To understand air temperature in and around riparian zones, we established 2 perpendicular

temperature sensor arrays and 1 longitudinal array along a 1st order headwater stream in western
Maine (see. Fig.). The 2 perpendicular arrays extended 50 m away from the center of the stream,
with probes at 10 m intervals. One array crossed the buffer strip and extended into the flanking
clearcuts (Array 1). The other array was positioned well within flanking intact mature forest
(Array 2). The longitudinal array was positioned at 100 m intervals along a 1000 m stream reach,
and 10 m from the stream center. Probes were synchronized to record temperature every hour
between July 1 and August 31, 1998.
Cross Array 1
Cross Array 2
clearcut intact forest
300 m 500 m
0m 200 m 600 m 800 m 900 m
100 m 400 m 700 m 1000 m
buffer strip
clearcut
Temp probe
no probe
We compared the daily maximum temperature for each probe in Cross Array 1 to the daily
maximum temperature in the corresponding probe in Cross Array 2. The probes in the clearcut
recorded average daily maxima 5 – 10 o F higher than daily maxima in the intact forest array. Air
temperature can be greatly elevated just 10 m into a clearcut from the riparian buffer edge.
62 October 26, 2000
However, air temperature also rapidly dropped within the riparian buffer strip. The 2 probes
closest to the stream in Array 1 recorded daily maxima that averaged only 0 – 2 o F warmer than
corresponding intact forest probes.
The longitudinal array indicated that at some locations along the stream, the buffer strip did not
maintain interior forest air temperature. For example, the probe at the 200 m station displayed an
average daily maximum temperature approximately 4 o F warmer than the 800, 900, and 1000 m
longitudinal probes in intact forest. This was a result of a more open canopy at 200 m
temperature station.
In summary, uncut riparian buffer strips 75’ wide provide at least a narrow (10 m) strip of forest
cover with a microclimate very similar to that of extensive mature forest cover.
The Effect of Nitrogen Loading on Estuarine

Ecosystems: A Stable Isotope Approach to
Food Web Analysis.
Rachel Keats 1, Laurie Osher1, Hilary Neckles2, and Steve Kahl3
1
Plant, Soil and Environmental Science Department, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, 2 USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 26 Ganneston Drive, Augusta, ME 04330,
3
Senator George J. Mitchell Center, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469.
The estuaries of Acadia National Park are currently threatened by nutrient enrichment associated
with sources outside park boundaries, such as increasing residential development and air
pollution. Nutrient enrichment of these fragile ecosystems can lead to eutrophication and the
resulting losses of biodiversity and habitat. Some of the ecosystem responses that have been
documented in coastal systems include increased algal growth, increased community metabolism
and decreases in dissolved oxygen (1). Most importantly, anthropogenic nitrogen loads to
estuaries have been linked to shifts from seagrass to algal dominated communities, a shift which
may have important ramifications for the entire food web. For instance, it has been found that
nitrogen loading causes shifts in the diets of primary consumers (2). The United States
Geological Survey (USGS) is currently undertaking a project to create a decision support system
that will allow for the prediction of how changes in land use around the park will effect the
estuaries (3). This project involves looking at current nutrient loading, land use, and ecological
responses to increases in nutrients. Our research will assist in documenting the ecological
response of the estuarine food web to nutrient enrichment. This project will have both laboratory
and in situ components. The laboratory component will utilize aquarium sized microcosms (4)
stocked with the dominant estuary macrophytes, and associated epiphyte and grazing
community. Microcosms will be fertilized with varying levels of N (same as those proposed for
the field experiment) and they will be run continuously for 2 months in the winter 2000-2001. At
the end of the experiment, the ecosystem components will be removed and analyzed to determine
the stable carbon and nitrogen isotope composition. This will allow us to determine the amount
of fractionation of C and N between trophic levels in the food web as well as whether this
fractionation changes with N additions. The in situ component will consist of enclosures placed
in the submerged macrophyte zone of the Northeast Creek estuary. A range of nutrient loading
conditions will be applied to replicate enclosures. We will conduct two, month-long experiments
during each of two growing seasons. Food web components will be sampled from each enclosure
at the end of each experiment and analyzed for C and N signatures. Using the results of the
isotope analyses from both the laboratory and the in situ experiments, we will be able to
determine 1) the impact of N loading on the relative importance of each primary producer in the
diet of consumers, 2) the impact of N additions on trophic level isotopic fractionation of C and
N, and 3) the impact of N loading on estuarine food web structure and function.
64 October 26, 2000
REFERENCES
(1) Valiela, I. et al. 1992. Estuaries 15: 443-457.

(2) McClelland, J.W., and I. Valiela. 1998. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 168: 259-271.
(3) Neckles, H.A. et al. Project in progress.
(4) Neckles, H.A et al. 1993. Oecologia 93:285-295.
Wildlife Use of Forested Riparian Areas in

New England
Cynthia Loftin 1, Michael Bank 2, John Hagan 3, and Andy Whitman 3,
1
USGS-BRD Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
2
Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine
3
Although it is common to retain forested buffer strips along streams to protect stream water
quality during and following forest harvest, the utilization and value of these remaining forested
areas and the streams by wildlife are unclear. Riparian buffers protect stream water quality by
minimizing sedimentation and water temperature fluctuations and maintaining a source of
organic material to the stream (Naiman et al. 1998). Riparian areas also provide a variety of
functions for wildlife, including habitat for obligate riparian species and those frequenting early
succession communities and habitat edges, refugia from upland disturbances such as fire or
harvest, and as topographic landmarks and travel corridors (Kelsey and West 1998). Although
various effects of forest harvest practices on stream water quality have been examined and the
literature examining biotic response to water pollution is extensive, few studies assess wildlife
response to riparian forest manipulations. Much of the research examining effects of riparian
forest harvest and the value of riparian forest buffers to wildlife has been conducted in
northwestern North America and the southern United States. Although the basic paradigms of
stream continuity and watershed functions apply throughout these regions, differences exist in
the regional geomorphology, climate, stream conditions, stream-side and watershed land use
activities, and biotic composition of riparian habitats across North America. Results of studies
that examine wildlife response to riparian forest manipulations may be region-specific or may
vary among watersheds within a region. The temporal and spatial variability of streams, adjacent
riparian areas, and the watersheds in which they occur create a complex environment utilized by
a variety of wildlife that is not uniformly tolerant of riparian disturbances due to their diverse life
histories and mobilities (e.g., microbial communities to migrating birds). Additionally, biotic
recovery from these disturbances may be immediate, or the effects may persist for decades
(Harding 1998). The need for research examining wildlife responses to forest management
activities across temporal, spatial, and taxonomic gradients continues.
To determine the extent of published research conducted in northeastern North America that
examines the responses of wildlife (birds, mammals, amphibians, invertebrates, fish, reptiles) to
riparian forest harvest, we searched 18 online databases with approximately 20 combinations of
the following search words: riparian, forest, wildlife, invertebrates, stream, birds, amphibians,
mammals, reptiles, biodiversity, buffer, management, insect, policy, exotic, hyporheos,
groundwater, watershed, aquatic. The searches included literature published during 1967-June
2000, although not all databases indexed publications from the entire interval. Reference lists
published in approximately 20 recent riparian ecology books were also compiled. Several
thousand citations were reviewed, and databases were developed in EndNote citation
management software with approximately 1500 citations from northeastern North America
66 October 26, 2000
(~500) and published literature from outside this region (~1000) that were considered important
papers in riparian ecology research. Published studies of effects of riparian forest manipulations
on riparian biota in northeastern North America represent <2% of the retrieved citations.
Currently the databases are being edited and collated into a northeastern riparian ecology
research database and a second general riparian ecology research database.
In addition to reviewing the available citations, we have used software developed by the
University of Maine Forest Management Research Cooperative (Hansen 2000) to tally wildlife
use of New England riparian forests complied by DeGraff et al. (1992) and DeGraff and Rudis
(1987). Our summary of New England wildlife species utilization of riparian forests was
prompted by our review of the literature: with the limited research of riparian harvest effects on
New England wildlife (less than 30 papers published in the primary literature during 1967-2000),
predictions of wildlife response to riparian habitat manipulation must be made based on
descriptions of wildlife use of riparian areas rather than from results of studies applying
controlled, riparian forest manipulations. Our poster summarizes these descriptions and
predictions of wildlife use as well as our review of the published research on wildlife-forest
management interactions in northeastern North America.
REFERENCES
DeGraff, R.M., and D.D. Rudis. 1987. New England wildlife: Habitat, natural history, and distribution. USDA
Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-108.
DeGraff, R.M., M.Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and J.W. Lanier. 1992. New England wildlife: Management of forested
habitats. USDA Forest Station Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-144.
Harding, J., E.F. Benfield, P.V. Bolstad, G.S. Helfman, and E.B.D. Jones III. 1998. Stream biodiversity: The ghost
of land use past. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95:14843-14847.
Hansen, V.L. 2000. User’s Guide, Wild1, version 1.0. Forest Management Research Cooperative, University of
Maine, Orono.
Kelsey, K.A., and S.D. West. 1998. Riparian wildlife. pages 235-258 In R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, eds., River
ecology and management: Lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer, New York.
Naiman, R.J., K.L. Fetherston, S.J. McKay, and J. Chen. 1998. Riparian forests. pages 289-323 In R.J. Naiman and
R.E. Bilby, eds., River ecology and management: Lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer, New
York.
Usage and Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management

Practices in Maine: Interim Findings of Maine Forest
Service's Statewide BMP Monitoring Project
Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division, Augusta, ME
(contact: Morten Moesswilde)
Possible impacts of forest management activities on water quality and aquatic habitat have
received considerable attention in recent years. However, current information concerning rates of
use and effectiveness of forestry Best Management Practices in Maine has been lacking. Most
recently Briggs et. al. (1996) reported on a field study of 120 harvest sites. They noted that
BMPs were effective when applied, but that rates of application varied widely among different
BMP techniques.
Maine Forest Service was directed by the legislature to develop a methodology to assess BMP
implementation in 1998. MFS, with the assistance of FORAT (an advisory group) developed a
methodology for assessing use and effectiveness of key BMP issues, based on random selection
of Forest Operations Notifications received. MFS District Foresters and Forest Rangers began
applying the methodology in March, 2000. Sites are selected randomly on a monthly basis, in
each of 9 districts. Most large landowners, and many smaller landowners, have agreed to
participate.
As of September 1, over 140 sites have been visited by MFS staff. Preliminary analysis shows
that approximately one third (52 sites) of harvested sites surveyed thus far have no surface water
present. Further analyses will examine rates of usage of broad BMP types, including skid trail
channeling of water, temporary and haul road stream crossings, filter strips, and residual shade
on surface waters. Information will be used to help focus attention on training needs, as well as
to establish a baseline from which to evaluate trends. MFS BMP monitoring will be ongoing, and
is expected to continue indefinitely. Findings will be reported annually.
REFERENCES
Briggs, R.D.; Kimball, A.J.; Cormier, J. 1996. Assessing compliance with BMPs on harvested sites in Maine: Final
report. CFRU Research Bulletin 11. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Miscellaneous Report
400. University of Maine, Orono, ME. 35 pp.
68 October 26, 2000
Soil Cation Distribution in the Near-Stream Zone of

New England Forested Watersheds
B.A. Pellerin, J.M. Kaste, I.J. Fernandez, S.A. Norton, and J.S. Kahl,
The distribution of exchangeable soil cations, including the metals Al and Be, are being studied
across a range of forested watersheds in Maine during 1998-1999. A pilot study was conducted
in a hillslope and near-stream zone at two forested watersheds in eastern Maine. Organic
and mineral soil samples were collected along transects perpendicular to the stream and analyzed
for exchangeable soil cations, pH, percent organic matter, and exchangeable acidity. Results
showed that Ca was the dominant exchangeable cation in the organic horizon (mean throughout
= 9.1 cmol(+)/kg), while exchangeable Al dominated in the mineral soils (mean throughout = 4.9
cmol(+)/kg). The concentration of exchangeable soil cations differs between the near-stream
zone and the hillslope. The highest values of exchangeable Al (mean = 7.1 cmol(+)/kg) and Be
(mean = 36.1 µmol(+)/kg) occur in the organic horizon immediately adjacent to the stream,
while Ca is significantly lower in this area (6.0 cmol(+)/kg). During hydrologic events, the major
flow pathway shifts from high pH baseflow to acidic, Al-rich rapid water flow in the upper
mineral horizons. As ground water approaches the stream laterally, it encounters less acidic soils
with lower percentages of organic matter. Additionally, higher pH groundwater may mix with
lower pH water near the soil surface as it emerges near the stream. These spatial patterns result in
significantly higher Al and Be saturation and lower base saturation in the near-stream zone
relative to upslope soils. This is in contrast to the traditional idea of increased base accumulation
towards the shore zone. Therefore, stream water chemistry may be most strongly influenced by
the soils within a short distance of the stream. These trends will be further evaluated in the full
study data to determine the distribution of exchangeable soil cations across a range of forested
watersheds in Maine.
70 October 26, 2000
Aquatic Goals and Stream Buffering Practices for The

Nature Conservancy's St. John River Property
Joshua Royte and Nancy Sferra
Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, 14 Maine Street, Suite 401, Brunswick, ME 04011
Tel: 207-729-5182 ext 214; Fax: 729-4118, Email: [email protected]
This poster explains our aquatic goals for the Upper St. John River and our current stream
buffering guidelines for those areas where we are managing forests.
The Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy's purchase of 185,000 acres along the Upper St.
John River began a conservation effort for the St. John River watershed upstream of the
Allagash. We now have unprecedented opportunities to protect over 150 miles of the East's
longest, undammed, wilderness river amid a system of preserves ranging from individual fens to
twenty-thousand-acre landscapes that include entire watersheds for multiple first and second
order streams. Within the Upper St. John River watershed are lakes that support some of the
northeast's most diverse native minnow communities as well as the largest, intact, native brook
trout fishery in the east. The Conservancy has identified the following research goals for aquatic
systems in the upper St. John River watershed.
Goal One: identify both lotic and lentic habitats that we suspect are intact and host native species
with minimal evidence of human impacts. Goal Two: compare such habitats with those more
impacted by human activities and characterize the effects of human impacts. Goal Three:
characterize and begin monitoring chemical and physical parameters of main stem river and
tributary stream-stretches that are likely to be fairly intact or non-impacted from past land uses.
Goal Four: identify specific practices that threaten aquatic health.
Draft buffer recommendations for riparian areas of tributaries and the main stem of the upper St
John were established to protect aquatic ecosystems and the riparian zone in all areas on The
Nature Conservancy's St. John River (IP) Property currently designated as forest management
areas. Comments on how these goals, methods recommended to help attain these goals, or how
they can be modified to better meet our needs are all welcome. Note that these guidelines are
meant to complement, not replace forest reserves and apply only to those areas in active forest
management. Forest reserves are being designed to include multiple watersheds of first and
second order streams and frontage on the main stem of the St. John.
DRAFT BUFFER RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
Water Quality Buffer: Variable Width from 50 to 250 feet (~16 to ~75 meters) wide
Goal: to protect water quality from excess heat, sediments, nutrients and other pollutants and to
ensure adequate/appropriate input of organic carbon to support the aquatic system. This is also
72 October 26, 2000
intended to provide a minimum level of habitat for species associated with the water's edge (e.g.
riverbank plants and aquatic invertebrates).
Application: to any and all identifiable streams and associated headwaters and flanking non-
forested wetlands not protected by reserves or other buffers. The buffer is 100 to 150 feet wide
around source (headwater and seepage) areas, and up to 250 feet wide in areas that are prone to
erosion or windthrow, around Great Ponds, and around areas with special recreational or
historical values. If harvests adjacent to a riparian area (cuts extending more than 250 feet from
the riparian area) are designed to leave an intact forest canopy (>60%) without channelization or
diversion of surface and near surface water, and there are no other hazards to erosion or
windthrow then the no-cut aquatic buffer can be reduced to 50-feet measured perpendicular from
the edge of tree-line bordering the aquatic resource.
Riparian Habitat Buffer: 250 feet wide minimum no-cut zone plus 250' restricted forestry zone
with regularly spaced 300-600 acre expansion areas
Goal: to provide riparian habitat for species including forest interior breeding birds, amphibians,
reptiles, and mammals (most noteabley pine marten), to provide additional removal of sediments
and nutrient pollution from overland runoff, and to maintain an unimpeded source of organic
matter to streams.
Application: Third order and higher order streams - with the exception of the St. John and
Baker Branch which have a wider buffer intended to protect recreation and wilderness values in
addition to recharge areas for rare rivershore natural communities dependant on seeps. On third
and higher order streams, no timber harvesting within 250 feet of the stream, light (<30%
removal) infrequent (>20 year) harvests 250 to 500 feet from the stream. There would be no
year-round roads, or culverts in the 500' buffer zone. Expansion areas will consist of round or
square-ish blocks of forest land 300- to 600-acres in size located no more than four miles apart
along the ribbon of Riparian Habitat Buffer. These areas can be harvested in the same fashion as
the outer band of the habitat buffer with an emphasis on the retention of current and future
supplies of coarse woody debris, native tree species diversity, and minimizing canopy opening
size.
The Nature Conservancy is currently seeking partners to develop an aquatic research and
monitoring program as part of its conservation efforts in the Upper St. John River Watershed.
We are seeking multi-year funding to support our research efforts and are interested in
developing a cooperative relationship with scientists knowledgeable in aquatic systems and
interested in establish methodologies.
A new study to test the effectiveness of different buffer

widths for protecting stream physical, chemical, and
biotic integrity in managed forests.
Darlene Siegel, John Hagan, and Andrew Whitman
This poster describes a new study initiated this past summer (2000) to understand the
effectiveness of different buffer widths for protecting various riparian values on small headwater
streams in managed forest. The purpose of this poster is to inform interested stakeholders of this
project and forthcoming data.
We have selected 15 1st or 2nd order headwater streams in the western mountains of Maine for a
Before-and-After-Control experiment. Each of the streams is presently surrounded by extensive
mature forest. In 2001, we will collect baseline (pre-harvest) data on all streams, thus providing
us with baseline information on natural variation in an array of stream parameters. Between 2001
and 2002 field seasons, each stream will be subjected to 1 of 5 treatments:
(1) clearcut to stream edge,

(2) 10 m (33’) buffer,
(3) 23 m (75’) buffer,
(4) 200 m (660’) buffer
(5) Control (no harvesting)
Thus, there will be 3 replicate streams in each treatment. All buffers will be partially harvested to
a common residual basal area. For 1 year before, and for 2 years after harvest, we will collect
data on the following parameters:
Physical pH
conductivity
turbidity
dissolved oxygen
Aquatic Habitat water temperature
stream substrate
in-stream woody debris
stream shade
Aquatic Biodiversity macroinvertebrates
salamanders
fish *
Terrestrial Habitat and forest structure
Biodiversity herbaceous plants *
salamanders
* pending additional funding
74 October 26, 2000
This study is a cooperative project between Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences and the
University of Maine. We invite additional collaborators to participate in this project that might
be able add additional parameters of interest to the experiment, or that might be interested in
combining data from other studies in the region. The study is being funded by the NCASI, the
Cooperative Forest Research Unit at the University of Maine, and Plum Creek Timber Company.
Landscape Factors and Riparian Zones: Modification

of Atmospheric Inputs in a Paired Watershed Study at
Acadia National Park, Maine
Sarah Vidito 1, Steve Kahl 1, Ivan Fernandez 2, Stephen Norton 3, Chris Cronan 4,
Alan White 5, and David Manski 6
1
Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research
2
Professor of Soil Science, University of Maine, Orono, ME
3
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME
4
Department of Biological Science, University of Maine, Orono, ME
5
Department of Forest Ecosystem Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME
6
Acadia National Park, Bar Harbor, ME
Preliminary data show site-specific differences in atmospheric deposition of major anions (NO3 -,
SO4 2-, and Cl-) as measured in throughfall solution chemistry in paired watersheds at Acadia
National Park, Maine. Significant differences are also present in outfluxes of the same anions in
weekly samples of streamwater chemistry. Contrasting vegetation and soil characteristics have
been provided for this study by a severe wildfire that burned one of the two watersheds in 1947.
The natural experimental design also includes topographic and aspect variations across
watersheds, and within each watershed.
Differences in deposition rates are usually attributed to the influence of landscape factors on
precipitation patterns and scavenging efficiency of vegetation. Differences in outflux amounts
can be attributed to biomass uptake or leaching, soil processes, or in-stream processes; landscape
controls may also drive biological and soil processes. A mass balance approach on the catchment
and sub-catchment scale will be used to determine the retention of NO3 -, SO4 2-, and Cl- in each
watershed.
The objectives are: (1) determine which compartments in each watershed contribute to different
rates of anion processing; and (2) relate these differences to landscape factors determined to be
driving deposition and outflow rates.
BACKGROUND
This thesis draws on ongoing study of a pair of watersheds with similar physical characteristics,
but with very different vegetation types, in part due to disturbance by fire. Research is part of a
long-term ecological investigation begun in 1998. The experimental design utilizes two gauged-
watersheds instrumented at Acadia National Park through collaborative funding by the Senator
George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research at the University of
Maine, USGS BRD and EPA PRIMENet. The reference watershed, Hadlock Brook Watershed,
drains the west slope of Sargent Mountain in Acadia National Park, ME. The “experimental”
76 October 26, 2000
watershed is Cadillac Brook Watershed, located on the steep eastern slope of Cadillac Mountain,
much of which was burned in severe wildfire in 1947.
The focus of the PRIMENet project is atmospheric deposition of N and Hg, and their ecological
consequences. Both elements are of major concern, both regionally and to the Park Service at
Acadia. This project offers the advantages of a natural experimental design because of the major
forest fire in part of the Park in 1947, as well as parallel design with the acidic deposition
experiment on paired-watersheds at the nearby Bear Brook Watershed, Maine (BBWM).
NO3 in PRIMENet Streams, 1999-2000 Nitrate in Throughfall by Collection

PRIMENet Watersheds
20.00
200
18.00
16.00 Cadillac
eq/L)
14.00 150 Hadlock

NPS Bulk Site
12.00 NO3
Concentration (
10.00 ( µ eq /L) 100

8.00
6.00
50
4.00
2.00
0.00 0
8 9 9 1 1 1 5 5 6
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
9/ 9
10 /99
2/ 0
3/ 0
4/ 0
5/ 0
6/ 0
00
11 99
12 99
1/ 9
9
0
0
0
0
/9
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
4/
/
/
4
/4
/4
/4
/ / / 0 1 1 / / /
1/
2/
3/
4/
5/
6/
7/
8/
2 1 2 / / / 1 3 1
Hadlock Cadillac
5 5 2 2 4 1 8 1 3
/ / / 0 / 8 / / /
9 9 9 / 9 / 0 0 0
Streamwater samples from Hadlock 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0
9 9
Brook have consistently higher
concentrations of nitrate than do Cadillac
Brook samples for 1999 and early 2000. Autumn 1999 throughfall samples - NO3 at
Streamwater chemistry finishing by the Hadlock > Cadillac; spring / summer 2000
immediate riparian zone should be samples - similar NO3 concentrations .
investigated. Seasonal differences may be attributed to
leaf off, reducing canopy cover at Cadillac.
REFERENCES
Aber, J., W. McDowell, K. Nadelhoffer, A. Magill, G. Berntson, M. Kamakea, S. McNulty, W. Currie, L. Rustad, I.
Fernandez. 1998. Nitrogen Saturation in Temperate Forest Ecosystems. BioScience Vol. 48 No. 11:921-934.
Bailey, S., J. Hornbeck, C. Driscoll, H. E. Gaudette. 1996. Calcium inputs and transport in a base-poor forest
ecosystem as interpreted by Sr isotopes. Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 3: 707-719.
Clow, D., and M. A. Mast. 1999. Long-term trends in stream water and precipitation chemistry at five headwater
basins in the northeastern United States. Water Resources Research, Vol. 35, No. 2:541-554
Cronan, C. S., and W. A. Reiners. Canopy processing of acidic precipitation by coniferous and hardwood forests in
New England. 1983. Oecologia 59:216-223.
Draaijers, G., J. Erisman, T. Spranger, G. Wyers. 1996. The application of throughfall measurements for
atmospheric deposition monitoring. Atmospheric Environment Vol. 30 No. 19:3349-3361.
Kahl, J. S., S. Norton, I. Fernandez, L. Rustad, M. Handley. 1999. Nitrogen and sulfur input-output budgets in the
experimental and reference watersheds, Bear Brook Watershed in Maine (BBWM). Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 55:113-131.
Lawrence, G. B., I. J. Fernandez. 1993. A reassessment of areal variability of throughfall deposition measurements.
Ecological Applications 3(3): 473-480.
Likens, G. E., C. T. Driscoll, D.C. Buso. 1996. Science 272:244-246.
Lovett, G. M., A. W. Thompson, J. B. Anderson, J. J. Bowser. 1999. Elevational patterns of sulfur deposition at a
site in the Catskill Mountains, New York. Atmospheric Environment 33:617-624.
Rustad, L. E., J. S. Kahl, S. A. Norton, I. J. Fernandez. 1994. Underestimation of dry deposition by throughfall in
mixed northern hardwood forests. Journal of Hydrology 162: 319-336.
Weathers, K. C., G. M. Lovett, G. E. Likens, R. Lathrop. 1999. The effect of four landscape features on atmospheric
deposition to the Hunter Mountain region, Catskill Mountains, New York. Ecological Applications, in press.
Whelan, M. J., L. J. Sanger, M. Baker, J. M. Anderson. 1998. Spatial patterns of throughfall and mineral ion
deposition in a lowland Norway Spruce (Picea abies) plantation at the plot scale. 1998. Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 32, No. 20: 3493-3501.
78 October 26, 2000
Predicting Leaching and in Stream Nutrient

Concentrations in Small Watershed
Before and After Clear Cut
Zhu, Z., Meng, F.-R. Bourque C., and Arp, P.A.
Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick
PO Box 44555, Fredericton, NB, Canada, E3B 6C2
A forest biomass and nutrient cycling model was developed and tested. The model consists of six
major modules namely forest hydrology, biomass growth, hydrogen balance, nitrogen balance,
sulfur balance and base cation balance (Ca, Mg, and K). In the model, soil moisture, temperature
and soil nutrient availability drive nutrient fluxes in forest ecosystems and controls biomass
growth. Simple site specifications and initial stand conditions are required to run the model.
Model outputs include dynamic changes in term of total biomass of foliage, wood, root, and
forest floor; biomass nutrient contents; litter fall, organic matter decomposition, mineralization,
nitrification, and immobilization; soil pH, cation exchanges capacity. The model can also be used
to predict nutrient leaching, nutrient concentrations in soil solution and nutrient concentrations
stream water and corresponding nutrient leaching fluxes.
The model was tested and applied in two paired small watersheds in Nashwaak in central New
Brunswick. The results indicated that model predictions biomass, associated nutrient contents,
foliage fall, nutrient concentrations in soil solution, leaching, nutrient concentrations and fluxes
in stream water are closely agree with measured data. Compared with before harvesting, nitrate
leaching increased about 5 times for the second and third years after harvesting.

Defining Riparian Areas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defining Riparian Areas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defining Riparian Areas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORESTRY

October 26, 2000

Cooperative Forestry Research Unit, University of Maine

WELCOME TO THE "FORESTRY AND THE RIPARIAN ZONE" CONFERENCE!

FOREST ECOSYSTEM INFORMATION EXCHANGE STEERING

Papers From Invited Speakers Page

Forestry and the Riparian Zone: Why Do People Care? 1

Defining Riparian Areas 7

Forestry Effects on Water Quality 15

The Effects of Timber Harvest on Insect Communities of Small Headwater Streams 19

Forestry and the Biodiversity of Fishes in Eastern North America 27

Forestry Effects on Vertebrate Species Habitats in the Riparian Zone 31

Cumulative Watershed Effects of Forestry 37

Abstracts From Poster Presentations

A Method For Evaluating Potential Forested Riparian Restoration Sites In Heterogeneous 53

Do Riparian Buffer Strips Maintain Interior-Forest Air Temperatures? 61

The Effect of Nitrogen Loading on Estuarine Ecosystems: A Stable Isotope Approach to 63

Wildlife Use of Forested Riparian Areas in New England 65

Landscape Factors and Riparian Zones: Modification of Atmospheric Inputs 75

Forestry and the Riparian Zone:

USDA-Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Lab, 1831 Highway 169 East,

If we protect riparian areas, we fear the loss of:

• Wood and wood products

If we do not protect riparian areas, we fear the loss of:

• Water quality and quantity

• How to define riparian areas

SEEING WITH THE EYES OF A COMMUNITY

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF THE 21ST CENTURY

Defining Riparian Areas

We offer the following function definition for “riparian area”:

MOVING FROM DEFINITION TO DELINEATION

IDENTIFYING FUNCTIONAL RIPARIAN AREAS ON THE GROUND

Gregory, S. V. et al. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540-551.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.

Stream is 1.3 meters

---------------------- Terrestrial Ecosystem-------------------------------------

Aquatic Ecosystem Terrace Slope

Forestry Effects on Water Quality

Table 1. Contributions from forests to streams during successional stages.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FORESTS

BLENDING FOREST CONTRIBUTIONS WITH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Best management practices. Adhering to BMPs, including construction and restoration of

• Computer simulation models such as JABOWA, FORTNITE, LINKAGES, NED, and

The Effects of Timber Harvest on Insect Communities

University of Maine, 5722 Deering Hall, Orono, ME, USA 04469-5722.

BIODIVERSITY AND INTERMITTENT STREAMS

ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF HEADWATER STREAMS AND THEIR

GENERAL RIPARIAN FACTORS AFFECTING INSECT COMMUNITIES IN

Water Temperature. The metabolism of stream insects is determined primarily by water

GENERAL EFFECTS OF TIMBER HARVESTING ON STREAM INSECT

BUFFER STRIPS AND INSECT COMMUNITIES IN HEADWATER

THOUGHTS ON WHY BUFFER STRIPS CAN FAIL TO PROTECT STREAM

HOW WIDE SHOULD A BUFFER STRIP BE?

Wallace JB (1984) Substrate-mediated response of stream invertebrates to disturbance. Ecology 65:1556-1569.

Forestry and the Biodiversity of Fishes

Forestry Effects on Vertebrate Species Habitats

There are no one-size-fits-all recommendations to guide habitat management guidelines in

Within-Stand or Structure Considerations

Cumulative Watershed Effects of Forestry

WHAT ARE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS?