United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northern 

Research Station

Research Paper NRS-1

Chris B. LeDoux

Ethel Wilkerson

A Case Study Assessing Opportunity 

Costs and Ecological Benefits of 

Streamside Management Zones 

and Logging Systems for 

Eastern Hardwood Forests
Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

 Delaware, OH 43015-8640

October 2006 Fax: (740)368-0152

Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us

Abstract 

Forest landowners, managers, loggers, land-use planners, and other decision and policymakers need to understand the opportunity costs and ecological benefits associated with 

different widths of streamside management zones (SMZs). In this paper, a simulation model 

was used to assess the opportunity costs of SMZ retention for four different logging systems, 

two mature hardwood stands, and five levels of streamside zone protection. Results from this 

assessment suggest that protection costs range from $252 to $1,659/ha depending on the 

SMZ width, the logging technology used to harvest the timber, and the species composition 

of the tract. A literature review was used to score the ability of different SMZ widths to protect 

riparian function. We quantified the economic costs and environmental benefits of SMZs. 

The results showed that to fully protect against post-harvest changes in riparian function, 

45-m SMZs are needed. This protection will cost landowners between $30.54 and $67.02/ha/

year depending on the stand type and logging technology.

Manuscript received for publication 3 August 2006

Cover photo by Karen Sykes
1

INTRODUCTION

Streams, wetlands, and riparian areas are among our most 

valuable natural areas. From an ecological/biological 

perspective, riparian areas are among the most productive 

wildlife habitat on the continent (Kentucky Dept. of Fish 

and Wildlife Resources 1990). In addition to providing 

habitat for a wide range of game and nongame wildlife 

species, riparian areas protect water quality and aquatic 

communities by reducing the amount of sediment 

entering the stream channel (Castelle and Johnson 

2000), shading the stream channel from solar radiation 

(Brown and Krygier 1967), supplying organic material 

for food (Allan 1995), contributing woody material that 

increases the hydraulic and structural complexity of the 

stream channel (Hilderbrand and others 1997), and 

providing habitat for aquatic and terrestrial organisms 

(Bisson and others 1987). Removal of riparian vegetation 

during forestry operations has been shown to increase the 

sediment load in the stream (Davies and Nelson 1994), 

increase water temperature (Brown and Krygier 1967), 

and change the food supply and/or habitat condition 

resulting in alteration of the aquatic and riparian 

communities (Hawkins and others 1982, Hanowski and 

others 2002). Leaving buffer strips adjacent to waterways 

can effectively reduce the water quality concerns 

associated with timber harvesting.

Because of their ecological importance, the protection 

of riparian areas is a top priority with most state and 

federal conservation agencies (Blinn and others 2001). 

Protection of riparian areas is achieved by establishing 

streamside management zones (SMZs) adjacent 

to waterways and by adopting best management 

practices (BMPs), guidelines for locating haul 

roads, skid trails, log landings, and stream crossings. 

Recommendations for SMZs and BMPs vary among 

states (Huyler and LeDoux 1995, Shaffer and others 

1998, Vasievich and Edgar 1998, Blinn and Kilgore 

2001, Williams and others 2004). An Internet website, 

Timbersource.com/bmp/html, allows easy access to 

BMPs and SMZ management information on a stateby-state basis. For example, the recommended BMP for 

most SMZs include no harvesting activities in 15-45 m 

buffer strips adjacent to the waterway and/or allowances 

for up to 50 percent removal of the basal area/volume of 

standing trees leaving an evenly distributed/spaced stand 

to protect the stream/wetland (LeDoux and others 1990, 

Phillips and others 2000).

Riparian areas also are some of the best sites for 

producing high quality wood products. The unharvested 

timber left in SMZs can represent a substantial 

opportunity cost to landowners (Shaffer and Aust 1993, 

Kilgore and Blinn 2003, LeDoux 2006). The opportunity 

costs are infl uenced by the species mix in the stand, 

by the logging technology used, the level of riparian 

protection desired (Peters and LeDoux 1984, LeDoux 

2006), the stream network to be protected (Ice and 

others 2006), and the increasing proportion of isolated 

SMZ units within a watershed (Olsen and others 1987, 

Univ. of Washington 2003). Simultaneous economic and 

environmental assessments have been reported addressing 

the consequences of alternative fuel management 

strategies (Mason and others 2003) and the layout and 

administration of fuel removal projects (Hauck and 

others 2005). Companion papers address the opportunity 

costs/capital recovery cost of managing for old growth 

forest conditions (LeDoux 2004), of alternative patch 

retention treatments (LeDoux and Whitman 2006), and 

of implementing streamside management guidelines in 

Eastern hardwoods (LeDoux 2006). In this study, we had 

two objectives: 1) to evaluate the opportunity costs of 

different SMZ protection options for two different stand 

types using four different logging technologies; and 2) to 

compare the opportunity costs with the ecological benefi t 

of different SMZ widths.

The Authors

CHRIS B. LEDOUX is a supervisory industrial engineer 

with the Northern Research Station at Morgantown, WV.

ETHEL WILKERSON is the headwaters stream project 

manager with the Manomet Center for Conservation 

Sciences at Brunswick, ME.
2

METHODS

Stand Data

The two 27.5-ha stands selected for this study 

were similar in age (120 years old), density, average 

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), and volume. One 

stand represents a medium- to low-value species mix 

comprised predominately of yellow-poplar (Liriodendron 

tulipifera L.) with some red maple (Acer rubrum L.), 

black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.), and sycamore 

(Plantanus occidentalis L.). This stand has 232 trees/ha, 

an average d.b.h. of 45.57 cm, and a merchantable 

volume of 328.83 m3

/ha (Table 1). We refer to this stand 

as yellow-poplar or YP.

The second stand represents medium- to high-value 

mixed hardwood species comprised of yellow-poplar, 

American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.), shagbark 

hickory (Carya ovata (Mill.)), black cherry, red maple, 

cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata L.), sugar maple 

(Acer saccharum Marsh.), red oak (Quercus rubra L.), 

white oak (Quercus alba L.), and hemlock (Tsuga 

canadensis (L.) carr.). This stand has 224 trees/ha, an 

average d.b.h. of 46.40 cm, and a merchantable volume 

of 341.09 m3

/ha (Table 2). We refer to this stand as 

mixed hardwood or MH.

These stands were selected because of their similarities, 

availability of detailed tree measurements, and a 

relatively low and high value species mix level. These 

stands are typical of the eastern hardwood region of the 

United States. Both stands were subjected via computer 

simulation to the same even-aged silvicultural treatment, 

all merchantable timber was harvested.

Table 1.—Trees per hectare by size class for the yellow-poplar stand at age 120 years

 Midpoint of 5-cm d.b.h. class 

Tree species 36 41 46 51 56 Total

Black cherry 5 - - - - 5

Red maple 15 - - - - 15

Sycamore 7 - - - - 7

Yellow-poplar 42 47 59 15 42 205

Total 69 47 59 15 42 232

Table 2.—Trees per hectare by size class for the mixed hardwood stand at age 120 years

Midpoint of 5-cm d.b.h. class 

Tree species 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 Total

Black cherry - 7 - - 5 - - - 5 - - 17

Shagbark hickory - 5 - - - ------ 5

Red maple - - - 5 - ------ 5

Red oak - - - 10 5 10 - - - - - 25

White oak - - - 5 2 10 - - - - - 17

Cucumber tree - - - 5 - ------ 5

Hemlock - - - - 5 - - - - - 5 10

Yellow-poplar - - - 10 20 10 - - - - - 40

American beech - - - 5 5 10 5 - 5 - - 30

Sugar maple 5 - 5 10 - 15 10 10 - 15 - 70

Total 5 12 5 50 42 55 15 10 10 15 5 224
3

Logging Systems Evaluated

Simulations of four logging systems were used in this 

study (Table 3). These logging systems were selected 

because we have robust time and motion study data for 

each and they represent contemporary methods being 

used by loggers to harvest eastern hardwood stands. 

Machine capacities were matched to the size of logs 

to be removed. Machine confi gurations are ranked by 

their per-unit operating cost, with the Ecologger I1

cable yarder being the most expensive and the Timbco 

425 feller buncher with the Valmet forwarder being the 

least expensive. The per-unit operating cost for logging 

system combinations C and D are very similar, but refl ect 

different on-the-ground operating conditions since 

logging technology D is mechanized.

It might be worthwhile to look at whether the costs 

of cable yarding and the resulting reduction in soil 

disturbance and sediment production could be offset 

by reduced riparian management zones, but we do not 

have the data necessary to conduct such analysis. The 

current literature provides little insight into the impacts 

of alternative logging technology on ecological SMZ 

functions such as coarse woody debris supply, shade/

temperature maintenance, sediment fi ltering, maintaining 

aquatic communities, and maintaining riparian bird 

habitat. To complete this analysis, we assume that logging 

equipment does not affect SMZ functions. However, 

managers must choose between numerous BMP options, 

including the logging system, road system, SMZ, and 

erosion control practices.

Models Used

Two computer software models were used. The fi rst 

model, ECOST (LeDoux 1985), estimated the stumpto-mill logging costs for the logging technology 

confi gurations evaluated (Table 3). ECOST is a 

computer program that can estimate the stump-tomill costs of cable logging, conventional ground-based 

skidding, cut-to-length, feller-buncher applications, 

forwarding, and several small farm tractors for logging 

eastern hardwoods. Stand data were input into ECOST 

to develop simulated estimates of the stump-to-mill costs. 

The cost information within ECOST comes from time 

studies and simulations conducted over the years. The 

cost information is part of the model and is updated 

yearly. All costs are in 2005 U.S. dollars and refl ect new 

equipment.

The second model, MANAGE-PC (LeDoux 1986) 

computer program, provides the volume yield and 

volume/product estimates. MANAGE-PC integrates 

harvesting technology, silvicultural treatments, market 

prices, and economics in a continuous manner over 

the life of the stand. The simulation is a combination 

of discrete and stochastic subroutines. Individual 

subroutines model harvesting activities, silvicultural 

Table 3.—Logging system confi gurations and costs used to simulate the harvest of the 27.5 ha tracts

Logging 

technology Description Cost/unit($/m3

)

Yellow-poplar stand Mixed hardwood stand

A Chainsaw felling with Ecologger 

I cable yarder

20.83 20.47

B Timbco 445 Cut-to-length 

harvester with Valmet forwarder

17.65 17.30

C Chainsaw felling with John 

Deere 640 cable skidder

16.24 16.24

D Timbco 425 feller buncher with 

Valmet forwarder

15.88 15.88

1

The use of trade, fi rm, or corporation names in this paper is 

for the information and convenience of the reader. Such does 

not constitute an offi cial endorsement or approval by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product 

or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.
4

treatments, growth and yield projections, market prices, 

and discounted present net worth (PNW) economic 

analysis. The model can be used to develop optimal 

economic management guidelines for eastern hardwoods. 

Stand data were entered into MANAGE-PC to provide 

volume/production yield estimates. The average delivered 

prices for sawlogs and pulpwood (Table 4) were obtained 

from forest products price bulletins (Ohio Agric. Stat. 

Serv. 2002, Pennsylvania State Univ. 2003, Tennessee 

Div. For. 2003).

SMZ Protection Options

The stands were modeled identically and it was assumed 

they were bisected by a perennial stream (Fig. 1). 

Although riparian area cross-sections adjacent to streams 

can be quite variable, we assumed homogeneity of stand 

composition and consistent 20-25 percent sideslopes 

to simplify the simulations. The simulated harvesting 

plan removed timber from both sides of the stream to 

landings on truck haul roads located on both sides of 

the stream under the fi ve SMZ treatment levels. SMZ 

protection options evaluated include: 1) no protection, 

harvest all 27.5 ha without buffers; 2) unharvested 15 

m SMZ on both sides of the stream; 3) unharvested 30 

m SMZ on both sides of the stream; 4) unharvested 45 

m SMZ on both sides of the stream; and 5) a partially 

harvested 30 m SMZ on both sides of the stream with 

approximately 50 percent of the timber volume removed 

from the SMZ. Although commonly recommended 

riparian management zone guidelines call for some partial 

volume removed (Blinn and Kilgore 2004), we wanted to 

evaluate the opportunity costs and ecological benefi ts for 

more restrictive treatments, such as options 3 and 4. For 

the no protection option, we assumed that the operator 

could select where haul roads and skid trails would occur 

with no restrictions on soil disturbance or exposure. For 

all of the options simulated, we assumed the volume and 

species mix removed would remain constant as we moved 

further away from the stream to simplify the simulations.

Riparian Protection Score

The ecological functions of riparian zones are numerous 

and range from stabilizing near-stream soil (Castelle 

and Johnson 2000) to providing travel corridors for 

Table 4.—Delivered prices for sawlogs and fuelwood/pulpwood by species

Product

Species Largea

 sawlogs Mediumb size 

sawlogs

Smallc sawlogs Fuelwoodd/ 

pulpwood

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $/m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $/cunit - - - -

Sugar maple 135 103 58 45

Red maple 106 81 56 45

Sycamore 119 75 53 45

American beech 119 75 53 45

White oak 173 118 58 45

Yellow-poplar 119 75 53 45

Red oak 238 168 95 45

Cucumber tree 119 75 53 45

Shagbark hickory 71 61 56 45

Hemlock 64 64 64 45

Black cherry 119 75 53 45

a

Minimum small-end diameter ≥ 33.02 cm, length ≥ 3.05 m. b

Minimum small-end diameter ≥ 27.44 cm, length ≥ 2.44 m. c

Minimum small end diameter ≥ 25.40 cm, length ≥ 2.44 m. d

Minimum small-end diameter ≥ 10.16 cm that will not make large, medium, or small sawlogs.
5

large terrestrial mammals (Klapproth and Johnson 

2000). Quantifying the range of physical and biological 

functions that occur within riparian areas would be 

a daunting task. In this study, we focused on the 

processes and biota that are easily measurable and strictly 

dependent on and/or unique to riparian zones. We 

limited the various functions of the modeled riparian 

forests to the following fi ve categories: 1) coarse woody 

debris supply; 2) shade/temperature maintenance; 3) 

sediment fi ltering; 4) maintaining aquatic communities 

(macroinvertebrates and periphyton); and 5) maintaining 

riparian bird habitat (riparian associated passerines).

We conducted a literature review to identify studies 

examining at least one of our fi ve categories of riparian 

function. Studies with SMZ widths that did not 

correspond exactly to those used in our economic models 

were placed in the most logical category, while studies 

with large discrepancies in SMZ width or experimental 

design were excluded from this study. We found that few 

studies examined partial timber removal in SMZs (option 

5 in this study) so this treatment was not evaluated for 

riparian protection. Research results on the ecological 

assessment of SMZs does not exist in adequate quantities 

from a single region of the United States. To complete the 

analysis, we tried to focus on literature from the eastern 

United States, but as data was limited we included studies 

from other regions. The evaluation of SMZ protection 

was limited to no SMZ (option 1), and unharvested 

SMZs with widths of 15 m, 30 m, and 45 m (options 2, 

3, 4, respectively).

For each SMZ width (excluding the partial harvest 

treatment) we assessed the capacity of the SMZ to protect 

against post-harvest changes for each of the fi ve categories 

of riparian function based on the following criterion: the 

SMZ does not protect the component resulting in large 

post-harvest changes (score =0); SMZ results in moderate 

post-harvest changes (score =1); SMZ results in small 

post-harvest changes (score =2); or SMZ protects against 

measurable changes in the component (score =3). Scores 

were determined by comparing the magnitude of change 

to other studies or other SMZ widths and the statistical 

signifi cance/non-signifi cance of post-harvest changes. 

Each SMZ width was given a numerical score (0-3) for 

each of the fi ve categories of riparian function. An overall 

score for each SMZ width was calculated by summing the 

score of each category of riparian function. The overall 

Figure 1.—Diagram of modeled harvest area, stream, buffer zone, and buffer 

zone width. 415 m 

664 m 

BUFFER STREAM

ZONE

Buffer Zone

Width
6

scores had a minimum value of 0 and a maximum 

value of 15. The overall score was then converted into 

a percentage with 0 percent representing no protection 

of riparian functions (value of 0) and 100 percent 

representing complete protection against measurable 

changes in riparian functions creating conditions similar 

to undisturbed riparian areas (value of 15). Each SMZ 

protection option has a score ranging from 0 to 100 

percent and represented the effectiveness of the SMZ 

in protecting riparian functions. It is hereafter referred 

to as the SMZ protection score. Although the structure 

within the SMZ changes over the 120-year rotation, our 

SMZ protection score described above is based on the 

immediate condition of the riparian area. The canopy 

cover may recover quickly even for the completely 

harvested unit however, large wood recruitment may 

take much longer where the unit is completely harvested 

but it may be shortened for the partial harvest options 

(Zobrist and others 2005). We did not consider 

changing SMZ protection score over the 120-year 

rotation because we simply do not have the necessary 

data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The gross revenue ($/ha) from timber harvesting is 

dependent on stand composition. Depending on the 

timber volume harvested, the gross revenue from the 

yellow-poplar stand ranges from $7,995/ha to $10,257/

ha while the gross revenue of timber from the mixed 

hardwood stand ranges from $10,084 to $12,931/ha 

(Fig. 2).

Logging costs ($/ha) are deducted from the gross 

revenue of the timber harvest to determine net income. 

Logging costs vary with the technology/equipment used. 

Harvesting costs for yellow-poplar range from $15.88 

to $20.83/m3

 and from $15.88 to $20.47/m3 for a 

mixed hardwood stand (Table 3). The logging costs are 

comparable between the two stands (Fig. 3). Logging 

costs represent a larger percentage of the gross revenue 

in the yellow-poplar stand than in the mixed hardwood 

because of a greater profi t margin for the mixed 

hardwood stand. Only the cost of the logging system was 

considered as a treatment in this study. Cable logging 

systems may reduce the roads and landings needed to 

harvest a tract thus reducing the potential for erosion 

and sediment production. Mechanized track mounted 

systems, such as the cut-to-length and the feller buncher 

with forwarder, may result in less soil disturbance and 

compaction, and thus reduce roading and landing area. 

In this study we did not address the physical/ecological 

impacts of alternative systems because we lack the 

necessary data. Managers must consider logging system 

options when making decisions on SMZ management.

Figure 2.—Gross revenue by timber volume harvested from 

yellow-poplar and mixed hardwood stands.

7800

8800

9800

10800

11800

12800

13800

250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350

Volume harvested (m3

/ha)

Gross revenue ($/ha)

Yellow-poplar

Mixed hardwood

No SMZ

15 m

No SMZ

15 m

45 m

30 m

30 m

45 m

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

250 275 300 325 350

Volume removed (m3

/ha)

Logging costs ($/ha)

YP- Technology A

YP- Technology B

YP- Technology C

YP- Technology D

MH- Technology A

MH- Technology B

MH- Technology C

MH- Technology D

Figure 3.—Logging costs by volume removed for mixed hardwood 

and yellow-poplar stands for four different logging systems (see 

Table 3 and Page 3 for description of technologies used).
7

Figure 4.—Gross and net revenues for different levels of SMZ protection for the 

(a) yellow-poplar and the (b) mixed hardwood stands under the four harvesting 

technologies (PH=partial harvest, see Table 3 and Page 3 for description of 

technologies used).

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

No Buffer 15 m 

30 m PH

30 m 45 m

Revenue ($/ha)

Gross Revenue

Net Revenue -Tech. A

Net Revenue -Tech. B

Net Revenue -Tech. C

Net Revenue -Tech. D

a

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

No Buffer 15 m 

30 m PH

30 m 45 m

Revenue ($/ha)

Gross Revenue

Net Revenue -Tech. A

Net Revenue -Tech. B

Net Revenue -Tech. C

Net Revenue -Tech. D

b

SMZ Protection Options

Leaving no SMZ generates the most revenue (gross and 

net) to the landowner (Fig. 4a and 4b). This option 

provides the largest volume of wood (Table 5) and gross 

revenues of $10,257 and $12,931/ha for the low value 

yellow-poplar stand (Fig. 4a) and high value mixed 

hardwood stand (Fig. 4b), respectively. The net revenue 

ranges from $3,415 to $5,048/ha for the yellow-poplar 

stand (Fig. 4a) and $5,903 to $7,546/ha for the mixed 

hardwood stand (Fig. 4b) depending on the logging 

technology.
8

A 15 m unharvested SMZ on both sides of the stream, 

removes 24 m3

/ha less wood from the yellow-poplar 

stand and 25 m3

/ha from the mixed hardwood stand 

(Table 5) as compared to leaving no SMZ. The gross 

revenue is $754/ha less than leaving no SMZ for the 

yellow-poplar stand (Fig. 4a) and $949/ha less for the 

mixed hardwood stand (Fig. 4b). The difference in net 

revenue received from harvesting a stand with an SMZ 

and harvesting without an SMZ can be viewed as the 

opportunity/protection cost for retaining that width of 

SMZ. The protection cost for maintaining 15 m SMZ 

ranges from $252 to $370/ha (yellow-poplar stand, Fig. 

5a) and $432 to $553/ha (mixed hardwood, Fig. 5b) 

depending on the logging technology.

Leaving a 30 m SMZ on both sides of the stream removes 

48 m3

/ha and 50 m3/ha less merchantable wood than 

harvesting without an SMZ (Table 5) for the yellowpoplar and mixed hardwood stands, respectively. This 

level of SMZ protection decreases gross revenue by 

$1,508/ha and $1,898/ha for the yellow-poplar (Fig. 4a) 

and mixed hardwood (Fig. 4b) stands, respectively, as 

compared to harvesting with no SMZ. Leaving a 30 m 

SMZ on both sides of the stream has a protection cost 

of $504 to $740/ha (yellow-poplar, Fig. 5a) and $864 to 

$1,106/ha (mixed hardwood stand Fig. 5b) depending on 

the logging technology.

A 45 m SMZ on both sides of the stream removes 72 

m3

/ha and 75 m3/ha less merchantable timber for the 

yellow-poplar and mixed hardwood stand, respectively, 

as compared to harvesting with no SMZ (Table 5). Gross 

revenues decrease by $2,262/ha (yellow-poplar, Fig. 4a) 

and $2,847/ha (mixed hardwood, Fig. 4b) and protection 

costs range from $756 to $1,110/ha (yellow-poplar, Fig. 

5a) and $1,296 to $1,659/ha (mixed hardwood, Fig. 5b) 

when compared to leaving no streamside buffer.

Removing 50 percent of the timber volume from a 30 

m SMZ results in removal of the same volume of timber 

as unharvested 15 m buffers on both sides of the stream 

(Table 5). Compared to unharvested 30 m buffers, 

harvesting 50 percent of the timber volume from the 

30 m SMZs can increase the gross revenue by $754/ha 

(yellow-poplar, Fig. 4a) and $949/ha (mixed hardwood, 

Fig. 4b) as well as decreasing the protection costs between 

$252 and $370/ha (yellow-poplar, Fig. 5a) and $432 and 

$553/ha (mixed hardwood, Fig. 5b) depending on the 

logging technology.

Ecological Benefi t

While maintaining SMZs can represent sizeable 

opportunity costs to the landowner, SMZs can provide a 

wide range of ecological benefi t to streams and riparian 

areas. SMZs that are too narrow cannot adequately 

protect all riparian functions but SMZs that are wider 

than necessary result in unnecessary economic loss to 

the landowner (Castelle and Johnson 2000). The SMZ 

protection options (no SMZ, and unharvested 15 m, 30 

m, 45 m SMZs) resulted in varying levels of post-harvest 

Table 5.—Volume of timber harvested and retained for each protection option in the 

yellow-poplar and mixed hardwood stands

Yellow-poplar Mixed hardwood

Protection option Volume 

harvested

Volume 

retained

Volume 

harvested

Volume 

retained

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3

/ha - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No SMZ 328 0 341 0

15 m 304 24 316 25

30 m 280 48 291 50

45 m 256 72 266 75

30 m with partial 

harvest

304 24 316 25
9

Figure 5.—Costs for different SMZ protection options for the (a) yellow-poplar and (b) 

mixed hardwood stands (PH=partial harvest, See Table 3 and Page 3 for description 

of technologies used).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

 15 m

30 m PH

30 m 45 m

Protection costs ($/ha)

Technology A

Technology B

Technology C

Technology D

a

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

 15 m

30 m PH

30 m 45 m

Protection costs ($/ha)

Technology A

Technology B

Technology C

Technology D

b

change for the individual riparian functions (Table 6). 

The SMZ protection score increases with buffer width 

(Table 6). No SMZ results in a SMZ protection score of 

0 percent; it did not protect any of the fi ve categories of 

riparian function resulting in large changes following the 

harvest. A 15 m SMZ has an SMZ protection score of 

60 percent and a 30 m SMZ has a protection score of 87 

percent (Table 6). A 45 m SMZ has a protection score of 

100 percent; it protected against measurable changes in 

all fi ve of the categories of riparian function (Table 6). 

Comparing Financial Costs with 

Ecological Benefi ts

Forest landowners are responsible for protecting water 

quality and maintaining riparian habitat for the public 

good, but they also have the right to make a return on 
10

their investments. The challenge for landowners is to 

fi nd a balance between fi nancial sacrifi ce and ecologic 

protection. To fi nd this balance, we must consider that 

the revenue reductions attributed to SMZ protection 

occur only once at the time of timber harvest but the 

ecological benefi ts of SMZ protection accrue after the 

harvest and continue through the next rotation. To 

compare the current costs with future ecological benefi ts, 

a capital recovery factor can be calculated to convert 

revenue reductions to a series of uniform annual costs 

that begin at the time of harvest and extend through 

the next rotation. The capital recovery cost takes the 

protection costs of retaining an SMZ and, using a real 

interest rate of 4 percent, divides that cost into annual 

allotments. These calculations are the per-hectare cost to 

leave an SMZ for each year of a 120-year rotation. In an 

Table 6.—SMZ protection scores for different SMZ widths for protecting against post-harvest changes in 

riparian functions for second to fourth order streams

Width

Riparian Function No SMZ 15 m 30 m 45 m References

Coarse woody 

debris

0a 1 2 3 Murphy and Koski 1989, Harmon and others 

1986, McDade and others 1990, Robinson 

and Beschta 1990, Van Sickle 2000, May and 

Gresswell 2003.

Shade/

temperature 

maintenance

0 2 3 3 Burton and Likens 1973, Moring 1975, Brown 

and Krygier 1967, Rishel and others 1982, 

Lynch and others 1984, Lynch and others 

1985, Noel and others 1986, Beschta and 

others 1987, Budd and others 1987, Caldwell 

and others 1991, Kochenderfer and Edwards 

1991, Davies and Nelson 1994, Jackson 

and others 2001, Kiffney and others 2003, 

Wilkerson and others 2006

Sediment fi ltering 0 2 2 3 Karr and Schlosser 1977, Moring 1982, Lynch 

and others 1985, Davies and Nelson 1994, 

Jackson and others 2001

Aquatic 

communities 

(macroinvertebrates 

and periphyton)

0 2 3 3 Newbold and others 1980, Noel and others 

1986, Davies and Nelson 1994, Hetrick 

and others 1998, Kiffney and others 2003, 

Wilkerson and others in reviewb

Riparian bird 

communities 

(riparian associated 

passerines)

0 2 3 3 Triquet and others 1990, Whitaker and 

Montevecchi 1999, Pearson and Manuwal 2001

Total Score 0 9 13 15

Percent SMZ 

effectiveness

0% 60% 87% 100%

a

Scoring: 0) Does not protect riparian function; 1) Results in moderate post-harvest changes in riparian function; 2) Results in small 

post-harvest changes in riparian function; 3) Completely protects against measurable changes in riparian function

b

Wilkerson, Ethel; Hagan, John M.; Whitman, Andrew A. In review. The effectiveness of different buffer widths for protecting 

water quality and biotic communities of headwater streams in Maine. Freshwater Biology.
11

ecological context, capital recovery costs can be viewed 

as the annual monetary cost required to maintain a 

particular level of riparian function.

By comparing the capital recovery costs with the SMZ 

protection score, we can determine the cost-benefi t 

ratio between SMZ width and ecological protection 

(Fig. 6a and 6b). SMZ protection scores increase 

with capital recovery costs for both stand types and 

all logging technologies. Harvesting without an SMZ 

leaves no timber adjacent to the stream resulting in 

an SMZ protection score of 0 percent and no capital 

recovery costs. Retaining a 15 m SMZ results in an SMZ 

protection score of 60 percent and costs between $10.18 

and $14.95/ha/year for a yellow-poplar stand (Fig. 6a) 

and between $17.44 and $22.34/ha/year for a mixed 

Figure 6.—SMZ protection scores compared with capital recovery costs for the (a) yellowpoplar and (b) mixed hardwood stands under the four harvesting technologies. Symbols 

and lines represent different logging systems. SMZ protection scores are labeled on 

corresponding SMZ width (See Table 3 and Page 3 for description of technologies used).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46

Capital recovery cost ($/ha/year)

SMZ protection score (%)

Technology A

Technology B

Technology C

Technology D No SMZ

15 m

30 m

45 m

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Capital recovery cost ($/ha/year)

SMZ protection score (%)

Technology A

Technology B

Technology C

Technology D No SMZ

15 m

30 m

45 m

a

b
12

hardwood stand (Fig. 6b), depending on the logging 

technology. A 30 m SMZ results in an 87 percent SMZ 

protection score and cost between $20.36 and $29.90/

ha/year (yellow-poplar, Fig. 6a) and between $34.88 and 

$44.68/ha/year (mixed hardwood, Fig. 6b). A 45 m SMZ 

achieves a 100 percent riparian protection score but costs 

between $30.54 and $44.85/ha/year (yellow-poplar, Fig. 

6a) and between $52.32 and $67.02/ha/year (mixed 

hardwood, Fig. 6b).

The relationship between increasing capital recovery costs 

and increasing SMZ protection score is not linear. This 

analysis shows that for SMZs wider than 15 m, the rate 

of increasing SMZ protection begins to diminish while 

capital recovery costs continue to increase (Fig. 6a and 

6b). Therefore, increasing streamside protection from 

a 15 m SMZ to a 30 m SMZ results in an increase in 

economic cost that is disproportional to the increase in 

ecological protection gained. However, if the goal is to 

completely protect riparian functions against measurable 

post-harvest changes (a 100 percent SMZ protection 

score), a 45 m SMZ is required and landowners will pay 

an economic premium to achieve this level of protection. 

Although we could not calculate an SMZ protection 

score for the 30 m partially harvested SMZ, the capital 

recovery costs are 50 percent less than the 30 m SMZ 

without timber removal. Landowners may chose partial 

removal of timber within the SMZ to reduce capital 

recovery costs while still maintaining a portion of riparian 

structure that can contribute to riparian function.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR MANAGERS

Ultimately, landowners and managers must determine 

the appropriate balance between opportunity/capital 

recovery costs and SMZ protection. The level of riparian 

protection will vary between ownerships and even 

within different landscapes on a single ownership. On an 

ownership level, managers should consider state and local 

laws and BMPs, certifi cation requirements, and their 

long-term management strategies for maintaining and 

protecting fi sheries and wildlife on their land base. At 

a smaller scale, managers should consider the slope and 

topography of the stand, the age class and disturbance 

history of the surrounding forests, and determine if there 

are species of special management concern within the 

watershed.

The decision on which logging system to use to harvest 

wood adjacent to and from within buffers requires careful 

consideration of the ecological functions that one wishes 

to protect. For example, cable logging systems usually 

require ridge top roads and landings, which may result in 

less erosion and sediment production. This could justify 

narrower buffer widths with partial volume removal if 

one was concerned with erosion and sediment production 

only. However, if the objective is to also provide habitat 

for breeding birds (Hanowski and others 2005), 

amphibians (Perkins and Hunter 2006) and use by some 

mammals, such as martens (Fuller and Harrison 2005), 

then wide (45 m) buffers with no volume removed may 

be required.

Using computer simulations, we evaluated two stands, 

four logging technologies, fi ve SMZ protection options, 

fi ve riparian/ecological functions, a fi xed real interest 

rate of 4 percent, and fi xed market prices. The results 

reported here are specifi c to the conditions simulated 

and to the models and assumptions used and should 

not be generally inferred. However, the results provide 

an understanding of the costs and ecological benefi ts 

associated with alternative levels of SMZ protection.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are grateful to Andrew Whitman, Manomet Center 

for Conservation Sciences, for his suggestions and 

guidance in developing the riparian scoring criteria.

LITERATURE CITED

Allan, J. David. 1995. Stream ecology: structure and 

function of running waters. 1st ed. New York: 

Kluwer Academic Publishers. 400 p.

Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W.; Holtby, L.B.; 

Hofstra, T.D. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic 

habitat: fi sheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo, 

E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: 

forestry and fi shery interactions. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington: 191-232.

Bisson, P.A.; Bilby, R.E.; Bryant, M.D.; Dolloff, C.A.; 

Grette, G.B.; House, R.A.; Murphy, M.L.; Koski, K. 

V.; Sedell, J.R. 1987. Large woody debris in forested 

streams in the Pacifi c Northwest: past, present, and 
13

future. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside 

management: forestry and fi shery interactions. Seattle, 

WA: University of Washington: 143-190.

Blinn, CR.; Alden, A.M.; Ellefson, P.V. 2001. Timber 

harvester perceptions of costs and benefi ts from 

applying water quality BMPs in north-central USA.

International Journal of Forest Engineering. 12(1): 

39-51.

Blinn, Charles R.; Kilgore, Michael A. 2001. Riparian 

management practices: a summary of state 

guidelines. Journal of Forestry. 99(8): 11-17.

Blinn, Charles R.; Kilgore, Michael A. 2004. Riparian 

management practices in the Eastern US: a 

summary of state timber harvesting guidelines.

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus. 4(1): 187-201.

Brown, George W.; Krygier, Jim T. 1967. Changing 

water temperatures in small mountain streams.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 22(6): 242-

244.

Budd, W.M.; Cohen, P.L.; Saunders, P.R.; Steiner, F.R. 

1987. Stream corridor management in the Pacifi c 

Northwest: determination of stream corridor 

widths. Environmental Management. 11: 587-597.

Burton, T.M.; Likens, G.E. 1973. The effect of stripcutting on stream temperature in the Hubbard 

Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire.

BioScience. 23: 433-435.

Caldwell, Jean E.; Doughty, Kent; Sullivan, Kate. 1991. 

Evaluation of downstream temperature effects 

of type 4/5 waters. Rep. No. TFW-WQ5-91-004. 

Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural 

Resources. 71 p.

Castelle, Andrew J.; Johnson, A. W. 2000. Riparian 

vegetation effectiveness. Tech. Bull. No. 799. 

Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air 

and Stream Improvement. 26 p.

Davies, P.E.; Nelson, M. 1994. Relationships between 

riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging 

on stream habitat, invertebrate community 

composition and fi sh abundance. Australian Journal 

of Marine Freshwater Research. 45(7): 1289-1305.

Fuller, Angela K.; Harrison, Daniel J. 2005. Infl uence 

of partial timber harvesting on American martens 

in north-central Maine. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 69(2): 710-722.

Hanowski, Joann; Danz, Nick; Lind, Jim; Niemi, Gerald. 

2002. Breeding bird response to riparian forest 

harvest and harvest equipment. Forest Ecology 

Management. 174: 315-328.

Hanowski, Joann; Danz, Nick, Lind, Jim; Niemi, Gerald. 

2005. Breeding bird response to varying amounts 

of basal area retention in riparian buffers. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 69(2): 689-698.

Harmon, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Swanson, F.J.; Sollins, P.; 

Gregory, J.D.; Lattin, J.D., Andrews, N.H.; Cline, 

S.P.; Aumen, N.G.; Sedell, J.R.; Lienkaemper, G.W.; 

Cromack, K., Jr.; Cummins, K.W. 1986. Ecology 

of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems.

Advances in Ecology Research. 15: 133-302.

Hauck, Larry M.; Ice, George G.; Saheh, Ali; Tanter, 

Alex. 2005. Challenges and opportunities for 

applying the comprehensive economic and 

environmental optimization tool (CEEOT) to 

forestry activities. In: Gassmann, P.W., ed. Watershed 

management to meet water quality standards and 

emerging TMDL (Total maximum daily load): 

Proceedings of the third conference; 2005 March 

5-9; Atlanta, GA. ASAE-701-P0105. St. Joseph, MI: 

American Society of Agricultural Engineers: 88-92.

Hawkins, C.P.; Murphy, M.L.; Anderson, N.H. 1982. 

Effects of canopy, substrate composition, and 

gradient on the structure of macroinvertebrate 

communities in Cascade Range streams of Oregon.

Ecology. 63(6): 1840-1856.
14

Hetrick N.J.; Brusven, M.A.; Meehan, W.R.; Bjornn, T.C. 

1998. Changes in solar input, water temperature, 

periphtyon accumulation, and allochthonous input 

and storage after canopy removal along two small 

salmon streams in southeast Alaska. The American 

Fisheries Society. 127(6): 859-875.

Hilderbrand, Robert H.; Lemly, A. Dennis; Dollof, 

Andrew; Harpster, Kelly L. 1997. Effects of large 

woody debris placement on stream channels and 

benthic macroinvertebrates. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 54(4): 931-939.

Huyler, Neil K.; LeDoux, Chris B. 1995. Estimating the 

cost of applying Vermont acceptable management 

practices to logging on moderate slopes. In: Hassan, 

Awatif E.; Sherar, Jim; Swanner, Jack, eds. Proceedings 

of the Council on Forest Engineering 18th annual 

meeting; 1995 June 5-8; Cashiers, NC. Raleigh, NC: 

North Carolina State University, College of Forest 

Resources: 165-171.

Ice, George G.; Skaugset, Arne; Simmons, Andrew. 2006. 

Estimating areas and timber values of riparian 

management zones on forest lands. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 42(01): 115-

124.

Jackson, C. Rhett; Sturm, Christopher A.; Ward, 

Jason M. 2001. Timber harvest impacts on small 

headwater stream channels in the coast ranges of 

Washington. Journal of American Water Resources 

Association. 37(6): 1533-1549.

Karr, J.R.; Schlosser, I.J. 1977. Impact of near stream 

vegetation and stream morphology on water quality 

and stream biota. EPA-600/3-77-097. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, 

1990. Wildlife and wetlands. Kentucky Happy 

Hunting Ground. 46(1): 14-15.

Kiffney, Peter M.; Richardson, John S.; Bull, Jennifer 

P. 2003. Reponses of periphyton and insects to 

experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width 

along forest streams. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

40(6): 1060-1076.

Kilgore, Michael A.; Blinn, Charles R. 2003. The 

fi nancial cost to forest landowners who implement 

forest guidelines: an empirical assessment. Journal 

of Forestry. 101(8): 37-41.

Klapproth, Julia C.; Johnson, James E. 2000. 

Understanding the science behind riparian forest 

buffers: effects on plant and animal communities. 

Publ. 420-152. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative 

Extension. 20 p.

Kochenderfer, James N.; Edwards, Pamela J. 1991. 

Effectiveness of three streamside management 

practices in the central Appalachians. In: Coleman, 

Sandra; Neary, Daniel G., eds. Proceedings of the 6th 

biennial southern silviculture research conference; 

1990 Oct. 30 - Nov. 1; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Station: 688-700.

LeDoux, Chris B. 1985. Stump-to-mill timber 

production cost equations for cable logging 

eastern hardwoods. Res. Pap. NE-566. Broomall, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p.

LeDoux, Chris B. 1986. MANAGE: A computer 

program to estimate costs and benefi ts associated 

with eastern hardwood management. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NE-112. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 7 p.

LeDoux, Chris B.; Baumgras, John E.; Miyata, Edwin S. 

1990. Cost of wetland protection using a Christy 

cable yarder. ASAE Pap. 90-7573. St. Joseph, MI: 

American Society of Agricultural Engineers: 4-12.

LeDoux, Chris B. 2004. Estimating the capital 

recovery costs of managing for old growth forests.

In: Proceedings of the 6th eastern old growth forest 

conference; 2004 Sept. 23-26; Moultonborough, NH.
15

LeDoux, Chris; Whitman, Andrew. 2006. Estimating 

the capital recovery costs of alternative patch 

retention treatments in eastern hardwoods.

International Journal of Forest Engineering. 17(1): 

21-30.

LeDoux, Chris B. 2006. Assessing the opportunity 

costs of implementing streamside management 

zone guidelines in eastern hardwood forests. Forest 

Products Journal. 56(6): 40-44.

Lynch, J.A.; Corbett, E.S.; Mussallem, K. 1985. Best 

management practices for controlling nonpoint 

source pollution on forested watersheds. Journal of 

Soil Water Conservation. 40: 164-167.

Lynch, J.A.; Rishel, G.B.; Corbett, E.S. 1984. Thermal 

alteration of streams draining clearcut watersheds: 

quantifi cation and biological implications. 

Hydrobiologia. 111: 161-169.

Mason, C. Larry; Cedar, Kevin; Rogers, Heather; 

Bloxton, Thomas; Comnick, Jeffrey; Lippke, Bruce; 

McCarter, James; Zobrist, Kevin. 2003. Investigation 

of alternative strategies for design, layout and 

administration of fuel removal projects. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, 

Rural Technology Initiatives. Available at: http://www.

ruraltech.org/pubs/reports/fuel_removal/fuel_removal.

May, Christine L.; Gresswell, Robert E. 2003. Large 

wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater 

streams in southern Oregon Coast Range, U.S.A.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33(8): 1352-

1362.

McDade, M.H.; Swanson, F.J.; McKee, W.A.; Franklin, 

J.F.; Van Sickle, J. 1990. Source distances for coarse 

woody debris entering small streams in western 

Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 20: 326-330.

Moring, J.R. 1975. The Alsea watershed study: 

effects of logging on the aquatic resources of three 

headwater streams of the Alsea River. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. 23 p.

Moring, J.R. 1982. Decrease in stream gravel 

permeability after clear-cut logging: an indication 

of intragravel conditions for developing salmonid 

eggs and alevin. Hydrobiologia. 88: 295-298.

Murphy, Michael L.; Koski, K.V. 1989. Input and 

depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and 

implications for streamside management. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 9(4): 

427-436.

Newbold, J.D.; Erman, D.C.; Roby, K.B. 1980. Effects 

of logging on macroinvertebrates in streams with 

and without buffer strips. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 37: 1076-1085.

Noel, D.S.; Martin, C.W.; Federer, C.A. 1986. Effects 

of forest clearcutting in New England on stream 

macroinvertebrates and periphyton. Environmental 

Management. 10(5): 661-670.

Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Ohio timber 

prices report. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics Service. 2 p.

Olsen, E.D.; Keough, D.S.; LaCourse, D.K. 1987. 

Economic impact of proposed Oregon forest 

practices rules on industrial forest lands in the 

Oregon coast range: a case study. Res. Bull. 61. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest 

Research Laboratory. 16 p.

Pearson, Scott F.; Manuwal, David A. 2001. Breeding 

bird response to riparian buffer width in managed 

pacifi c northwest Douglas-fi r forests. Ecological 

Applications. 11(3): 840-853.

Pennsylvania State University. 2003. Pennsylvania 

woodlands timber market report. University Park, 

PA: Pennsylvania State University. October-December. 

3 p.

Perkins, Dustin W.; Hunter, Malcom L. Jr. 2006. Effects 

of riparian timber management on amphibians in 

Maine. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 70(3): 

657-670.
16

Peters, Penn A.; LeDoux, Chris B. 1984. Stream 

protection with small cable yarding systems. In 

Water Quality Symposium; 1984 March 13-14; 

University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University: 

53-69.

Phillips, M.; Swift, L. Jr.; Blinn, C. 2000. Best 

management practices for riparian areas. In: 

Verry, E.; Hornbeck, J.; Dolloff, A., eds. Riparian 

management in forests of the continental eastern 

United States. Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers: 

273-286

Rishel, G.B.; Lynch, J.A.; Corbett, E.S. 1982. Seasonal 

stream temperature changes following forest 

harvesting. Journal of Environmental Quality. 11(1): 

112-116.

Robinson, E.G.; Beschta, R.L. 1990. Identifying trees in 

riparian areas that can provide coarse woody debris 

to streams. Forest Science. 36(3): 790-801.

Shaffer, Robert; Aust, W. Michael. 1993. A cost/benefi t 

comparison of voluntary and regulatory forestry 

BMP programs. In: Proceedings, 16th annual 

meeting of Council of Forest Engineering; 1993 Sept. 

8-11; Savannah, GA. Corvallis, OR: Council of Forest 

Engineering.

Shaffer, R.M.; Haney, H.L. Jr.; Worrell, E.G.; Aust, 

W.M. 1998. Forestry BMP implementation costs 

for Virginia. Forest Products Journal. 48: 27-29.

Tennessee Division of Forestry. 2003. Tennessee 

forest products bulletin. Nashville, TN. OctoberDecember. 13 p.

Triquet, A.M.; McPeek, G.A.; McComb, W.C. 1990. 

Songbird diversity in clearcuts with and without 

a riparian buffer strip. Journal Soil and Water 

Conservation. 45(4): 500-503.

University of Washington. 1990. Economic and 

environmental impact assessment of forest policy: 

Western Washington. Fact sheet #3. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 

4 p. Available at www.cfr.washington.edu/news_pubs/

fact%20sheets/fact_sheets/03-assessWeWa-4pg.pdf.

Van Sickle, J. 2000. Modeling variable-width riparian 

buffers, with an application to woody debris 

recruitment. In: Wigington, P.J., Jr.; Beschta, 

R.L., eds. Proceedings, International conference on 

riparian ecology and management in multi-land 

use watersheds; 2000 August 27-31; Portland, OR. 

Corvallis, OR: American Water Resource Association: 

107-112.

Vasievich, J. Michael; Edgar, Chris. 1998. Economic 

implications of proposed forest management 

guidelines for Minnesota. Rep. SE-0998. St. Paul, 

MN: Minnesota Forest Resources Council. 85 p.

Whitaker, Darroch M.; Montevecchi, William A. 1999. 

Breeding bird assemblages inhabiting riparian 

buffer strips in Newfoundland: Canada. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 63(1): 167-179.

Wilkerson, Ethel; Hagan, John M.; Siegel, Darlene; 

Whitman, Andrew A. 2006. The effectiveness of 

different buffer widths for protecting headwater 

stream temperature in Maine. Forest Science. 52(3): 

221-231.

Williams, Thomas M.; Lipscomb, Donald J.; Post, 

Christopher J. 2004. Defi ning streamside 

management zones or riparian buffers. In: Connor, 

Kristina F., ed. Proceedings of the 12th biennial 

southern silviculture research conference; 2003 Feb. 

24-28; Biloxi, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-71. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 378-383.

Zobrist, Kevin W.; Gehringer, Kevin R.; Lippke, Bruce 

R. 2005. A sustainable solution for riparian 

management. In: Deal, R.L.; White, S.M.; eds. 

Understanding key issues of sustainable wood 

production in the Pacifi c Northwest. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-626. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacifi c Northwest Research 

Station: 54-62.
Printed on Recycled Paper

LeDoux, Chris B.; Wilkerson, Ethel. 2006. A case study assessing opportunity 

costs and ecological benefits of alternative streamside management zones 

and logging systems for eastern hardwood forests. Res. Pap. NRS-1. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 16 p.

Forest landowners, managers, loggers, land-use planners, and other decision and 

policy-makers need to understand the opportunity costs and ecological benefits 

associated with different widths of streamside management zones (SMZs). In this 

paper, a simulation model was used to assess the opportunity costs of SMZ retention 

for four different logging systems, two mature hardwood stands, and five levels of 

streamside zone protection. Results from this assessment suggest that protection costs 

range from $252 to $1,659/ha depending on the SMZ width, the logging technology 

used to harvest the timber, and the species composition of the tract. A literature review 

was used to score the ability of different SMZ widths to protect riparian function. We 

quantified the economic costs and environmental benefits of SMZs. The results showed 

that to fully protect against post-harvest changes in riparian function, 45-m SMZs are 

needed. This protection will cost landowners between $30.54 and $67.02/ha/year 

depending on the stand type and logging technology.

KEY WORDS: ecological functions; capital recovery costs; simulation; optimization; 

riparian zones; cost/benefit ratio
www.nrs.fs.fed.us

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Offi ce 

of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Capitalizing on the strengths of existing science capacity in the 

Northeast and Midwest to attain a more integrated cohesive 

landscape scale research program