United States Department of Agriculture

Riparian Fuel Treatments in the Western 

USA: Challenges and Considerations

Kathleen A. Dwire, Kristen E. Meyer, Gregg Riegel, and Timothy Burton 

Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report

Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-352 September 2016
Dwire, Kathleen A.; Meyer, Kristen E.; Riegel, Gregg; Burton, Timothy. 2016. 

Riparian fuel treatments in the western USA: Challenges and considerations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-352. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 156 p.

Abstract

Fuel reduction treatments are being conducted throughout watersheds of the 

western United States to reduce hazardous fuels in efforts to decrease the risk of 

high-severity fire. The number of fuel reduction projects that include near-stream 

environments is increasing, bringing new challenges to riparian management. 

Riparian areas are protected by administrative regulations, some of which are 

largely custodial and restrict active management. However, riparian areas have 

also been affected by fire suppression, land use, and human disturbance, so 

manipulative treatments of vegetation and other fuels may be needed in some 

locations to maintain riparian biodiversity and restore valued functions. This report 

is a synthesis of current knowledge on the effects of wildfire and fuels treatments 

in riparian areas of the interior western United States, and includes the following: 

(1) a literature review of fire effects on riparian and aquatic characteristics and 

functions, provided as background for considering the need and potential impacts 

of fuel treatments; (2) a review of the potential effects of prescribed fire and 

mechanical treatments on riparian and aquatic resources and biota; (3) results of 

an online survey of resource managers, summarizing information about proposed 

and completed fuel reduction projects in riparian areas and wetlands in the interior 

west; (4) suggestions for pre- and post project-level monitoring for riparian fuels 

projects; and (5) a presentation of case studies, describing riparian fuel treatments 

with different objectives and methods. Research on the effects of fuel treatments 

on riparian and aquatic resources is limited, and monitoring of projects is highly 

encouraged, especially in watersheds supporting species of concern. Results of 

the online survey showed that habitat restoration is a common objective for many 

fuel treatments that include riparian areas; for each of the case studies, restoration 

of near-stream habitat for wildlife was a major goal. The integration of riparian fuel 

treatments with other aspects of fire and watershed management could potentially 

improve riparian condition in multiple stream and vegetation types.

Keywords: prescribed fire, mechanical fuel reduction treatments, valued riparian 

functions, monitoring, online survey, case studies

Cover photo credits: Left: Vegetation regrowth following a prescribed burn in willow stands 

along Fontenelle Creek, Kemmerer Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming 

(Meyer et al. 2012). Top left photo was taken following the 2003 spring burn (photo: Dave 

Scott, Bridger-Teton National Forest, used with permission); the bottom left photo was taken 

in July 2010, 7 years post-treatment (photo: Kristen Meyer, Pike National Forest, Colorado, 

used with permission). Top right: Slow vegetative recovery along Ouzel Creek, Rocky 

Mountain National Park. Photo was taken in 2013, 36 years postfire (photo: Kate Dwire, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station).

All Rocky Mountain Research Station publications are produced by U.S. Forest Service employees and are in the 

public domain and available at no cost. Even though U.S. Forest Service publications are not copyrighted, they are 

formatted according to U.S. Department of Agriculture standards and research findings and formatting cannot be 

altered in reprints. Altering content or formatting, including the cover and title page, is strictly prohibited.
Authors

Kathleen A. Dwire is a Riparian Research Ecologist with the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station in Fort Collins, Colorado. She holds a B.A. degree from the 

University of California, Santa Barbara, an M.S. degree from the University of 

California, Davis, with a Ph.D from Oregon State University. Currently, she studies 

riparian and wetland ecology in mountains of the western United States. Her 

research interests include impacts of disturbance (insects, fire, management 

activities) on riparian vegetation and function, and characterization of groundwaterdependent ecosystems (springs and fens) and other wetlands in headwater basins.

Kristen E. Meyer is a Fish and Wildlife Biologist with the Pike National Forest, 

South Park Ranger District in Fairplay, Colorado. She has been working on the 

South Park Ranger District of the Pike National Forest for the past 5 years. She 

holds B.A. and M.S. degrees from Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Kristen performs a wide variety of work on habitat improvement projects for the Pike 

National Forest, including restoration and protection of riparian areas.

Gregg Riegel has been an Area Ecologist with the Pacific Northwest Region 

Ecology Program since 1991 in Bend, Oregon. Gregg holds a B.S. degree from 

the University of California, Davis, an M.S. degree from Humboldt State University, 

and a Ph.D. from Oregon State University. His work has focused on developing 

long-term monitoring programs for fire and fuel treatments in ponderosa pine and 

livestock grazing effects in riparian ecosystems. He serves as a graduate faculty 

member at Oregon State University, teaches Fire Effects and Ecology at Central 

Oregon Community College, and is a teaching cadre member for Introduction to Fire 

Effects (Rx310) and the interagency Implementing Indicators of Rangeland Health 

programs. He has served as an advisor for the U.S. Forest Service International 

Programs in Morocco and Ethiopia, monitoring livestock grazing and prescribed fire 

effects.

Timothy Burton is a retired Fisheries Program Leader, having worked in both the 

USDI Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, with 33 years 

combined experience. He received a B.S. degree in geology from the University 

of Utah, and an M.S. degree in watershed science from Utah State University. His 

background is mostly in stream and riparian ecology and hydrology, with a heavy 

emphasis on issues related to riparian management and the Endangered Species 

Act. Since 1983, his work has emphasized development and implementation of 

monitoring and assessment protocols for effects of land management on fisheries 

habitats. With the Endangered Species Act listings of salmon, steelhead, and bull 

trout in Idaho, Tim has been heavily involved in ESA Section 7 consultations, served 

as a member of the Regional ESA Consultation Technical Team for 8 years, and 

chaired the PACFISH/INFISH Implementation Monitoring Team. For the last 11 

years, he has been engaged in development and implementation of the Multiple 

Indicator Monitoring (MIM) protocol for assessing and monitoring effects of land 

management activities on streams and riparian vegetation. He is currently co-owner 

of Riparian Management Services, LLC.
ii

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Joint Fire Sciences Program. We greatly appreciate 

the input of over 500 resource professionals from the USDA Forest Service, 

and USDI Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and 

Wildlife Service who participated in the online survey on riparian and wetland 

fuels treatments. We extend many thanks to the following resource managers 

who graciously shared field time, information, and discussions on the case studies 

presented in Chapter 6: Jerry Altermatt (Wyoming Game and Fish Department); 

Steve Kilpatrick (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, retired); Cassity Bromley 

(Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Wyoming); Diane Abendroth (Teton 

Interagency Fire, Wyoming); Ben Banister, Kirk Strom, Dave Scott, Phil Lockwood, 

Andy Norman, Dwayne Gibbons, and Tobin Kelley (Bridger-Teton National Forest, 

Wyoming); Edwin Brown, Faith Brown (Fremont-Winema National Forest, Oregon); 

Mack McFarland, and Chip Collins. We appreciate the assistance of Sandi Briscoe 

and Kathy Mason with analysis of the survey data, and to the Mountain Studies 

Institute (Silverton, Colorado) for administrative assistance. Thanks to Patty Champ 

(Rocky Mountain Research Station), who assisted with designing the online survey, 

including phrasing of the survey questions and planning the structure, flow, and 

presentation of the overall survey, and to Sandra Ryan (Rocky Mountain Research 

Station), who refined the survey questions related to stream physical characteristics 

and processes. We appreciate the constructive reviews by Matt Groce and John 

Korfmacher. Finally, many thanks to Martha Nichols for her careful editing and to 

Connie Lemos (Rocky Mountain Research Station Publications) for guidance and 

suggestions through all phases of preparation and revision of this report, and for 

creative layout and production of the final report. 
Contents

Chapter 1: Managing Riparian Areas in Western Firescapes..............1

1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Definition of Riparian Areas and Wetlands ......................................................................................3

1.1.2 Natural Variability of Riparian Areas ................................................................................................4

1.2 Valued Riparian Functions..........................................................................................................5

1.3 Management of Riparian Resources..........................................................................................7

1.4 Riparian Management in Western Firescapes ...........................................................................9

Chapter 2: Wildfire and Riparian Resources ......................................10

2.1 Properties of Wildland Fire in Riparian Areas...........................................................................10

2.1.1 Fire Regimes .................................................................................................................................10

2.1.2 Fire Frequency in Riparian Areas ..................................................................................................12

2.1.3 Burn Severity in Riparian Areas.....................................................................................................13

2.1.4 Fire Behavior in Riparian Areas.....................................................................................................15

2.1.5 Shifting Fire Regimes ....................................................................................................................17

2.2 Riparian Characteristics That Influence Fire Behavior .............................................................19

2.2.1 Physical Influences on Fire Properties ..........................................................................................19

2.2.2 Vegetation Influences on Fire Properties.......................................................................................21

2.2.3 Legacies of Disturbance, Land Use and Management..................................................................26

2.3 Post-fire Recovery of Riparian and Aquatic Resources............................................................28

2.3.1 Adaptations of Riparian Vegetation to Fire ....................................................................................28

2.3.2 Post-fire Recovery of Aquatic Resources ......................................................................................32

2.3.3 Interactions Among Physical Processes and Recovery of Riparian and 

Aquatic Resources ..............................................................................................................................38

2.3.4 Challenges to Postfire Recovery of Riparian Vegetation...............................................................40

Chapter 3: Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Riparian 

Resources ..............................................................................................43

3.1 Fuel Management Treatments..................................................................................................43

3.2 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Riparian Resources................................................44

3.2.1 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Riparian Vegetation .....................................................44

3.2.2 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Riparian Habitat and Terrestrial Wildlife.......................47

3.2.3 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Aquatic Habitat and Biota ............................................51

3.2.4 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Riparian Soils and Nutrient Cycling .............................59

3.3 Fuel Management Activities in Riparian Areas: Challenges and Considerations .....................63

3.3.1 Challenges.....................................................................................................................................63

3.3.2 Considerations...............................................................................................................................66

Chapter 4: Survey of Fuels Treatments in Riparian Areas and 

Wetlands of the Interior West...............................................................69

4.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................69

4.2 Study Area................................................................................................................................70

iii
4.3 Methods....................................................................................................................................70

4.3.1 Online Survey Development..........................................................................................................70

4.3.2 Development of Contact List of Potential Survey Respondents ....................................................70

4.3.3 Launching and Administering the Survey ......................................................................................72

4.4 Survey Response .....................................................................................................................72

4.5 Survey Findings........................................................................................................................75

4.5.1 Fuel Treatment Objectives and Effectiveness ...............................................................................75

4.5.2 Fuel Treatment Methods................................................................................................................77

4.5.3 Riparian and Upland Vegetation Types .........................................................................................78

4.5.4 Features of the Project Areas ........................................................................................................82

4.5.5 Project Monitoring..........................................................................................................................83

4.5.6 Constraints to Conducting Fuels Treatments in Riparian Areas ....................................................84

4.6 Summary: More Riparian Fuels Treatments to Come..............................................................85

Chapter 5: Monitoring Fuel Treatments...............................................87

5.1 Role of Monitoring ....................................................................................................................87

5.2 Developing a Monitoring Approach...........................................................................................87

5.2.1 Elements of a Monitoring Design...................................................................................................90

5.2.2 Logistical and Financial Considerations ........................................................................................94

5.3 Existing Resources...................................................................................................................94

Chapter 6: Case Studies of Riparian Fuels Treatments: Challenges 

and Opportunities for Restoration and Management ........................96

6.1 Prescribed Burning in Willow and Aspen Stands, Bridger–Teton National Forest and 

Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming....................................................................................96

6.1.1 Fontenelle Willows Prescribed Burn, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming............................97

6.1.2 Prescribed Burns in Willow Stands, Bridger-Teton National Forest and Teton National Park, 

Wyoming ...........................................................................................................................................100

6.2 Habitat Restoration and Invasive Plant Management; Bighorn Canyon National 

Recreation Area and Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management Area, Wyoming ....................103

6.3 Management of Woody Encroachment into Riparian Meadows; Fremont–Winema 

National Forests, Oregon.....................................................................................................108

References ...........................................................................................112

Appendix—A Guide to Fuels Management in Riparian Areas of the 

Interior West ........................................................................................139

References ...................................................................................................................................156

iv
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 1

Chapter 1: Managing Riparian Areas in 

Western Firescapes

1.1 Introduction

Public lands in the United States include thousands of miles of stream-riparian corridors and thousands of wetlands and lakes; on National Forest and Grasslands managed 

by the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, there are more than 400,000 miles 

of streams and rivers (Cooper and Merritt 2012). Public lands are the largest single source 

of drinking water in the United States, and nearly 20 percent of the nation’s water supply 

originates on National Forests. Streams and rivers in the western United States support 

many native aquatic and terrestrial species (Kauffman et al. 2001; Kelsey and West 

1998), some of them federally listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA; Suzuki and Olson 2007). Stream-riparian corridors also provide 

habitat for many valued invertebrate and vertebrate species and migration routes for numerous wildlife species (Kauffman et al. 2001; table 1).

Federal agencies are responsible for balancing multiple uses when managing land 

and water resources. Resource specialists are simultaneously charged with maintaining 

water quality and providing critical stream-riparian habitat to support both native and 

nonnative aquatic and terrestrial species while also supporting such uses as grazing, recreation, mining, timber harvest, energy development, and water extraction. Incorporating 

natural disturbance regimes, including the complex interactions of climate change, fire, 

and vegetation, further complicates managers’ ability to safeguard these valuable natural 

resources (Luce et al. 2012).

The increase in fuel management treatments over the past decade has introduced 

another set of challenges to riparian management. Riparian areas are protected by administrative regulations, some of which are largely custodial and restrict active management. 

Forest Service regulations for riparian management can vary by region or forest, and 

generally reflect local issues of concern, including resource use, such as grazing and 

forest harvest, and protection of sensitive fish or amphibian species. However, riparian 

areas have also been affected by fire suppression, land use, and human disturbance, so 

manipulative treatments of vegetation and other fuels may be needed to maintain riparian 

biodiversity and restore valued functions. This report is a synthesis of the current knowledge regarding fuels treatments in riparian areas of the interior western United States and 

contains the following components:

1. literature review of the relation between wildfire and riparian areas (Chapter 2);

2. literature review of the potential effects of fuel reduction treatment on riparian 

resources (Chapter 3);

3. results of an online survey of resource managers, summarizing information about fuel 

reduction projects in riparian areas and wetlands in the Interior West (Chapter 4);
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

4. suggestions for pre- and postproject-level monitoring for riparian fuels projects 

(Chapter 5); and

5. description of case studies, highlighting riparian fuels and fuel treatments with 

different objectives, methods, and vegetation types (Chapter 6).

Table 1—Functions of riparian areas and key relationships to ecological service (from Dwire et al. 2010, modified from 

NRC 2002; Naiman et al. 2005). 

Indicators of On-site or off-site Valued goods and

Riparian functions riparian functions effects of functions services provided

Distinctive terrestrial and aquatic habitat

Contributes to overall High species richness— Provides reservoirs for Supports regional 

biodiversity and plants and animals genetic diversity biodiversity

biocomplexity

Maintenance of streamside Presence of shade-producing Provides shade and thermal Maintains habitat for

microclimate canopy; healthy populations insulation to stream; provides sensitive species

of native terrestrial and migratory corridors for (amphibians, cold-water

aquatic biota terrestrial and aquatic fishes, avifauna, others)

 species

Contribution to aquatic Aquatic habitat complexity Maintains aquatic biota and Maintenance of fisheries

habitat; provision of large (pool-riffle sequences, debris natural geomorphic and habitat for sensitive

wood (coarse wood/ large dams); healthy populations processes species; recreation

wood inputs ) of aquatic biota

Provision of structural Availability of nesting/rearing Maintains global Recreation: bird watching, 

diversity habitat; presence of biodiversity; provides wildlife enjoyment, and

appropriate indicator wildlife migratory corridors for game hunting

species (e.g., neotropical terrestrial and aquatic species

migrants)

Biogeochemistry, organic matter and nutrient cycling

Riparian vegetation provides Healthy mosaic of riparian Maintains aquatic and Supports terrestrial and

source of organic carbon vegetation terrestrial food webs aquatic biodiversity

(allochthonous inputs to 

streams; organic matter 

inputs to soils)

Transformation and retention Water quality and biotic Intercepts nutrients and Improves and maintains

of nutrients and pollutants indicators toxicants from runoff; water water quality

 quality

Sequestration of carbon in Occurrence, extent, and Contributes to nutrient Potentially ameliorates

riparian soils distribution of organic-rich retention and carbon global warming; provides

soils sequestration within and near source of dissolved carbon

channel to streams via subsurface 

flow paths

Hydrology and sediment dynamics

Short-term storage of surface Connectivity of floodplain Attenuates downstream Reduces damage from

water and stream channel flood peaks floodwaters

Maintenance of high water Presence of flood-tolerant, Maintains distinct vegetation, Contributes to regional

table hydrophytic, and mesic particularly in arid climates biodiversity through

plant species provision of habitat 

Retention and transport of Riffle-pool sequences, point Contributes to fluvial Creates predictable yet

sediments; riparian bars, floodplain terraces, processes dynamic channel and

vegetation decreases stream and bank stability floodplain features

bank erosion 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 3

1.1.1 Definition of Riparian Areas and Wetlands

Riparian areas have been ecologically defined as “three-dimensional zones of direct 

physical and biotic interactions between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, with boundaries extending outward to the limits of flooding and upward into the canopy of streamside 

vegetation” (Gregory et al. 1991). The first dimension of a riparian area encompasses the 

longitudinal continuum of a river or stream from its headwaters to the mouth, where it 

ultimately flows into the ocean or another body of water (Vannote et al. 1980); the second 

is the vertical dimension that extends upward into the vegetation canopy and downward 

into the subsurface, including hyporheic and belowground interactions along the length 

of the stream-riparian corridor (Stanford and Ward 1988, 1993). The third dimension is 

lateral, extending to the limits of flooding on either side of the stream or river (Stanford 

and Ward 1993). The lateral width of the riparian zone can be highly variable, depending 

on physical characteristics of the stream segment and location in the stream network, 

and can be delineated by soil and vegetation characteristics that differ from the surrounding uplands. The lateral dimension has also been described as “the portion of the 

stream channel occurring between the low and high water marks and adjacent terrestrial 

areas extending from the high-water mark toward the uplands where vegetation may be 

influenced by elevated water tables or flooding” 

(Naiman and Décamps 1997). In this ecological 

framework, riparian areas are viewed in terms of 

spatial and temporal patterns of hydrologic and 

geomorphic processes, terrestrial plant succession, and aquatic ecosystems (Gregory et al.1991; 

Naiman and Décamps 1997; Naiman et al. 2005).

Riparian areas have also been variously defined for different legal and regulatory purposes. 

To assist in managing riparian areas, numerous 

administrative definitions have been developed 

(see Text Box 1). Most administrative definitions 

describe a fixed distance on each side of a stream 

channel, with the distance depending on the 

stream size (Belt et al. 1992). Other definitions 

are based on ecological attributes that differentiate 

streamside areas from adjacent uplands (Belt et 

al. 1992; Knutson and Naef 1997), such as moist 

soils and occurrence of distinctive plant species 

and communities.

As suggested by both the ecological and 

management definitions, riparian areas have 

important influences on aquatic ecosystems that 

are not static in space or time. They are composed 

of a dynamic mosaic of landforms, plant communities, and environments that vary in width and 

shape within the larger landscape (Gregory et al. 

1991; Naiman and Décamps 1997), and are not 

Text Box 1—Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) 

The Aquatic Management Zone is an administratively 

designated zone adjacent to stream channels and other 

waterbodies. The AMZ is delineated for applying special 

management controls aimed at maintaining and improving 

water quality or other water- and riparian-dependent 

values, including groundwater-dependent ecosystems. 

The width of the AMZ is determined based on site-specific 

factors and local requirements. AMZ delineation may 

encompass the floodplain and riparian areas when present. 

AMZ designation can have synergistic benefits to other 

resources, such as maintaining and improving aquatic and 

riparian area-dependent resources, visual and aesthetic 

quality, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities. 

A variety of names for the AMZ concept are used in different 

Forest Service regions: 

• Riparian Conservation Areas (R5); 

• Riparian Corridor, (Southern Region, R8); 

• Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, RHCA (R5 and 

R6 and portions of R4 via PACFISH and INFISH); 

• Riparian Management Area (Alaska, R10); 

• Riparian Management Corridor, RMC (Eastern Region, 

R9); 

• Riparian Reserves (R5 and Pacific Northwest, R6); 

• Stream Environment Zones (Pacific Southwest, R5); 

• Streamside Management Unit, SMU (R6); 

• Water Influence Zone, WIZ (Rocky Mountain Region 

2, R2).

For purposes of the National Core BMPs, these areas are 

referred to as AMZs. 
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

always easily delineated. In this report, we use the term ‘riparian area’ when referring to 

the three-dimensional streamside zone (Gregory et al. 1991). We focus on riparian areas 

bordering streams, rivers, and springs (lotic, or running, waters), although much of the 

information also pertains to vegetated areas surrounding lentic waters, such as lakes and 

wetlands.

Various definitions for wetlands have been developed for different administrative, academic, and regulatory delineation purposes (Cooper and Merritt 2012; National 

Research Council 1995). For Federal regulatory activities, wetlands are ecosystems 

“that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration 

sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Federal Interagency 

Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989). Wetlands are extremely diverse, exhibiting 

a wide range of vegetation, soil, and hydrologic characteristics (Cowardin et al. 1979; 

National Research Council 1995). All wetland definitions, however, emphasize hydrologic variables, particularly duration, seasonality, and depth of inundation and soil saturation 

that result in distinctive hydric soils and wetland vegetation.

Three broad categories of wetlands commonly occur on public lands in the western 

United States: palustrine, lacustrine, and riverine (Cowardin et al. 1979). Palustrine wetlands are freshwater wetlands that include marshes, wet meadows, and forested wetlands, 

and may be dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent vegetation. Some palustrine wetlands may be associated with streams, particularly in headwaters, and many are isolated, 

occurring in basins, depressions, or wet meadows. Lacustrine wetlands are those that border lake shores. Palustrine and lacustrine wetlands are lentic ecosystems; that is, they are 

supported by “still waters” in contrast to riverine wetlands that are largely supported by 

flowing water and thus referred to as lotic ecosystems. Riverine wetlands are associated 

with streams and rivers, and occur along stream channels. Riparian areas are frequently 

classified as riverine wetlands (e.g., see Oregon Wetlands Geodatabase [http://oregonexplorer.info/wetlands/DataCollections/GeospatialData_Wetlands]), illustrating the overlap 

in definitions of riparian areas and wetlands. Wetland designation for many riparian areas 

likely results in an overestimate of wetland area, since some riparian areas may not qualify as jurisdictional wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 

1989). However, such designation does provide a basis for management, since many wetland and riparian areas on national forests are managed as Aquatic Management Zones or 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (USDA FS 2012).

1.1.2 Natural Variability of Riparian Areas

Riverine ecosystems are extremely variable on both spatial and temporal scales 

(Naiman et al. 2005; Stanford and Ward 1993). They vary from small, steep, numerousheadwater channels at high elevations (Gomi et al. 2002) to low-gradient alluvial 

rivers along broad floodplains at lower elevations (National Research Council 2002). 

Heterogeneity of drainage networks, process domains, and land management activities affect channel form and influence the variability of riparian vegetation (Naiman et al. 2005; 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement 2005). Characteristics of riparian soils 

and plant communities are strongly correlated to valley form, the catchment hydrologic 

regime, hillslope and floodplain geomorphic processes, and distribution of geomorphic 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 5

surfaces, such as floodplains, berms, banks, hummocks, side channels, beaver dams, and 

logjams (Naiman et al. 2005). Heterogeneity in riparian vegetation and soils is also closely linked to hydrologic connectivity, which is influenced by valley geometry and channel 

planform, and resulting gradients in soil moisture and redox potential in the riparian 

corridor (Dwire et al. 2006a; Polvi et al. 2011; Tabacchi et al. 1998). Riparian habitats are 

heterogeneous both within watersheds and across the landscape.

The diversity of riparian areas is also attributed to the temporal variability in physical events and natural disturbances, such as floods, debris flows, landslides, and wildland 

fire, and the subsequent successional changes in riparian plant communities over time 

(Gecy and Wilson 1990; Naiman et al. 2005). Fire is a critical disturbance that has shaped 

the structure of forests and rangelands throughout the western United States (Agee 1993, 

1998; Stephens and Ruth 2005). Although limited research has investigated the role of 

fire in structuring streamside vegetation, riparian species and communities also evolved 

within the ecological context of regional fire regimes (Arno 2000).

The effects of wildfire and fuel reduction treatments on riparian areas will depend 

largely on the location within a watershed: proximity to the channel; in the headwaters, 

middle, or lower portions of the drainage; and position relative to the mainstem channel and tributaries in the stream network. The factors that vary in different portions 

of a watershed—including soil characteristics, slope, vegetation cover, moisture, and 

microclimate—also influence the behavior of wildland fire and the potential responses of 

riparian ecosystems to both wildfire and fuel treatments. Effects of wildfire on riparian 

resources will vary depending on the intensity and severity of wildfire, and the extent of 

burn. Effects of fuel treatments on riparian resources will vary depending on the type of 

treatment, sequence of application, and pretreatment ecological conditions.

1.2 Valued Riparian Functions

Riparian areas occupy a small percentage of the natural landscape and occur as linear features within the matrix of the surrounding upland vegetation. However, they have 

disproportionate ecological importance relative to the area they occupy (table 1; Gregory 

et al. 1991; Naiman and Decamps 1997; National Research Council 2002). As noted 

above, they include an unusually diverse mosaic of landforms, biotic communities, and 

physical environments and provide critical habitat and migration corridors for numerous 

species (Kauffman et al. 2001; Kelsey and West 1998; Naiman et al. 2005). Throughout 

the arid western United States, riparian ecosystems are the single most productive type 

of wildlife habitat, benefiting the greatest number of species (fig. 1; Arno 1996). Riparian 

vegetation also contributes to aquatic habitat in several ways: it provides localized microclimate, stream shading, bank stability, and inputs of large wood and organic matter 

to streams (fig. 1; Baxter et al. 2005; Dwire et al. 2010; Minshall et al. 1989; Naiman and 

Decamps 1997).

Riparian ecosystems are critical for maintenance of water quality and quantity and 

water storage, especially in basins with riparian wetlands. Riparian vegetation contributes 

to sediment retention and stream bank building and maintenance, and influences inchannel geomorphic processes through the provision of large wood to streams (table 1; 

Montgomery et al. 2003). Instream large wood, most of which originates in the riparian 
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

area, provides instream cover and shade, contributes to nutrient and sediment retention, and increases channel complexity through the formation of pools, backwaters, and 

cascades (fig. 1; Gregory et al. 2003). Riparian areas also provide services of economic 

and social value, such as livestock grazing and recreation (table 1; Naiman et al. 2005; 

Prichard et al. 1998).

Figure 1—Deciduous riparian 

vegetation provides shade and 

thermal insulation to small 

streams, as well as high quality 

allochthonous inputs to aquatic 

food webs (A); riparian vegetation 

contributes to aquatic habitat 

complexity through provision 

on instream large wood (B); 

stream-riparian corridors serve 

as migration routes for terrestrial 

wildlife species, and provide 

critical year-long habitat for 

moose, as well as spring, summer, 

and fall habitat for deer, elk, and 

other wildlife species (C).

C

A

B
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 7

1.3 Management of Riparian Resources

Most guidelines for protection and management of riparian resources have been 

developed to comply with four Federal laws: the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969; the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972; the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) of 1973; and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; Everest and 

Reeves 2006; Suzuki and Olson 2007). NEPA established procedural requirements for all 

Federal agencies to prepare environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact 

statements (EISs), which evaluate the ecological effects of proposed management actions. 

The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, 

improving wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands. The ESA was 

designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction and is the overriding mandate to protect, maintain, and restore stream-riparian habitat conditions for rare species, 

especially those listed as threatened or endangered. The ESA has also been used as the legal basis to forestall perceived threats or disturbances that degrade habitat conditions that 

might result in a proposed species listing (Suzuki and Olsen 2007). Many federally listed 

plant and animal species (frequently selected as management indicator species) require 

riparian areas or wetlands as habitat. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) is 

the primary statute governing the administration of the national forests, including protections for watershed and aquatic resources. The NFMA specified the need to maintain 

viable populations of native and desired nonnative vertebrate species on national forests. 

In conjunction, these Federal laws have provided the impetus for development of riparian 

protection guidelines.

On National Forest lands, protection of riparian areas is governed by special rules, 

stated as Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan for each National Forest, and best 

management practices (BMPs; Belt et al. 1992; Gregory 1997; USDA FS 2012). BMPs 

are officially approved practices and guidelines that are focused on reducing management 

impacts on streams, valued riparian functions or ecosystem services (Belt et al. 1992, 

1997). The primary objective of most BMPs is to protect water quality and habitat along 

streams from timber harvest, road construction, grazing, recreation, and other land use or 

management activities (Belt et al. 1992; Mosley et al. 1997; USDA FS 2012).

Riparian buffers are administratively defined areas adjacent to either flowing or 

lentic surface water, and most are specified by a given distance from the stream. In the 

Pacific Northwest, riparian buffers are also called riparian reserves (Suzuki and Olsen 

2007) and contribute to habitat and watershed protection by restricting management 

activities near streams and other water bodies (Norris 1993). Riparian influence decreases 

with distance from the stream channel (fig. 2; FEMAT 1993). Depending on stream 

width, location within a drainage basin, and management concerns, required riparian 

buffer width may vary from 5 feet to 300 feet on each side of the stream (Belt et al. 1992; 

Lee et al. 2004). Streams used for domestic water supplies are accorded wider riparian 

buffers to protect downstream reservoirs from nonpoint pollution resulting from forest 

management (Belt et al. 1992). Streams that are important for spawning, rearing, or 

migration of sensitive fish species often receive additional protection in the form of wider 

riparian buffers (USDA 1995). Existence of a riparian buffer, however, does not preclude 
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

all types of management activities; Lee et al. (2004) reported that about 80 percent of 

State and provincial jurisdictions permitted riparian timber harvest. Federal rules are 

somewhat more restrictive but still allow active riparian management.

Implementation of BMPs and establishment of riparian buffers have generally decreased the negative effects of forest harvest activities on surface water quality (Belt et al. 

1992; Norris 1993; Osborne and Kovacic 1993). However, less is known regarding BMP 

effectiveness in protecting other riparian functions (table 1). As more is learned about 

the effectiveness of individual BMPs, they are revised and updated. To establish more 

consistency and direction across different regions, the Forest Service published the first 

volume of National Core BMPs in 2012 to improve agency performance and accountability in managing water quality consistent with the CWA (USDA FS 2012). It includes 

a set of BMPs that address Wildland Fire Management Activities (table 2). These BMPs 

outline general guidance for common wildland fire management operations, including 

use of prescribed fire, managing wildfire using a range of strategies (from monitoring to 

control and suppression), and rehabilitating fire and fire-suppression damage to watersheds. The development of site-specific BMP prescriptions based on site conditions and 

local and regional requirements is still required to achieve compliance with established 

State, tribal, and national water quality objectives. However, the overall guidance has 

incorporated ecological knowledge regarding the role of fire in resource management 

and acknowledges the importance of addressing fire and fuel treatments in watershed and 

riparian management.

100

0

0 .2 .5 1

Coarse wood debris

to stream

Shading

Root

strength

Litter

fall

Distance from channel (tree height)

Cumulative effectiveness (%)

Figure 2—Generalized curves indicating 

cumulative percent effectiveness 

of riparian ecological functions 

occurring with varying distance from 

the stream channel (FEMAT 1993).

Table 2—Best Management Practices for Wildland Fire Management Activities (from USDA Forest Service 2012)

National Core Best 

Management Practice (BMP) Objective

Wildland Fire Use the fire management planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or

Management Planning mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during wildland fire 

management activities.

Use of Prescribed Fire Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of prescribed fire and associated activities on 

soil, water quality, and riparian resources that may results from excessive soil disturbance as 

well as inputs of ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris.

Wildland Fire Control and Avoid or minimize effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during fire control and

Suppression suppression efforts.

Wildland Fire Suppression Rehabilitate watershed features and functions damaged by wildland fire control and

Damage Rehabilitation suppression-related activities to avoid, minimize, or mitigate long-term adverse effects to soil, 

water quality, and riparian resources.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 9

1.4 Riparian Management in Western Firescapes

Wildland fire has played a vital role in shaping ecological heterogeneity across 

landscapes of the western United States (Agee 1998; Turner and Romme 1994). These 

landscapes are dissected by a complex network of drainages and stream-riparian ecosystems, which have also been influenced by fire as a recurring natural disturbance 

(Everett et al. 2003; Gresswell 1999; Pettit and Naiman 2007; Skinner 2003). Although 

knowledge is limited on the influence of wildfire on riparian biodiversity and functions 

(Chapter 2), there is general agreement that fire is part of the natural disturbance regime 

along stream-riparian corridors (Luce et al. 2012), and must be considered in planning 

and management actions (Chapter 3). While there is less agreement about conducting fuel 

treatments in riparian areas, managers are gradually including more riparian areas in fuels 

projects (Chapter 4). Effective riparian management preserves the dynamic connections 

to surrounding uplands, as well as to stream channels. Understanding the effects of wildfire and fuel reduction requires integration of information about the spatial extent of past 

management and other human disturbance and temporal aspects of natural disturbance 

regimes, including fire return intervals and frequency of landslides (Luce et al. 2012; 

McCormick et al. 2010). In the western United States, “we live in a fire environment and 

need to plan accordingly” (quote from Penny Morgan in Luce et al. 2012).
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Chapter 2: Wildfire and Riparian Resources

Fire is a prevalent ecological disturbance that has shaped vegetation composition 

and structure and maintained a patchwork of different successional stages throughout 

watersheds of the western United States (Agee 1998; Bendix 1994; Turner and Romme 

1994). The historic role of fire in many terrestrial ecosystems and forest types of the 

western United States is well-understood (Arno et al. 1996; Covington and Moore 1994; 

Fulé et al. 1997, 2003; Schoennagel et al. 2004). However, less is known about fire 

history and other fire properties in many riparian areas. Ecologically diverse riparian corridors are maintained by active natural disturbance regimes, including fire, that operate 

over a range of spatial and temporal scales (Gom and Rood 1999; Mahoney et al. 1991; 

Naiman and Decamps 1997; Pettit and Naiman 2007). However, the role of fire, the 

streamside factors that influence fire properties and the response of riparian and aquatic 

communities to fire can differ widely, depending on characteristics of both the fire and 

the riparian area. In this chapter, we update former reviews on the role of fire in riparian 

areas (Dwire and Kauffman 2003; Pettit and Naiman 2007) and discuss the following: 

(1) riparian fire regimes, including fire frequency and severity, (2) riparian physical and 

vegetative characteristics that influence fire behavior, and (3) postfire recovery of riparian 

and aquatic resources. We provide this discussion as background to inform fire management of streamside areas, including managing wildfire and planning and implementation 

of fuel treatments in riparian areas.

2.1 Properties of Wildland Fire in Riparian Areas

2.1.1 Fire Regimes

Fire plays a complex role in structuring vegetation across the landscape and has 

variable effects in space and time (Arno 2000). Natural fire regimes are characterized by 

fire intensity and severity, the frequency and seasonality of fire occurrence, and the fire 

size or spatial scale of fire (table 3; Agee 1993; Baker 1989; Barrett et al. 2010; Brown 

2000). Fire frequency refers to the recurrence of fire in a given area over time, and is usually expressed as the mean fire return interval, estimated as the average number of years 

Table 3—Fire regimes can be grouped by fire frequency and severity (from Barrett et al. 2010; http://

www.fire.org/niftt/released/FRCC_Guidebook_2010_final.pdf).

Group Fire frequency Fire severity Severity description

I 0–35 years Low/mixed Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 25% of 

the dominant overstory vegetation; can include mixedseverity fires that replace up to 75% of the overstory.

II 0–35 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75% of the 

dominant overstory vegetation.

III 35–200 years Mixed/low Generally mixed severity; can also include low-severity 

fires.

IV 35–200 years Replacement High-severity fires.

V 200+ years Replacement/ Generally replacement severity; can include any severity

any severity type in this frequency range.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 11

between fire occurrences. Fire severity describes the degree of ecological change caused 

by a fire, that is, the effects of fire on the physical and biological components of the 

ecosystem resulting from the intensity of the propagating fire front and the heat released 

during fuel consumption (Keeley 2009; Lentile et al. 2006, 2007). In some ecosystems, 

fire frequency is inversely related to fire severity (Arno 2000). Fire intensity is a measure 

of heat (energy released per unit area during a fire) and is roughly characterized by flame 

length (Keeley 2009).

Fire regimes are classified as combinations of low-severity, mixed-severity, and 

replacement into five general groups (table 3). These groupings typically reflect the 

vegetation, live and dead fuels, local and regional weather patterns, climate, topography, 

and other environmental conditions that influence fire occurrence and behavior (Agee 

1993, 1998). In fire regimes characterized by low-to-mixed-severity fires (groups I and 

III; table 3), frequent, low- to mixed-severity fires occur at intervals of approximately 5 

to 35 years, and most of the dominant vegetation survives. In fire regimes characterized 

by high-severity fires (group IV; table 3), infrequent fires occur at intervals of 35 to 200 

(or more) years, and are typically stand-replacing fires (Arno 2000). Mixed-severity fire 

regimes have variable or intermediate fire return intervals, and are typically more complex; fire severity can differ with each fire and within a single fire, resulting in a complex 

mosaic of unburned, low-severity, moderate-severity, and high-severity burned patches 

(Agee 1998; Arno 2000; Perry et al. 2011). Historical fire regimes have been described 

for dominant forest types in the western United States (fig. 3). Natural fire regimes have 

been significantly altered in many ecosystems (Shlisky et al. 2007), including many riparian areas (see Section 2.1.5 below), largely due to fire suppression and multiple land uses 

that have resulted in landscape fragmentation and alteration of fuel loads.

Figure 3—Historical fire regimes for dominant forest types in the Rocky Mountains. Information 

summarized in this graph was derived from Arno (2000) and Schoennagel et al. (2004) (from Saab 

et al. 2005).

Fire Regime

Frequent Low Mixed Infrequent High

Fire interval

(yrs) foothills montane

subalpine

2 5 10 25 75 100 150 250 500

Pinyon Juniper

Ponderosa Pine Xeric

Ponderosa Pine Mesic

Mixed-coniferous Forest

Lodgepole Pine Forest

Spruce/Fir
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

2.1.2 Fire Frequency in Riparian Areas

 Fire regimes in riparian areas relative to adjacent uplands vary depending on physical features of the watershed, location within a given watershed, vegetation type and fuel 

characteristics, and disturbance and land use history (Everett et al. 2003; Olson 2000; 

Olson and Agee 2005; Skinner 2003; Van de Water and North 2011). In many forested 

riparian areas, fires are generally thought to occur less frequently than in adjacent upslope 

forests. In subalpine forests of southeastern Wyoming, Romme and Knight (1981) found 

that fire was less frequent in sheltered valley bottoms, which contributed to differences in 

forest stand structure and composition between streamside and upland areas. For mesic 

riparian forests of the western Cascade Mountains in Oregon, Morrison and Swanson 

(1990) suggested that fire frequency was generally lower and fire severity was more moderate than in adjacent uplands. In the eastern Cascade Mountains of Washington, areas 

least likely to burn—late-successional forests or fire refugia—were frequently located 

in valley bottoms near confluences of perennial streams (Camp et al. 1997). In Mount 

Rainier National Park, Washington, high-intensity, stand-replacing fires contributed 

to a mosaic of different age classes in upland forests (Hemstrom and Franklin, 1982). 

However, old-growth conifers occurred mostly along river valleys, suggesting a more 

moderate fire regime in riparian areas.

Our understanding of fire frequency in different forest types is based on retrospective studies of tree rings, postfire stand ages, and analysis of fire scars, which provide 

information about the recent past (last several hundred years), but generally do not incorporate the longer-term influence of climate (Whitlock et al. 2003). Research on fire return 

intervals in riparian areas is limited to a few studies conducted in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains (California) and Pacific Northwest region of the United States. In some 

locations, results show longer fire return intervals for riparian areas relative to uplands 

(table 4). For example, in the Klamath Mountains of northern California, Skinner (2003) 

found that the median fire return intervals were approximately twice as long in riparian 

Table 4—Fire-return intervals for riparian versus upland forests (modified from table 1 in Stone et al. 

2010; table T7-1 in Luce et al. 2012).

Riparian fire 	 Upland fire

return interval return interval

Location Forest type (years) (years) Citation

Dry forest types

Blue Mountains, OR Douglas-fir and 13–36 10–20 Olson 2000

grand fir series 

Elkhorn Mountains, OR Ponderosa pine, 13–14 9–32 Olson 2000

Douglas-fir series 

Salmon River Ponderosa pine and 11–19 9–29 Barrett 2000

Mountains, ID Douglas-fir series

Cascade Range, WA Ponderosa pine and 15–26 11–19 Everett et al. 2003

Douglas-fir series

Northern Sierra Nevada Dry, ponderosa- 10–87 10–56 Van de Water and

Mountains, CA Jeffrey pine series North 2011

Mesic forest types

Cascade Range, OR Douglas-fir series 35–39 27–36 Olson and Agee 

 2005 

Klamath Mountains, CA Douglas-fir series 16–42 7–13 Skinner 2003
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 13

reserves as in upland sites, indicating that fires occurred less frequently in riparian areas. 

In dry Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests of eastern Washington, longer fire-free 

intervals were found in riparian forests relative to adjacent side-slope forests regardless 

of aspect, valley type, or plant association group; the relative frequency of fire scars 

increased with distance from the stream (Everett et al. 2003). In the South Cascades of 

Oregon, Olson and Agee (2005) found that fire return intervals were only slightly greater 

in riparian areas of a mesic, Douglas-fir forest than the adjacent upslope forests (table 4).

In other locations, however, results indicate historical fire frequencies in uplands 

and riparian areas were often comparable. In dry ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)/

Douglas-fir forests of central Idaho, the observed range of fire return intervals was similar 

for upland and riparian stands (table 4; Barrett 2000). In mixed conifer forests in the 

northern Sierra Nevada Mountains (California), Van de Water and North (2011) found 

that fires burned fairly continuously across the landscape and were historically common 

in both riparian and upslope forests (table 4). Similar results were found by Olson (2000) 

in dry forest types of the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon, characterized by a lowseverity fire regime. Olson (2000) studied the fire history of upland and riparian stands 

in forest types dominated by ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and grand fir (Abies grandis). 

Although fires in riparian areas generally occurred less frequently than in uplands for a 

given forest type, overall differences between upland and riparian stands were not significant. At high elevations along low-order streams, where the vegetation composition 

of riparian areas is similar to that of adjacent uplands, streamside areas are also likely to 

burn as frequently as the surrounding uplands. Although most riparian areas in Mount 

Rainier National Park appeared to have less frequent or less severe fire occurrence, riparian areas located in higher elevation drainages with predominately south-facing aspects 

had fire frequencies that were similar to uplands (Hemstrom and Franklin 1982).

Fewer studies have investigated the relations between fire regimes in upland and 

riparian vegetation for semiarid shrublands and grasslands (Paysen et al. 2000), where 

the riparian plant communities are frequently dominated by deciduous hardwoods (Patten 

1998). In prairie grasslands, fire return intervals range from 10 to 30 years (Paysen et al. 

2000), and fires burn periodically into the deciduous riparian woodlands. In a tree-ring 

analysis of riparian cottonwoods on the Oldman River in Alberta, Canada, Mahoney et 

al. (1991) found up to four fire scars per century, suggesting the periodic occurrence of 

low-intensity surface fires rather than stand-replacing fires. Additional research is needed 

on how riparian areas and wetlands burn relative to adjacent uplands in nonforested 

ecoregions (Bixby et al. 2015).

2.1.3 Burn Severity in Riparian Areas

Patterns observed for fire behavior, intensity, and severity in riparian areas are 

similar to those reported for fire frequency. Fires in riparian areas can be less severe, 

as severe, or more severe than in adjacent uplands, depending on the local topography, 

vegetation characteristics (especially fuel moisture and loading), and fire weather. Burn 

severity is a feature of fire regimes used to express the degree of ecological change 

resulting from a fire and is a measure of cumulative fire effects, including vegetation 

mortality, soil heating, and fuel consumption (Keane et al. 2008; Keeley 2009; Lentile et 

al. 2006, 2007). Burn severity depends on fire intensity and the degree to which soils and 
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

vegetation are fire resistant. The condition and structure of live and dead fuels, topography, regional and local weather, and climate influence fire intensity and other components 

of fire behavior (Agee 1993; Keeley 2009). Fuels include the live and dead biomass available to burn that carry a fire across the landscape. Fuel characteristics include amounts of 

different size classes, extent of decay, horizontal and vertical continuity of the fuel bed, 

chemical content of the vegetation, and the fuel moisture of live and dead material (Ryan 

2001). These fuel characteristics contribute to ignition probability, the ability of a fire to 

spread, and the intensity of the flaming fire front. Differences in fuel characteristics and 

distribution can influence how riparian areas burn relative to uplands.

A study conducted in conifer-dominated forests of Oregon specifically addressed 

fire severity in riparian areas, contributing to current understanding of riparian burn 

patterns. Halofsky and Hibbs (2008) compared fire severity in riparian vs. upland plots 

following the Biscuit Fire (Klamath-Siskiyou region) and the B&B Complex Fire (east 

Cascades). They found that the strongest predictors for riparian overstory fire severity 

were upland fire severity, riparian vegetation indicators, and local topography; that is, 

stream width, stream gradient, and adjacent hillslope steepness. Their study sites had diverse riparian understories, with varying levels of deciduous tree and shrub components. 

The researchers also found that riparian understories generally burned less severely than 

upland understories, and they attributed this burn pattern to higher fuel moisture in riparian vegetation, and cooler, moister streamside microclimates. In a related study, Halofsky 

and Hibbs (2009b) examined relations between ground-based and remotely sensed indices of fire severity in riparian areas of the Biscuit Fire and B&B Complex Fire in Oregon. 

Results indicated weak associations between both ground-based and remotely sensed 

fire severity assessments in riparian areas, highlighting the need for plot-and-reach-level 

research on fire impacts in different riparian vegetation types.

While keeping the limitations of remotely sensed fire severity evaluations in mind 

for riparian areas, the importance of upland burn severity as a predictor of riparian burn 

severity and fire intensity was supported by a geospatial analysis. Following four large 

fires, researchers utilized remotely sensed Burned Area Reflectance Classifications 

(BARC) to compare upland burn intensity to riparian burn intensity (Fisk et al. 2004). 

The fires occurred in dry forest types of the interior West: the Hayman and Missionary 

Ridge Fires in Colorado; Rodeo-Chediski Fire in Arizona; and the Stanford Fire in Utah. 

Researchers found that riparian areas burned ‘less hot’ than upslope areas. However, 

riparian burn values related positively to upslope burn values; that is, the hotter the watershed burned, the hotter (on average) the riparian areas burned. Results also indicated that 

smaller, lower-order streams burned more like uplands, while riparian areas along larger, 

higher-order streams burned less like surrounding uplands. Following the 1991 Warner 

Creek Burn in the Cascade Mountains of western Oregon, Kushla and Ripple (1997) 

examined landscape patterns of forest mortality, or live crown ratio (LCR), through 

interpretation of aerial photography. LCR was inversely related to perennial stream proximity in portions of the burned area, indicating that tree mortality was lower along some 

stream segments. However, significant explanatory variables differed among the four 

physiographic areas studied (Kushla and Ripple (1997). The researchers also observed 

that a large portion of unburned riparian forest remained along Kelsey Creek, one of the 

larger perennial streams in the study area. These results support previous observations 

of patterns of fire frequency, intensity, and burn severity in upland versus riparian areas, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 15

although more information is needed for a range of riparian plant associations, stream 

types, and precipitation regimes.

2.1.4 Fire Behavior in Riparian Areas

Conceptual models of fire behavior and different fire effects in riparian areas have 

been proposed based on observations and research results. Pettit and Naiman (2007) described four cases of fire effects, postdisturbance impacts, and riparian recovery based on 

their observations of wildfire in Kruger National Park, South Africa. The four cases were 

categorized by combinations of stream gradient (high or low) and amount of regional 

rainfall (high or low) and were related to fire behavior, which influenced fire severity and, 

hence, postfire recovery. Halofsky and Hibbs (2008) developed a sequence of hypotheses 

to test the influence of riparian vegetation, valley-bottom topography, and upland fire 

variables on riparian fire severity. The relative role of these driving factors varies locally 

and regionally, but can be used to predict how wildfire might burn along specific stream 

segments.

Based on published research and observations for the western United States, we 

present four generalized scenarios of fire behavior in riparian areas, speculate about when 

and where they might occur, and note potential ecological outcomes (table 5; Luce et al. 

2012). The relative likelihood of occurrence for any scenario is largely driven by vegetation and fuel indicators, basic topographic variables, and characteristics of the fire and 

fire weather. Variations of each scenario are likely and different combinations could be 

observed in the same watershed or during the same wildfire.

1. Riparian Areas Burn Like Adjacent Uplands

This scenario is most likely to occur along stream reaches where the riparian 

vegetation, terrain, and general topography are similar to uplands. Stream reaches that 

drain shrub-dominated portions of drainage networks—such as shrub-steppe ecosystems 

throughout portions of the Great Basin or stream segments that drain the lower parts of 

stream networks in shallowly dissected terrain with low local relief—are likely to burn as 

frequently and severely as adjacent uplands. Other examples occur in the upper portions 

of drainages at high-to-moderate elevations in fairly steep terrain with steep stream valleys. This scenario could also occur under conditions of severe fire weather, that is, when 

a large fire carries across the entire landscape and overwhelms both the influence of local 

topography and vegetation differences between riparian and upland areas.

2. Riparian Areas Burn Less Frequently or Less Severely (or Both) Than Adjacent 

Uplands

This scenario is most likely to occur where riparian conditions are distinctly wetter 

or more mesic than upland vegetation. It is the most commonly documented scenario in 

the literature, especially for forests of the Pacific Northwest (table 4). In forested riparian 

reaches, particularly those located in deeply dissected terrain with north-facing aspects 

that foster cold-air drainage and cool riparian microclimates, fires tend to burn less severely and less frequently than nearby uplands. However, even within similar vegetation 

associations and in lower portions of drainage networks, the frequency of fire scars has 

been found to increase with distance from the stream, suggesting that fires burned less 

frequently or less severely or both in streamside areas (Everett et al. 2003; Russell and 

McBride 2001; Skinner 2003).
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

3. Riparian Areas Burn More Frequently or More Severely (or Both) Than Adjacent 

Uplands

This scenario has been reported by the fire control/fire management community and 

warrants further study (Barrows 1951a,b; Countryman 1971). It could occur where steep, 

narrow stream valleys funnel hot updrafts, fostering convective heating of the fire, thus 

causing it to carry up the canyon rapidly and with high intensity (Skinner 2003). This fire 

behavior is most likely to occur in the middle or upper portions of drainage networks with 

south-facing aspects, along small perennial or intermittent stream channels. This scenario 

is locally dependent on fuel characteristics, physical context, and the characteristics of 

a given fire event. This fire behavior likely occurs where riparian vegetation is either 

(1) similar to upland vegetation in stand- and understory-species composition, or (2) contains higher levels or denser fuel loads (particularly ladder fuels) than adjacent uplands 

(Agee 1998). Although not well documented, riparian areas can also burn more severely 

in arid landscapes where frequent, low-intensity fires limit fuel buildup in uplands, while 

fuel accumulates in streamside areas. During periods of drought, differences in the riparian versus upland microclimate and fuel moisture might be high enough to promote plant 

Table 5—Four generalized scenarios of fire behavior in riparian areas (from Luce et al. 2012). Variations on these four 

scenarios occur and different combinations may be observed in the same watershed or during the same wildfire. 

Ecological outcomes are given; please see text for additional explanation. 

Fire behavior in riparian areas 

(generalized) Where and when? Ecological outcome 

Riparian areas burn like Where riparian vegetation, terrain, and Impact depends on fire severity, season, and

adjacent uplands (i.e., wildfires topography are similar to uplands. extent, but generally moderate to high.

burn with similar frequency and When large fires burning under severe Slow to moderate recovery via seedlings and

severity) fire weather exceed the influence of resprouting. Fire adapted species will likely

local topography and riparian/upland survive. 

vegetation differences.

Riparian areas burn less Where terrain fosters cold-air drainage, Low to moderate impact. 

frequently and/or less severely higher humidity, cooler microclimate Moderate to rapid recovery via seedlings and

than adjacent uplands. relative to uplands. resprouting. Fire-adapted species (esp. 

Where riparian vegetation is distinctly conifers) will persist. 

different from uplands (more hardwoods, 

higher herbaceous component, higher 

fuel moisture). 

Where saturated soil conditions, presence 

of riparian wetlands, or hydrologic inputs 

from hillslopes influence fire behavior.

When fires burn with low intensity. 

Riparian areas burn more Where fuel abundance/accumulation is Impact depends on fire severity, season, 

frequently and/or more severely higher in riparian areas than uplands extent; can be high impact, with destruction

than adjacent uplands. (due to riparian management or natural of most of the riparian community.

conditions). Slow to moderate recovery, via seedlings and

When riparian areas serve as chimneys resprouting. Postfire invasive species are a

or corridors for fire spread (e.g., where potential concern.

steep terrain and narrow stream valleys 

influence fire behavior).

Riparian areas serve as fire Where large perennial stream and river Low impact; rapid recovery.

breaks valleys create significant breaks in fuel 

characteristics and continuity.

Where saturated soil conditions, presence 

of riparian wetlands, or hydrologic inputs 

from hillslopes influence fire behavior.

When fires burn with low intensity. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 17

growth, stand development, and fuel accumulation in riparian areas, but not high enough 

to protect riparian vegetation from fire. This scenario is of particular concern for resource 

managers and fuels specialists in locations in the Great Basin and southwestern United 

States where woody encroachment into riparian areas has increased streamside fuel loads.

4. Riparian Areas Serve as Fuel Breaks

Although most commonly observed where large stream and river valleys create 

breaks in fuel characteristics and continuity, this scenario has also been observed in wet 

meadows, stream segments with a high herbaceous component, and willow-dominated 

reaches or other riparian areas with notable hardwood tree or shrub components. In a 

burned mixed-conifer forest in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, Kobziar and 

McBride (2006) concluded that wider riparian areas tended to act as natural firebreaks, 

likely due to a combination of stream and floodplain physical features and moist riparian 

vegetation.

Critical considerations in predicting how a riparian area will burn relative to uplands 

include location within the watershed relative to precipitation regime (snow versus rain 

influence; Jarrett, 1987, 1990); topography (including aspect) and changes in stream 

gradient and slope relative to uplands; geomorphology, especially changing width of the 

channel and valley floor; and riparian versus upland vegetation and fuel characteristics. 

Researchers have documented high spatial variability in streamside burn patterns as indicated by local differences in fuels consumption, and distribution of low-to-high-severity 

burned patches, that is, exceptionally patchy fire behavior (Kobziar and McBride 2006; 

Jackson and Sullivan 2009). Although patchy burn patterns also occur in uplands, they 

are likely to be more common in riparian areas due to more heterogeneity in vegetation, 

geomorphic surfaces, and fuels characteristics. Large-scale assessments of burn severity 

for specific fires are conducted using remote sensing techniques and various imagery 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/rsac/baer/) and are useful for planning postfire management in 

uplands. However, these assessments rarely represent the spatial variability of burn patterns in riparian areas. In burned watersheds that have been characterized as ‘high burn 

severity,’ there are frequently stream segments where riparian areas have not burned or 

experienced low- or mid-severity wildfire.

 2.1.5 Shifting Fire Regimes

Humans have significantly altered historic fire regimes in many ecosystems (Shlisky 

et al. 2007). Fire history studies in low-to-mid-elevation forest types, such as those 

dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), indicate that fires generally occurred 

more frequently before European-American settlement (Arno et al. 1996; Covington and 

Moore 1994). Fire suppression and landscape fragmentation due to multiple land uses 

have altered vegetation, accumulation of fuels, and natural fire frequencies in much of the 

western United States (Baker 1992; Jain et al. 2012; Peterson 1998). The departure from 

historical fire regimes has likely contributed to the severity, intensity, and unpredictability 

of recent wildland fires (Westerling et al. 2006). In the last decade, fires have covered 

much larger areas, and burned hotter and more intensely than previously (Westerling et 

al. 2006). The effects of fire suppression and exclusion have been documented for some 

forest and shrub vegetation types (Keane et al. 2002) and are most significant in types 

that previously sustained frequent, low- to moderate-severity surface fires (Westerling et 
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

al. 2006). Sagebrush ecosystems have been experiencing larger, more severe, and more 

frequent fire compared to historical conditions partly due to exotic cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum L.) invasion (Keane et al. 2008), and it is likely that associated riparian areas are 

also burning more frequently and severely.

Mixed-conifer forests that evolved with low-to-mixed-severity fire regimes contain 

higher densities of undergrowth and fuel loadings than in the past, making them more 

conducive to high-severity fires (Agee 1998; Fulè et al. 2003). The effects of fire suppression on riparian vegetation and fuel loads are largely unknown and depend on the many 

factors that differentiate riparian areas from surrounding uplands. An exception is a study 

conducted in the Rogue River basin of southwestern Oregon where researchers used 

dendrochronological methods to examine pre Euro-American settlement disturbance and 

tree recruitment patterns in riparian forests (Messier et al. 2012). Their results indicated 

major shifts in tree species composition, stem densities, and stand age classes, which they 

attributed to fire exclusion. In their discussion, they state the following:

“Fire exclusion in the 20th century triggered a shift in the stand 

dynamics of riparian forests in the Mixed Conifer vegetation 

zone from a model characterized by frequent fire disturbance and 

shade-intolerant tree recruitment in large canopy gaps to one 

characterized by the replacement of overstory trees by shadetolerant species through individual tree-fall gaps. Fire-sensitive and 

shade-intolerant white fir is represented in far greater numbers that 

it was prior to 1900 and few Douglas-fir trees that established after 

1900 are on a trajectory to canopy dominance.”

They conclude:

“Our findings support our hypothesis that riparian forests in 

southwestern Oregon experienced frequent fires and that fire 

exclusion has altered the structure, composition, and successional 

trajectory of these forests. We were surprised, however, to find 

many of the structural and compositional changes evident today 

date back to 20–70 years prior to effective fire suppression 

(approximately 1920) (Sensenig 2002). Historically, fires in 

riparian areas would likely have had similar effects on forest 

vegetation as those seen in upland forests, where low-and-mixedseverity fire regimes maintained patchy, multi-aged stands of fireresistant conifer and hardwood species.”

In studies of fire frequency, dendrochronological analyses often detected the same 

fire events in upland forests and adjacent riparian areas, and declines in fire frequency 

in both areas corresponded with the onset of effective fire suppression (Everett et al. 

2003). For example, Barrett (2000) examined fire frequencies in watersheds of the South 

Fork Salmon River drainage in central Idaho, where an active fire suppression program 

began in 1948. In study catchments with minimal management and other anthropogenic 

disturbance in the past 40–50 years, he found natural fire regimes to be considerably 

altered. From about 1471 to 1948, moderate to large, mixed-severity (high, low, and 

unburned patches) fires had occurred in both upland and riparian forests approximately 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 19

every 19 years (table 4). However, since 1948, the fire-free interval in most catchments 

has been approximately eight times longer than during the time before active fire suppression (Barrett 2000; Barrett et al. 1997). The influence of fire suppression on changes 

in vegetation is likely to be similar in riparian and upland forests, resulting in shifts in 

species composition to more shade-tolerant or fire-sensitive species and increased fuel 

accumulation.

2.2 Riparian Characteristics That Influence Fire Behavior

2.2.1 Physical Influences on Fire Properties

Physical features of riparian areas can differ considerably from adjacent uplands and 

can influence fire behavior and severity (table 6; Dwire and Kauffman 2003; Halofsky 

and Hibbs 2008; Pettit and Naiman 2007). The location within drainage bottoms, 

combined with the presence of surface water, saturated soils, topographic features, and 

canopy shading contribute to distinct microclimates in many streamside areas. Relative 

to uplands, riparian microclimates are frequently cooler with higher relative humidity due 

to evaporation from the stream and transpiration and insulation from riparian vegetation 

(Brosofske et al. 1997; Naiman and Décamps 1997; Naiman et al. 1993; Williamson 

1999). Local differences in microclimate likely exert control over fire behavior during 

low-to-moderate-severity fires but may be negligible under severe fire weather.

Table 6—Riparian characteristics that may influence fire behavior in forests and rangelands of the western United States 

(modified from table 1 in Dwire and Kauffman 2003).

Fire behavior factor	 Riparian characteristic	 Potential influence on fire behavior	 Citation

Fuel loads High fuel loads due to high net High fuel loads can increase Agee 1993; Williamson

primary productivity. vulnerability to a fire in drought 1999; Van de Water and

Accumulation of fuels due to conditions, and influence fire North 2011

low fire return intervals. severity, intensity and return intervals.

Fuel moisture High fuel moisture content due Fuel loads may remain too moist for Agee et al. 2002; 

content to proximity to water, shallow sustained fire spread late into the Williamson 1999

water tables, and dense shade. fire season.

Fuel continuity Active channels, gravel bars, Breaks in fuel continuity can prevent Agee 1993; Everett et al. 

and wet meadows may function or slow the spread of fire. 2003

as natural fuel breaks.

Vegetation Greater dominance of moisture- Tree and shrub species adapted to Halofsky and Hibbs 2008; 

composition dependent shrubs and light-moderate fire; lower resistance Williamson 1999

deciduous trees. to severe wildfire.

Low topographic Canyon/drainage bottoms; High fuel moisture, high relative Olson and Agee 2005

position lowest points on the landscape. humidity, and few lightning strikes

may decrease fire frequency and

severity; more human-caused 

ignitions may increase fire frequency.

Steep topographic Narrow, steep stream channels If high fuel loads are present, could Agee 1998

position that may serve as “chutes” or result in “wicking”—the rapid

“chimneys.” up-canyon spread of fire. 

Microclimate Topography, presence of water, High relative humidity and cool Williamson 1999; 

and dense shade can create temperatures may lessen fire intensity Brosofske et al. 1997

cooler, moister conditions. and rate of spread.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Topographic features—including aspect, slope, elevation, and terrain such as hills, 

terraces, ridgetops, and drainages—also influence fire behavior and spread. Weather 

can determine fire behavior on multiple scales and can change rapidly, sometimes in 

response to topographic features. Weather is the primary driver of large, high-severity 

fire events; during certain weather events, fuels become less important in regulating fire 

behavior (Bessie and Johnson 1995). During small, low-to-mixed-severity fires, factors 

such as fuel moisture, fuel type, relative humidity, temperature, and topography have 

significant influences on fire behavior (Turner and Romme 1994). An analysis following 

the B&B Complex Fire in central Oregon showed that riparian understory fire severity 

was strongly associated with the slope from riparian sample points to uplands—that is, 

steeper hillslopes burned more severely (Halofsky and Hibbs 2008). In the Biscuit Fire 

in southern Oregon, stream gradient was also found to be strongly associated with riparian understory fire severity (Halofsky and Hibbs 2008). Upper reaches of intermittent or 

low-order streams on steep slopes with small water sources can experience the same fire 

behavior and severity as nearby uplands (Fisk et al. 2006).

Topographic features can exert strong control on how fires move across landscapes, 

including movement and intensity from uplands to riparian areas or along stream-riparian 

corridors. Topographic conditions along drainages can influence wind and other weather 

elements during wildfires. Wind plays a significant role in the rate of fire spread and the 

intensity of the fire front. In extreme cases, riparian areas can burn more severely than 

surrounding uplands (table 5). In riparian areas bordering intermittent streams in the 

Klamath Mountains of California, Taylor and Skinner (1998) found that fires had been 

frequent and suggested that some headwater reaches act as chutes where fires spread 

readily and burn intensely. As noted above, this type of fire behavior has been observed 

where steep terrain and narrow stream valleys create more heat and serve as chimneys 

or chutes that promote updrafts and convective heating of the fire and cause it to carry 

upslope and up the drainage at a rapid rate of spread with high intensity (Skinner 2003). 

This fire behavior, referred to as ‘wicking,’ is most likely to occur in the middle or upper 

portions of drainage networks with south-facing aspects along small perennial or intermittent stream channels and also depends on riparian vegetation and fuel loads. There is 

a critical need for improved understanding of potential fire behavior for different stream 

reach types and riparian vegetation types, and for identifying the streamside conditions 

that most influence the intensity, severity, and spread of wildfire.

Along large perennial stream and river valleys, the stream channel can create a 

significant break in fuel characteristics and continuity (tables 5 and 6). Wide stream 

channels, alluvial terraces with extensive gravel bars, and large, sparsely vegetated areas 

with wet soils can function as fuel breaks. In the Cascade Mountains of western Oregon, 

Kushla and Ripple (1997) found that local topographic features, including proximity to 

perennial streams and ridgelines, had a significant influence on forest mortality following the Warner Creek Burn. Kobziar and McBride (2006) sampled riparian vegetation 

and physical features along two streams 1 year following the Lookout Fire that burned 

a northern Sierra mixed-conifer forest on the Plumas National Forest. They attributed 

patchy riparian burn patterns in part to the occurrence of gravel bars and streamside terraces that supported alders (Alnus incana spp. tenuifolia), which presumably acted as 

natural firebreaks. Other “firebreak” locations include wet meadows, stream segments 

with a high herbaceous component, and reaches dominated by willows (Salix spp.) 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 21

or other riparian hardwood shrubs. These reach types are frequently located in wider, 

lower-gradient portions of stream networks that can receive significant hydrologic 

inputs (surface and subsurface) from surrounding hillslopes, resulting in saturated soil 

conditions and the presence of riparian or slope wetlands. They include sites of past and 

current beaver (Castor canadensis) activity that has modified the channel and flooded 

portions of the valley bottom. Saturated soils combined with high fuel moisture can stop 

the advance of fire or cause a fire to “jump” from hillslope to hillslope and not burn in the 

riparian area. Fire characteristics and upland conditions can influence the extent to which 

riparian areas function as firebreaks. If a fire is burning with low-to-mid-intensity across 

the landscape, riparian areas along low gradient, perennial streams can serve as effective 

barriers and slow fire spread.

Lightning ignitions are less likely to occur in many riparian areas due to topographic position, cooler microclimate, and generally moister fuel conditions. However, 

during dry conditions, human-caused fire ignitions occur in streamside areas, especially 

in campgrounds, along roads, and in other recreational use areas (table 6).

2.2.2 Vegetation Influences on Fire Properties

Many riparian plant communities have complex canopy and subcanopy structure 

and well-developed shrub and herbaceous understories (Danehy and Kirpes 2000; 

Nierenberg and Hibbs 2000). They are frequently the most productive areas in a given 

region and contain structurally and floristically diverse vegetation (Pollock et al. 1998; 

Tabacchi et al. 1998). In many areas, riparian vegetation may differ from adjacent uplands in overstory species composition, have higher stem densities and basal area, have 

greater dominance of shrubs and deciduous hardwoods, and have higher herbaceous 

cover (Pabst and Spies 1998, 1999; Wimberly and Spies 2001). In Douglas-fir forests 

with mixed-severity fire regimes, Halofsky and Hibbs (2008) found that fire intensity in 

riparian areas was generally lower than that of uplands, although burn severity (overstory 

crown scorch and mortality) was similar to uplands. They attributed this to differences 

in the subcanopy, particularly the higher basal area of riparian deciduous hardwood species. Following a mixed-severity fire in a northern Sierra mixed-conifer forest, Kobziar 

and McBride (2006) noted that portions of riparian areas dominated by alder were less 

frequently burned, and suggested that the riparian vegetation and terrace topography may 

have slowed the progression of the predominantly ‘backing fire’ towards the stream. Fire 

behavior is also affected by characteristics of the vegetation, such as the foliar chemistry 

(volatile versus nonvolatile), bulk density (mass/volume), ratio of live to dead material 

(flammability), horizontal and vertical continuity, and moisture content, all of which can 

differ between upland and riparian areas (table 6; Agee 1993; Ryan 2001).

Despite these notable differences, many forested riparian areas in the western 

United States are occupied by the same overstory species as surrounding uplands. Even 

in these riparian stands, stem densities, standing biomass, and shrub and herbaceous 

understory diversity are usually greater than in upslope stands. In the Blue Mountains of 

eastern Oregon, stand basal area, stand density, and canopy foliage weight were greater 

in conifer-dominated riparian stands than in associated upland stands despite similarities 

in overstory species composition (Williamson 1999). In subalpine forests of northern 

Colorado and southern Wyoming, the overstory species composition and basal area were 
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

similar in riparian and upland plots, but understory stem densities and shrub diversity 

were generally higher in riparian plots (fig. 4; Dwire et al. 2015a,b). Where vegetation 

and fuel profiles are similar across upland and riparian stands, they are likely to burn with 

similar frequency and intensity.

The limited research on the influence of riparian vegetation and fuels on fire properties has mostly been conducted in conifer-dominated areas in the Pacific Northwest. Much 

less is known about riparian areas in the western United States where plant communities are dominated by deciduous trees and shrubs, including alders (Alnus spp.), willows 

(Salix spp.), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and cottonwoods (Populus spp.; Patten 

1998). These riparian plant community types differ considerably in fuel characteristics 

(chemistry, fuel composition, and moisture content) from conifer, shrub, or grassland-dominated uplands. Montane meadows border numerous stream segments in mountains of the 

western United States, including ranges throughout the Great Basin (Chambers and Miller 

2004). These grass- and sedge-dominated meadows often produce high loads of fine fuels 

(3–11 mg/ha; Dwire et al. 2004; Otting 1999) that can burn late in the fire season.

Differences in riparian and upland vegetation result in differences in fuel profiles 

and total fuel loadings. Streamside areas frequently have more complex vertical layers 

within the canopy and subcanopy—that is, well-developed ladder fuels, more fine fuels, 

and greater fuel moisture than surrounding uplands—components that are strongly predictive of riparian fire severity (table 6; Halofsky and Hibbs 2008). Potential for crown 

Figure 4—A range of stand conditions were sampled in both upland and riparian plots. However, similarities 

can be seen across stand types in these photos of paired upland and riparian plots. (A, upper left) Bennett 

Creek, Roosevelt National Forest, Colorado, upland; (B, upper right) Bennett Creek, riparian; (C, lower 

left) Cortez Creek, Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming, upland; (D, lower right) Cortez Creek, 

riparian (Dwire et al. 2015).

C

A B

D
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 23

fire initiation (torching) and fuel characteristics were compared in upland versus riparian 

stands in Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir, grand fir, and subalpine fir (Picea engelmannii) forest types in the Blue Mountains, northeastern Oregon (Williamson 1999). In both upland 

and riparian stands of all forest types, the potential for torching was high, suggesting 

that high-severity fire could behave similarly across uplands and streamside areas. In 

mixed conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California, Van de Water and 

North (2011) compared stand structure, fuel loads, and potential fire behavior between 

riparian and upland forests under current and reconstructed conditions. Relative to upland 

stands, current riparian forests had greater stem density, probability of torching, predicted 

mortality, canopy base height, and frequency of fire tolerant species—features that the 

authors attributed to fire suppression. However, reconstructed riparian and upland forests 

were similar for most of these characteristics, suggesting that historical (before fire suppression) forest structure and fuel loads were similar in uplands and streamside areas. In 

southern Rocky Mountain forests affected by recent bark beetle (mountain pine beetle, 

Dendroctonus ponderosae; spruce beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis) infestations, fuel 

loads were largely similar in paired riparian-upland plots (fig. 4; Dwire et al. 2015a,b). 

The riparian stands sampled were dominated by the same overstory species as surrounding uplands and were among the driest riparian plant associations in the region (Carsey et 

al. 2003).

Fire severity can be greater in riparian areas if streamside fuel loads accumulate at 

greater rates relative to uplands (due to fire suppression, ‘hands-off’ riparian management, or natural processes) and if prefire moisture levels are low (due to drought or 

season; table 5). High riparian fuel loads can influence fire spread by serving as “wicks,” 

especially where adjacent uplands have been harvested or actively managed for fuel reduction. This fire behavior was observed during the Angora Fire, Tahoe National Forest, 

California in late June 2007 (Murphy et al. 2007). Before ignition, the Angora Creek 

Stream Environment Zone (SEZ, or riparian area; Text Box 1) contained heavy dead 

woody fuel loadings. A retrospective evaluation of the Angora Fire behavior noted that 

“dense stands of trees in the Angora SEZ likely contributed to the rapid spread upslope to 

Angora Ridge and across the slope to the base of Tahoe Mountain” (Murphy et al. 2007; 

fig. 5). The well-documented fire behavior during the Angora Fire has focused attention 

on the role of riparian corridors and fuel conditions on fire severity and spread (Murphy 

et al. 2007; Safford et al. 2009).

Riparian fuel loads data are not available for most vegetation types, and the extent 

to which differences in forest structure and fuels between riparian areas and uplands affect fire behavior remains somewhat speculative. When estimates for fuels are required 

for project planning, resource specialists, particularly fuels specialists or fire management 

officers, frequently use fuels photo-series for the appropriate forest type and region (http://

www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/research/fuels/photo_series/index.shtml). Photo series have been 

developed for many upland forest and vegetation types; for a range of fuel loading conditions that may occur on a specific national forest (e.g., Popp and Lundquist 2006); for 

given areas, such as the WUI in the Colorado Front Range (Battaglia et al. 2006); or for a 

specific purpose, e.g., comparing burned and unburned sites (Jain et al. 2007). Photos are 

accompanied by measured fuel loadings and usually grouped by forest or vegetation type 

and stand age, including regeneration stages following past forest harvest. Managers compare field conditions with the photos to assess approximate fuel loads. Photo series have not 
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

been developed specifically for riparian vegetation types, but existing photo series can be 

used for conifer- and aspen-dominated riparian areas (http://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/

dps/). Examples of estimated fuel loadings that might be useful for some conifer-dominated 

riparian areas in the Southern Rockies are shown in figure 6 (Popp and Lundquist 2006). 

Although this approach can be informative for certain applications, more quantitative 

assessments of riparian fuel characteristics are needed to inform fire management in streamside areas.

Moisture content of various fuel strata can be a critical feature in determining how 

some riparian stands burn relative to uplands. High relative humidity due to the cool, 

moist microclimates within riparian areas can increase fuel moisture content of both live 

and dead fuels (Williamson 1999). Agee et al. (2002) measured late-season foliar moisture in paired upland-riparian stands of Douglas-fir, grand fir, and subalpine fir in the Blue 

Mountains of northeastern Oregon. In the Douglas-fir and grand fir series, they observed 

no differences in conifer foliar moisture between the upland and riparian stands; however, 

understory shrub and herbaceous foliar moisture was considerably higher in the riparian 

stands. In addition, herbaceous foliar moisture was more variable in the riparian stands, 

which was attributed to the diversity of herbaceous species occurring in the understory. 

Understory fuel moisture has been shown to affect the rate of spread, fire line intensity, 

fuel consumption, and plant mortality in coniferous forests (Kauffman and Martin 1989, 

1990), suggesting that higher moisture content of riparian fuels could reduce fire intensity 

and severity relative to uplands.

Seasonality also affects fuel moisture and thus plays a role in fire behavior and fire 

severity across the landscape (Knapp et al. 2005, 2009). In mixed-conifer forest types, 

Van de Water and North (2011) found that the majority of fire scars in both riparian and 

upland areas occurred in late summer and fall. As vegetation becomes dormant later in 

Figure 5—Stream Environment Zone (SEZ) along Angora Creek following the Angora Fire, Tahoe 

NF, California (2007). Dense, continuous stands of trees contributed to rapid spread rates (to the 

NNE) down this stream corridor. Arrow points in direction of wind and fastest fire spread (NNE). 

Note greater density of trees within the SEZ (roughly outlined in red). Moister portions of the SEZ 

(outlined in yellow) burned less severely than surrounding areas (photo originally published in 

Murphy et al. 2007).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 25 Figure 6—Examples of photos that could potentially be used to evaluate fuel loading in conifer dominated riparian areas in the southern Rockies. Panels present a visual representation of a range of fuel loading conditions found on the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming (Popp and Lundquist 2006). 8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72. 2006 Plot utmx utmy Canopy Average Tree Closure (%) Height (ft.) 59 384372 4557677 97 93 Total aspen spruce subalpine fir lodgepole pine 211 0 133 49 29 0 - 0.25" 0.26 - 1" 1.1 - 3" 0 - 3" 0.70 0.98 15.21 16.88 > 3" sound > 3" rotten > 3" total Grand Total 33.35 13.78 47.12 64.01 % ground covered by fuels 11 Average fuels height (in.) 3.0 Average duff depth (in.) 2.3 Average litter depth (in.) 0.3 OLDER RENERATED SPRUCE-FIR STANDS (12C) PLOT DATA Basal Area (ft2/ac) by Species FUEL LOADING (tons/ac) OTHER FUELS DATA 50353025201510 <.25" .25"-1" 1"-3" >3" sound >3" rotten Size class e Tons/acr  USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72. 2006 Plot utmx utmy Canopy Average Tree Closure (%) Height (ft.) 12 397357 4562015 76 59 Total aspen spruce subalpine fir lodgepole pine 149 0 0 0 149 0 - 0.25" 0.26 - 1" 1.1 - 3" 0 - 3" 0.14 0.19 3.03 3.37 > 3" sound > 3" rotten > 3" total Grand Total 23.82 8.27 32.10 35.46 % ground covered by fuels 9 Average fuels height (in.) 0.0 Average duff depth (in.) 0.0 Average litter depth (in.) 0.8 OLD GROWTH IN LODGEPOLE PINE (13D) PLOT DATA Basal Area (ft2/ac) by Species FUEL LOADING (tons/ac) OTHER FUELS DATA 50353025201510 <.25" .25"-1" 1"-3" >3" sound >3" rotten Size class e Tons/acr

80 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72. 2006 2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72. 2006
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

the growing season, foliar moisture decreases, increasing the probability of fire occurrence (Agee et al. 2002). The ratio between the current year’s growth and older foliage 

also influences foliar moisture content as seasons change. Periods of drought contribute 

to lower foliar and fuel moistures and have been correlated with increased fire occurrence. Although this correlation is stronger in upland areas, riparian areas also experience 

a greater number of fires during times of drought (Van de Water and North 2011).

2.2.3 Legacies of Disturbance, Land Use and Management

Natural disturbances and processes—including flooding, fire, debris flows, and 

pest and pathogen outbreaks—have influenced the development and current condition of 

riparian and stream habitats (Luce et al. 2012). Along many stream and river segments, 

however, the effects of past and present human disturbance may be more pervasive than 

natural processes (Dwire et al. 1999; McAllister 2008; McIntosh et al. 1994a,b). Human 

effects on streams and rivers can be broadly considered with respect to five categories: 

flow regulation/alteration, water pollution, channel alteration, decreased biotic integrity, 

and land use (Wohl 2001, 2006). Direct human impacts result from activities conducted 

within the stream channel itself that alter channel geometry, the dynamics of water and 

sediment movement, or the species compositions of aquatic and riparian communities. 

Activities include channelization, removal of beavers, placer mining, and construction of 

dams or diversions (Wohl 2001, 2006).

Many riparian plant communities have experienced shifts in composition from 

dominance by native species to exotic, invasive species in response to flow alteration 

and other factors (Caskey et al. 2015; Merritt and Poff 2010; Stohlgren et al. 1998). 

Shifts in riparian species composition due to hydrologic modification of streams and the 

introduction of invasive nonnative species have resulted in changes in streamside fuel 

characteristics. In the southwestern United States, for example, river damming, flow 

regulation, and water diversions have contributed to the transformation of native riparian 

gallery forests, dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and Goodding 

willow (Salix gooddingii), to riparian scrub thickets, dominated by exotic tamarisk 

species (Tamarix spp.; fig. 7; Busch 1995; Busch and Smith, 1993, 1995; Everitt 1998; 

Shafroth et al. 2002; Smith et al. 1998). Tamarisk produces large quantities of highly 

combustible fuels, and its dominance in riparian floodplains has altered the role and influence of fire in structuring riparian plant communities (Busch and Smith 1995; Shafroth 

et al. 2002). Increasing dominance of other invasive riparian species, including Russian 

olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia; Friedman et al. 2005; also see Chapter 6), Siberian elm 

(Ulmus pumila L.), and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima; Howard 2004), has likely 

altered fuel profiles along streams and rivers in arid and semiarid regions throughout the 

western United States.

Less direct human impacts result from activities within the watershed that alter the 

movement of water, sediment, and large wood and nutrients or introduce contaminants 

to the stream. Activities include urbanization, agriculture, road-building, forest harvest, 

and grazing. Urbanization and development of transportation networks result in the 

replacement of riparian vegetation and fragmentation of riparian-stream ecosystems 

(Blanton and Marcus 2009; Bledsoe and Watson 2001; Patten 1998). Mechanical operations associated with forest harvest, agriculture, road construction, postfire rehabilitation 

treatments, and mining can influence hillslope hydrology and erosion potential, resulting 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 27

in increased erosion and delivery of sediment to stream channels and floodplains (Reid 

2010; Robichaud et al. 2000, 2010). Timber harvest has altered upland and streamside 

forest habitat and changed riparian microclimates by increasing solar radiation and 

decreasing relative humidity and protection from wind, thereby increasing stream temperatures (Brosofske et al. 1997; Moore et al. 2005). Forest cutting has altered forest 

structure and fuel loading and profiles and has contributed to increased frequency and 

volume of debris slides to streams and riparian areas (Luce et al. 2012).

Livestock grazing, most notably overgrazing, alters the diversity and structure of 

riparian vegetation, reducing the quality of habitat within riparian and stream ecosystems 

(Beever et al. 2005; Hessburg and Agee 2003). Soil erosion and compaction typically 

increases due to livestock activity in riparian areas (Kauffman et al. 2004), while bank 

stability decreases due to the loss of riparian vegetation and trampling (Belsky et al. 

1999). In shrub-steppe ecosystems, grazing and other land management practices have 

contributed to the increased dominance of cheatgrass, which has fueled more frequent 

fires than occurred in the past, altering regional fire regimes. Referred to as “the grassfire cycle,” it is an example of an ecological feedback loop (i.e., the higher the cover of 

annual grasses, the more frequently fire occurs and the more dominant grasses become; 

Brooks 2008; Brooks et al. 2004). Management of riparian resources in these arid ecosystems requires consideration of grazing and other past land uses, knowledge of different 

vegetation types, and active restoration (Wright and Chambers 2002).

Human impacts can result in changes in the timing, frequency, or magnitude of 

natural disturbances. As noted above, forest harvest and road building can accelerate 

Figure 7—Postfire tamarisk dominance along the Middle Rio Grande River, New Mexico. The 

overstory cottonwoods (Populus fremontii) were killed by the fire, and tamarisk (Tamarix 

ramosissima) in the understory has responded with increased growth. Gooding’s willow (Salix 

gooddingii) also occurs in the overstory, is more resilient to fire than Fremont’s cottonwood, and 

frequently resprouts following fire (photo by David M. Merritt, National Stream and Aquatic 

Ecology Center, USDA Forest Service, used with permission).
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

the frequency and volume of debris slides and hillslope sediment loss that can result in 

delivery of sediment and other material to channels and floodplains. Several extensive 

reviews have described the impacts of human disturbance and land use on streams, rivers, 

and riparian areas (Naiman et al. 2005; Wohl 2001, 2006). Land use and management 

can affect fire properties in both uplands and riparian areas. Where streams and riparian 

areas have been degraded by land and water use, fire properties may begin to resemble 

drier uplands. As in uplands, fire suppression in forested riparian areas with low- to 

mid-severity fire regimes has resulted in increased fuel loads and changes in vegetation 

composition and structure (Arno and Allison-Bunnell 2002; Messier et al. 2012; Van de 

Water and North 2011). In landscapes typified by low- or moderate-severity fire regimes, 

the cumulative impacts of land use on fire behavior are likely to be most pronounced 

under conditions of extreme fire weather (Dwire and Kauffman 2003).

2.3 Post-fire Recovery of Riparian and Aquatic Resources

Recovery of stream and riparian ecosystems following wildfire depends largely on 

burn severity and extent, whether the fire burned both upland and riparian areas, precipitation patterns in the first few years following fire and, to a lesser extent, season of burn. 

More mesic conditions near streams can accelerate vegetative recovery relative to drier 

uplands, particularly following low- to mid-severity fires. Minshall et al. (2004) described 

four stages of postfire response: (1) immediate—the time of active burning to a few days 

after; (2) short-term—a few days to the beginning of spring runoff; (3) mid-term—usually from spring runoff of the first postfire year to sometime beyond the tenth year; and 

(4) long-term—occurring decades or even centuries later. Research of fire effects in 

stream-riparian ecosystems has largely focused on short-term or early mid-term (1–5 

years following fire) period responses. Conceptual models of the impacts of fire and postfire recovery in stream-riparian corridors and burned watersheds have been proposed for 

some regions (Bendix and Cowell 2010; Pettit and Naiman 2007). In these models, key 

factors driving postfire recovery are fire severity, rates of vegetative regrowth, physical 

features of the stream reach, and postfire precipitation and runoff patterns. In this section, 

we describe how adaptations of riparian vegetation to disturbance can influence postfire 

recovery, the postfire recovery of aquatic resources, interactions among geomorphic 

responses to fire and riparian recovery, and the impacts of herbivory and invasive species 

on postfire recovery.

2.3.1 Adaptations of Riparian Vegetation to Fire

Riparian species possess a range of ecological adaptations to disturbance that 

facilitates survival and regeneration following fire, and can thus contribute to the rapid 

postfire recovery of streamside habitats (table 7; Dwire and Kauffman 2003; Johansson 

and Nilsson 2002; Miller 2000). These include adaptations that facilitate the survival of 

individual plants and species on site, such as thick bark and basal sprouting, and those 

that contribute to recolonization of burned sites, including wind and water dispersal, vegetative reproductive responses, and the capacity to establish in burned areas (Kauffman 

1990; Miller 2000; Stickney 1986).

Common riparian shrubs such as willow, alder, birch (Betula spp.), currant (Ribes

spp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), and rosaceous shrubs and trees (Amelanchier, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 29

Crataegus, Physocarpus, Prunus, Rosa, Rubus, and Spiraea spp.) sprout from stumps, root 

crowns, lignotubers and belowground stems following fire (Adams et al. 1982; Dwire et 

al. 2006b; Halofsky and Hibbs 2009a; Jackson and Sullivan 2009; Kaczynski and Cooper 

2015; Kobziar and McBride 2006; Miller 2000; Stickney 1986). Fire-caused tree and shrub 

mortality is highest when the litter layer and soil organic horizons are consumed by fire, and 

root crowns and other belowground tissue are killed (Kauffman and Martin 1990; Stickney 

1986). In many riparian areas, higher levels of soil moisture can prevent the combustion 

of soil organic matter and protect belowground tissues, thus increasing the probability of 

shrub survival, particularly near the stream banks. Most riparian sedge and grass species 

recover rapidly following light surface fires through regeneration from roots and rhizomes 

(Racine et al. 1987). Under low-severity fire regimes, thick bark protects the cambium of 

tree species that can occur in riparian areas, such as ponderosa pine, western larch (Larix 

occidentalis), and coastal redwood (Sequoia sempervirens; table 7; Miller 2000). Riparian 

species that grow on stream banks or on vegetated gravel bars or islands can survive fire by 

persisting where fires generally do not carry.

Most cottonwood and willow species respond to fluvial disturbances and browsing 

through coppice sprouting from stems as well as production of root suckers (Rood et 

al. 1994), which are adaptations that also contribute to regeneration following fire. In 

floodplain forests along the Oldman River in southern Alberta, Canada, 75 percent of the 

cottonwood trees (Populus angustifolia, P. balsamifera, P. deltoides, and hybrids) sprouted vigorously from stumps within 5 months of an early spring fire (Gom and Rood 1999). 

Root suckers were also common, demonstrating that fire stimulated clonal regeneration 

of native riparian cottonwoods. In south-central New Mexico, more than 40 percent of 

Table 7—Ecological adaptations that promote persistence and recovery of riparian plant species 

following fire (modified from table 2 in Dwire and Kauffman 2003).

Adaptation Function Examplea

Adaptations that facilitate survival

Epicormic sprouting Regrowth from dormant buds Cottonwoods, Oregon ash, oaks, 

(coppice sprouting) on branches and stems hawthorn

protected by bark

Basal sprouting Regrowth from subterranean Willows, aspen, alder, birch, currant, 

buds on root, bulbs, lignotubers, snowberry, rosaceous trees and shrub,

and rhizomes camas, sedges grasses

Thick bark Protection of cambial tissues Ponderosa pine, redwood

from heat damage

Adaptations that facilitate recolonization

Windborne seeds Deposition and establishment Willows, cottonwoods, willow herbs

on postfire soils 

Water-dispersed Dispersal of seeds or vegetative Cottonwoods, willows, alders sedges, 

propagules propagules to burned locations rushes

Fire-enhanced Increased reproductive effort in Camas, blueberries, many shrubs, 

flowering and fruit the years following fire herbaceous dicots, and grasses

production

Refractory seed buried Resistant seed coat requires Lupine, manzanita, Ceanothus spp.

in soils fire or scarification to germinate

On-plant seed storage Seed storage in cones in Lodgepole pine

canopy released postfire

a Not all examples are riparian obligates, but all occur in riparian areas.
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Rio Grande cottonwoods (Populus deltoides ssp. wislizenii) that burned within two study 

sites produced shoots that survived at least 2 years following fire (Ellis 2001). Nearly 

73 percent of the native Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii) individuals produced shoot 

sprouts within the first 4 months of burning (Ellis 2001). Clonal regeneration of quaking 

aspen (Populus tremuloides) is promoted by light- to moderate-severity fire (Bartos and 

Campbell 1998; Jones and DeByle 1985; Romme et al. 1995). When aspen trees are topkilled by fire, the roots are stimulated to produce many suckers (Schier 1973; Shepperd 

and Smith 1993). Season of fire may be a critical factor in determining the capacity of 

cottonwoods and willows to survive fire. For example, severe summer fires in the southwestern United States can kill some cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), particularly trees 

that are stressed or senescent (Busch 1995; Busch and Smith 1993; fig. 7).

Most postfire recovery of riparian vegetation can be attributed to stump sprouting 

and other vegetative reproduction, although fire-enhanced flowering and fruit production 

can also foster establishment by seed (table 7; Dwire and Kauffman 2003). In the Boulder 

Creek watershed in western Wyoming, Dwire et al. (2006b) sampled 13 shrub species 

in severely burned riparian reaches. Only one species established from seed (snowbrush 

ceanothus, Ceanothus velutinus); the other 12 species either resprouted from root crowns 

that survived the fire or regenerated clonally. The study reaches were sampled three times 

(2 to 3 years postfire) and, for certain species, the number of resprouting riparian shrubs 

continued to increase during each sampling period, indicating that some plants required 

more time to regenerate than others but did survive the fire (table 8). Halofsky and Hibbs 

(2009a) sampled riparian plots in two different physiographic regions in Oregon 2 and 

4 years postfire to examine patterns of vegetation regeneration. They found that both 

conifer and hardwood-dominated plant communities were self-replacing and that most 

hardwood species regenerated via sprouting. Although they observed considerable variability in sprouting stem densities, they also found that the number of sprouting stems 

increased in many plots between the two sampling periods, indicating that some plants 

survived the fire but required more than 2 years to regenerate. Kobziar and McBride 

(2006) found that numerous riparian hardwood species had resprouted just 1 year postfire 

along two streams in the northern Sierra Nevada.

In the Boise National Forest, repeat photos showed slow shrub recovery in the first 

6 years following the North Fork Complex of fires (fig. 8). However, from years 6 to 

11 postfire, resprouting and new establishment of shrubs was notable (fig. 8). In the Big 

Creek watershed in central Idaho, Jackson and Sullivan (2009) studied riparian plant 

Table 8—Number of resprouting plants (by species) following the 2000 Boulder Creek 

Fire (western Wyoming, Bridger-Teton National Forest). Plants continued to regenerate 

over the three sampling periods (2–3 years postfire), highlighting the importance of 

monitoring fire effects beyond the first year following fire. 

Sept 2002 June 2003 Sept 2003

Species Common name (no/100m2) (no/100m2) (no/100m2)

Rosa woodsii Wood’s rose 1.9 5.0 6.7

Paxistima myrsinites Mountain boxleaf 2.3 2.9 4.7

Ribes lacustre Black gooseberry 5.3 6.4 7.0

Symphoricarpus albus Snowberry 1.4 2.3 2.4

Salix boothii Booths’ willow 11.6 11.7 13.0

Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry 5.0 5.2 5.9

All species 47.4 54.4 62.7
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 31

composition 5 to 6 years following the Diamond Point Fire (2000) in unburned, lowseverity burned, and high-severity burned reaches. Upland forest stands were dominated 

by dry mixed-conifer forests. In riparian areas, data were reported for 24 woody species, 

20 of which are generally considered to be riparian species, and all of which survived 

high-severity fire, primarily through stump sprouting and basal regrowth. Five years 

postfire, the researchers detected no differences in plant community composition between 

the unburned and low-severity burned reaches, indicating rapid recovery. However, comparisons in plant community composition between unburned and severely burned reaches 

revealed distinct differences. Although few long-term comparative data are available, 

Figure 8—Recovery of riparian 

shrubs following the 1994 North 

Fork Complex of fires, Boise 

National Forest. Resprouting was 

slow during the first 6 postfire 

years (A: Trapper Creek 2000, 

6 years postfire); however, from 

years 6 to 12, shrub resprouting 

was more notable (B: Trapper 

Creek 2003, 9 years postfire; C: 

Trapper Creek 2006, 12 years 

postfire) (photos by Tim Burton, 

used with permission).

C

B

A
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

vegetative recovery in both upland and riparian areas can be much slower in severely 

burned portions of watersheds (fig. 9).

2.3.2 Post-fire Recovery of Aquatic Resources

Most studies examining fire effects on lotic systems have focused on changes in 

streamflow, sediment transport, water chemistry, aquatic biota, and fish habitat (see reviews by Bixby et al. 2015; Gresswell 1999; Rieman et al. 2003; and Verkaik et al.2013). 

Minshall et al. (1989) described the linkages between recovery processes in riparian and 

stream ecosystems following fire, noted the importance of riparian vegetation in providing increased shade and allochthonous inputs of organic matter over time, and suggested 

trajectories for consequent changes in benthic invertebrate communities. Following the 

1988 fires in Yellowstone National Park, Minshall and others initiated extensive studies 

on the effects of wildfire to stream properties and biota, particularly macroinvertebrate 

communities (Mihuc and Minshall 1995; Minshall et al. 1995, 1997, 2001). Comparing 

burned and reference streams in the first several years following fire, they found differences in the relative abundance of certain invertebrate functional feeding groups, as 

well as differences in the transport and storage of organic matter, and movement of large 

Figure 9—Portions of the 

Ouzel Creek catchment, 

Rocky Mountain National 

Park, Colorado, burned 

in 1977. In the severely 

burned area, both upland 

and riparian vegetative 

recovery has been slow, 

marked by patches of 

lodgepole pine and aspen 

regeneration, as shown 

by the photos taken in 

2013, 36 years postfire. 

Inputs of burned trees from 

the riparian area have 

resulted in large amounts of 

instream wood loading.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 33

wood. Postfire recovery rates of aquatic biota were faster than expected, and appeared to 

be related to the recovery of riparian vegetation (Minshall et al. 1997, 2001). Researchers 

working in other locations have also noted the importance of riparian regrowth to the 

response of aquatic biota, although recovery of different processes and biota varied seasonally and with the time since fire (Cooper et al. 2015; Verkaik et al. 2013; fig. 10).

Malison and Baxter (2010a,b) studied the impacts of wildfire on aquatic biota, 

riparian spiders, and streamside bats 5 years postfire, the period described as ‘midterm’

stage of response and recovery by Minshall et al. (2004). They investigated the effects 

of different fire severities on periphyton, benthic invertebrates, and emerging aquatic 

insects, spiders, and bats by comparing unburned sites with those burned by low- and 

high-severity wildfire on tributaries of Big Creek in the Middle Fork Salmon River 

drainage of central Idaho. They observed greater biomass of benthic macroinvertebrates, 

higher emergence of adult aquatic insects, more spiders, and more bat echo-location calls 

in severely burned reaches than in reaches burned with low severity. They concluded that 

fires of different severity have different effects on stream-riparian food webs, and that 

high-severity wildfire appeared to stimulate biotic responses. This suggests a high degree 

of ecological resilience in riparian and stream ecosystems and highlights both linkages 

Figure 10—Hypothetical changes in physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of (A) a temperate stream 

before and after wildfire and (B) before and up to 4 years after wildfire in streams in Mediterranean climates 

(from Verkaik et al. 2013; adapted from Minshall et al. 1989 and Gresswell 1999). The letters F, W, S, and S

indicate fall, winter, spring, and summer, respectively. In panel B, the solid lines represent streams in burned 

basins where riparian vegetation burned, and the dashed lines represent streams in burned basins where 

riparian vegetation remained intact. If only a solid line is shown, the response variable is hypothesized to be 

similar for streams in basins with burned and unburned riparian vegetation.

A B
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

between aquatic and riparian recovery and the importance of monitoring postfire response 

over different periods.

Many of the published studies on postfire recovery of aquatic ecosystems, including the studies described above, have been conducted in dry mixed-conifer forest types 

of the Interior West (Jain et al. 2012). Yet similar results were found in streams of 

southern California, where uplands are dominated by chaparral shrublands and riparian 

vegetation is largely comprised of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. Cooper et 

al. (2015) compared fire effects on macroinvertebrate community structure, food webs, 

and physicochemical variables in streams draining burned basins with burned riparian 

vegetation, burned basins with unburned riparian vegetation, and unburned basins of 

coastal southern California. Stable isotope analysis revealed that invertebrate diets in 

streams with burned riparian vegetation included a higher proportion of algal material 

than allochthonous detritus relative to invertebrate diets in streams with intact riparian 

vegetation. In the first postfire year, particulate organic matter, detritivore, and predator levels were lower in burned basins than in unburned basins, regardless of riparian 

condition. Shredder densities recovered quickly in burned basins with intact riparian 

vegetation, but remained low for 4 years in streams with burned riparian vegetation 

(Cooper et al. 2015).

In a retrospective study, Burton (2005) compared stream habitat characteristics of 

burned and unburned reaches of the Central Idaho Wilderness with reaches located on 

the Boise National Forest. He also examined trout abundance in a subset of streams in 

burned watersheds that had been sampled over time, including prefire and before- and 

after-fire-related debris flows. From 1986 to 2003, the Boise National Forest experienced a sequence of large, severe, uncharacteristic wildfires, which appeared to have 

more pronounced negative effects on trout populations in the first few postfire years 

compared with more characteristic, less severe wildfires that occurred in the Central 

Idaho Wilderness. However, within 5–10 years following fire, stream habitat conditions 

and trout populations improved dramatically. Aquatic habitats that were disrupted by 

fire and fire-related flooding and debris flows recovered within the “mid-term stage of 

postfire response” described by Minshall et al. (2004). The local extirpation of fishes 

following severe wildfire was generally patchy and short term. In several locations, 

fish rapidly recolonized burned reaches, where habitat conditions were improved by 

fire-related disturbances. Burton concluded that fish populations most at risk were 

those with small or isolated distributions, particularly in small watersheds with barriers 

to migration. Similar results have been observed in other streams in Idaho (Dunham 

et al. 2007) and elsewhere in the western United States (Dunham et al. 2003). The 

vulnerability of fish to fire depends on the quality of the impacted habitats, the extent 

of habitat fragmentation, and the degree of habitat specificity of individual fish species 

(Dunham et al. 2003; Luce et al. 2012; Rieman et al. 2003; Sestrich et al. 2011). To 

assist in evaluating the short- and long-term effects of fire on fish populations, management considerations are summarized in table 9.

The abundance of algae, detrital inputs, and aquatic and riparian invertebrates can 

show a wide range of responses to fires and subsequent floods and debris flow events, 

from negative to undetectable to positive. Responses vary depending on fire severity; 

timing of sampling relative to fires; postfire precipitation patterns and run-off intensity; 

fire-related disturbances such as flooding, erosion, and other physical disturbances; and 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 35

the conditions of the riparian canopy (Arkle et al. 2010; Cooper et al. 2015; Verkaik 

et al. 2013). Postfire riparian canopy cover was investigated for multiple years following wildfires in central Idaho (Arkle et al. 2010) and Oregon (Halofsky and Hibbs 

2009b). In each study, canopy cover was assessed along transects placed perpendicular 

to channel, across the stream, within the study reaches. In the Idaho study, researchers 

included canopy cover estimates in multivariate analyses and found that percentage 

riparian canopy cover was an important habitat variable influencing stream macroinvertebrate communities in each of the three postfire years. In the Oregon study, Halofsky 

and Hibbs (2009b) found that both deciduous and conifer riparian canopy cover 

increased over time; in the B&B Complex fire, deciduous cover increased from 42 

percent to 56 percent between the sampling periods (2 and 4 years postfire), and conifer 

cover increased from 11 percent to 15 percent.

Several studies have investigated the importance of fire severity on riparian 

conditions in regulating stream habitat variables and biotic responses, especially macroinvertebrate communities (Arkle et al. 2010; Cooper et al. 2015; Malison and Baxter 

2010a,b). In general, research results suggest that fire effects on runoff, sediment, and 

nutrients are related to basin-wide fire impacts on vegetation and soils, but stream temperature, light, and particulate organic matter levels depend on fire impacts on riparian 

vegetation (Verkaik et al. 2013). Probable cause-effect relationships among fire and 

stream habitat and biota include interactions among driving and response variables that 

can change depending on fire severity and stream and watershed conditions (fig. 11). 

The recovery of stream communities to prefire conditions depends on the recovery of 

riparian and basin vegetation, postfire watershed physical processes and channel geomorphic processes, reestablishment of biogeochemical cycles, and the balance between 

detrital inputs and instream primary production (Pettit and Naiman 2007; Verkaik et al. 

2013).

Fire is a natural disturbance process that directly influences the recruitment 

of large wood to streams (Benda et al. 2003a,b). Recruitment rates, timing, and 

Table 9—Considerations and specific management-related questions regarding the effects of fire on 

fish populations and habitats (modified from table 2 in Dunham et al. 2003). 

Considerations	 Specific questions

Is fire an issue? What is the probability that a fire will occur in a given area?

If a fire occurs, how severe or widespread will the fire likely be?

How different are current fire regimes from characteristic fire 

regimes? 

Physical response to fire What kinds of physical responses to fire are most likely for 

watersheds of concern?

What are the likely spatial and temporal patterns (location, 

distribution, and scale) of physical processes?

Fish population and habitat How important are likely physical responses to fish populations

responses and habitats?

What other constraints (e.g. land use, nonnative species) are acting

 to compromise fish populations and habitats?

What are the immediate and longer-term risks and benefits of fire 

and related disturbances to fish populations and habitats? 

Conflicting and complementary Will fire management for aquatic resources conflict with protection

interests of other forest values?

Where are the opportunities to benefit multiple resources? 
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

reach-level wood loads depend on the prefire forest conditions (upland and riparian 

forests), fire severity, location within the stream network, and watershed characteristics associated with wood transport and channel storage (May and Gresswell 2003a; 

Wohl and Jaeger 2009). Postfire instream wood loads may not increase for one or 

more decades following fire, depending on when standing dead trees fall. Also, more 

transport of instream large wood can occur after fire due to decreased channel stability and increases in discharge (Bendix and Cowell 2010; Young 1994). Zelt and Wohl 

(2004) compared instream large wood loads and channel features in adjacent burned 

and unburned basins in the Absaroka Range, Wyoming, 11–12 years after the 1988 

Yellowstone fires. They found that instream wood loads were significantly lower in the 

burned drainage, which they attributed to increased transport due to higher stream discharge following fire. Timing of postfire recruitment of large wood to channels depends 

on reach-level conditions, extent of burn severity, local wind patterns, and other factors 

influencing tree fall (Minshall and Brock 1991; Young 1994). Postfire inputs can occur 

over several decades following fire, so extend into the ‘long-term’ stage of response 

and recovery described by Minshall et al. (2004; fig. 10).

Figure 11—Possible cause-effect relationships between fire, physical and habitat variables, and stream 

biotic communities. Lines without arrows indicate variables that are associated with each other 

and unidirectional arrows point from driving variables to response variables. Double-headed 

arrows indicate consumer-resource interactions where consumers both depress and benefit from 

the consumption of their resources (from Bixby et al. 2015).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 37

Once large burned trees begin to fall, instream large wood volume can be considerably higher than prefire conditions (Minshall and Brock 1991). Increased large wood 

loading following fire contributes to stream habitat complexity and is generally beneficial to fish populations (Burton 2005), although the functionality of individual pieces 

changes over time (Scheidt 2006; Vaz et al. 2013).

Over the long term (decades and longer), after burned trees have fallen into the 

channel or onto the floodplain, large wood recruitment from the regenerating riparian 

and upland forest will depend on forest type, growth rates of the dominant tree species, and site potential of floodplains and hillslopes (Bragg 2000; Bragg et al. 2000). 

In a burned watershed on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming, inputs of large 

wood from adjacent hillslopes and riparian areas to the channel are being tracked over 

time. Thirteen years postfire, nearly 90 percent of the burned trees had either entered 

the channel or fallen on the floodplain (unpublished data; fig. 12). Scheidt (2006) 

compared instream large wood characteristics in stream channels with three different 

times-since-fire: recent (15–20 years), mid (80–110 years), and old (>150 years) in 

central Idaho. He found few significant differences among the three periods, suggesting 

that wildfire disturbance did not have a lasting long-term effect on most large wood 

characteristics in the moderate-gradient, unconfined channels he studied.

Figure 12—Postfire inputs 

of large wood to 

Boulder Creek, Bridger–

Teton National Forest. 

Thirteen years postfire, 

approximately 52 percent of 

the recruitable wood load 

has entered the channel, 38 

percent has fallen directly 

on the floodplain, and 10 

percent is still standing, 

with potential to either 

enter the channel (wholly 

or partially) or fall to the 

floodplain.
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

2.3.3 Interactions Among Physical Processes and Recovery of 

Riparian and Aquatic Resources

Fires interact with physical processes at both local and landscape scales to influence 

the form and dynamics of stream networks, hydrology, geomorphology, and riparian 

plant communities (Arno and Allison-Bunnell 2002). Channel erosion and mass-wasting 

processes can be initiated following wildfire due to the removal of vegetation, consumption of litter and duff, increased susceptibility of bare soils to erosion, and response to 

precipitation (table 10; Gartner et al. 2008). Physical processes, including overland flow, 

debris flows, earthflows, mudslides, and bank sloughing can deliver sediment to the channel and floodplain (Meyer et al. 2001; Pierson et al. 2001; Ryan et al. 2011; Wondzell 

and King 2003). The occurrence of these processes depends on topography, underlying 

geology, and soil and vegetation characteristics and is frequently associated with fire, past 

Table 10—Characteristics and potential influences of major channel erosion and mass-wasting processes (modified 

from Reid 2010). 

Timing of sediment 

Erosion process	 Grain size	 input	 Location	 Potential Influences

Bank erosion fine to medium High flows Highest concern in Altered large wood loading

Runoff after high flows moderate to large Altered riparian vegetation

channels Altered channel form

Increased channel migration

Gully erosion fine to medium Periods of runoff Hillslopes Altered site productivity

Early season flows Small to medium Lowered water tables

channels Accelerated runoff

Below diversions More hillslope sediment 

delivery

Increased bank erosion

Altered channel form

Reduced floodplain 

connectivity

Soil creep fine to medium chronic Steeper hillslopes; Increased bank erosion

Pervasive in certain 

sedimentary 

lithologies 

Shallow slides fine to coarse High intensity rain on Inner gorges Altered site productivity

wet ground Hillslope swales Flow defection

Rain-on-snow events Undercut banks Altered large wood loading

Certain sedimentary

 lithologies

Debris flows fine to coarse High intensity rain on Steep swales Altered channel roughness

wet ground Certain sedimentary Flow deflection

Rain-on-snow events lithologies Altered large wood loading

Channel blocking and/or

migration

Deep-seated slides fine to very Very wet seasons, Certain sedimentary Altered site productivity

coarse following high snow lithologies Flow deflection

pack winters Altered large wood loading

Rain-on-snow events Channel blocking and/or 

migration

Earthflows fine to very Very wet seasons, Certain sedimentary Altered site productivity

coarse following high snow lithologies Flow deflection

pack winters Altered large wood loading

Rain-on-snow events Channel blocking and/or 

migration
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 39

management activities (especially roads and forest harvest), and storm events. Numerous 

studies have documented increased frequency of debris flows following large-scale, 

severe fires (Cannon et al. 2001; Gabet and Bookter 2008; Gartner et al. 2008; Meyer 

et al. 1992; Santi et al. 2008). In the Oregon Coast range, May and Gresswell (2003b) 

found that a pulse of debris flow activity occurred following the last stand-replacement 

fire on mid- and upper-slope positions. In their study basins, the most recent fire in the 

upper slopes did not directly impact the lower elevation channels or valley bottoms, but 

the influence of the fire was propagated through the stream network by debris flows in the 

tributaries. The impacts of debris flows on postfire riparian recovery are not well documented (but see Johnson et al. 2000; May and Gresswell 2003a,b; Wohl 2006) but have 

likely exerted localized influence on forested riparian areas in mountainous regions.

Postfire soil erodibility is affected by geological substrate, fire severity, local and 

watershed impacts of the fire to vegetation and soil, and precipitation patterns, especially 

in the first few postfire years (Moody and Martin 2001; Wondzell and King 2003). 

Hillslope and steep channel processes, including postfire surface erosion and mass wasting, have been well studied and can be significant in some environments (Benda et al. 

2003a; Pierce et al. 2004, Robichaud et al. 2009; Wondzell and King 2003), yet less dramatic processes may also be important ecologically as channels and watersheds undergo 

adjustments following fire (Ryan et al. 2011). In the Little Granite Creek watershed in 

western Wyoming, Ryan et al. (2011) compared stream sediment loads from a burned 

subwatershed (Boulder Creek) to prefire levels and to loads from an adjacent, unburned 

control subwatershed. Elevated suspended sediment concentrations and sediment yields 

were observed during spring runoff and in response to storms, and were highest during the first postfire year. However, the magnitude of increase was low relative to other 

studies, due partly to dry conditions in the first 3 years following fire. Also, regrowth of 

riparian and other vegetation likely contributed to interception of hillslope erosion. More 

extreme fire-related flood and sedimentation events can result in localized removal or 

burial of riparian vegetation, alteration of floodplain surfaces, and deposition of various 

substrates, thus resetting successional dynamics within streamside plant communities. 

Existing riparian vegetation contributes to retention of fine sediment, which will eventually be incorporated into the floodplain soils.

Physical processes can increase instream large wood loading by delivering wood to 

channels via debris flows, shallow and deep-seated slides, earthflows, and bank erosion 

(Benda et al. 2003a,b; May 2002; May and Gresswell 2003a,b; Reid 2010; table 10). In 

third- to fifth-order streams in the Oregon Coast Range, the contribution of large wood 

from debris flows ranged from 11 to 57 percent of the total volume of instream wood 

(May 2002). However, the influence of postfire physical disturbances on recruitment of 

large wood to stream channels has only been investigated for a few stream types (Bendix 

and Cowell 2010; Scheidt 2006). Additional research is needed to address the role of 

postfire physical processes in large wood recruitment to streams in different forest types 

and over a range of time periods, that is, in the first few years following fire, as well as 

over decadal scales (Scheidt 2006).

Flooding is a natural disturbance in stream-riparian corridors and can interact with 

postfire recovery of riparian and aquatic biota. In a central Idaho wilderness area, Arkle 

et al. (2010) compared the interaction between wildfire and annual variations in peak 

streamflow on stream habitat variables and macroinvertebrate communities in seven 
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

unburned and six burned catchments for 4 postfire years. They found that riparian burn 

severity and extent were correlated with greater annual variation in sediment loads, 

organic debris, instream large wood, and undercut bank structure. Changes in these 

variables over time were correlated with annual peak flow in the burned basins but not in 

the unburned basins, indicating that the interaction between the fire and flow disturbances 

resulted in decreased habitat stability in the burned basins. Macroinvertebrate communities showed high annual variability, especially in severely burned catchments, which the 

authors attributed to changing influence of sediment, instream large wood, and riparian 

canopy cover. The researchers concluded that interactions among fire, flow, and stream 

habitat influence year-to-year habitat variability and macroinvertebrate community composition, potentially for a period similar to the historic fire return interval.

Two of the conceptual models that have been developed to predict fire effects on 

stream ecosystems have emphasized the importance of fire-related physical disturbances 

over different periods (Bendix and Cowell 2010; Pettit and Naiman 2007). Verkaik et al. 

(2013) described hypothetical postfire changes in drainage basins dominated by coniferous forest, representing temperate streams and three different vegetation types that occur 

in Mediterranean climates, with particular focus on fire severity (severely burned versus 

moderately burned) and the occurrence of landslides. In their conceptual model, they 

recognized that postfire landslides occur in all four vegetation types, depending on the 

steepness of the catchment, and that the timing of landslides and debris flows is largely 

regulated by the timing and intensity of precipitation in the first few years following 

fire. Based on the rapidity of vegetative recovery, they speculated that burned basins in 

Mediterranean climates would recover more quickly than those in temperate regions. 

Bendix and Cowell (2010) summarized interactions among fire, riparian vegetation, 

fluvial processes and landforms, and instream large wood in a conceptual model. They 

emphasized the role of postfire flooding in delivery and redistribution of large wood to 

channels, particularly for streams in Mediterranean climates.

2.3.4 Challenges to Postfire Recovery of Riparian Vegetation

In all terrestrial ecosystems, a major management concern and challenge following 

fire is the potential increase in cover of nonnative invasive plant species (Harrod and 

Reichard 2001). Management activities have generally increased the vulnerability of 

riparian areas to invasion by nonnative species (DeFerrari and Naiman 1994; Fleischner 

1994; Parks et al. 2005; Planty-Tabacchi et al. 1996), and the combined influence of fire 

and past land and water use has contributed to increased dominance of some riparian 

areas by invasive nonnatives (fig. 7). Even in a fairly remote wilderness area in Idaho, 

cheatgrass and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) were observed in severely 

burned riparian reaches 5 years postfire (Jackson and Sullivan 2009). The increase in 

dominance of cheatgrass has been related to altered fire regimes (Brooks et al. 2004) 

and has been studied extensively in the Great Basin and elsewhere throughout the West 

(Chambers et al. 2007; Mack and D’Antonio 1998) but is usually not reported in forested 

riparian areas. Reed canary grass is considered highly invasive in wetlands and riparian 

areas throughout most of its range in North America (Foster and Wetzel 2005; Kilbride 

and Paveglio 1999) and generally responds favorably to fire (Hutchinson 1992; Waggy 

2010). The occurrence of these invasive grasses in a wilderness area is of definite concern 

and highlights the challenge of managing invasive species following fire.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 41

The same basic principles of managing invasive species apply in riparian areas as in 

uplands: minimize the potential for their dispersal and establishment, focus on prevention 

of spread, maintain resistant native ecosystems, and conduct incremental treatments within an adaptive management framework. However, control of invasive species can be more 

difficult in riparian areas because use of mechanical and chemical treatments is restricted 

or not allowed along many streams (but see Chapter 6). Control of invasive species in 

many remote areas is limited by access and funding. Interaction and feedback between 

fire and response of invasive plant species are likely to increase in complexity, requiring 

expanded coordination for invasive species control at watershed and regional scales.

Postfire herbivory by livestock and native ungulates is frequently noted as a management concern (see Chapter 4, this report) and may contribute to increased cover by 

nonnative species. In a wide shrub-dominated floodplain in Rocky Mountain National 

Park, Colorado, Kaczynski and Cooper (2015) examined the effect of ungulate browsing 

on postfire basal sprouting of shrubs by comparing biomass of caged plants, enclosed to 

exclude ungulates, with uncaged plants. They found that browsing resulted in a 64 percent reduction in biomass for the uncaged plants. In a severely burned portion of Boulder 

Creek, western Wyoming, Dwire et al. (2006b) studied the impacts of browsing (cattle, 

elk, and deer) on postfire growth for 13 shrub species, 2 to 3 years following wildfire. 

Shrub height, crown area, and crown volume were sampled three times to capture winter 

browsing by native ungulates as well as summer utilization by both cows and native 

ungulates (fig. 13). Results indicated that growth of riparian shrubs was severely limited 

by herbivory in the first few years following wildland fire. Native ungulates browsed resprouting riparian shrubs heavily, especially palatable forage species such as serviceberry 

(Amalanchier alnifolia) and willows (Salix spp. fig. 13). For most riparian species, the 

addition of cattle contributed to higher percentages of browsed stems and arrested growth 

in the third growing season following wildland fire. Most riparian areas are susceptible to 

heavy browsing by native ungulates following fire, and managers are encouraged to postpone livestock grazing for several postfire growing seasons to foster recovery of valued 

riparian shrubs.
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Figure 13—Postfire growth 

in height (A), crown area 

(B), and crown volume (C) 

for three sampling periods 

(September 2002, June 2003, 

and September 2003) for 

six common riparian shrub 

species occurring along 

Boulder Creek, Wyoming. 

For each species, mean (±1 

standard error) is shown; 

different letters denote 

significant differences in 

means; ND denotes no 

difference; sample size 

(number of shrubs measured) 

is shown in parentheses 

(Dwire et al. 2006).

AMAL

(n=35)

LOIN

 (n=17)

SHCA

(n=16)

SABO

 (n=81)

SADR

(n=32)

SAWO

(n=10)

ND

ND

ND

ND

a a

b

C

a

a

ab

Crown Volume (m3) 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Sept 2002

June 2003

Sept 2003

B

Crown Area (m2) 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

ND

ND

ND

ND

a a

b

a

a

ab

A

Height (m)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

ND

ND

ND

a a

b

a

b

a

ab b

ab

Species codes are: AMAL = Amalanchier alnifolia; LOIN = Lonicera 

involucrata; SHCA = Sheperdia canadensis; SABO = Salix boothii; 

SADR = Salix drummondiana; SAWO = Salix wolfii.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 43

Chapter 3: Effects of Fuel Management 

Activities on Riparian Resources

3.1 Fuel Management Treatments

Fuel reduction treatments are land management actions taken to reduce the threat of 

severe wildland fire and are being planned and implemented on public lands throughout 

the United States (Ager et al. 2014). Most treatments have the overall goal of decreasing 

the risk of high-severity fire by fragmenting the forest canopy, removing ladder fuels, and 

reducing the abundance of ground fuels (Agee and Skinner 2005; Peterson et al. 2007). Fuel 

management treatments have been underway for over a decade as the Forest Service and 

other natural resource agencies implement the National Fire Plan (USDA/DOI 2001), the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (GAO 2003), and the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative 

(Dombeck et al. 2004; Graham et al. 2004; Stephens and Ruth 2005; USDA/DOI 2008). 

One of the four goals of the National Fire Plan Comprehensive Strategy is to reduce hazardous fuels, thus potentially decreasing the risk of severe wildfire and modifying fire behavior 

so that some wildland fires may be more readily and safely managed (Graham et al. 2004; 

USDA/DOI 2002).

Fuel reduction treatments typically target crown, ladder, and surface fuels (Hunter et 

al. 2007; Jain et al. 2012; Peterson et al. 2007) and include prescribed fire, thinning, and 

other silvicultural operations, as well as chemical and biological treatment (Graham et al. 

2004, 2010; Rummer 2010). Various combinations of different treatments are frequently 

used to modify vegetation in the canopy, subcanopy, and near and on the ground surface 

(Harrod et al. 2009). Treatment combinations and sequence of implementation depend on 

project objectives, targeted fuels, current condition of the vegetation, past management, and 

logistics (Peterson et al. 2007; Rummer 2010). Each treatment type and treatment combination could have different effects, ranging from negative to positive to benign, on ecosystem 

processes and attributes.

The objective of this chapter is to summarize the current knowledge on the impacts 

of fuels management on riparian resources. Despite the focus of ongoing research on the 

effects of fuel treatments (Graham et al. 2009; Jain et al. 2012; USDA/USDI 2008), results 

from studies specifically conducted in riparian areas are limited. We have summarized 

numerous studies from the literature that investigated the effects of wildfire, prescribed 

fire, and mechanical thinning or forest harvest on riparian and stream ecosystems. Our 

geographic focus is the western United States, although we present relevant findings from 

studies conducted elsewhere.
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

3.2 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on 

Riparian Resources

3.2.1 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Riparian Vegetation

There is increased recognition that fire was historically common in many riparian 

areas (see Chapter 2). As in surrounding uplands, fire suppression has contributed to the 

accumulation of fuels in riparian areas, particularly in forest types with low- to mid-severity fire regimes (Everett et al. 2003; Messier et al. 2012; Olson and Agee 2005; Van de 

Water and North 2011). Yet, for most riparian plant communities, few data are available 

on fuel loads, fuel characteristics, or fuel distribution (but see Van de Water and North 

2011; Dwire et al. 2015a,b).

Most of the valued habitat and biogeochemical functions of riparian areas are 

provided either directly or indirectly by vegetation (table 1). The potential effects of 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments on vegetation features important for wildlife 

include decreased stem densities, reduced canopy continuity, fewer snags, and changes in 

nesting/rearing requirements and forage availability (table 11; Pilliod et al. 2006). Results 

from studies of prescribed fire and more extensive forest harvest treatments in upland and 

riparian areas are helpful in evaluating potential effects of fuels treatments on riparian 

vegetation (table 12; Sarr et al. 2005). Bêche et al. (2005) sampled riparian vegetation 

before and after a fall prescribed burn along stream segments in the central Sierra Nevada 

Mountains of California. As expected, plant cover and structure were reduced in the first 

few years following treatment. But researchers also found that ground-cover taxa richness decreased more in the burned plots than unburned plots, Simpson’s species diversity 

index decreased in both, and ordination results showed little difference in community 

composition between burned and unburned plots (Bêche et al. 2005; table 12). Similar 

results have been observed in other locations following prescribed fire (Elliot et al. 1999) 

and may be partly due to patchy burning. In dry riparian meadows in central Nevada, 

Wright and Chambers (2002) used prescribed fire to restore cover of native graminoids. 

They concluded that prescribed fire combined with proper grazing management could 

be used to restore grass and sedge dominance under certain conditions; they developed 

a conceptual state-and-transition model to illustrate interactions among prescribed fire, 

grazing, and environmental conditions.

In the South Fork Salmon River drainage in central Idaho, a spring prescribed burn 

was ignited in the mixed-conifer uplands and allowed to burn into the riparian area (Arkle 

and Pilliod 2010). Researchers sampled transects placed perpendicular to the stream 

channel (1-km reaches) in the treated stream and four unburned reference streams for 

3 years before treatment and 3 years following treatment (table 12). The prescribed fire 

burned with low to moderate severity in the uplands but left much of the riparian area 

unburned and had no effect on riparian cover or instream large wood. The researchers 

also compared patterns of burn severity and extent among the Diamond Peak wildfire 

(2000, central Idaho) and three other prescribed burns in the South Fork Salmon River 

drainage. They found that the riparian area burned by wildfire within a given basin was 

proportional to the basin area burned. However, a much smaller proportion of the riparian 

area was burned by prescribed fire than expected for a wildfire of similar size. In addition, the prescribed fires did not burn any of the riparian forest at high severity (Arkle 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 45

and Pilliod 2010). These results indicate that the ecological effects of prescribed fires are 

much different (weaker) than those of wildfire in this mixed-conifer forest type, because 

burn severity and extent of burn were notably lower in treated areas.

In naturally burned riparian plant communities in Central Idaho, Jackson and Sullivan 

(2009) found no difference in species composition between unburned reaches and reaches 

that burned with low severity, 5 to 6 years postfire (table 12). Following the Biscuit Fire 

in southwestern Oregon and the B&B Complex Fire in the Cascade Mountains of westcentral Oregon, Halofsky and Hibbs (2009a) measured the regeneration of postfire woody 

species 2 and 4 years following the wildfires. They found that most woody species in both 

Table 11—Features of vegetation and wildlife and invertebrate habitats altered by fuel reduction treatments (modified 

from Pilliod et al. 2006).

Habitat Treatment

element	 Thinning	 Prescribed fire

Trees Decreased stem density; number and size Mortality of small diameter trees;

class removed depends on method; Decreased density, but highly variable due to

Removal of small diameter trees, (ladder fuels); variability in fuel profiles;

Reduction in regeneration and canopy continuity; Increased canopy base height;

Increased canopy base height; Reduced canopy bulk density;

Reduced living trees with decay; Reduction in hardwoods and aspen;

Reduced number of trees with dwarf mistletoe Reduced living trees with decay;

brooms. Reduced number of trees with dwarf 

mistletoe brooms.

Shrubs Removal or reduction of large shrubs (ladder fuels); Small mortality in patches, but potential loss 

of above-ground forage, cover, and 

structure;

Trampling of small shrubs; Regrowth within 1–10 years

Regrowth within 1–10 years. 

Forbs and Minimal disturbance, except where trampling, Minimal mortality, mostly loss of above 

graminoids skidding or pile burning; ground forage and cover;

Regrowth within 1–5 growing seasons; Regrowth within 1–5 growing seasons;

Potential for increase in cover of invasive plant Potential for increase in cover of invasive 

species. plant species.

Litter Generally minimal disturbance; Reduction or elimination in places, but 

and duff Possible increase with mastication. highly variable;

Burning may alter nutrient content and 

dynamics, water holding capacity, other 

properties. 

Soil Potential soil compaction Variable heating to soils;

Possible erosion on steeper slopes.

Snags Number and sizes removed depends on treatment; Variable, but larger snags are generally not 

Removal of larger snags could take decades to consumed;

recover. Could result in many small-diameter snags, 

most too small for most wildlife to use;

Burning/charring of snags could alter wildlife

and invertebrate use;

Loss of larger snags could take decades to 

recover.

Down wood Amount and size classes removed depends on Reduced number of pieces and volume, but 

treatment; variable due to fire intensity, size, moisture

Number of small-diameter pieces could increase with content, and decay state of down wood;

lop-and-scatter; Burning/charring of down wood could alter 

Removal of large diameter down wood could take wildlife and invertebrate use;

decades to recover. Loss of large-diameter down wood could 

take decades to recover.
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. Table 12—Effects of wildfire, prescribed burning and forest harvest treatments on characteristics of forest and riparian vegetation (modified from Dwire et al. 2010). Time scalea Treatment and study type (years) Location Findings Source Wildfire; riparian sampling along unburned, +5 Mixed conifer: Ponderosa, pine lodgepole pine, No difference in riparian species composition between unburned Jackson and low-severity burned, high-severity burned reaches Douglas-fir; central Idaho (15 streams) and low-severity burned reaches. Plant cover remained low in high- Sullivan 2009 severity burned reaches Wildfire; retrospective sampling in riparian plots; +2 and +4 Port-Orford cedar, Douglas-fir, western Vigorous regeneration of woody species in both conifer and Halofsky and stratified random sampling design to include low, hemlock, western red cedar, SW Oregon; hardwood dominated riparian plant communities. Hibbs 2009a moderate, and high severity burn classes and stream ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, grand fir, size (1-3 order). Douglas-fir, central Oregon Spring prescribed burn; experimental study; sampled –3 to +3 Mixed conifer: Ponderosa pine, fir spp., No effects of prescribed fire on riparian habitat, including riparian Arkle and 1 treated stream and compared to 4 unburned, Engelmann spruce; SF Salmon River drainage, cover and large wood. Prescribed fire burned less severely and less Pilliod 2010 reference streams (1-km reaches) central Idaho (5 streams) riparian area than wildfires of equivalent size. Stand-replacing wildfire; retrospective sampling in +145 Western hemlock-Douglas fir-forest type; Understory shrubs and red alder dominate initially; eventually Nierenberg and riparian plots Oregon Coast Oregon (9 streams) replaced by conifers Hibbs 2000 Logging, wildfire, logging + wildfire; retrospective +2 to +135 Western hemlock-Douglas fir forest type; Rapid regeneration of shrub and herbaceous species; initial increase Andrus and sampling in riparian plots Oregon Coast Range (28 streams) in exotic species; overall increase in alder cover/dominance Froehlich 1988 Spring prescribed burn on hillslope gradient including –1 to +2 Mixed-oak and pine/hardwood forest types; No change in riparian species composition Elliott et al. 1999 riparian cove; experimental study No. Carolina Fall prescribed burn in riparian plots; experimental –1 to +1 Mixed-conifer forest type; Sierra Nevada, CA No clear treatment effects in riparian Bêche et al. 2005 study (with unburned community composition; diversity decreased controls) in both burned and unburned plots Unharvested alder-dominated buffers across +1 to +32 Western hemlock-Douglas fir forest type; No difference in herbaceous species richness, Hibbs and chronosequence of upland logging compared alder- (with controls) Oregon Coast Range evenness, or diversity between buffered and Giordano 1996 dominated riparian forests undisturbed by upland undisturbed plots logging; retrospective sampling in riparian plots Unharvested riparian buffers across chronosequence +1 to +33 Four overstory canopy types: pure conifer Understory shrub and herbaceous diversity strongly correlated Hibbs and Bower since upland logging; retrospective sampling in (western hemlock-Douglas fir); conifer with canopy cover type; no strong differences in shrub and 2001; Pabst and riparian buffers; compared buffer results to those from dominated; pure hardwood (alder, maple), herbaceous cover or composition between riparian buffers and Spies 1999 unmanaged riparian areas hardwood dominated; Oregon Coast Range undisturbed riparian forests. Clear-cut logging, slash burning, thinning; permanent- Varied; for most Douglas fir-dominated (young, mature, old- Temporal trends varied; for most plots, understory richness was Halpern and plot and chronosequence sampling in managed plots, before (–1) growth); West Cascades, Oregon and reduced following logging, but recovered over time. Spies 1995 and unmanaged upland forests and after Washington (+2 to +20) logging aTimescale relative to treatment (year of treatment = 0)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 47

conifer- and hardwood-dominated riparian plant communities regenerated vigorously after 

fire, and were largely self-replacing, consistent with responses observed in prescribed fire 

treatments of several willow species (see Chapter 6).

Mechanical operations alter vegetation differently than prescribed fire and could yield 

different results. However, in the Oregon Coast Range, riparian herbaceous plant diversity 

did not differ significantly between riparian forests located in unharvested watersheds and 

unharvested riparian buffers surrounded by logged uplands (table 12; Hibbs and Bower 

2001; Hibbs and Giordano 1996). In forested uplands of the Cascade Mountains (Oregon 

and Washington), clearcut logging and other types of forest harvest have tended to reduce 

plant diversity initially, although most shrub and understory species recover with time as 

succession proceeds (Halpern and Spies 1995; Halpern et al. 1992). Certain rare species, 

however, have been locally extirpated by forest harvest in uplands (Halpern and Spies 1995; 

Hansen et al. 1991).

The immediate goal of most fuel reduction treatments is to change vegetative structure 

and reduce fuel continuity to reduce crown fire behavior and potential wildfire size. The 

effects of prescribed burning on both upland and riparian species composition appear to 

be either negligible or similar to effects of low-severity wildfire and are generally neutral 

or beneficial. Results of the study by Arkle and Pilliod (2010) indicate that the effects of 

prescribed fires are much smaller and shorter-lived (i.e., not ecologically comparable) to 

the effects of wildfire. The effects of mechanical treatments on riparian species composition 

are more complex, and could result in longer-term changes, depending on magnitude of 

environmental impacts, such as soil compaction.

3.2.2 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Riparian Habitat and 

Terrestrial Wildlife

Riparian areas provide essential habitat features, namely water, food, and cover, for 

numerous wildlife species (Kauffman et al. 2001; Kelsey and West 1998). The transitional 

nature between upland and aquatic habitats results in cooler, moister streamside microclimates. The generally linear shapes with high edge-to-area ratios serve as routes of seasonal 

migration for many vertebrate species (table 1; Kauffman et al. 2001; Kelsey and West 

1998). Riparian vegetation can be structurally and spatially complex and provide wildlife 

habitat requirements, such as downed wood, snags, multiple and diverse vegetative strata 

and canopy layers (cover), and complex branching patterns (Canterbury et al. 2000; Merritt 

and Bateman 2012; Pilliod et al. 2006; Saab et al. 2007; Steel et al. 1999).

Wildlife species that use riparian areas are generally divided into riparian obligates, 

riparian generalists, and exotic species (Kelsey and West 1998). Riparian obligates require 

or depend highly on riparian and aquatic resources to the extent that they could be locally 

extirpated with loss of riparian habitat; species include amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and bird species (Kelsey and West 1998). Riparian generalists utilize both riparian 

and upland habitats, and include some salamander species, reptiles, large and small mammals (particularly bats), and birds (Kauffman et al. 2001; McComb et al. 1993; Pilliod et al. 

2006; Raedeke 1988). Riparian areas also support nonnative species, including introduced 

game birds, as well as undesirable exotic species, such as nutria (Myocastor coypus) and 

bullfrogs (Rana caresbeiana; Hayes and Jennings 1986). In some regions, breaks in riparian 

corridor continuity can impact animal movement (Smith 2000). The fragmentation of native 
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

riparian vegetation can influence the distribution of certain wildlife species, often favoring 

opportunistic species over those with more specific habitat requirements (Knopf et al. 1988; 

Raedeke 1988). Narrow corridors that are essentially edge habitat may encourage generalist 

species, nest parasites, and predators (Knopf 1986; Knopf et al. 1988).

The effects of wildfire, prescribed fire, and mechanical operations on wildlife species 

and habitat can vary considerably for different taxa and by region (Andrus and Froehlich 

1988; Pilliod et al. 2003, 2006; Saab and Powell 2005; Saab et al. 2007; Smith 2000; 

table 13). Wildfire and management practices affect fauna in the ways that they affect habitat, including nesting, rearing, cover, and food availability (Lyon et al. 2000; Pilliod et al. 

2006; Tiedemann et al. 2000). Results from an extensive review on the influence of wildfire 

on avian species (203 bird species, over 100 studies) highlighted the range of responses 

of different species and guilds to burned conditions (Saab and Powell 2005). Different 

bird species responded in distinctive ways to high-severity, mixed-severity, and standreplacement fires; some species benefitted from certain postfire conditions, while others 

declined. The authors concluded that a mosaic of habitat patches of different sizes across a 

range of burn severities is required to maintain source habitats for native avifauna. Riparian 

areas—both burned and unburned—are a necessary part of that mosaic. Similar results have 

been observed for birds in response to prescribed fire (Saab et al. 2007). Depending on the 

species, treatment effects ranged from beneficial to adverse and included neutral and mixed 

responses. In general, more bird species showed a response during the year of treatment 

implementation than in following years, suggesting that impacts of prescribed fire can be 

relatively short term. Beneficial outcomes of both wildfire and prescribed fire for birds and 

other wildlife are the creation of snags of various sizes and an increase in large, downed 

wood. Snags provide nesting and roosting sites, and downed wood provides thermal cover 

and concealment for birds as well as for reptiles, amphibians, and mammals (Bull et al. 

1997; Converse et al. 2006; Saab et al. 2007). However, the number of snags and cover 

of downed wood could also be decreased by some fuel treatments (table 11; Pilliod et al. 

2006).

Different species of small mammals were also found to respond differently to thinning 

and prescribed fire in upland ponderosa pine forests (Converse et al. 2006), depending on 

changes in certain habitat variables. Thinning and prescribed burning may impact some 

wildlife species by altering shrub cover and understory plant species composition in treated 

stands (Tiedemann et al. 2000). However, fuel reduction treatments may also benefit some 

species. For example, riparian burning and thinning resulted in increased butterfly species 

richness and diversity along streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California (table 

13; Huntzinger 2003). Arkle and Pilliod (2010) found no immediate or delayed effects of 

prescribed fire on the density of Rocky Mountain tailed frog tadpoles in a treated basin of 

central Idaho (table 13). These amphibians are good indicators of riparian and stream habitat conditions, due to relatively long larval life stages (at least 3 years; Corn and Bury 1989; 

Pilliod et al. 2003).

Wildlife responses to mechanical operations are also mixed, depending on species and 

extent of ecological impacts. Some wildlife taxa (or certain life stages of some taxa) could 

benefit from a particular forest management practice while others could be harmed. Certain 

mammals and birds have been shown to increase in species numbers with forest harvest 

while reptiles and amphibians have decreased (Raedeke 1988; Salo and Cundy 1987; 

Thomas et al. 1979;). In headwater streams of western Oregon, Olson et al. (2014) found no 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 49 Table 13—Effects of wildfire, prescribed burning and mechanical treatments on riparian habitat and terrestrial wildlife (modified from Dwire et al. 2010). Wildlife or habitat feature Study type Time scalea Vegetation studied treatments (years) type location Findings Source Amphibians Upland forest thinning with –1 to +10 Western hemlock zone; West No negative effects to populations of salamanders (11 spp) or Olson et al. 2014 (and fish) variable riparian buffer widths Cascades and Coast Range, OR fish (2 spp). Rocky Mountain Spring prescribed burn –3 to +3 Mixed conifer: Ponderosa pine, No effects of prescribed fire on densities of tailed frog tadpoles Arkle and Pilliod tailed frog fir spp., Engelmann spruce; SF 2010 tadpoles Salmon River; Central Idaho (5 streams) Amphibians, Upland forest thinning with + 5-6 Western hemlock zone; Coast No treatment effects; variable width and streamside retention Kluber et al. 2008 habitat variable riparian buffer widths Range, OR riparian buffers adequate to maintain suitable habitat attributes Amphibians Clearcut logging +2 to +25 Mixed conifer; Pacific Initial increases in fish and salamander populations, followed Hawkins et al. 1983 (and fish) Northwest forests by declines Amphibians Various logging practices Literature Mixed conifer; Pacific Declines in amphibian populations following logging; severity Bury and Corn 1988 review Northwest forests of decline depended on species Amphibians Wildfire, prescribed fire Literature Different vegetation types, Limited research; wildlife responses vary with species’ habitat Pilliod et al. 2003 review largely conifer or hardwood requirements; declines in several amphibian species following forests; USA and Australia wildland and prescribed fire Vertebrate Fuel reduction treatments Literature Dry coniferous forests of the Limited research; wildlife responses vary with species’ habitat Pilliod et al. 2006 wildlife; review western USA requirements; most notable differences occur for species invertebrates dependent on either open or closed-canopy habitats. Vertebrate Wildfire, various fuel Literature Mixed conifer; Pacific Limited effects on terrestrial amphibian species and riparian Bury 2004 wildlife treatments review Northwest forests generalists; negative effects on riparian obligates Vertebrate Wildfire, prescribed fire	 Literature Range of vegetation types, Wildfire and prescribed burning affect habitat and food Smith (ed.) 2000 wildlife review largely conifer or hardwood availability; impacts vary by species and with time since fire forests; USA Birds (5 spp) Fuel treatment; thin, pile –1 to +1 Mixed-conifer/hardwood forest, No negative effect on bird density (4 spp) or reproductive Stephens and burning, and prescribed fire SW OR success. Alexander 2011 Birds (203 spp) Wildfire Literature Range of forest types, across Responses differed by species, forest type, fire severity Saab et al. 2005 review USA Birds Wildfire; prescribed fire Review & Interior west, USA Responses differed by species, forest type; greater response Saab et al. 2007 ongoing during the treatment year than following years studies Butterflies Wildfire, prescribed fire; +1 to +10 Mixed-conifer forest types; More butterfly species in burned areas (wildfire and Huntzinger 2003 experimental study Yosemite National Park, CA; prescribed fire) relative to controls southern OR a Timescale relative to treatment (year of treatment = 0)
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

negative effects of upland thinning on populations of amphibians and fish (table 13). Using 

a before/after/control/impact methodology, they analyzed count data, which were collected 

pretreatment and 10 years posttreatment, and examined the effectiveness of four types (4 

widths) of riparian buffers in protecting 11 species of amphibians and two fish species. No 

negative effects were found on population numbers, suggesting that the riparian buffers 

were effective in maintaining adequate terrestrial and aquatic habitat. Similar results were 

found in a related study that also considered habitat variables (Kluber et al. 2008).

The presence of sensitive wildlife species could preclude fuel reduction treatments in 

particular areas, including some riparian areas. As described in Chapter 4, however, habitat 

restoration is a common goal for many fuel projects that include treatment of streamside 

areas. The basic life history traits and riparian habitat elements required by rare wildlife 

species need to be considered at different spatial and temporal scales during the project 

planning stages, since some habitat conditions could change over time in response to different treatments. Northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) generally nest close to surface water 

(streams and wetlands; Squires and Reynolds 

1997), sometimes use deciduous riparian trees 

for nesting (fig. 14), and can benefit from some 

aspects of wildland fire (Saab et al. 2005) and 

potentially to some fuel treatments. Boreal toads 

(Bufo boreas) use ponds for rearing and riparian 

wetlands for foraging, particularly those surrounded by mesic spruce-fir forest (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

Wildlife species will likely respond differently to 

Figure 14—In some locations, northern goshawks frequently nest in aspen draws and riparian areas with 

accessible surface water (Pike-San Isabel National Forest, Colorado) (photos by Kristen Meyer, Pike-San Isabel 

National Forest, Colorado, used by permission).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 51

various prescriptions and successional changes following fuel reduction treatments, as has 

been observed with other management practices (Bury 2004; Knopf et al. 1988; Pilliod et 

al. 2006; Raedeke 1988). Although there may be short-term risks to some riparian habitat, 

fuel reduction treatments (including reintroduction of fire to riparian areas) could result 

in a more spatially diverse range of habitat components with long-term benefits for more 

species. Saab et al. (2007) conclude: “Ultimately, managing for particular fire conditions—

including wildland fire, prescribed fire, or fire exclusion—entails ecological tradeoffs 

among selected wildlife species and habitats.”

3.2.3 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Aquatic Habitat and 

Biota

The effects of wildfire and fire-related processes on aquatic ecosystems and fish have 

been summarized in earlier reviews (Dunham et al. 2003; Gresswell 1999; Rieman et al. 

2003) and recently updated (Bixby et al. 2015; Luce et al. 2012; Verkaik et al. 2013; also 

see Chapter 2, this report). Riparian vegetation contributes to the maintenance of aquatic 

habitat for native fishes and other aquatic biota through (1) provision of shade for modification of stream temperature, (2) allochthonous organic matter inputs to aquatic food webs, 

(3) inputs of large wood for instream habitat complexity, and (4) provision of streamside 

habitat and stabilization of streambanks (table 1). Each of these functions could be altered 

at the reach scale with changes in riparian vegetation, including short- and long-term responses to fire and fuel treatments (Luce et al. 2012).

Provision of Shade

Stream temperature is critically important for aquatic biota and ecosystem processes 

such as productivity and nutrient cycling (Allan 1995; Beschta et al. 1987; Caissie 2006; 

Coutant 1999; Ruff et al. 2011). Water temperature influences growth, development, and 

behavioral patterns of aquatic biota both directly and through its influence on dissolved 

oxygen concentrations (Armstrong and Schindler 2013; Ebersole et al. 2001). Stream 

temperature is an important factor in determining the distribution of fish in freshwater 

streams, and most species of concern in the Pacific Northwest have limited temperature 

tolerances (Torgersen et al. 1999). Water temperature varies markedly within and among 

streams and watersheds (Caissie 2006; Poole and Berman 2001). Natural drivers of 

water temperature include topographic shade, upland and riparian vegetation, ambient air 

temperature and relative humidity, elevation, latitude, discharge, water source, and solar 

angle and radiation (Caissie 2006; Poole and Berman 2001).

Following fire, water temperatures are frequently elevated, although the extent and 

duration of increased temperatures vary depending on fire severity, extent of riparian and 

upland vegetation burned, and physical features of the burned watersheds (Cooper et 

al. 2015; Dunham et al. 2007; Gresswell 1999). Streams in different regions and stream 

segments in different parts of a drainage basin vary in response and sensitivity to wildfire 

(Poole and Berman 2001). In southern coastal California, Cooper et al. (2015) observed 

that water temperature was higher in streams draining watersheds where riparian vegetation burned than in streams in unburned watersheds or burned watersheds with intact 

riparian vegetation (table 14). Following two wildfires in Oregon, Halofsky and Hibbs 

(2009b) also found that reduction in riparian canopy cover resulted in higher stream temperatures. They observed increases in riparian cover (more shade) over streams between 
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. Table 14—Effects of wildfire, prescribed burning and mechanical treatments on riparian and aquatic habitat features and biota (modified from Dwire et al. 2010). Please see table 13 for additional studies that included effects of forest thinning and logging on some fish species. Wildlife or habitat feature Study type Time scalea Vegetation studied treatments (years) type location Findings Source Aquatic biota Fall prescribed burn in –1 to +1 Mixed-conifer forest type; Periphyton biomass initially lower in burned stream, Bêche et al. 2005 riparian plots; experimental (with Sierra Nevada, CA but exceeded biomass in unburned streams within study unburned 1 year; aquatic macroinvertebrate communities showed controls) no detectable response Aquatic biota; Spring prescribed burn; –3 to +3 Mixed conifer: Ponderosa No differences between treated basin and reference Arkle and riparian and treated basin vs. four pine, fir spp., Engelmann basins in riparian canopy cover, stream temperature, Pilliod 2010 aquatic habitat reference, unburned basins; spruce; SF Salmon River; stream chemistry (pH, N and P), % undercut banks, also comparisons with basins central Idaho (5 streams) % organic debris; macroinvertebrate density, % EPT, burned by wildfire or species richness Fish Thinning in riparian areas; Literature Mixed conifer; Pacific Negative impacts on native salmonid species; Hicks et al. 1991 various upland logging review Northwest forests degradation of habitat and reduction in number of fish practices Fish, aquatic Multiple—cumulative effects Review of Range of vegetation types, Cumulative effects of grazing, forest harvest, water Li et al. 1994 habitat management mostly mixed conifer, diversions result in increased stream temperature, impacts northeast OR degraded fish habitat Fish, aquatic Retrospective synthesis of +5 to +17 Mixed conifer Southwest Short-term fire effects on fish and aquatic habitat more Burton 2005 habitat effects of wildfires and central ID pronounced in managed forest relative to wilderness; (1987–2003) dramatic improvements in habitat conditions and fish populations within 5-10 years postfire Riparian Upland clearcut logging –2 to +2 Douglas–fir dominated; Harvesting affected riparian microclimate gradients; Brosofske et al. microclimate West Cascades, WA increased air temperature, decreased relative humidity; 1997 riparian environments became more similar to uplands Aquatic habitat Wildfire Extensive Forested watersheds, USA Direct and indirect fire effects on biota varied, Gresswell 1999 and biota review and Canada depending on species characteristics (especially mobility), and extent of physical and hydrologic modification of watershed Stream Wildfire; comparison of five +2 Mixed conifer, northeast Higher macroinvertebrate densities and biomass Mellon et al. 2008 macro- burned and five unburned Washington (emergence samples only) in burned streams; biomass invertebrate headwater streams in benthic and drift samples did not differ; communities lower diversity in burned streams (dominated by chironomid midges) 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 53 Table 14—Continued. Wildlife or habitat feature Study type Time scalea Vegetation studied treatments (years) type location Findings Source Stream benthic Wildfire Review Western USA Fairly fast recovery of benthic macroinvertebrate Minshall 2003 communities populations, depending on watershed management. Post-fire changes in channel restricted to 1st 5–10 years. Riparian and Wildfire; retrospective study +4 Mixed conifer: Ponderosa Riparian burn severity and interaction with flooding Arkle et al. 2010 aquatic habitat; of six burned and seven pine, fir spp., Engelmann associated with decreased habitat stability, i.e. greater Stream macro- unburned catchments. spruce; SF Salmon River; annual variation in sediment loads, instream large wood, invertebrate Also examined effects of central Idaho (13 streams) undercut banks. Severely burned basins had highly communities postfire flooding. dynamic macroinvertebrate communities Aquatic Wildfire, unburned vs 0 Glacier National Park, High N and P levels in stream water immediately after Spencer et al. 2003 foodwebs burned reaches (immediate) NW MT fire; stable isotopes of multiple organisms showed to +5 food web shifts Aquatic Wildfire; unburned, high +5 Mixed conifer, central No difference in periphyton among reaches; greater Malison and Baxter foodwebs and low severity burned Idaho macroinvertebrate biomass in high severity and 2010 a,b reaches unburned reaches; more insect emergence from high severity reaches Aquatic Wildfire; unburned high and +5 to +6 Mixed conifer, central Riparian litter and insect inputs greatest in unburned Jackson et al. 2012 foodwebs low severity burned reaches Idaho reaches Aquatic Wildfire; comparison of +1 to +4 Chaparral, coastal Canopy cover lower, stream temperature higher in Cooper et al. 2015 foodwebs; burned streams with burned southern CA burned streams with burned riparian vegetation. macro- riparian vegetation, streams Fire impacts on food webs largely determined by invertebrate in burned basins with riparian burn severity: algal-based food webs in communities; unburned riparian vegetation, streams with burned riparian canopies, detrital-based stream and unburned streams food webs in streams with intact riparian canopies temperature Stream Wildfire; 3 related studies— –0 to +13; Mixed conifer; Boise River Summer maximum water temperatures remained Dunham et al. temperature retrospective comparisons –1 to +1; Basin, ID elevated 10+ years post-fire; native vertebrates appeared 2007 resilient Stream Wildfire; analysis of spatial Various Mixed conifer; upper Within wildfire perimeters, stream temperature increases Isaak et al. 2010 temperature stream temperature patterns Boise River Basin, ID were 2–3 times greater than basin averages a Timescale relative to treatment (year of treatment = 0)
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

the second and fourth postfire years. As the riparian canopy recovers, stream temperatures 

have been predicted to decrease, approaching prefire levels (Rieman and Clayton 1997). 

However, recent work in the Boise River basin, Idaho, suggests that elevated stream temperatures can persist for one or two decades in some locations (Dunham et al. 2007; Isaak 

et al. 2010). Although increased water temperature following fire is primarily related to 

loss of forest and riparian shading (table 14; Gresswell 1999; Isaak et al. 2010), other factors include alterations to the channel, hyporheic flow, and hydrologic changes that can 

either accentuate or modify losses in vegetative shading (Cooper et al. 2015; Dunham et 

al. 2007).

Fuel reduction treatments could potentially have impacts on vegetative shade 

similar to those of low-severity wildfire, although effects are likely to be patchy and short 

term. In a comparative study of reference basins and a basin treated with prescribed fire, 

Arkle and Pilliod (2010) found no difference in percent riparian canopy cover between 

basins. In this case, the fuel treatment was typical of many projects being conducted in 

conifer-dominated forests of the western United States (see Chapter 4), where a large 

prescribed fire was ignited in the uplands and allowed to move into the adjacent riparian 

areas. In some watersheds stream shading by riparian and upland vegetation is one of 

the few factors that can be actively managed to achieve targeted stream temperatures. 

In western Oregon and Washington, riparian buffer width has been designed to correlate 

with degree of shade (Beschta et al. 1987; Reeves et al. 1995), and riparian buffers of 100 

feet or more have been reported to provide as much shade as undisturbed late-successional and old-growth forests (FEMAT 1993). Less is known about the effectiveness of buffer 

widths in providing adequate shade in other regions. In locations where particular stream 

temperature regimes are management goals, the impacts of fuel reduction treatments on 

shade, provided by both upland and riparian vegetation, and adequacy of riparian buffer 

width need to be explicitly addressed.

Allochthonous Organic Matter Inputs to Aquatic Food Webs

Riparian vegetation is an important source of allochthonous organic matter inputs 

for many streams and frequently provides the primary source of energy to aquatic food 

webs, particularly in headwaters (Finlay 2001; Vannote et al. 1980). Research has also 

shown that riparian areas are a valuable source of terrestrial invertebrates, an important 

component of many fish diets (Baxter et al. 2005). Before the 1988 Yellowstone fires, 

little was known about the effects of fire on aquatic communities and food webs. As 

discussed herein (Chapter 2), considerable research on burned streams was initiated following the Yellowstone fires (Minshall and Brock 1991; Minshall et al. 1989), and more 

has been learned about different aspects of postfire ecological succession in stream food 

webs and benthic communities over time (Minshall 2003; Minshall et al. 1995, 1997, 

2001, 2004). Short-term ecological effects of fire can vary widely from little change 

to nearly complete loss of invertebrates and algae. Invertebrate and algal communities 

generally recolonize quickly, although abundance and composition vary with local fire 

severity and time since fire and are closely linked to recovery rates of riparian vegetation 

(Cooper et al. 2015; Minshall et al. 2004).

Following fire, the riparian canopy can be substantially reduced and patchy. Algal 

productivity can be high in response to increased sunlight, stream temperatures, and nutrient flux (Cooper et al. 2015). Food webs can shift from allochthonous to autochthonous 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 55

sources of organic matter (Cooper et al. 2015), with a cascading response in macroinvertebrate trophic guilds and shifts in feeding strategies by generalist species (Mihuc 

and Minshall 1995; figure 11). In a comparison of stream reaches in central Idaho that 

had burned with different severity (unburned, low severity, and high severity; 5 years 

postfire), Malison and Baxter (2010a,b) found higher primary productivity and a shift 

to primary consumers in the severely burned reaches. They also reported that severely 

burned reaches had greater biomass of predatory insects and more insect emergence and 

concluded that burn severity appears to regulate differences in postfire aquatic insect assemblages (table 14). Working in the same streams, Jackson et al. (2012) measured inputs 

of leaf litter and terrestrial invertebrates falling into the streams. They found that deciduous leaf litter inputs were 1.5 times greater, and terrestrial invertebrates were twice as 

great in unburned reaches relative to severely burned reaches 5 years postfire. They also 

reported that inputs of large-bodied insects (Hymenonptera, Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, and 

Diptera) were greater in unburned and low-severity reaches, indicating how fire can alter 

terrestrial-aquatic connectivity (table 14).

In coastal southern California, Cooper et al. (2015) compared fire effects on community structure, food webs, and physicochemical variables in streams draining burned 

basins with burned riparian vegetation; burned basins with unburned, intact riparian 

vegetation; and unburned basins. Again, overall findings indicated that wildfire impacts 

were largely determined by the extent to which riparian vegetation burned. One year 

postfire, algal levels were highest in burned streams with burned riparian vegetation and 

lowest in streams located in burned basins with intact, unburned riparian vegetation. 

Algal densities remained high in streams with burned riparian vegetation for another year 

(2 postfire years), then declined to levels comparable to the unburned streams. Longerterm (>10 years) fire effects on aquatic food webs have not been empirically studied, and 

predictions are based partly on successional patterns of terrestrial and riparian vegetation. 

Trophic pathways are expected to shift from autochthonous to allochthonous sources as 

riparian vegetative cover increases (Minshall et al. 1989). However, other watershed processes, notably flooding, may also influence long-term postfire recovery of stream food 

webs (Arkle et al. 2010).

The effects of fuel treatments on aquatic food webs will depend on the types and 

sequence of methods used and the extent to which they alter the quality or quantity of 

allochthonous inputs. As noted above, Arkle and Pilliod (2010) found no difference in 

percent riparian canopy cover between reference, unburned basins, and a basin treated 

with a largely upland prescribed fire. As might be expected given the effect on riparian 

condition, they also found no differences in macroinvertebrate density, percent EPT, or 

species richness. If prescribed fire is actually conducted in the riparian area, it could have 

similar short-term effects on stream food webs as low-to-moderate-severity wildfires. 

Following a streamside prescribed fire in the Sierra Nevada, periphyton biomass was initially lower in the burned stream, but within 1 year of treatment, exceeded biomass in the 

unburned streams (table 14; Bêche et al. 2005). Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities 

showed no detectable response to prescribed burning (table 14; Bêche et al. 2005).

Mechanical fuels treatments will likely have different effects. In forested watersheds 

of the Pacific Northwest, logging practices that included the removal of riparian trees had 

negative consequences for some native salmonid species (Hicks et al. 1991). However, 

several studies have shown increases in summer biomass of fish species in headwater 
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

streams of the Pacific Northwest after logging (Bilby and Bisson 1992; Bisson and Sedell 

1984). In these systems, the fish communities appear to be largely supported by autotrophic food pathways (i.e., by invertebrate groups that ingest algae and algal-conditioned 

organic matter; Bisson and Bilby 1998). Increased productivity in summer populations 

of salmonids has also been observed following losses of riparian vegetation caused by 

other land uses, such as livestock grazing (Chapman and Knudson 1980). This seasonal 

increase in fish productivity is attributed to more light reaching the stream, which 

stimulates autotrophic production and supports secondary production of algal-dependent 

invertebrates (Bisson and Bilby 1998). As described above (Section 3.2.2), Olson et al. 

(2014) found no negative effects of upland thinning on populations of amphibians and 

fish in western Oregon headwaters (table 13). In locations where fish-bearing streams are 

management priorities, however, potential impacts of mechanical fuel reduction prescriptions on riparian vegetation—and thus on aquatic food webs and stream-riparian nutrient 

and organic matter dynamics—need to be considered.

Inputs of Large Wood

The importance of large instream wood is widely recognized among stream and fish 

ecologists (Gregory et al. 2003). Instream large wood has been commonly referred to as 

large woody debris or coarse woody debris. However, some large wood ecologists have 

discouraged use of these terms, because instream large wood is valued and not debris, 

or trash (Gregory et al. 2003). Large instream wood influences channel form in small 

streams, creating pools, backwaters, and cascades and affecting channel width and depth 

(Montgomery et al. 2003). Many aquatic species use pools formed by large wood as 

habitat and instream wood for cover (Bilby and Bisson 1998; Wondzell and Bisson 2003). 

The occurrence and distribution of large wood in streams affects sediment transport and 

deposition, creation and growth of gravel bars, and channel and floodplain sedimentation 

(Montgomery et al. 2003). Dams formed by accumulations of large wood increase channel complexity and retention of organic matter, thus providing a food source for many 

invertebrate species and contributing to nutrient cycling (Bilby and Bisson 1998; Bisson 

and Bilby 1998; Wondzell and Bisson 2003).

Many natural and anthropogenic disturbances have been shown to affect large wood 

recruitment to streams. Chronic inputs of large wood to stream channels occur as a result 

of bank cutting, windthrow, and mortality of individual trees from adjacent riparian areas 

(Bragg and Kershner 2004; McDade et al. 1990). Large inputs of wood can occur from 

near-channel sources following fire, windthrow, or insect infestations, although periods of 

recruitment vary by disturbance and watershed conditions (Bilby and Bisson 1998; Bragg 

2000; Bragg et al. 2000). In forested watersheds, riparian areas are the primary source 

of large wood for streams and floodplains following natural disturbance. Large wood 

can also be transported from distant, upland sites by debris torrents, avalanches, or landslides (Benda et al. 2003b; May and Gresswell 2003a,b; Scheidt 2006). Many streams in 

forested mountain regions are depauperate in large wood because trees were harvested 

from riparian areas and other source zones, and wood was removed from channels to 

protect infrastructure or facilitate recreation. In many western watersheds, tree harvest 

for railroad ties greatly reduced instream large wood loads (Nowakowski and Wohl 

2008; Young et al. 1994) and left lasting impacts on riparian areas and stream channels, 

thereby decreasing roughness and the capacity to retain instream large wood (Ruffing et 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 57

al. 2015). Interactions among natural disturbances and watershed processes regulating 

the supply, transport, and storage of large wood can result in considerable variability in 

reach-level large-wood loads within and among individual streams and over time (May 

and Gresswell 2003b; Wohl and Jaeger 2009). Large in-channel wood has also received 

attention from resource managers due to the notable channel responses to wood removal 

or additions (Chin et al. 2008; Piegay et al. 2005).

As described in Chapter 2, fire is a natural disturbance that directly influences the 

recruitment of instream large wood (Benda 2003a,b). Fire can influence the rates, timing, 

and amounts of large wood delivered to streams (table 15). Prescribed fire treatments 

could potentially influence the recruitment of instream large wood; however, effects are 

likely to be negligible or small unless projects specifically consider large wood in planning and implementation. Prescribed burns are typically conducted in spring or fall when 

predicted fire severity is low to moderate due to cool air temperatures and higher relative 

humidity and fuel moisture (Knapp et al. 2005, 2009). Under these conditions, live trees 

do not generally burn and large, downed wood does not readily ignite (especially pieces 

in and over the stream channel), although rotten pieces are consumed (Bêche et al. 2005; 

Brown et al. 2003; Stephens and Moghaddas 2005). In mixed-conifer forests in central 

Idaho, Arkle and Pilliod (2010) found no difference in percent coverage of instream large 

wood between reference, unburned streams, and a stream in a basin treated with a largely 

upland prescribed fire (table 15). Their final data collection occurred 3 years posttreatment, which may not have allowed sufficient time for burn effects to influence instream 

large wood loading. Additional research is needed to determine longer-term effects of 

prescribed fire on large wood recruitment to streams.

On floodplains, decomposing large wood could contribute to soil formation and 

provide wildlife habitat in riparian areas (Chen et al. 2005), although only sound pieces 

are likely to resist breakage and have significant influence on local erosion or sediment storage. In some forest types, prescribed burns could potentially emulate low- to 

moderate-severity wildfires that were part of the historical disturbance regime and contributed to the structural and functional diversity of streams and riparian areas (Reeves et 

al. 1995). However, the historical interaction among fire, forest type, and instream large 

wood loads varied regionally (Agee 2002; Skinner 2002), and it is expected that the effects of riparian prescribed burning also vary.

Mechanical fuel reduction treatments could potentially have greater effects on the 

recruitment of large wood to streams. Considerable research has focused on the consequences of streamside logging on instream wood loading (table 15). Studies conducted in 

forested portions of the western United States have shown marked long-term reduction in 

recruitment of large wood to streams in logged basins. Timber harvest adjacent to riparian buffers eliminates large wood recruitment to the riparian area while increasing the 

potential for windthrow (Grizzel and Wolff 1998). In western Oregon and Washington, 

the probability that a falling tree will enter the stream is low at distances greater than 

about one tree height away from the stream channel (McDade et al. 1990; Van Sickle and 

Gregory 1990). Similarly, the effectiveness of upland forests to deliver large wood to 

streams and riparian areas declines at distances greater than about one tree height from 

the upland forested edge, and depends on steepness of slope (fig. 2; FEMAT 1993). Forest 

harvest can affect instream large wood characteristics and loading. In Montana, researchers found differences in features of large wood in logged and reference streams that 
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. Table 15—Effects of wildfire, prescribed fire, and forest harvest on large wood (LW) inputs to streams (modified from Dwire et al. 2010). Time scalea Vegetation type Treatment and study type (years) location Findings Source Spring prescribed burn; treated basin vs. four reference, –3 to +3 Mixed conifer: Ponderosa pine, fir spp., No differences between treated basin and reference basins in percent Arkle and Pilliod unburned basins; also comparisons with basins burned by Engelmann spruce; SF Salmon River; central coverage of instream large wood 2010 wildfire Idaho (5 streams) Retrospective study of six burned and seven unburned +4 Mixed conifer: Ponderosa pine, fir spp., Riparian burn severity and interaction with flooding associated with Arkle et al. 2010 catchments following wildfire; also examined effects of Engelmann spruce; SF Salmon River; central decreased habitat stability, i.e. greater annual variation in sediment postfire flooding. Idaho (13 streams) loads, instream large wood, undercut banks. Sampled reaches in burned and adjacent unburned +2 to +3 Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, lodgepole Wood loads lower in burned reaches; wood pieces more mobile in Young 1994 watersheds (after Yellowstone wildfires) pine; Absoroka Range, NW Wyoming burned reaches Sampled reaches in burned and adjacent unburned +11 to +12 Engelmann spruce, subalpine for, lodgepole Wood loads lower in burned reaches Zelt and Wohl watersheds (after Yellowstone wildfires) pine; Absoroka Range, NW Wyoming 2004 Sampled reaches in burned watersheds with different +15 to +20 Subalpine fir, grand fir, Engelmann spruce No differences in most LW characteristics, suggesting that fire does Scheidt 2006 times since wildfire: recent (15–20 years), mid +80 to +110 lodgepole pine; 3rd order, unconfined, not have long-term effects on channels of this stream type (80–110 years, and old (>150 years) > 150 moderate-gradient streams, Idaho Retrospective synthesis of effects of wildfires (1987–2003) +5 to +17 Mixed conifer Southwest and central ID Post-fire inputs of large wood and sediments improved aquatic Burton 2005 habitat conditions (and fish populations) within 5–10 years postfire Sampled reaches in two burned watersheds following wildfire +3 Chaparral, southern CA Species (riparian hardwoods) varied in snagfall timing; recruitment Bendix and Cowell of large wood increased with postfire flooding 2010 Comparative simulation study of large wood inputs to +10 to +250 Lodgepole-pine dominated, mixed-conifer Overstory removal and slash burning reduced long-term large wood Bragg 2000 streams following clearcutting and slash removal, relative Wyoming contributions by 50% relative to wildfire or beetle kill to wildfire and insect-caused mortality Retrospective sampling of near-stream areas in clearcuts, +5 to +100 Douglas fir dominated mixed conifer, Near-stream clearcuts reduced channel large wood counts and size Bilby and Ward second-growth and old growth southwest Washington within 5 years of clearcut, relative to old growth 1991 Retrospective sampling of large wood in streams Not specified Mixed conifer, Flathead Basin, northwest Marked differences between logged and reference streams in ratios Hauer et al. 1999 (3–4th order) located in unlogged wilderness, and Montana of large to small pieces of wood, numbers of unattached and watersheds that were logged with no buffers, and unattached pieces, and large wood pieces with and without logged with buffers. root wads. Retrospective sampling of streams draining watersheds +3 to +40 Western hemlock- Douglas fir-western red Clear reduction in size of large wood in streams, and shift in Ralph et al. 1994 with unlogged old-growth forests, and intensively and cedar forest types; western Washington location of large wood towards channel margins in harvested moderately logged forests basins relative to reference (old-growth) streams Retrospective sampling of streamside areas with logged +10 to +40 Lodgepole pine dominated-mixed conifer; Higher volume (3X), biomass and carbon content of large wood in Chen et al. 2005 riparian forest, burned riparian forest, and undisturbed central Interior British Columbia disturbed (wildfire or harvest) stands relative to old-growth stands old-growth riparian forest a Timescale relative to treatment or fire disturbance (year of treatment = 0)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 59

provide important habitat for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), a federally threatened 

species (Hauer et al. 1999). These included difference in ratios of large to small pieces of 

large wood, the proportion of pieces associated with the stream channel or bank, and the 

proportion of large wood pieces with root wads.

The influence of fuel treatments on large wood is a sensitive issue because of the 

many management actions that have reduced wood abundance in stream channels. There 

is little ecological justification for the direct removal of large riparian trees or snags that 

could enter the channel and become instream large wood (Reeves et al. 2006). However, 

in regions where fire suppression has resulted in high riparian fuel loads, understory thinning might be required to reduce fire risk (Messier et al. 2012; Van de Water and North 

2011). Because large wood dynamics in streams and riparian areas are complex, we 

suggest that managers proceed with caution in removal of trees near streams, particularly 

in watersheds that have been logged. The role of large wood is so valuable in structuring 

aquatic habitat that efforts are under way to restore streams by adding large wood (Bisson 

et al. 2003; Reich et al. 2003). In some cases, fuel reduction projects could be used as opportunities to add large wood to channels.

Streambank stability

Riparian vegetation is also important for maintenance of streambank stability 

(Pollen et al. 2004; Simon and Collison 2002). Root systems can armor stream banks 

(Abernathy and Rutherford 2001; Stokes and Mattheck 1996) and bind bank sediment, 

thus contributing to bank stabilization, reduction of sediment inputs to streams (Dunaway 

et al. 1994), and development and maintenance of undercut banks (Sedell and Beschta 

1991). Removal of woody riparian vegetation with beneficial rooting characteristics can 

result in erosion of alluvial streambanks; removal of herbaceous vegetation can decrease 

retention and accumulation of sediment, possibly influencing floodplain soil development 

(Thorne 1990).

Prescribed fire may top-kill certain riparian trees and shrubs but is unlikely to 

negatively affect belowground structures. The contribution of woody roots to streambank 

stabilization was modeled for forested reaches and predicted to extend approximately 

one-half the average crown diameter (Wu 1986). Native trees growing along the banks 

are important for maintenance of streambank stability in most locations, and we suggest 

that they be retained and protected during mechanical fuel reduction treatments.

3.2.4 Effects of Fuel Management Activities on Riparian Soils and 

Nutrient Cycling

The biogeochemical function of riparian areas (table 1) is critical for maintenance 

of surface water in many agricultural areas but is also important in forest-, shrub-, or 

grassland-dominated watersheds. Riparian soils are frequently moist because of their 

low landscape position and proximity to streams and shallow water tables. Water movement from upslope areas, hyporheic zones, and surface stream water regulates the flux 

of nutrients and carbon through riparian areas as well as the soil moisture conditions 

that influence biogeochemical processes (McClain et al. 2003; Triska et al. 1989). The 

intersections of near-surface hydrologic flowpaths with carbon- and nutrient-rich soils 

in riparian areas can form “hotspots” of biogeochemical activity (McClain et al. 1998, 

2003; Wagener et al. 1998), which can directly influence stream water quality. Chemical, 
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

physical, and biological processes occurring within riparian soil profiles have the potential to filter, immobilize, and detoxify organic and inorganic compounds before they enter 

stream water (McClain et al. 1998). In subalpine forest watersheds, greater than 95 percent of snowmelt passes along shallow groundwater flowpaths and through riparian areas 

before entering streams (Troendle and Reuss 1997). Increased soil moisture in riparian 

areas also enhances the productivity of streamside vegetation; root production, soil nutrient uptake, and biomass production (above- and belowground) and turnover tends to be 

higher in streamside plant communities relative to uplands.

The regulation of nitrogen transfer from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems is an 

important biogeochemical process that occurs in riparian soils. Attenuation of nitrate in 

riparian soils is attributed to a combination of plant uptake and denitrification (the microbially mediated transformation of nitrate to N2 or N2O gas) and subsequent loss to the 

atmosphere (Groffman et al. 1992; Hedin et al. 1998; Hill 1996). Denitrification rates are 

low in most upland forest soils (Groffman et al. 1992), but frequent saturation of riparian soils provides a redox environment that favors denitrification (Lowrance et al. 1997; 

Peterjohn and Correll 1984; Vidon and Hill 2004).

After fire, stream nutrient levels are frequently elevated. The extent and severity of 

wildfire influences the capacity of soils and vegetation to retain nutrients and sediment 

(DeBano et al. 1998; Fisher and Binkley 2000; Neary et al. 1999). Immediately following a large wildfire in northwestern Montana, stream phosphorus and nitrogen levels 

increased 5- to 60-fold (above background) largely due to inputs from smoke and ash 

(Spencer et al. 2003). Within several weeks following the fire, stream water nutrient concentrations returned to background levels. In subsequent years, nutrient levels increased 

periodically in fire-impacted streams relative to reference (unburned) streams in response 

to storm events and spring runoff. Following the 2002 Hayman Fire in Colorado, nitrate 

levels in basins that burned with high severity were twice as high as levels in basins that 

burned with low to mid severity while turbidity levels were four times as high (Rhoades 

et al. 2011). During periods of spring runoff, levels of nitrate and turbidity remained elevated for 5 years postfire (duration of sampling). In southern coastal California, Cooper 

et al. (2015) found that phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations were higher in streams 

in burned basins relative to unburned basins during the rainy season. Similar results have 

been observed in surface waters in other locations (Baker 1990; Brass et al. 1996) and remain a concern, especially during seasons of large forest fires. Although postfire recovery 

of upland and riparian vegetation and other watershed features ameliorate nutrient and 

sediment inputs over time, increased levels in surface water are a natural consequence of 

fire, especially in areas that burn with high severity.

Effects of prescribed fire on stream water chemistry, nutrient cycling, and erosion are likely to be much weaker and shorter lived than those of high-severity wildfire 

(Wondzell 2001; Certini 2005). Effects of upland fuels management on nutrient cycling 

and other riparian soil processes will differ with the type of treatment, and depend on 

landscape, vegetation, soil, and hydrogeologic factors that determine the flux of water, 

nutrients, and sediment into riparian areas. In forested uplands, some effects of controlled 

slash burns (Feller 1988; Giardina and Rhoades 2001) and broadcast burns (table 16; 

Covington and Sackett 1992; Johnson et al. 1998; Knoepp and Swank 1993; Monleon 

et al. 1997) can be similar to wildfire impacts. Combustion of standing or surface fuels 

coupled with decreased plant uptake and fluctuating microbial activity often results 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 61 Table 16—Effects of prescribed burning, mechanical fuel treatments, and forest harvest treatments on soil resources and sediment movement (modified from Dwire et al. 2010). Study type treatments Time scalea Location Findings Source Postfire erosional processes Review Pacific Northwest, Interior Northwest, Northern Wildfire can accelerate erosion rates; local and regional Wondzell and King Rocky Mountains differences influence type of erosion 2003 Broadcast burn –1 wk to +1 yr Ponderosa pine, Ft. Valley Experimental Forest, near Increase in soil NH4-N immediately after burning, Covington and Flagstaff, Arizona followed by increase in soil NO3 Sackett 1992 Low-intensity broadcast burn + 0.3, 5, 12 years Ponderosa pine, Central Oregon Burning increased release of N and P from litter and Monleon and reduced litter decomposition rates Cromack 1996 Slash pile burn +10 to +50 Retrospective study on vegetation and soil properties Limited regeneration of woody species (trees and shrubs); Rhoades and of different aged burn piles (1960s–2000s) for smaller burn scars, soil N and native herbaceous Fornwalt 2015; cover return to pre-burn levels within 2 years of pile Fornwalt and burning Rhoades 2011 Slash pile burn 1 to 25 years Pinyon-Juniper, Coconino NF near Flagstaff, Arizona Increase in soil NH4-N immediately after burning, Covington et al. followed by increase in soil NO3. Each returned to 1991 preburn conditions in ≈ 5 years. Slash pile burn 0 to +2 years Ponderosa pine, Coconino NF near Flagstaff, Arizona Higher soil pH, NH4 and NO3 and lower total C and N Korb et al. 2004 inside burn scars Mulching mastication +2 to +6 years Colorado conifer forests dominated by lodgepole Lowered maximum summer soil temperature; increased Battaglia et al. pine, ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper soil moisture; increased soil N availability 2010; Rhoades et al. 2012 Mulching +5 years Lodgepole pine, Bridger Teton NF, western Wyoming Surface runoff and soil erosion lower in mulched areas Bensen 1982 than in undisturbed forest Clear cut 1 to 10 years Lodgepole pine-dominated subalpine forest, Fraser Harvest increased soil nitrification and cation and nitrate Ruess et al. 1997; +20 years Experimental Forest, central Colorado export. Effect remains significant after 20 years Starr 2004 Clear cut + slash retention; Clear 5 year after cutting Lodgepole pine, Medicine Bow NF, S. Wyoming Clear cuts had higher NH4, NO3, net mineralization and Giardina and cut followed by surface fire 1 year after burning soil moisture than uncut forest. Slash burning doubled Rhoades 2001 soil N availability compared to unburned cut. Clear cut Reviews of Pacific Northwest North America Increase in suspended sediment concentrations Swanson et al. research and associated with forest roads 1987; Brown 1983; monitoring results Binkley and Brown 1993 a Timescale relative to treatment (year of treatment = 0)
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

in a temporary increase in soil nitrogen availability that occurs shortly after broadcast 

(Covington and Sackett 1992; Giardina and Rhoades 2001; Kaye and Hart 1998) and 

slash pile combustion (Covington et al. 1991; Korb et al. 2004). Elevated soil nutrient 

pools can lead to greater nitrate and cation leaching (Knoepp and Swank 1993; Trammel 

et al. 2004) and in some cases higher streamwater export (Chorover et al. 1994). In 

uplands, fire can also alter soil structure, porosity, infiltration, and water repellency 

(Benavides-Solorio and MacDonald 2001; DeBano 2000; Robichaud 2000) and increase 

surface runoff and sediment movement. The effects of upland fires on the flux of nutrient and sediment into and through riparian areas can be ameliorated by residual upland 

or riparian vegetation and forest floor organic matter (Pannkuk and Robichaud 2003; 

Robichaud 2000). The processes determining the outcome of prescribed burning conducted in riparian ecosystems are likely to be similar, though we are not aware of comparable 

published results for streamside areas.

Effects of upland mechanical fuel reduction treatments on riparian soil resources, 

nutrient cycling, and sediment retention depend on the valley bottom and hillslope topography, geomorphic setting, soil properties, and condition of the upland and riparian 

vegetation. In uplands, disturbance of organic and mineral soil layers during harvest or 

thinning operations can alter soil structure, infiltration, bulk density, and site nutrient 

balance (Bormann and Likens 1979; Swank 1988) and sometimes lead to channelized 

runoff and erosion (table 16; Binkley and Brown 1993; Brown 1983). Forest harvest and 

thinning in uplands can also increase soil nitrogen availability (Giardina and Rhoades 

2001), leaching (Fahey and Yavitt 1988; Parsons et al. 1994), and groundwater flux (table 

16; Reuss et al. 1997; Stottlemyer and Troendle 1999). The impacts of mechanical tree 

removal on riparian soils are likely similar to those observed in uplands (table 16), but 

additional research is needed to determine short- and long-term effects. In western watersheds, mechanical operations and other ground-disturbing activities, such as road and 

fire break construction associated with fuel management activities, can also increase suspended sediment yield (Binkley and Brown 1993; Swanson et al. 1987; Wondzell 2001). 

Overland flow and sheet erosion are typically minimal in undisturbed forests, but steep 

slopes of many forested watersheds are susceptible to sediment transport via channelized 

flow even in the absence of disturbance (Megahan et al. 1992).

Slash pile burning is a common practice used to dispose of woody residues accumulated from logging and postharvest site preparation (Fornwalt and Rhoades 2011; 

Rhoades and Fornwalt 2015). Thousands of burn pile scars occur on national forests 

throughout the western United States; although small in size, burn piles can cumulatively 

influence nutrient cycling and native plant diversity. Negative effects from the practice, 

notably diminished native plant richness and cover and reduced woody tree regeneration, 

can persist for decades (Miller 2015; Rhoades and Fornwalt 2015; Rhoades et al. 2015). 

In the past, burn piles were located in uplands, away from streams, to eliminate the risk 

of nutrient release to surface water. However, the increase in standing fuels due to the 

recent mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) and spruce beetle (Dendroctonus 

rufipennis) epidemics has resulted in widespread fuel reduction treatments, including 

projects along transportation corridors. Because many roads are located along stream 

corridors—that is, in former riparian areas—roadside hazard treatments have resulted in 

burn piles near streams where cutting was formerly avoided (Miller 2015). The impacts 

of pile burning on riparian areas are expected to be similar to those observed in uplands 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 63

(table 16), but additional research is needed to determine short- and long-term effects on 

wildlife and aquatic habitat. Research on the best methods for burn scar rehabilitation is 

ongoing; currently, researchers recommend that larger burn pile scars (>5 m in diameter) 

be revegetated with seeding (Miller 2015; Rhoades et al. 2015).

Mechanical fuel reduction prescriptions usually target nonmerchantable material, so 

mechanical chipping and mastication operations are frequently used after thinning to treat 

and distribute woody fuels on site. These combined treatments rearrange the amount, 

size, and orientation of surface woody fuels (Battaglia et al. 2010). A recent study evaluated the effects of mulch addition on soil nitrogen availability for 15 fuel reduction 

projects in upland forests of the southern Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau regions 

of Colorado (Rhoades et al. 2012). Researchers found that mulching lowered maximum 

summer soil temperatures and increased soil moisture, and that added mulch had a lower 

N concentration and wider C:N ratio than natural material of similar size in untreated 

areas. They also found that 3 to 5 years after mulch addition, available N was 32 percent 

higher in mulched fuel reduction treatments compared to untreated sites. Although heavy 

mulch addition can temporarily reduce availability of soil N in some areas, fuel reduction 

mulch treatments increased available soil N in this study.

Chipping and mastication treatments, and the amount of woody debris added, can 

vary considerably among sites depending on equipment and operational differences 

(Jain et al. 2012), as can the influence of treatments on soil properties. However, soil 

carbon and moisture generally increase following the addition of mastication material, 

and maximum summer soil temperature and understory vegetation generally decrease. 

Woody debris additions can have variable effects on soil nutrients; in some cases, soil 

nitrogen availability decreased as carbon-rich woody material stimulated microbial nitrogen immobilization (Binkley et al. 2003; Blumfield and Xu 2003; Lalande et al. 1998); 

in other cases, availability of soil N increased (Rhoades et al. 2012). The potential for 

upland chipping or mastication to significantly alter nutrient and sediment movement into 

riparian areas partly depends on the horizontal continuity and depth of woody material 

additions. Beyond designation of riparian buffers, land managers are urged to consider 

how upland fuel reduction operations can influence surface water quality and nutrient and 

sediment retention in riparian areas. The impacts of masticated mulch additions on riparian soils and nutrient cycling are likely similar to those observed in uplands. Research 

is needed to address this management practice in riparian areas, because it is being 

applied in many watersheds impacted by bark beetle infestations (Miller 2015; also see 

Chapter 6).

3.3 Fuel Management Activities in Riparian Areas: 

Challenges and Considerations

3.3.1 Challenges

1. Current knowledge on the effects of prescribed fire on streams, riparian areas, and 

aquatic and near-stream habitat and biota is limited. Two studies, both conducted 

in mixed-conifer forest types, have been published on the effects of prescribed fire 

on aquatic habitat in the western United States (Bêche et al. 2005; Arkle and Pilliod 

2010). The treatments were conducted differently: in the Bêche et al. (2005) study, the 
64 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

prescribed fire was ignited in the riparian area; in the Arkle and Pilliod (2010) study, 

the prescribed fire was ignited in the uplands and allowed to burn into the riparian 

area, which is more typical of treatments that include riparian burning (see Chapter 4). 

Despite these differences, results from both studies indicated that treatment effects were 

largely minimal and short term for the stream and riparian variables measured. While 

these results have confirmed observations on impacts of prescribed fires on stream and 

near-stream environments, recognition of uncertainty is encouraged during planning 

and implementation, especially in understudied riparian vegetation types (shrub- and 

herbaceous-dominated; cottonwood- or willow-dominated) and where effects on 

riparian habitat for terrestrial species are a concern (Pillod et al. 2006).

2. Current knowledge on the effects of mechanical fuel treatments on streams, 

riparian areas, and aquatic and near-stream habitat and biota is limited.

Mechanical fuel reduction treatments are highly variable and each treatment, 

sequence, or combination of treatments could have different environmental effects 

(see Chapters 4 and 6 for range of treatments). Little is known about the impacts 

of multiple-stage projects on riparian soils, riparian-dependent species of concern, 

or riparian habitat variables (tables 12–16). Effects of fuel reduction treatments 

on wildlife species can vary for different species, as well as for different types of 

treatments. We have summarized potential effects of mechanical fuel reduction 

treatments on riparian vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and recruitment of 

instream large wood, and riparian soil resources (tables 12–16), but more information 

is needed for a range of upland and riparian vegetation types, and for different aquatic 

and terrestrial species of interest.

3. Determination of desired riparian conditions remains challenging. Many riparian 

areas have been compromised by past land and water use. Restoration of natural 

conditions can be difficult, especially with limited understanding of historic or natural 

conditions. Lack of agreement among resource specialists on optimal canopy and 

understory species composition, stem densities, and other habitat components are not 

uncommon (see Chapter 4 on constraints to planning fuel treatments), especially in 

riparian areas that have been impacted by grazing, logging, flow alteration, and other 

management activities and land uses. Information on riparian fuel loads is also very 

limited, and estimates or targets for near-stream fuel profiles need to consider the 

inherent productivity of streamside areas, as well as departure from the natural fire 

and disturbance regime.

4. Control of invasive species remains a challenge during and following fuel 

reduction treatments. The occurrence of nonnative invasive plant species is common 

in many treatments areas. For some projects, control of invasive species can be an 

explicit project objective (Text Box 2; also see Chapters 4 and 6).

5. Uncertainty regarding future changes in climate, streamflow, and fire frequency 

and severity increases the complexity of treatment design. Stream-riparian 

corridors are dynamic, and planning for project outcomes needs to allow for changes, 

ranging from natural successional processes to multiscale responses to episodic 

disturbances like flooding or high-severity wildfire. Impacts of fuel treatment activities 

will vary depending on where they are implemented in a watershed, and the fire and 

management history of the treated basins. Incorporating adaptations to climate change 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 65

Riparian Vegetation Considerations:

• What is the spatial and temporal extent of the disturbance to riparian vegetation (size of fuel 

reduction treatment in riparian areas)? How long will impacts last? Will treatments result in 

“improved” condition over the long term?

• What are the potential effects of fuels treatments on riparian plant species composition, diversity, 

structure and condition? Will target fuel loads (and projected sequence of plant succession) provide 

the composition and structure necessary to maintain valued riparian functions over short- and 

long-term time frames?

• Do any rare plant species occur in the treated area? Is there potential for increase in the cover or 

occurrence of invasive species as a result of the fuel treatment? In adjacent uplands, are there existing 

populations of exotic species that could move into the riparian area with disturbance?

• Will potential shifts in riparian vegetation composition affect streambank stability?

• How will potential shifts in riparian vegetation influence the quality, quantity, and timing of organic 

matter inputs and terrestrial invertebrates to aquatic food webs?

Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat Considerations:

• Will resident or migratory wildlife species of concern be impacted (positively or negatively) by 

changes in riparian plant species composition, structure, or complexity?

• Which wildlife species will potentially benefit from fuel reductions? Which species could be 

detrimentally impacted? Over what time frames would those species be detrimentally impacted?

• Will fuel reduction treatments in riparian areas significantly increase fragmentation and reduce 

stream corridor connectivity for wildlife species?

• How will fuel reduction treatments influence riparian microclimate?

• How will fuel reduction treatments impact the primary drivers of stream temperature, namely riparian 

vegetation?

• Will fuel reduction treatments reduce the inputs and recruitment of large wood to streams and 

riparian areas?

• Will fuel reduction treatments provide an opportunity to improve riparian habitat for certain wildlife 

species?

Riparian and Upland Soils Considerations:

• Will fuel reduction treatments in riparian areas cause soil compaction or disturbance that may alter 

subsurface hydrology or nutrient transport along near-surface flowpaths?

• How will fuel reduction treatments in riparian areas and uplands influence short- and long-term 

nitrogen dynamics? Cycling of other critical soil nutrients?

• Will fuel reduction treatments in uplands or riparian areas channelize flow, increase soil erosion, or 

stream sedimentation?

Cumulative Effects Considerations:

• What other current management activities are being planned or implemented in the watershed? 

Where are the management activities located relative to the stream-riparian corridor?

• What is the historical (recent and longer-term) spatial distribution of management activities in the 

watershed?

• What is spatial and temporal distribution of natural disturbances in the watershed?

• What are potential additive and/or interactive impacts of past and current management activities, 

natural disturbance, and fuel reduction treatments (both temporal and spatial additive/interactive 

impacts)?

• What effects will the fuel reduction treatments have on other land uses and ecosystems components? 

Text Box 2—Considering the effects of fuel management treatments on valued 

riparian functions.
66 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Table 17—Alternatives for managing fire and fuel-treatment related disturbances, with examples of 

management activities (modified from Dale et al. 2001 and table 1 in Dunham et al. 2003). 

Alternative Potential management activities

Pre-disturbance management Alter habitat / stand structure through prescribed fire and other fuel 

treatments for riparian and upland forests; restore altered stream 

channels and riparian areas; mitigate road effects.

Modify landscape structure by improving connectivity among 

habitats; preserve or restore large, high quality habitats. 

Managing the disturbance (fire Restoration of natural processes to mimic natural variability (e.g.

or fuel treatments) natural fire regimes).

Rapid response to reduce the impacts of disturbance, e.g. active 

management of wildfire near high quality habitats.

Conduct fuel treatments to minimize soil disturbance and erosion 

potential.

Managing recovery (postfire Manage to speed recovery following a disturbance event, such as

management) postfire rehabilitation; possibly seed or plant with desirable natives 

following fuel treatments.

Monitoring for adaptive Understand how fire interacts with other sources of

management disturbance.

Measure conditions before and after disturbance (fire or fuel

treatments) to improve understanding of impacts (short- and longterm). 

Implement studies to understand impacts of disturbance or 

management actions.

can be particularly difficult in near-stream environments, where predicted changes in 

timing and magnitude of streamflow will likely complicate management strategies.

6. Promote landscape resilience through improved integration of fuels projects 

with other restoration activities, fire management and postfire stabilization, and 

climate change adaptation. The need for more holistic, ecosystem-level approaches 

has been advocated for decades (Luce et al. 2012). These approaches are increasingly 

facilitated with new tools and advances in landscape ecology. Although different 

locations within a watershed may be managed along lines of resource specialties or 

disciplines—wildlife, forestry, fisheries, range, fuels—the interconnectedness of all 

components is an important feature of building resilient landscapes. Watershed-scale 

fuels projects could present opportunities for ecosystem restoration that cannot be 

achieved with site or reach scale projects (table 17).

3.3.2 Considerations

1. Riparian areas are spatially diverse; the spatial arrangement of different riparian 

plant communities and attributes within a watershed can influence both the 

response to fuels treatments and the effectiveness of fuels reduction. In the design 

and implementation of fuels treatments, attention to ecological context within a 

drainage basin and the larger landscape is critical, as well as the connectivity between 

upslope and upstream management and condition of the stream and riparian area. 

Consideration of potential impacts on key riparian functions will assist in minimizing 

local and immediate effects as well as cumulative, longer-term effects (table 1, Text 

Box 2). Local and regional issues will dictate which riparian functions are priorities 

for management goals and critical for protection.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 67

2. Riparian areas are part of the landscape. Be cautious about leaving riparian areas 

untreated when fuel loads in surrounding uplands are planned for treatment. Riparian 

fuel loads have been influenced by fire suppression and administrative protection 

policies (Section 2.2.2) and could be considered hazardous in some wildland 

environments, as well as the wildland-urban interface.

3. Fuel reduction treatments can potentially assist in riparian and stream restoration. 

Objectives for fuel reduction treatments could explicitly include the return to fuel 

loads and vegetation that support ecosystem processes and natural disturbance 

regimes (Text Box 2; Dwire et al. 2010; Luce et al. 2012; Rieman et al. 2003). Shortand long-term targets for the vegetation condition of uplands and riparian areas need 

to be stated as clearly as possible in planning documents. Given data limitations on 

historical composition and structure of riparian vegetation, the natural fire regime and 

fire history of the treated watersheds needs to be considered when target fuel loads 

are defined for riparian areas. Using concepts such as natural or historical range of 

variability (Gage and Cooper 2013; Landres et al. 1999), reference areas, and desired 

future condition, the planning and implementation of fuel reduction treatments can 

be regarded as opportunities to restore certain riparian and stream (e.g., instream 

large wood) ecological conditions (table 17; Arno 1996). Fuel reduction treatments 

(including reintroduction of fire to riparian areas) could result in a more spatially 

diverse range of habitat components with long-term benefits for multiple wildlife 

species. Fire managers are frequently able to implement fairly exact prescriptions, 

such as reducing certain fuelbeds while retaining others. Restoration objectives, in 

addition to emphasis on fuels management, are encouraged. The consideration of 

management activities that allow the retention of critical habitat elements is warranted, 

particularly those that are slow to recover such as large-diameter down wood and 

snags. As noted above, there is little ecological justification for the direct removal of 

large riparian trees or snags that could enter the channel and become instream large 

wood. Where possible, fuel reduction projects could be used as opportunities to add 

large wood to channels.

4. Certain fuel treatments are NOT recommended in some riparian vegetation 

types. In the southwestern United States, prescribed burning is not recommended in 

native riparian woodlands (Bock and Block 2005). Wildfires have destroyed native 

woody vegetation and fostered the spread of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) along many 

southwestern streams and rivers, with negative short- and long-term impacts to 

habitat for native bird species (Busch 1995). Along certain segments of fish-bearing 

streams, the role of streamside trees as potential sources of instream large wood 

needs to be considered. Mechanical treatments that remove streamside conifers are 

not recommended, particularly in watersheds with histories of clear-cut logging or 

streamside tree removal.

5. Fuel treatments are not intended to (and do not) replicate wildfire. The overall 

goal for most treatments is to decrease the risk of high-severity fire by reducing or 

removing certain fuel components. However, wildfire is a critical natural disturbance 

for many ecosystems of the western United States, where wildlife, aquatic biota, 

and riparian plant populations have evolved with fire as a natural disturbance. Most 

research on fire impacts has shown beneficial effects over different time scales and 
68 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

highlighted the resilience of native plant and animal communities in response to fire. 

Designing fuels treatments to recreate natural disturbance patterns while reducing 

fire risk could contribute to restoration of ecosystems and may assist managers in 

advancing from single-species management toward ecosystem management and 

broader-scale benefits. Where possible, allowing watersheds or portions of watersheds 

to burn naturally could be part of both fire management and restoration strategies.

6. Pre- and postmonitoring of riparian fuel reduction projects is critically needed. 

Each individual fuel reduction project is essentially an ongoing experiment, and 

we emphasize the need for monitoring to track the impacts of prescribed burning, 

tree removal, chipping and mastication, and salvage logging on riparian and aquatic 

resources. Needed research has been described throughout this report; however, 

research cannot keep up with assessing the impacts of the wide range of fuel 

treatments that are being conducted in near-stream environments. Given limitations 

of current knowledge on the effects of fuel reduction treatments on wildlife and 

aquatic biota, monitoring the response of species of concern before and after fuel 

treatments may be essential to avoid litigation in some locations (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

For treatments that are conducted over several years and require multiple entries into 

project areas, longer-term monitoring of populations and riparian and aquatic habitat 

variables could assist in determining if certain treatment combinations or sequences 

are having beneficial, neutral or adverse effects on species or habitat variables of 

interest. Follow-up monitoring for achievement of project objectives (short- and 

long-term) is critical to understanding the impacts and influence of fuel management, 

particularly in riparian areas.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 69

Chapter 4: Survey of Fuels Treatments in 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands of the Interior 

West

4.1 Introduction

Following decades of severe fire behavior and a landmark fire season in 2000, the 

National Fire Plan (NFP) was established to develop a collaborative approach among 

government agencies to actively respond to wildland fires and ensure sufficient firefighting capacity for the future. In addition, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 

2003 was passed to expedite and encourage the development and implementation of 

hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal lands. This sequence of events has led to 

an increase in restoration efforts aimed at creating vegetation communities that are more 

resistant to wildfire (Agee and Skinner 2005; Stephens and Ruth 2005). However, some 

management activities endorsed by the NFP have not been tested in many vegetation 

types and their ecological consequences are unknown, raising concerns regarding their 

effectiveness (Bisson et al. 2003; Schoennagel et al. 2009). The primary goals of fuel 

treatments are to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, reduce hazardous fuels, mitigate risks 

to communities, and improve fire prevention and suppression strategies. However, the 

importance of information sharing and monitoring of project effectiveness and resulting 

forest conditions has also been emphasized (Jain et al. 2012).

Many fuels treatments and forest restoration projects have been implemented in 

upland settings of drier forest types, such as ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and dry 

mixed-conifer forests, where the response of fire behavior to thinning and prescribed 

fire treatments has been advantageous (Jain et al. 2012). However, fuels treatments 

are being conducted in many other forest and vegetation types where risks to sensitive 

ecosystems or the wildland-urban interface are high in the event of a severe wildfire. 

Riparian areas are among those ecosystems receiving increased attention as components within the landscape that could be negatively affected by high-intensity wildfires. 

There is also concern that some riparian areas contain fuel loads that could carry a fire 

across an otherwise fire-resistant landscape (Murphy et al. 2007; Pettit and Naiman 

2007; Van de Water and North 2011).

An increasing number of fire managers are conducting fuels treatments in riparian areas throughout the western United States. In 2007 a phone survey of U.S. Forest 

Service fire management officers in 11 western States indicated that 43 percent were 

conducting fuel reduction treatments in riparian areas, primarily for fuel reduction and 

ecological restoration goals (Stone et al. 2010). In light of the information gathered from 

this phone survey (Stone et al. 2010), we conducted a second, more extensive survey in 

an effort to gather additional information about the practices currently being carried out 

and the concerns and constraints associated with conducting fuels treatments in riparian 

areas of the interior western United States. Our expanded online survey included wetlands and incorporated the experience of many resource professionals from four agencies. 

We were interested in the following information: (1) identifying project objectives and 
70 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

short-term effectiveness at meeting these objectives; (2) types of treatments applied; (3) 

types of riparian vegetation treated; (4) pre- and posttreatment monitoring; and (5) concerns or constraints affecting the planning and implementation of projects.

4.2 Study Area

We targeted fire program managers and other resource professionals from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (USFS) and the U.S. Department of 

the Interior (USDI)—Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), 

and Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)—within 10 States of the interior western United 

States. Our intent was to focus on wetlands and riparian areas in the Interior West and 

northern Great Plains, where less is known about implementation and effectiveness of 

fuels management treatments. The entire States of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

Utah, and Wyoming were included, as well as the portions east of the Cascade Mountains 

in Oregon and Washington. The Black Hills region of South Dakota and a small area in 

northeastern California, containing the Modoc and Klamath National Forests and all other 

FWS, BLM, and NPS land near those forests, were included. Some land management 

units extended beyond State boundaries, which resulted in small portions of Arizona, 

Kansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota also being included.

4.3 Methods

4.3.1 Online Survey Development

An online survey form was selected as the most feasible method to deliver and 

administer the survey to a large number of potential respondents. Survey questions and 

format went through many informal, internal peer reviews and several revisions before 

a trial run. The survey questions and format were initially developed in a Microsoft 

Word document and then recreated online using a provider for web-based surveys 

(SurveyMonkey) in fall 2010. Following a test run with selected colleagues from different agencies and organizations, the survey was restructured and some questions were 

revised and clarified (Appendix). The general organization and flow of the final survey is 

illustrated in a streamlined flowchart (fig. 15).

4.3.2 Development of Contact List of Potential Survey Respondents

During the initial stages of developing the survey, we compiled a contact list of 

potential survey respondents. The target population of survey respondents initially 

included resource specialists and fire managers working at the field level who were 

involved in fuels planning for the USFS, BLM, NPS, and USFWS within the study area. 

Resource specialists included hydrologists, fisheries biologists, wildlife biologists, soil 

scientists, archaeologists, recreation planners, botanists, rangeland management specialists, ecologists, and environmental planners. Fire managers included fuels planners, fuels 

specialists, fire ecologists, and fire management officers. At the recommendation of several fire managers, line officers—including NPS Park Superintendents, USFWS Refuge 

Managers, and USFS District Rangers—were added to the contact list.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 71

Have you completed

projects in riparian

areas?

Yes No

Section 2 Completed Project

Information

Section 3 Features of the Project

Area

Section 4 Project Monitoring

Section 5 Project Effectiveness

and Recommendations

Proposed Projects

Yes No

Section 6

Section 7 Proposed / In Progress

Project Information

Section 8 Features of the

Proposed / In Progress

Project Information

Section 9 Proposed Project

Monitoring

Section 10

General

Riparian /

Wetland

Monitoring

End

Figure 15—Organization of the different sections in the online survey developed to document features 

of completed and proposed fuel treatments in riparian areas and wetlands.
72 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

To obtain contact information for the potential survey respondents, agency contact 

lists were obtained from the USFS intranet, BLM website, by mail from USFWS regional 

offices, and the online directory for the National Park Service. Directories were obtained 

for 196 USFS ranger districts in 45 national forests, 6 national grasslands, and 3 USFS 

national recreation areas; 30 BLM district offices and 71 BLM field offices; 39 national 

parks, monuments, historic sites, and recreational areas; and approximately 49 national 

wildlife refuges and complexes (fig. 16). Using the contact lists, the names and contact 

information of targeted resource specialists were selected and compiled into a database. 

Forest Service employees were cross-checked with the Lotus Notes Forest Service 

Directory to verify their location, title, and contact information. The survey was sent to 

all potential respondents on the list with the anticipation that at least one fire planner and 

one other resource specialist would respond per administrative unit (e.g., ranger district, 

park, field office, wildlife refuge, etc.).

As a courtesy, and in an attempt to improve the response rate, letters notifying regional executives, forest supervisors, and national level contacts were sent to all agencies 

before launching the survey. The letters requested endorsement for the survey within their 

regions and permission for staff to use work time to participate in the survey. Responses 

to the letters were received, and none denied permission to administer the survey. The 

survey was launched to all potential survey respondents within the study area in late April 

2010.

4.3.3 Launching and Administering the Survey

An invitation to participate in the survey and a survey link were sent by email to a 

total of 2,273 potential survey respondents. The survey link was sent to the entire contact 

list with the realization that some of the targeted resource specialists may have moved or 

changed positions or were not involved in fuels planning and implementation. Within a 

week, 54 potential respondents were removed from the survey contact list due to invalid 

email addresses, “out of office” replies indicating that individuals would be out of the office past the deadline for the survey, or explicit requests to be removed, resulting in a total 

of 2,219 potential respondents. Throughout the duration of the survey, responses were 

tracked, and email and phone correspondence were documented in the database. Over the 

course of the survey, new respondents were added as recommendations for additional participants were received, and other respondents were removed for reasons noted above.

Considerable effort was devoted to reaching as many potential target respondents 

as possible. In mid-May, it seemed that the USFWS list was deficient, and the responses 

from the agency were limited, so each refuge was called to acquire more contacts. 

Additional contacts were added to the survey list, and the survey request and link were 

emailed to additional USFWS contacts in mid-May. During the course of the survey, 

three reminder messages were sent out in an effort to improve the response rate. In total, 

2,413 respondents actually received an invitation to participate in the online survey.

4.4 Survey Response

There were 532 respondents to the survey (22 percent response rate), representing a 

variety of resource specialists. Fire managers, hydrologists, fisheries biologists, wildlife 

biologists, ecologists, cultural resource specialists, and some line officers (21 percent 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 73

response rate) either completed or partially completed the online survey (table 18). 

Responses were received from all four agencies (BLM, NPS, USFS, and USFWS) and 

from the 10 States (fig. 16). Nearly 90 percent of the responses were BLM and USFS 

employees, reflecting the large portion of public lands collectively administered by these 

two agencies. Although these two agencies represented similar percentages of the survey 

population (~45 percent), the USFS had a higher response rate (26 percent) than BLM 

(19 percent).

Of the 532 respondents who participated in the survey, 446 respondents completed 

the survey and 86 respondents replied partially to the survey. A total of 272 respondents 

opted out of the survey, mostly because they were not involved in planning or conducting 

Table 18—Percent response by agency, professional resource specialty, and State. The values in the fourth 

column show the percent of those within a category (agency, specialty, or State) who participated in the 

survey. Respondents were given a chance to “opt out” if they were not involved in fuel treatment planning, 

did not have sufficient information to answer the survey questions, or otherwise decided not to participate; 

the percent of these individuals within a category is shown in the last column. 

Percent of Percent of

Percent respondents respondents

Percent of response who completed who opted out

survey within survey (of those of participating

Category population category who started) in the survey

Agency BLM 45 19 86 11

NPS 7 18 87 15

USFS 44 26 82 11

USFWS 4 21 74 14

Specialty Line Officers (e.g. Park 3 21 98 11

Superintendent, Refuge 

Manager, District Ranger)

Cultural/Archaeology 8 15 96 13

Fire (FMOs, Fuels 20 30 80 6

Specialists)

Fisheries/Aquatic 5 35 77 7

Forestry 6 35 92 16

Hydrology 4 36 67 9

NEPA Specialist 3 24 88 13

Range 15 21 91 13

Recreation 7 11 94 14

Resources/Botany/Ecology 15 16 84 14

Riparian/Wetlands <1 20 100 0

Soils 1 15 100 12

Wildlife 13 16 80 12

State California 3 18 83 15

Colorado 13 20 92 12

Idaho 15 25 76 9

Montana 12 23 90 12

Nevada 9 21 92 12

Oregon 15 25 74 9

South Dakota 2 32 82 6

Utah 12 17 82 10

Washington 4 22 77 18

Wyoming 14 22 92 14
74 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

fuels treatments. The total number of responses, including complete and partial responses 

and those opting out, was 845. Partial responses were completed by providing a null 

response for the survey questions that were left unanswered. The entire population of respondents (2,413 potential respondents) was the number used as the basis for determining 

the response rate for this survey (table 18); this included those who received the survey 

and had an opportunity to respond, whether they were available to respond or not, and/or 

whether or not they are involved in fuels planning. Since participation in the survey was 

voluntary, it should be noted that respondents might not be representative of the entire 

sampled population.

The percent response by State ranged from 17 percent (Utah) to 32 percent (South 

Dakota) and averaged approximately 22 percent. The percent response by resource 

specialty ranged from 11 percent (recreation) to 36 percent (hydrology) and averaged 

approximately 22 percent. Of the resource specialists who started the survey, the percentage of those who completed it ranged from 67 percent (hydrologists) to 100 percent 

(riparian-wetlands specialists) and averaged 88 percent (table 18). Although some 

States and resource specialties may be better represented in the responses than others, 

survey results do include input from a wide range of Federal land managers who are 

involved in planning and implementing fuel treatment projects in wetlands and riparian 

areas.

Figure 16—Locations of completed and proposed riparian fuels treatment projects by agency (from Meyer 

et al. 2012). The online survey targeted Federal resource managers in the Interior West and northern 

Great Plains. Arizona, New Mexico, western Oregon and Washington, and most of California were not 

included.

")

")

")

#*

#*

")

")

#*

")

")

#*

")

")

")

#* ")

#*#*

!(

!(

")

")

")

#*

")

")

")

")

#*

^_

#*

")

#*

#*

#*

^_

#*

")

#*

")

!(

#*

#*

#*

#*

")

!(

^_

#*

#*

")

")

^_

")

^_

^_

")

#*

")

")

#*

")

#*

") #*

")

^_ ")

#*

")

")

^_

#*

#*

") ")

^_

")

#*

#*

")

^_

#*

!(

")

#*

")

!(

#*

#*

#* #*

#* #*

#*

#*

!(

#*

#*

#* ")

#*

")

")

")

#*

^_

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

")

")

#*

#*

")

")

")

!(

")

^_

#*

#* ")

#*

#*

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

#*

!(

#*

#*

")

")

#*

#* ")

#*

#*

^_

")

#*

")

")

")

!(

#*

#*

")

")

")

!(

#*

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

")

")

#*

#* ^_

#*

#*

")

")

")

")

!(

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

#*

#*

")

")

")

")

#*

#*

#*

")

")

#*

#*

!(

#*

^_

#*

^_

")

")

^_

^_

^_

^_ ^_ !(

")")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")

Riparian Fuels Treatment Survey - Project Locations

0 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Miles

μ Agency

BLM

NPS

USFS

USFWS

#*

!(

")

^_

#*

!(

")

^_

Proposed Completed
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 75

4.5 Survey Findings

Of the 532 respondents, 249 described vegetation treatment projects that were 

either completed or initiated in riparian or wetland areas within the previous 10 years 

(2000–2010). Of those, 105 had completed projects, 87 reported on projects planned or 

in progress, and 57 reported on both completed and planned projects (fig. 16). Nearly 27 

percent of the completed and proposed projects were planned specifically in riparian or 

wetland areas while the others included these areas as part of larger projects. Interagency 

participation was reported to be an important component for 23 percent of completed and 

63 percent of proposed projects.

Responses to three yes-or-no questions regarding local administrative policies 

demonstrated the shifting approaches to riparian management relative to fuels treatments (table 19). Nearly 30 percent of the respondents indicated that prescribed fires 

are allowed to burn into riparian-wetland areas during fuel treatment implementation. 

When asked if prescribed fire ignitions were allowed in riparian areas, 28 percent of the 

respondents were not certain, but 44 percent answered ‘no,’ indicating the caution against 

actively treating riparian-wetland fuels with prescribed fire in some locations.

4.5.1 Fuel Treatment Objectives and Effectiveness

Respondents were asked to rank five specific objectives that applied to their project 

as primary, secondary, or tertiary (fig. 17). The number of projects per agency reflects 

the relative proportion of respondents from each agency (table 18). More than half of the 

respondents described completed projects with more than one objective; of these, nearly 

all had secondary and tertiary objectives (fig. 17). Priority objectives were very similar 

for completed (fig. 17a) and proposed (fig. 17b) projects. The most common primary 

objectives for both the completed and proposed projects were hazardous fuels reduction 

and habitat restoration. Virtually all of the USFWS’s completed and proposed projects 

included habitat restoration as the primary objective. Restoring the historic fire regime 

was the most common secondary objective and was reported as an objective for approximately 20 percent of both completed and proposed projects. Protecting values at risk was 

an objective that included protection of campgrounds, roads, and other infrastructure located in the wildland-urban interface or wildland-urban intermix, cultural resources, and 

sensitive ecosystems. Protecting values was reported as an objective for approximately 

Table 19—Responses to yes/no questions regarding administrative policies. Percentage 

of respondents is shown for each question; note that the number of respondents (in 

parentheses) varied with the question. 

Administrative policies	 Yes	 No	 Not sure/not specified

Under your forest/fire management plan, 29% 37% 34%

are prescribed fires permitted to burn (155) (194) (183)

into riparian or wetland areas outside of 

the prescribed fire boundary?

Under your forest/fire management plan, 44% 18% 38%

are fires designated as “Wildland Fire (234) (98) (200)

Managed for resource benefit” permitted 

to burn into riparian or wetland areas?

During a prescribed burn, are ignitions 28% 44% 28%

allowed in riparian areas? (149) (234) (149)
76 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

17 percent of both completed and proposed projects. Treatment of invasive species was a 

primary objective in only a few projects, and the least common objective overall. In the 

‘other’ category, survey respondents noted the following additional project objectives: 

rangeland improvement, greater recreational access and opportunities for hunting and 

fishing, reduction of the influence of mountain pine beetle, salvage logging, and enhancement of aspen regeneration.

For completed projects, survey participants were asked to rank project effectiveness 

at meeting objectives by using a 5-point scale from ‘very effective’ to ‘not at all effective.’ 

Figure 17—Objectives for completed (A) and proposed (B) projects by agency. For each project, six 

objectives could be ranked as primary, secondary, or tertiary. Respondents were encouraged to list 

all project objectives that applied.

Other

Hazardous fuel

reduction

Habitat

restoration

Protect values

at risk

Restore historical

fire regime

Control invasive

plant species

B

Number of Completed Projects 

Primary objective

Secondary objective

Tertiary objective

Number of Completed Projects 

0

20

40

60

80

USFS 

BLM

USFWS 

NPS 

Primary objective

Secondary objective

Tertiary objective

A

0

20

40

60

80

Number of Proposed Projects
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 77

Project effectiveness was variable, depending on the objective and treatment (fig. 18). All 

agencies considered projects successful at reducing hazardous fuels. Reduction in fuel 

loadings is a fairly immediate treatment outcome, and relatively straightforward to assess, 

although there was still some uncertainty in project effectiveness (6 percent “unsure”). 

The objectives “habitat restoration” and “protection of values at risk” were also effectively 

met by most projects. The objective “restore historical fire regime” was effectively met by 

approximately 75 percent of the projects but also had the greatest number of ineffective 

projects. For “control of invasive plant species,” it may be too early to determine effectiveness, as reflected in the high number of “not sure” rankings. In general, most projects were 

perceived to be “somewhat effective” to “very effective” at achieving most objectives 

(fig. 18).

4.5.2 Fuel Treatment Methods

Prescribed fire was the primary tool for fuels treatments used by all agencies 

in riparian and wetland areas (fig. 19). The USFWS used prescribed fire on all of the 

projects they reported. Mechanical thinning (using chain saws) and pile burning were 

the second and third most commonly used treatments. Mechanical thinning (using 

heavy equipment) and scattering were also included in many projects, especially those 

implemented by the USFS and the BLM. Mastication was used by all four agencies in 

a number of projects. Additional treatments reported by the survey respondents in the 

“other” category were follow-up herbicide application or tamarisk beetle release, mowing, flooding to reduce cattail (Typha spp.) re-establishment (USFWS projects), and 

seeding of desirable species.

Figure 18—Effectiveness at meeting project objectives (from Meyer et al. 2012). Survey participants 

were asked to rank project effectiveness at meeting objectives, using a 5-point scale from ‘not at all 

effective’ (designated as ‘1’) to ‘very effective’ (designated as ‘5’). Number of Completed Projects

0

20

40

60

80

100

Not at all effective 

Somewhat ineffective 

Unsure 

Somewhat effective 

Very effective

Hazardous Fuel

Reduction

Habitat

Restoration 

Protect Values

at Risk

Other 

Restore Historical

Fire Regime

Control Invasive

Plant Species 
78 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

For projects using a single treatment method, prescribed fire was the predominant 

method used in more than 90 percent of the completed projects (fig. 20a). It was clear, 

though, that most projects combined treatment methods; more than two-thirds of the 

completed projects combined different methods (fig. 20b). A tally of the number of times 

a method was used in a treatment combination shows that prescribed fire and mechanical 

thinning were most frequently combined with other treatments (fig. 20b). Methods that 

retain biomass on site, such as scattering and mastication, were frequently combined with 

thinning treatments. However, nearly 50 percent of the projects using heavy equipment 

to thin were combined with pile burning. Treatment combinations reported by survey 

respondents are fairly common in western conifer forests and frequently used to alter fuel 

profiles in upland portions of the project areas (Jain et al. 2012).

Most projects were completed in 3 years or less, although some were of longer duration (fig. 21). In some cases, the same treatment (e.g., mechanical thinning) was applied 

in different portions of the project area in successive years; in other projects, different 

treatments were applied in different years in the same area. Most projects required reentry to the treated area to achieve the desired outcome.

4.5.3 Riparian and Upland Vegetation Types

The survey also requested information about riparian and upland vegetation 

types in the fuels treatment project areas. For riparian vegetation, most completed and 

proposed projects were located in conifer-dominated vegetation types, followed by 

willow-dominated vegetation types (fig. 22). Projects in conifer- and willow-dominated 

riparian areas were most common on USFS lands; projects in riparian areas dominated 

by upland shrubs were most common on BLM lands. Conifers were rarely present on 

Figure 19—Number of completed projects that used different types of treatments by agency (from 

Meyer et al. 2012). Most projects used multiple treatments, all of which are tallied here. Number of Completed Projects 

0

20

40

60

80

100

USFS 

BLM 

USFWS 

NPS 

Other

Prescribed burn

Mechanical thinning

(chain saws)

Mechanical Thinning

(heavy equipment)

Scattering

Pile burning

Mastication
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 79

the USFWS projects, which were largely conducted in wetlands and riparian meadows. 

Approximately 27 percent of the completed projects included some palustrine habitats 

(wetlands, marshes), and while they were located on public lands administered by all 

agencies, most were on USFWS lands. Nearly 70 percent of all projects were conducted 

in riverine habitats, and the remaining 30 percent were located on the margins of lakes 

or ponds. Cottonwoods occurred at numerous project sites and a few projects focused on 

cottonwood restoration; however, cottonwoods were not present at many of the project 

areas (fig. 22). Specific vegetation that was noted in treated riparian areas included aspen 

(Populus tremuloides) and birch (Betula spp.); boxelder (Acer negundo); greasewood 

(Sacrobatus spp.); upland shrubs, such as rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) and juniper (Juniperus spp.; primarily on BLM lands); and invasive species such as tamarisk 

(Tamarix spp.), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and whitetop (Cardaria draba).

For completed projects, upland treated areas were dominated by a range of vegetation 

types, but nearly 67 percent occurred in conifer-dominated vegetation, including pinyonjuniper woodlands (fig. 22b). For both completed and proposed projects, ponderosa pine 

and mixed-conifer dry forests were the most common forest types, but a range of other vegetation types were also dominant in treated areas. For proposed projects, there was a notable 

increase in the number of projects planned for shrub steppe and grasslands. Specific vegetation that was noted as “other” in treated upland areas included Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga 

menziesii), hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata); western 

larch (Larix occidentalis); aspen and aspen-birch; and mixed mountain shrub.

Figure 20—(A) Number of completed projects that used a single method of treating fuels, and (B) number of times 

a method was used in a specific project. More than half of the completed projects combined three or more 

methods.

n = 20

projects

n = 18

projects

n = 14

projects n = 11

projects

Number of times method used in a treatment combination 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Two Methods

Three Methods

Four Methods

Five Methods

Number of completed projects 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

S ingle Method

a. b. 

Prescribed fire

Mechanical thinning (chainsaws) 

Mechanical thinning (heavy equipment) 

Scattering 

Pile burning 

Mastication 

Other 

n = 32

projects
80 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Figure 21—Number of completed projects that have applied a sequence of treatments over time. In 

some cases, the same treatment (e.g., mechanical thinning) is applied in different portions of the 

treated area in successive years; in another case, different treatments are applied in the same area 

to achieve the desired outcome. Most projects require re-entry to the treated area over several 

years.

1 year 2 - 3 years 4 -5 years >5 years

Number of Completed Projects that Used Treatment

0

20

40

60

80

100

120 Prescribed fire

Mechanical thinning (chainsaws) 

Mechanical thinning (heavy equipment) 

Scattering 

Pile burning

Mastication 

Other 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 81

Figure 22—Dominant and subdominant vegetation occurring in (A) riparian and (B) upland portions 

of completed (n = 98 respondents) and proposed (n = 125 respondents) project areas. Categories 

for estimating abundance of six riparian vegetation types and eight upland vegetation types were 

(1) dominant—>50 percent cover; (2) subdominant—≤50 percent cover; (3) present—occurred 

within the project area (data not shown); (4) not present—did not occur within the project area 

(data not shown).

a) Riparian Vegetation 

Number of Respondents 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ponderosa pine

Lodgepole pine 

Spruce-fir 

Mixed conifer 

Pinyon-juniper 

Shrub steppe

Grassland 

Other 

b) Upland Vegetation 

Completed projects Proposed projects

Number of Respondents 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Willow 

Cottonwood 

Conifer 

Upland shrub

Meadow 

Other 

Completed projects Proposed projects

Dominant Subdominant Dominant Subdominant

Dominant Subdominant Dominant Subdominant
82 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

4.5.4 Features of the Project Areas

Survey participants were asked to provide additional information about project area 

conditions (table 20). For completed projects, 41 to 43 percent of the survey participants 

reported that invasive or noxious plant species were prevalent in either the riparian or 

upland portions of the project area. The percentage of respondents was slightly lower 

for proposed projects (35 to 41 percent; table 20). Six to 20 percent of the respondents 

were unsure regarding the prevalence of invasives (table 20). We were curious about how 

recent bark beetle infestations were influencing fuel treatments, and we asked if insects or 

disease were prevalent in project areas. In upland habitats, 32 percent of the respondents 

reported that completed projects were conducted in infested areas, while 40 percent noted 

that proposed projects would be conducted in infested areas (table 20). Percentages were 

considerably lower for riparian habitats for both completed (15 percent) and proposed 

projects (24 percent; table 20), suggesting that insects may be having less impact in 

streamside areas. However, 10 to 22 percent of survey respondents were unsure about the 

prevalence of insects and disease in the project areas. As noted previously, approximately 

56 percent of the respondents noted that both completed and proposed projects were 

either wholly or partially located in the WUI. When asked about the applicability of Fire 

Regime Condition Class (FRCC) to riparian-wetland portions of the project areas, 49 

percent of the survey respondents indicated that FRCC applied to completed projects, and 

44 percent indicated that FRCC applied to proposed projects. However, a large proportion of respondents (35 to 44 percent) were not sure about applicability of the FRCC 

classification system to riparian or wetland habitats. It should be noted that the number of 

respondents varied widely for the questions about project areas. Depending on the question, approximately half of the survey participants did not answer these questions.

Table 20—Responses to yes/no questions regarding features of the project area in the online survey. Percentage of 

respondents is shown for each question; note that the number of respondents (in parentheses) varied with the 

question.

Survey question	 Yes	 No	 Not sure/not specified

Completed Proposed Completed Proposed Completed Proposed

Features of the project area projects projects projects projects projects projects

Are invasive/ noxious plant species 41% 35% 48% 45% 11% 20%

prevalent in riparian/ wetland (40) (45) (47) (57) (11) (25)

habitats within the project area?

Are invasive/ noxious plant species 43% 41% 51% 42% 6% 17%

prevalent in uplands within the (42) (52) (50) (53) (6) (22)

project area?

Are insects and / or disease 15% 24% 65% 54% 19% 22%

prevalent in riparian/ wetland (15) (31) (64) (68) (19) (28)

habitats within the project area? 

Are insects and / or disease 32% 40% 58% 43% 10% 17%

prevalent in upland habitats within (31) (51) (57) 54) (10) (22)

the project area? 

Was any part of the project area in 56% 56% 39% 35% 5% 9%

the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)? (58) (74) (40) (46) (5) (12)

Are Fire Regime Condition Classes 49% 44% 16% 12% 35% 44%

(FRCCs) applicable to the riparian (48) (56) (16) (15) (34) (56)

or wetland areas within the 

project area?
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 83

4.5.5 Project Monitoring

Most of the respondents reported that project-related monitoring was planned or 

conducted for both their completed (71 percent) and proposed (82 percent) projects to 

determine effectiveness at meeting project objectives. In the survey, we asked questions 

about project monitoring, including duration, frequency, and methods used. Depending 

on the question about details of monitoring, response rate ranged from 10 to 60 percent. 

The varied response rate to specific questions partly reflected the discipline of the respondent; some survey participants (e.g., fire managers and fuels specialists) were not directly 

involved with all aspects of monitoring.

The most common ecological variables monitored in the completed projects were 

vegetation attributes and fuels, both before and after treatment implementation (table 21). 

Overall, monitoring appeared to be focused on project effectiveness at meeting objectives 

rather than on ecological impacts of the treatments. For example, monitoring of vegetation and fuels was expected, given the three most common project objectives: hazardous 

fuel reduction, habitat restoration, and restoration of the historical fire regime (fig. 17). 

However, it was surprising that 21 percent of the respondents did not monitor fuels (table 

21). Additional vegetation variables explicitly noted in the “other” category were stand 

density, seedling counts, and percentage of cover of bare ground, grasses, and forbs. In 

riparian areas, sampling of the “greenline” (Burton et al. 2008; Winward 2000) and assessment of “proper functioning condition” (Prichard et al. 1998) were also noted in the 

“other” category. The impacts of treatments on terrestrial wildlife were monitored by 40 

percent of the respondents, while impacts of treatments on aquatic biota were monitored 

by only 19 percent of the respondents. More than half of the respondents did no monitoring of water quality of erosion or hillslope runoff (table 21). Monitoring of recreational 

impacts was noted in the “other” category.

For those respondents who conducted monitoring, information on the type of 

monitoring is also shown in table 21. The most common monitoring methods were 

qualitative rapid assessment techniques and comparison of pre- and posttreatment photos. 

Approximately one-third of the respondents collected samples to monitor impacts on 

Table 21—Summary of responses (from on-line survey) to questions regarding project-related monitoring 

(from Meyer et al. 2012). Values are expressed as percentages of completed projects. (Note: Percentages 

do not add to 100 percent because some survey participants responded “not sure” or did not respond to all 

monitoring questions.)

Monitoring? Type of Monitoring 

(% of (% of respondents who 

respondents) conducted monitoring ) 

 Pre- and post- Visual Quantitative

 treatment rapid Sample data

Ecological variable Yes No monitoring assessment collection collection

Water quality and/ or quantity 27 54 51 25 10 5

Erosion / runoff 29 56 59 61 0 6

Stream biota 19 62 29 20 33 0

Vegetation attributes (e.g. rare 

plants, invasives, utilization) 87 8 76 34 4 36

Fuel types and Loads 71 21 76 40 5 21

Terrestrial wildlife 40 38 61 39 13 26

Other 26 60 27 50 0 17
84 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

aquatic biota; 13 percent of the respondents collected samples to monitor impacts on 

terrestrial wildlife; and 10 percent collected samples to monitor water quality (table 21). 

Quantitative data were collected to assess treatment effects on fuels, vegetation attributes, 

and terrestrial wildlife by 21 to 36 percent of the respondents (table 21). For most projects, duration of monitoring was limited to the first few years following treatment. Lack 

of resources (funding and staff) to support more extensive monitoring was explicitly 

noted by several respondents in the “comments” section.

4.5.6 Constraints to Conducting Fuels Treatments in Riparian Areas

Managers face multiple challenges when planning and conducting fuels treatments 

in all vegetation types, but wetlands and riparian areas pose additional concerns (fig. 23). 

Responses from the survey indicated that the most significant constraint for all agencies was the potential presence of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in the 

project area. While this is also a major concern for upland fuels projects, inclusion of 

aquatic and riparian obligate species increases the number of species of concern. Cultural 

resources were also an issue in planning fuels projects in riparian areas, particularly in 

the Great Basin region where archeological sites are concentrated along stream-riparian 

corridors. BLM and USFS respondents from Nevada and Utah most frequently noted this 

constraint. Administrative policies, resource management plans, and lack of agreement 

among resource specialists were commonly encountered constraints among USFS, BLM, 

Figure 23—Constraints to planning and conducting fuels treatments. Survey participants were asked 

to select all constraints that applied to their projects. For each constraint, the first column displays 

responses from all survey participants who answered the questions (n = 464); and the second 

column displays responses from survey participants who described completed (n = 103) and 

proposed (n = 132) projects. Number of Respondents 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 USFS 

BLM 

USFWS 

NPS 

Riparian-Wetland Projects

Mostly Upland Projects

All respondents 

Respondents who described projects 

Other

T & E Species

Cultural Resources

Potential Litigation

Administrative Policies

Lack of Line

Officer Support

Lack of Agreement

Among Specialists

Resource Management

Plan Standards
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 85

and NPS respondents (fig. 23). Approximately 19 percent of the respondents, almost 

evenly divided between BLM and USFS, recorded potential litigation as a constraint to 

riparian fuels projects. Limited support from line officers was the least common constraint noted (3 percent of survey respondents).

Several additional constraints were recorded by survey respondents, most notably 

funding. Budgets generally do not target vegetation treatments in riparian areas as a 

priority; therefore, managers interested in treating riparian fuels include streamside 

areas as part of larger projects. As noted above, approximately 70 percent of the projects (completed and planned) were part of predominantly upland projects. Much of the 

funding available for fuels treatments is focused in the WUI. This was reflected in the 

survey results: 56 percent of the completed and planned projects reported by respondents 

are located in the WUI (table 20). Other constraints noted by respondents included the 

following: challenges in attaining the appropriate window of season and/or weather conditions conducive for prescribed burning; availability of adequate fire staff and equipment 

support; land ownership patterns around riparian areas; visual and recreation conflicts; 

local environmental issues, politics and public perception; and limited scientific information on effects of fuel treatments on riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

4.6 Summary: More Riparian Fuels Treatments to Come...

The survey results clearly demonstrate that fuels projects are being implemented in 

wetlands and riparian areas throughout the survey area and that there is increasing interest 

in continuing certain projects and planning new ones. Riparian areas are highly diverse 

in this region, and fuel reduction treatments are being planned and conducted with 

multiple objectives (fig. 17) and across a range of riparian types (fig. 22). Results of our 

2010 online survey were largely consistent with the 2007 phone survey of Forest Service 

FMOs (Stone et al. 2009). However, more USFS riparian projects are being planned and 

conducted than previously, suggesting a shift from “hands-off” riparian protection to 

more active manipulation of riparian areas on Forest Service lands. Although resource 

managers are experiencing similar constraints as in 2007 (Stone et al. 2010), the level of 

line officer support for treating riparian fuels seems to be growing (fig. 23; Meyer et al. 

2012).

Results from both surveys also showed that most riparian treatments are part of 

predominantly upland projects, focused on larger-scale fuel reduction across portions of 

managed landscapes. This active management of riparian vegetation and fuels implies a 

trend towards incorporation of riparian corridors into broader-scale (watershed-scale or 

larger) treatments. This has likely resulted from recent information on landscape-scale 

fire behavior, fire return intervals, and greater appreciation of linkages between streams, 

riparian areas, and uplands (USDA Forest Service 2011; Luce et al. 2012). Managers are 

concerned about riparian fuel loads and perceive them to be high along many streams in 

the Interior West. They are reluctant to leave high streamside fuel loads while uplands 

are treated, so they are including these areas in an effort to exert some influence on fire 

behavior. In many cases, managers are also using fuel treatments as restoration projects 

in both uplands and riparian areas. This may be a consequence of funding—that is, funds 

are available for fuel reduction, so managers use this funding to simultaneously reduce 
86 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

fuels, restore habitat and historical fire regimes and, in some locations, to control invasive 

plant species. In these cases, prioritization of objectives is necessary, as some may be 

achieved more effectively than others (fig. 18).

Despite increased level of interest in treating riparian areas, numerous constraints 

were identified in the online survey (fig. 23). Noteworthy concerns include the unknown 

or unpredictable effects of treatments to riparian and aquatic habitat, during both treatment and recovery phases, and the limited scientific research that has been conducted on 

the topic (Bixby et al. 2015). Research results on the impacts of fire and fuel treatments 

on riparian functions and characteristics are restricted to a few localized studies in the 

Pacific Northwest in a limited range of vegetation types (Arkle and Pilliod 2010; Bêche 

et al. 2005; Bisson et al. 2003; Dwire and Kauffman 2003; see reviews in Chapters 2 and 

3). Limited scientific knowledge restricts the ability of managers and resource specialists 

to justify the need for riparian treatments and to make informed decisions when planning 

projects (but see Chapter 3). Our survey results indicate that the state of the practice has 

preceded the state of the science regarding riparian fuel treatments, and that more sharing 

of experiences, “lessons learned” about what worked and what failed, would be beneficial 

for practitioners.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 87

Chapter 5: Monitoring Fuel Treatments

5.1 Role of Monitoring

Monitoring is an important component of all adaptive management, including the 

treatment of fuels. Although resource specialists recognize the need for monitoring, 

limited resources—staff, time, expertise, and funding—frequently preclude the implementation of monitoring, especially quantitative data collection (Jain et al. 2012; Chapter 

4, this report). As previously noted (Chapter 4), the most common monitoring methods 

for fuel treatment projects were qualitative rapid assessment techniques and comparison 

of pre- and posttreatment photos. In addition, most monitoring appeared to be focused 

on project effectiveness at meeting objectives rather than on ecological impacts of the 

treatments.

We encourage some level of monitoring for all fuels treatments projects, particularly 

those conducted in riparian areas and wetlands. Information on all aspects of project 

planning, implementation, short- and long-term treatment effects, and effectiveness are 

needed to advance our understanding of the utility of fuel treatments in different locations 

and vegetation types (please see case studies in Chapter 6). For projects conducted in 

highly sensitive areas or in habitats that support sensitive species, quantitative data are 

especially useful in guiding adaptive management. We strongly encourage the assessment 

of fuels in riparian areas and wetlands before and after treatments. More information 

is needed on the diverse range of riparian fuel profiles and their responses to different 

treatments, and resource managers are urged to collect quantitative data on riparian fuels 

whenever possible and—at a minimum—to photograph before- and after-treatment 

conditions. From our survey, we also learned that the duration of monitoring was limited 

to the first few years following treatment (Chapter 4). Again, we recognize the many constraints limiting monitoring efforts but emphasize the need for longer-term and, in some 

cases, retrospective monitoring.

It is beyond the scope of this report to provide extensive direction in the development of project monitoring. Instead, we briefly discuss elements of a monitoring 

approach and direct readers to other resources that are focused on monitoring (Text Boxes 

3 and 4). Many protocols have been developed for different ecological attributes of interest (table 22).

5.2 Developing a Monitoring Approach

Relative to surrounding uplands, riparian areas often have more diverse vegetation 

and greater physical heterogeneity and may have higher rates of plant species turnover 

through time, especially in herbaceous and shrub layers. The dynamic nature of stream 

channels adds to the challenges of sampling and monitoring riparian and stream conditions. Developing an effective monitoring approach requires an understanding of dynamic 

natural disturbances, including climatic fluctuations (drought, high snow-pack winters) 

and their influence on flooding frequency and stream-floodplain interactions and inundation; local and regional fire return intervals; and past and current influence of beaver. 

In addition, an appreciation of the legacies of past land use and management is also 
88 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Ecological 

variables of 

interest

Ecological attributes 

to measure Monitoring protocols and references

Riparian 

and wetland 

vegetation 

attributes (e.g. 

rare plants, 

invasives, 

utilization, cover)

Vegetation structure, 

composition, snags, 

downed wood

Archer, E.K.; Van Wagenen, A.R.; Coles-Ritchie, M.; Ebertowski, P.; Leary, R. 2014. Effectiveness 

monitoring for streams and riparian areas: sampling protocol for vegetation parameters. Unpublished 

paper on file at: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp.

Burton, T.A.; Smith, S.J.; Cowley, E.R. 2011. Multiple indicator monitoring of stream channels and 

streamside vegetation. TR 1737-23. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land management. 

170 p.

Elzinga, C.L.; Salzer, D.W.; Wiloughby, J.W.; Gibbs, J.P. 2001. Monitoring plant and animal 

populations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Inc. 360 p. 

Kershner, J.L.; Archer, E.K.; Coles-Ritchie, M.; Cowley, E.R.; Henderson, R.C.; Kratz, K.; Quimby, 

C.M.; Turner, D.L.; Ulmer, L.C.; Vinson, M.R. 2004. Guide to effective monitoring of aquatic 

and riparian resources. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 57 p.

Platts, W.S.; Armour, C.; Booth, G.D.; Bryant, M.; Bufford, J.L.; [et al.] 1987. Methods for evaluating 

riparian habitats with applications to management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-221. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

Prichard, D.; Barrett, H.; Cagney, J.; Clark, R.; Fogg, J.; Gebhardt, K.; Hansen, P.; Mitchell, B.; Tippy, 

D. 1993; revised 1995, 1998. Riparian area management: Process for assessing proper functioning 

condition. Tech. Ref. 1737-9. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. BLM/SC/ST93/ 003+1737+REV95+REV98. 60 p.

Scott, M.L.; Reynolds. E.W. 2007. Field-based evaluation of sampling techniques to support longterm monitoring of riparian ecosystems along wadeable streams on the Colorado Plateau. Open-File 

report 2007-1266. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 57 p. 

USDA Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012a. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: Level I inventory field 

guide: Inventory methods for assessment and planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-86a. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

USDA Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012b. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: Level II inventory field 

guide: Inventory methods for assessment and planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-86b. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. [n.d.] [Draft] Fuel and fire effects monitoring guide. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/fire/downloads/

monitor.pdf.

Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-47. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

Fuel types and 

loads

Distribution of fuels; 

characterization of 

fuelbeds

Keane, R.E. 2015. Wildland fuel fundamentals and applications. Springer. 191 p.

Lutes, D.C.; Keane, R.E.; Caratti, J.F.; Key, C.H.; Benson, N.C.; Sutherland, S.; Gangi, L.J. 2006. 

FIREMON: Fire effects monitoring and inventory system. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-164-CD. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. http://

www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr164.pdf; 

Peterson, D.L.; Evers, L.; Gravenmier, R.; Eberhardt, E. 2007. A consumer guide: Tools to manage 

vegetation and fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-690. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 151 p. www.treesearch.fs.fed.pubs/25953. 

Brown, J.K.; Oberheu, R.D.; Johnston, C.M. 1982. Handbook for inventorying surface fuels and 

biomass in the Interior West. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-129. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 48 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. [n.d.] [Draft]. Fuel and fire effects monitoring guide. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/fire/downloads/

monitor.pdf. 

USDI National Park Service. 2001. Fire monitoring handbook. Boise, ID: National Interagency Fire 

Center. 283 p. 

Soil resources Erosion, landslides; 

stream crossing 

density; road density

Soil Quality Monitoring for Long Term Ecosystem Sustainability on Northern Region National Forests 

(SOLO). Volume 1 and Volume 2; Soil–disturbance field guide and associated forms. Available at: 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/index.php

Table 22—Monitoring effects or effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments in riparian areas may require information on some 

or all of the following ecological attributes. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 89

Water quality Sediment, nutrients, 

temperature

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. Nonpoint source controls and water quality 

standards. In: Water quality standards handbook, chapter 2 general program. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental Protection Agency 1996. Biological criteria, technical guidance for streams and small 

rivers. EPA822-B-96-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Water quality standards handbook. 2nd ed. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-quality-standardshandbook. 

Aquatic habitat Instream wood; 

substrate; pools, 

undercut banks

Burton et al. 2011. (full citation above).

Harrelson, C.C.; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated 

guide to field technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/ 

publications/documentsStream.html

Hauer, F.R.; Lamberti, G.A. 2006. Methods in stream ecology. 2nd ed. Elsevier. 877 p. 

Herger, L.G.; Hayslip, G.A.; Leinenbach, P.T. 2007. Ecological condition of wadeable streams of 

the Interior Columbia River Basin. EPA-910-R-07-005. Seattle, WA: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 10. 

Kershner et al. 2004. (full citation above).

Wohl, E.; Cenderelli, D.; Dwire, K.A.; Ryan, S.E.; Young, M.K.; Fausch, K. 2010. Large instream 

wood studies: A call for common metrics. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 35: 618–625.

Stream Biota; 

aquatic resources

Species occurrence or 

abundance; benthic 

macroinvertebrates; 

primary production

Vesely, D; McComb, B.C.; Vojta, C.D.; Suring, L.H.; Halaj, J.; Holthauen, R.S.; Zuckerberg, B.; 

Manley, P.M. 2006. Development of protocols to inventory or monitor wildlife, fish, or rare plants. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-72. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 100 p.

Kershner et al. 2004. (full citation above)

USDA Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012a,b. (full citations above)

Terrestrial habitat Vegetation metrics 

(see above) important 

for cover and food 

Bate, L.J.; Garton, E.O.; Wisdom, M.J. 1999. Estimating snag and large trees densities and 

distributions on a landscape for wildlife management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-425. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p.

Terrestrial wildlife Population / 

reproduction 

estimates of resident & 

migratory species

Manley, P.N.; et al. 2006. Multiple species inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. WO-73. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 204 p.

Elzinga et al. 2001. (full citation above).

Photo 

documentation

Visual change over 

vegetative cover, fuel 

loads

Hall, Frederick C. 2001a. Photo point monitoring handbook: part A- field procedures. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-526. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: 1-48. 

Hall, Frederick C. 2001b. Photo point monitoring handbook: part B- concepts and analysis. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-526. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 49-134. 

Table 22—Continued. 

Ecological 

variables of 

interest

Ecological attributes 

to measure Monitoring protocols and references

necessary to understand current condition as well as potential responses to certain treatments. This requires consideration of cumulative effects that includes historical (recent or 

longer-term) management activities in the watershed, current management activities, and 

potential additive and interactive impacts (Text Box 3).

Several methods have been developed for assessing riparian and stream resources; 

frequently used methods, especially by Federal and State resource practitioners, are listed 

in table 22. Protocols developed for monitoring programs (Text Box 4) were designed for 

assessing general stream-riparian condition, either through a single site visit or over time. 

Some methods were largely designed to monitor management actions, such as grazing, 

mechanical disturbance, or forest harvest impacts, and for specific stream channel types. 

With the exception of methods specifically developed for measuring fuel types and fuel 

loads (table 22), these methods were not focused on monitoring either fire effects or 
90 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

impacts of fuel treatments. For specific fuel treatment projects in riparian areas, there is 

no “ideal” or “best” method for every setting or objective. Monitoring plans tailored to 

meet clearly defined objectives and a defined scale and scope are preferred.

Selection and modification of existing methods are required to meet project objectives as well as possible tailoring for specific sites, valley settings, or other conditions. In 

addition, monitoring must ensure that projects are satisfying the requirements defined in 

the NEPA documents for the specific project (Text Box 3).

5.2.1 Elements of a Monitoring Design

Explicit statement of the critical questions of interest will focus the monitoring 

effort (Text Box 3): Will the monitoring assess project implementation, treatment effectiveness, or both? Will the monitoring evaluate the impacts and effects of wildfire 

or fuel treatments. Additional questions to ask when designing a monitoring approach 

include: (1) Are fuel treatments (or wildfire) degrading or negatively influencing attainment of desired conditions for riparian areas, soil, water, or aquatic desired conditions? 

and (2) Are fuel treatments (or wildfire) meeting desired future conditions?

Effective monitoring projects are supported by a monitoring plan that includes management and/or sampling objectives, management response, and method 

Text Box 3—Considerations for Developing a Monitoring Approach (Modified From

Chapter 10 in Jain et al. 2012).

Project Objectives and Goals:

1. For Federal agency projects, use ‘Purpose and Need’ sections of project NEPA documents for clear 

statement of objectives and goals. Consider the information needs of multiple stakeholders when 

developing a monitoring approach.

2. For postfire monitoring, clarify objectives and ecological variables most important for evaluating 

fire impacts. In watersheds with concerns regarding rare aquatic or terrestrial species, an overriding 

question is whether critical habitat features are affected by either fire or fuel treatments over both 

short- and long-term time frames.

3. For monitoring impacts of fuel treatments, clarify objectives and ecological variables most 

important for evaluating treatments impacts.

Focus of a Monitoring Approach - Questions of Interest:

•	 Monitoring to evaluate impacts of fuel treatments or wildfire on sensitive species, other aquatic

or riparian species of interest, habitat characteristics, water quality, or vegetation attributes

Monitoring of the impacts of fuel treatments is conducted using comparisons of pretreatment 

data (preferred) or comparisons of posttreatment conditions with a reference, ecologically 

analogous, untreated stream-riparian segment or watershed. Postfire monitoring is conducted 

using comparisons of prefire data (where available) or comparisons of postfire conditions with a 

reference, ecologically analogous, unburned watershed. Postfire monitoring is valuable over both 

short- and long-term time frames to evaluate both impacts and recovery.

•	 Monitoring to evaluate project implementation: was the project implemented as intended?

Evaluation monitoring is conducted using comparisons of pre versus posttreatment measurements 

or comparisons of posttreatment conditions with reference baseline conditions. Reference 

conditions can be the current condition or desired future conditions; measured attributes should 

reflect the elements identified as fundamental to the desired future condition.

•	 Monitoring to evaluate treatment effectiveness; did the project meet the objectives?

Short-term evaluation monitoring is conducted using comparisons of pre versus posttreatment 

measurements, especially fuel components. Longer-term monitoring may be conducted if the 

treated area later burns.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 91

Elements of a Monitoring Design:

1. Clearly stated monitoring objectives.

2. Clear description of baseline and desired future conditions, recognizing the dynamic nature 

of riparian areas.

3. Identification of the ecological variables most important for evaluating desired conditions 

and deviations from desired conditions (see table 22).

4. Determination of the type of data required to evaluate riparian condition within a stated 

level of confidence (see table 22).

5. Statement of acceptable uncertainty in monitoring data.

6. Strong, statistically valid sampling design, including scale of sampling (reach level, 

watershed level, or landscape level); replication in both space and time; sampling layout 

within the consideration of scope-of-inference; systematic versus random sampling; timing 

and interval of sampling.

7. Clear plan for data management, analysis, and evaluation.

Logistical and Financial Considerations:

How will monitoring be accomplished?

Includes decisions about when data will be collected (season, frequency interval of data collection); 

where data will be collected (reach length, plot size, sampling density); number of required repeated 

measures to adequately assess implementation and effectiveness of treatments, or fire impacts. Sampling 

theory, statistical analysis and monitoring design are crucial considerations at this step.

Who will do the monitoring?

Crew structure and leadership have implications for quality assurance/quality control, data 

management, and training.

Cost of monitoring (especially over time)? Who will pay?

Availability of expertise, time, and financial resources are best considered up-front.

How and where will monitoring data be stored, archived, and documented?

Data should be accessible to managers and researchers; archived in stable formats on 

stable media; resistant to corruption and accidental destruction; accompanied by adequate 

metadata; preferably stored and archived as corporate data.

How, when, and by whom will monitoring data be analyzed?

Depending on the size, complexity, and visibility of the project, multiple analysts with 

different disciplinary expertise may be involved in data analyses. Priority analyses will 

address the impacts of treatment or fire on sensitive species and habitats, valued riparian/ 

wetland functions; quantify reduction in different fuel components; evaluate project 

implementation and treatment effectiveness.

Cumulative Effects Considerations:

1. What other current management activities are being planned or implemented in the 

watershed? Where are the management activities located relative to the stream-riparian 

corridor?

2. What is the historical (recent and longer-term) spatial distribution of management activities 

in the watershed?

3. What is spatial and temporal distribution of natural disturbances in the watershed?

4. What are potential additive and/or interactive impacts of past and current management 

activities, natural disturbance, and fuel reduction treatments over space and time?

5. What effects will the fuel reduction treatments have on other land uses and ecosystems 

components? 

documentation. Monitoring plans provide a description of the fuel treatment project 

and the monitoring objectives and proposed method(s) as a means to communicate with 

and solicit input from all interested parties. It also documents a management commitment to implement monitoring. The basic monitoring plan should cover the elements 

necessary to communicate who, what, when, where, and how the monitoring will be 
92 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Text Box 4—Existing Programs and Tools for Monitoring and Assessment of 

Riparian Condition, Including Fuel Loads (Modified From Chapter 10 in Jain

et al. 2012).

Monitoring Programs:

•	 PACFISH INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Program for Streams 

and Riparian Areas (PIBO Monitoring). This program provides a consistent framework 

for implementing effectiveness monitoring of aquatic and riparian resources within the 

range of the Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy (PACFISH) and the Inland Fish Strategy 

(INFISH). Monitoring approach was developed in response to needs addressed in the 

Biological Opinions for bull trout (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service) and steelhead (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service). Primary objectives are to assess the effects of land management activities on 

aquatic and riparian resources and to determine whether PACFISH/INFISH management 

practices are maintaining or improving riparian and aquatic conditions at landscape and 

watershed scales on Federal lands throughout the Columbia River Basin (Kershner et al. 

2004). http://fsweb.r4.fs.fed.us/unit/nr/pibo/index.shtml.

•	 Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM): Monitoring the Effects of Management on 

Stream Channels and Streamside Vegetation. This program is focused on assessing the 

impacts of grazing on riparian and stream condition in the Intermountain Region. The 

MIM protocol was collaboratively developed by U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM, Idaho State Office) and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service (Burton et al. 2011). http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/monitoring.

php.

•	 Forest Health Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. This 

is a national program designed to determine the status, changes, and trends in indicators 

of forest condition on an annual basis. The program uses a variety of approaches to 

address forest health issues that affect the sustainability of forest ecosystems. Although 

the focus is on upland forests, the condition and health of riparian woody species are 

also examined in some locations. http://fhm.fs.fed.us/

•	 Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program (FIA). This program reports on the 

status and trends in U.S. forests. Although the focus is on upland forests, some randomly 

located plots occur in riparian areas. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us.

•	 Soil Quality Monitoring for Long-Term Ecosystem Sustainability on Northern Region 

National Forests (SOLO). This program is focused on monitoring soil quality and 

soil disturbance, including guidance on how to conduct a rapid assessment of soil 

disturbances. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/index.php.

Tools:

•	 USFS Remote Sensing Application Center (RSAC). This is the national technical services 

center of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The center provides remote 

sensing tools and technical services for delineating riparian areas; mapping riparian 

vegetation; classifying valley bottoms; mapping cover of invasive plant species; postfire 

mapping of burned areas (areas of different fire severity). http://fsweb.rsac.fs.fed.us. 

•	 Fuel and Fire Tools (FFT). This is a software application that integrates Fuel 

Characteristics Classification System (FCCS), Consume, Fire Emission Production 

Simulator (FEPS), Pile Calculator, and Digital Photo Series (fuel load estimates) into a 

single user interface. All of the tools were developed by the Fire and Environmental 

Research Applications Team (FERA; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/fft.

•	 FEAT/FIREMON (FFI). This is a monitoring software tool designed to assist managers 

with collection, storage, and analysis of ecological information. Lutes, Duncan C.; 

Benson, Nathan C.; Keifer, MaryBeth; Carrati, John F.; Streetman, S. Austin. 2009. FFI: 

A software tool for ecological monitoring. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18: 

310–314. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 93

conducted and used to make management decisions. A question-driven approach for 

formulating a customized, concise monitoring plan is provided by Derr et al. (2005). 

Elements of a monitoring plan or design are listed in Text Box 3.

The first step in developing a monitoring plan is to establish simply stated, purposeful objectives that clearly express specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and 

tractable management objectives. It can be helpful to identify a primary objective, followed by secondary and other objectives that communicate the nature and depth of the 

monitoring effort. Why is the project being undertaken? Who will use the information 

and how? What kind of output is expected? A clear description of baseline and target 

or desired future conditions can assist in assessing the effectiveness of fuel treatment 

projects. As noted above, the natural disturbance regime and dynamic nature of riparian 

areas needs to be considered in statements of target conditions. Objectives should be 

quantifiable and achievable and should contain clearly stated targets or thresholds, thus 

facilitating evaluation of progress or effectiveness. All resource specialists involved in 

the project should agree to the objectives.

Another important early step is determining what attributes to monitor. The identification of ecological attributes or variables to monitor may be specific to a project, 

site, or region, but usually includes fuel profiles, some vegetation attributes, and certain 

habitat features (table 22; Text Box 3). Ecological variables need to be prioritized in order of importance for evaluating desired conditions or deviations from those conditions. 

Next, the types of data required to evaluate the selected attributes with confidence need 

to be determined. It is advised that the acceptable amount of uncertainty for each critical variable also be determined and explicitly stated.

To be defensible, data and other information should be collected using published 

methods (table 22) within an experimental design or sampling framework that employs 

unbiased sampling and adequate sample sizes to assess data statistically. In many cases, 

comparisons to untreated, ecologically analogous reference reaches are part of the sampling design. Reference reaches might be located in the same drainage (e.g., upstream) 

or in nearby streams. Comparisons to other sites can sometimes be problematic, but 

there are techniques to account for potential bias or pseudoreplication (Van Mantgem 

et al. 2001). Sampling considerations include the spatial extent of sampling, timing and 

intervals of sampling, systematic versus random sampling, and ability to make inferences. The sampling techniques, number and spacing of transects, number and spacing 

of point samples, and specific methodologies may need to be modified for specific projects. Readers are referred to the references cited in table 22 for discussion of these and 

additional considerations. Monitoring plans may include collection of samples, such 

as water and aquatic insects, that require in-lab processing or analysis. Description of 

methods used to collect and process samples is a critical component of some monitoring plans. As noted in Chapter 4, about one-third of the survey respondents collected 

samples to monitor impacts on aquatic biota; 13 percent of the respondents collected 

samples to monitor impacts on terrestrial wildlife; and 10 percent collected samples to 

monitor water quality.

A clear approach to data management, analysis, and evaluation also needs to be 

addressed in the monitoring plan. This includes data entry and the types of data analysis, synthesis, and interpretation that will be undertaken. In many cases, determination 

of the types of data analysis and syntheses to be conducted will influence decisions 
94 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

about the sampling design, particularly replication and spatial distribution of sampling 

sites. The frequency and type of reporting will also influence data management and 

evaluation.

The intensity and scale of monitoring should reflect the importance of the project 

treatment area and the resources (staff, funding, time) available to conduct the monitoring. The intensity of monitoring can range from detailed before-and-after assessment 

of fuels to a single photo point revisited every 5 years. The scale or spatial extent of 

monitoring can range from a set of nested plots placed along transects in selected 

treated and untreated areas to coverage of all treated areas. As noted above in Chapter 

4, approximately 21 to 36 percent of the survey respondents’ collected quantitative data 

to assess fuel treatment effects on fuels, vegetation attributes, and terrestrial wildlife. 

For most projects, duration of monitoring was limited to the first few years following 

treatment. Limited funding and staff time to support monitoring will remain an issue, 

but resource specialists are urged to conduct as much monitoring as is financially and 

logistically feasible and to augment monitoring with administrative studies in areas of 

special resource interest.

5.2.2 Logistical and Financial Considerations

The availability of expertise, time, and financial resources must be considered at 

the beginning and during all stages of planning. Basic questions addressing logistical 

and financial constraints are listed in Text Box 3. Many considerations will be taken 

into account during planning and drafting the monitoring plan (Derr et al. 2005). 

Budgets largely determine what kind of monitoring is possible and play a critical 

role in logistical choices. Logistical considerations include sampling details for how 

monitoring will be accomplished, including when, where, and how the data will be 

collected; sequence of data collection; implementation of the sampling design; and the 

required number and expertise of crew members. Costs and logistics of data management, including storage, archival, and documentation, are also critical and need to be 

explicitly addressed in the monitoring plan.

5.3 Existing Resources

In addition to the monitoring protocols and references listed in table 22, ongoing 

monitoring programs are also worth noting as potential sources to assist in evaluation of 

current condition during fuels treatment project planning and development of a monitoring approach. For the Columbia River Basin, the PACFISH INFISH Biological Opinion 

Monitoring Program assesses the effects of land management activities on stream and riparian resources on Federal lands administered by the Forest Service and BLM (Archer et 

al. 2012a,b; Kershner 2002; Kershner et al. 2001; http://fsweb.r4.fs.fed.us/unit/nr/pibo/index.shtml; Text Box 4). Other existing monitoring programs focus primarily on uplands, 

but may be helpful in some applications or locations or both (Text Box 3).

Many tools are available that focus on fuels, fire effects, soils, wildlife, and other 

elements; a few are noted in Text Box 4. Information on the range of existing tools for 

managing vegetation and fuels is summarized well in Peterson et al. (2007) and Stratton 

(2006). In Peterson et al. (2007), the assumptions, trade-offs, and benefits of various tools 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 95

are presented, and examples of site-specific and watershed-scale projects are provided. 

Decision support tools on fire emissions, fire effects, fuels description and planning, 

and other fire-related topics are also described in Appendix B in Jain et al. (2012). New 

information and decisions support tools are continually being developed, and many 

existing tools and models are updated regularly. Although fuels and fire behavior models 

are generally lacking for most riparian vegetation types, readers are encouraged to visit 

FRAMES, a web-based portal for information exchange and technology transfer that 

includes recent developments and updates (http://www.frames.gov).
96 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Chapter 6: Case Studies of Riparian Fuels 

Treatments: Challenges and Opportunities for 

Restoration and Management

6.1 Prescribed Burning in Willow and Aspen Stands, 

Bridger-Teton National Forest and Grand Teton 

National Park, Wyoming

For more than 20 years, resource managers have included prescribed fire as a 

management strategy in willow-dominated riparian areas on public lands of northwest 

Wyoming. The primary objective for most prescribed fire treatments is to improve 

habitat for wildlife, primarily moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus canadensis), and deer 

(Odocoileus spp.). Projects have been implemented on the Bridger-Teton National Forest 

and in Grand Teton National Park and have included close collaboration among wildlife 

biologists from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and resource specialists and 

fire staff from the National Park Service, Teton Interagency Fire, and the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest (Meyer et al. 2012). Most willow species resprout vigorously following 

low- to moderate-severity wildfire (see Section 2.3.1 above; Dwire and Kauffman 2003; 

Kaczynski and Cooper 2015), as well as prescribed fire treatments (fig. 24; Boggs et 

al. 1990), likely due to extensive rooting structures in moist soils that are not impacted 

directly by surface fires. Treated willow stands in northwest Wyoming had been characterized by managers as “decadent” with high proportions of dead stems (fig. 25). This 

dead component is the target for treatment with prescribed fire because it presents a 

fuel hazard and limits access to live portions of the shrubs—that is, the valuable browse 

forage. In most cases, prescribed fire projects have achieved management goals of increasing willow regeneration and growth rates to improve the quality of wildlife browse 

and fuel reduction in select locations.

Figure 24—Resprouting 

willows following the 

2003 spring prescribed 

burn treatment along 

Fontenelle Creek, 

Bridger-Teton National 

Forest, Wyoming. The 

photo was taken in late 

August, approximately 

3 months following 

treatment.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 97

6.1.1 Fontenelle Willows Prescribed Burn, Bridger-Teton National 

Forest, Wyoming

In spring 2003, the Fontenelle Willows Prescribed Burn project was implemented 

on the Fontenelle Allotment, Kemmerer Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest 

(Banister and Lockwood 2010). Part of the area was prescribed burned in 1989. Outside 

of the treated area, the willow stands—dominated by Booths willow (Salix boothi Dorn) 

and Geyer’s willow (Salix geyeriana Andersson)—were up to 5 meters tall, dense, and 

with many dead stems. In untreated stands, the percentage of cover of dead stems was 

nearly twice the cover of live stems. The primary objective of the multiyear project was 

“to remove decadent Booth and Geyer willow adjacent to Fontenelle Creek in order to 

promote new growth within the stands, thus improving grazing and forage conditions for 

wildlife and livestock to agency, State, and private lands while restoring fire-adaptive 

ecosystems” (Banister and Lockwood 2010). The entire project area provides both critical 

winter and yearlong habitat for moose (Alces alces), as well as spring, summer, and fall 

habitat for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), and elk (Cervus canadensis). Specific objectives of project implementation were 

to (1) burn willow communities in a mosaic pattern with at least 60 percent blackened, 

to return late seral stands to early seral; (2) identify and protect archeological resources; 

(3) maintain State water quality standards and Forest Service water quality goals; and (4) 

identify and protect visually sensitive areas (Banister and Lockwood 2010). Additional 

ecological objectives were to attain specified increases in the percent of live willow cover 

within 3 years posttreatment and to attain average willow heights greater than or equal to 

preburn heights within 10 years posttreatment.

Shrub height and percentage of cover were estimated in the project area using standard protocols with some modifications to evaluate the amount of dead standing willow; 

no fuel models existed for the fuel conditions or predicted the potential fire behavior for 

burning in willow communities (Banister and Lockwood 2010). In May 2003, approximately 184 acres were burned along the wide floodplain in the Fontenelle Creek drainage 

using both ground and aerial ignition. The prescribed fire was implemented as planned; 

Figure 25—Willow with a 

large number of dead 

stems (characterized 

as decadent) in an 

untreated area, Buffalo 

River Valley, BridgerTeton National Forest, 

Wyoming.
98 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

the unit burned intensely with flame heights of more than 15 feet in some portions of the 

treated area (fig. 26 a,b). The postburn evaluation showed that approximately 51 percent 

of the unit was blackened, 18 percent burned with low intensity, and approximately 33 

percent burned with moderate intensity (fig. 27). Due to the short duration of low- to 

moderate-intensity fire, there was minimal damage to the soil with organic matter still 

present across most portions of the treated area. Willows, forbs, and grasses began resprouting within weeks of the treatment (fig. 28). To evaluate achievement of ecological 

objectives, percentage of cover and height of willows (live and dead) were sampled along 

five transects (25 m long) before the treatment, 1 year posttreatment, and 5 years posttreatment. Posttreatment monitoring indicated that willow growth exceeded expectations. 

The 2003 Fontenelle Creek burn achieved project implementation treatment objectives as 

well as ecological objectives (Banister and Lockwood 2010; Meyer et al. 2012).

Another portion (approximately 570 acres) of the Fontenelle Creek Grazing 

Allotment was scheduled for similar treatment in spring 2010. However, high flow in 

Fontenelle Creek and muddy roads prevented vehicle access, and saturated soils and 

ground fuel moisture conditions were not conducive to the ignition and spread of fire 

across the unit; therefore, the treatment was postponed. The inability to successfully 

implement a prescribed burn in spring 2010 demonstrated the role of soil and fuel moisture content, which can frequently confound the treatment of riparian fuels. The preferred 

season for burning deciduous-dominated riparian vegetation is spring, before leaf-out 

Figure 26—Ignited willows 

during the Fontenelle 

Willows Prescribed Burn 

project (May 2003), BridgerTeton National Forest, 

Wyoming. The treatment 

was conducted before 

bud-break when soils were 

moist.

A

B
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 99

and most bud-break, thus reducing the overall vulnerability of the plants to fire. Later in 

summer, moisture conditions may be more favorable for burning, but the plants are potentially more vulnerable to damage, some nesting birds may be more severely impacted, 

and the fires may be more difficult to control. Scheduling restrictions are critical in planning for all fuel reduction treatments but require additional consideration in streamside 

areas.

Figure 27—Overview of 

the Fontenelle Willows 

Prescribed Burn project 

area before treatment (A), 

and immediately following 

treatment in May 2003 

(B,C), showing a mosaic of 

portions burned with low 

to moderate intensity.

B

A

C
100 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

6.1.2 Prescribed Burns in Willow Stands, Bridger-Teton National 

Forest and Teton National Park, Wyoming

 In the Buffalo River Valley, located in the Blackrock Ranger District of the BridgerTeton National Forest, resource managers from the National Park Service and Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department have been using prescribed fire to manage willow-dominated 

areas for wildlife benefit since the mid-1980s (fig. 29). In spring 1994, a low-severity 

burn was conducted in a portion of the Buffalo Valley where willow and aspen were 

severely suppressed by combined herbivory from moose, elk, and cattle; most plants were 

essentially browsed to snow height every winter. Monitoring has indicated that the spring 

burns rejuvenated the treated willow stands, which resprouted vigorously, providing critical winter forage for moose in the area. It was also observed that moose and elk tended 

to select Booth’s willow (Salix boothii) over Geyer’s willow (Salix geyeri) following 

treatment.

In the eastern portion of Grand Teton National Park, adjacent to Wolff Ridge, 

resource managers installed exclosures in a small riparian area following a prescribed 

Figure 28—Regrowth of 

both willows and the 

herbaceous understory 

exceeded expectations. 

Overview of the 

Fontenelle Willows 

Prescribed Burn project 

area approximately 

5 weeks following 

treatment (A; July 2003) 

showing the regrowth 

of willows and the 

herbaceous understory. 

Burned willows 

resprouted vigorously 

within approximately 5 

weeks of treatment (B).

B

A
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 101

fire in 1997 to determine the effects of livestock and wildlife (moose, elk, bison [Bison 

bison], and deer) exclusion on posttreatment growth of willows and aspen (willow 

height and aspen stem density; fig. 30). As expected, plants recovered most rapidly in the 

exclosures that excluded both livestock and wildlife. Postfire growth was slower in the 

exclosures that excluded only livestock and most reduced in the unfenced ‘control’ areas, 

which were impacted by wildlife and livestock herbivory. Resource managers advised 

that caution be used in managing vegetation recovering from prescribed burn treatments, 

particularly in the first 2 to 5 years posttreatment. In locations where browsing pressure 

is exceptionally heavy, herbivory by livestock or native ungulates or both can set back 

growth and productivity (Kaczynski and Cooper, 2015) and limit reproduction of some 

willow species (Case and Kauffman 1997), particularly where resprouting shrubs are exposed, accessible, and highly visible (Dwire et al. 2006). Although the treatment at Wolff 

Ridge was considered successful over the extensive burn unit dominated by sagebrush 

and aspen, resource managers noted that some individual willow plants were killed in the 

prescribed burn (fig. 30).

Spring prescribed fire treatment has also been applied to willow stands west of the 

historic Jackson Lake Lodge in Grand Teton National Park (fig. 31), in an area referred 

to as ‘Willow Flats.’ In 2002, a controlled burn was implemented primarily to reduce 

potentially hazardous fuels near the Lodge in addition to stimulating growth in willows 

to improve winter browse for moose and elk. The fuel type was tall, dense willows (Salix 

geyeri, Salix boothii, and other species) with a high proportion of dead stems. This treatment resulted in a mosaic of predominantly low- to medium-burn severity (less than 20 

percent blackened), with smaller patches of complete willow consumption, as assessed 

Figure 29—Interpretive sign posted along Wyoming State Highway 26/287 in the Buffalo River Valley. 

The sign explains the role of prescribed fire in habitat management of willows as winter browse for 

moose and other wildlife.
102 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

B

A

C

Figure 30—Near Wolff Ridge, Grand 

Teton National Park, Wyoming, 

exclosures were constructed to 

evaluate the effects of herbivory 

by livestock and wildlife (moose 

[Alces alces], elk [Cervus 

elaphus], bison [Bison bison], and 

deer [Odocoileus hemionus]) on 

willows (Salix spp.) and aspen 

(Populus tremuloides) following 

prescribed fire treatments (A). 

The effects of cattle grazing were 

observed for 2 years; the fencing 

was removed each season when 

the cows were removed (B). Some 

individual willow plants were 

killed in the prescribed fire (C).

through analysis of aerial photos taken within days of the treatment. Ten years posttreatment, most willows range between approximately 1 meter to more than 2 meters in 

height, and there is little evidence of the burn, with the exception of blackened standing 

dead stems in some stands, due to the treatment (fig. 31). Browsing by elk and moose 

does not appear to be limiting willow growth.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 103

6.2 Habitat Restoration and Invasive Plant Management; 

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area and 

Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management Area, Wyoming

The Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area was established in 1966 following 

the construction of the Yellowtail Dam, which dammed the Bighorn River and formed 

Bighorn Lake. The lake extends 71 miles (114 km) across the border between northeast 

Wyoming and southeast Montana; approximately 55 miles (89 km) of Bighorn Lake 

occur within the national recreation area. Portions of the Bighorn Canyon National 

Recreation Area are included in the Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management Area 

(YWHMA), a 19,424-acre unit managed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

in cooperation with the NPS, Bureau of Reclamation, and BLM (fig. 32). The YWHMA 

includes wetlands associated with Bighorn Lake as well as 16 smaller constructed 

wetlands and extensive riparian cottonwood gallery forests along the Bighorn and 

Shoshone rivers. These features provide protected resting area for migrating waterfowl 

(primary management goal); critical spring nesting habitat for numerous bird species, 

including turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), pheasants (primarily Phasianus colchicus), 

and waterfowl; and yearlong habitat for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

and other big game. The YWHMA is designated as an Important Bird Area by the 

B

A

Figure 31—Portions of the extensive 

area between Jackson Lake Lodge 

and Jackson Lake (A) were treated 

with prescribed fire in spring 2002 

to reduce hazardous fuels and 

improve wildlife habitat (improve 

browse quality; A). Eight years 

after treatment, there is little 

evidence of the burn. Although 

most willow stems range in height 

from 0.5 meter to over 2 meters, 

the controlled burn treatment 

left many standing dead stems, 

possibly killed by the fire (B).
104 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

National Audubon Society (http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/). The gallery forests are 

dominated by plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) with some narrowleaf cottonwood 

(Populus angustifolia) but are extensively infested with invasive woody species, notably Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) as well as 

herbaceous weed species such as whitetop (Cardaria draba (L.) Desv.), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens L.), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.). Dams 

upstream of the YWHMA alter the flow regimes of both the Bighorn and Shoshone 

rivers, and the cottonwood stands are primarily comprised of older, larger size classes. 

The larger Russian olive trees at the site are estimated to be approximately 40 to 50 

years old.

In 2003, the Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) group 

was formed to address the issue of invasive plants on the YWHMA and surrounding 

Figure 32—Map of the Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) project area, 

Wyoming (Shoshone Conservation District and Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management 

2007; map by Jerry Altermatt, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, used with permission).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 105

private lands along the Shoshone and Big Horn rivers. The persistence and spread of both 

woody and herbaceous noxious weeds were considered to pose serious threats to wildlife 

habitat and agricultural production. The CRM mission statement is “to manage the CRM 

Area for healthy, desirable plant communities that promote wildlife habitat, sustainable recreation and agriculture and educational opportunities” (Shoshone Conservation 

District and Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management 2007). The Yellowtail 

CRM is a highly collaborative effort among the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource 

Trust Board, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land 

Management. In 2006, CRM obtained a grant from the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural 

Resource Trust (WWNRT) to actively manage invasive plants within the YWHMA; 

proposed management activities included the reduction of fine fuels within portions of 

the unit. The project goal was to “reduce the acres infested with invasive species by 

20 percent within 5 years using a combination of integrated pest management methods 

including chemical, biological and mechanical (Shoshone Conservation District and 

Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management 2007).” Since 2006, CRM has 

received several additional grants from WWNRT and other funding sources to continue 

projects on invasive plant management.

Several approaches to eliminating or controlling different invasive plant species 

have been employed over time, including planned sequences of mechanical mulching, 

application of herbicides, grazing by cattle, and browsing by goats (table 23; Shoshone 

Conservation District and Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management 2007, 

2012). Treatments have been adjusted over time to better achieve management objectives. 

An early step (2006–2007) was an invasive plant inventory to determine the distribution 

of woody and herbaceous invasive species across ~32,000 acres in the Bighorn Canyon 

National Recreation Area. The mapped distributions of different species facilitated planning for application of various treatments in the most heavily infested areas.

Areas with high cover and stem densities of Russian olive and saltcedar were cut 

and mulched using a tracked excavator with a mulching attachment (Janaury to March 

2009; fig. 33 a,b). The excavator/mulcher that was used cuts down trees and mulches the 

woody stem and branch biomass on site (Harrod et al. 2009; Rummer, 2010). To minimize ground disturbance, the mechanical treatment was conducted from January to March 

2009 while the ground was protected by some snow cover. Russian olive can resprout 

strongly after cutting and other disturbances, so stumps were treated with an herbicide 

(triclopyr®), mixed with basal bark oil. When applied immediately after cutting, the 

triclopyr®-oil mix is drawn into the stump to the roots, thereby killing the tree. Following 

the first mulch-herbicide treatments, many of the stumps resprouted (fig. 33c). This was 

attributed to conservative application of the herbicide. In following years, the amount of 

herbicide applied was increased, resulting in higher tree mortality and less resprouting. 

An alternate herbicide (imazilpyr®) was also tried and proved to be more effective in 

reducing the amount of sprouting. However, the use of imazilpyr® was later discontinued 

because it seemed to cause nontarget mortality of understory plant species. After trying 

different approaches, CRM is using the following approach to control Russian olive: 

mechanical treatment using boom-mounted mastication heads on hydrobunchers in 

winter (with no herbicide stump treatments) followed by foliar treatments with 4 percent 

triclopyr® or basal (or both) treatments with 2.5:1 triclopyr® to basal bark oil.
106 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Herbicide was also applied in areas that were not mechanically treated using 

backpack sprayers and boom sprayers. Spot treatments of herbicide application were applied in low-density infestations of saltcedar. In other locations, spot treatments targeted 

Russian knapweed, whitetop, Russian olive, and Canada thistle. Treated areas were revisited in following years to treat missed plants.

A winter cattle grazing program was conducted from 2002 to 2011 in small pastures 

along the Shoshone River floodplain in the Yellowtail CRM. Objectives of the grazing 

treatment were to “reduce the risk of wildfire, rejuvenate grass and forb communities, and 

create areas of high-quality brood-rearing habitat for upland birds” (table 23; Shoshone 

Conservation District and Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management 2007). It 

was discontinued due to changes in the management of lake levels in Bighorn Lake by 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that caused overbank winter flooding onto the Shoshone 

River floodplains.

Boer goats (Capra hircus) were introduced into designated areas with high cover of 

invasive species—particularly Russian olive and Russian knapweed—to consume nonnative forage and reduce ladder fuels. Their movement was controlled by either electric 

fencing or through intensive herding. However, the goats had to be moved before the start 

of bird-hunting season, limiting the duration of the goat-browsing treatment. In small 

Table 23—Approaches to eliminating or controlling different invasive plant species in riparian floodplains of the 

Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management Area (Bighorn National Recreation Area), Wyoming. A range of different 

treatments were used; several treatments were sequentially applied over time (Shoshone Conservation District and 

Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management 2007).

Treatment Objective Outcome

Conduct mechanical Mechanically remove woody invasive species Considerable re-sprouting of Russian olive

treatments on Russian or reduce stem density in designated areas; occurred in the spring following treatment;

olive and saltcedar treat stumps with herbicide and basal bark herbicide treatments were intensified

 oil to reduce re-sprouting

Five treatment trials Determine the most effective treatments for 1st year results indicated that mechanical

were tested to control reducing cover of saltcedar. Treatment were: mulching followed by chemical treatment

saltcedar (1) mechanical mulching, chemical (trichlopyr®) resulted in highest saltcedar

(trichlopyr®), insects (Diorhabda elongata), mortality

and goat browsing; (2) mechanical mulching, 

insects (Diorhabda elongata), and goat 

browsing; (3) mechanical mulching, chemical 

(trichlopyr®), and insects (Diorhabda elongata); 

(4) mechanical mulching, and insects 

(Diorhabda elongata); (5) mechanical 

mulching alone.

Conduct herbicide Control Russian knapweed, whitetop, Successfully treated most areas; targeted

treatments (using saltcedar, Canada thistle through targeted saltcedar plants showed 100% mortality

backpack sprayers, ‘spot-spraying.’

boom sprayers)

Winter cattle grazing Reduce the risk of wildfire, rejuvenate grass Reduction in fine fuels in grazed pastures

on selected pastures to and forb communities, and create areas of

remove fine fuels high quality brood-rearing habitat for upland 

birds.

Browsing by Boer Reduce cover of Russian olive, saltcedar, Goats show preference for Russian olive,

goats in designated Russian knapweed, whitetop by sequential Russian knapweed and avoidance of

areas to control browsing by goats grasses. Constraints included expense

invasive species (management of goats) and limited 

treatment time due to overlap in birdhunting season
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 107

areas, browsing by goats appeared to be effective, as they showed foraging preference for 

Russian olive and Russian knapweed and tended to avoid grasses.

In addition to the mechanical, chemical, and browsing treatments described above, 

use of a biological insect (Diorhabda elongate) control agent was also tested to control 

saltcedar. In 1999, the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) released the insect 

into field cages in the Yellowtail CRM; in 2001, the insects were released in open field 

Figure 33—Area along the 

Shoshone River that had been 

mechanically treated (2009; 

excavator-mulcher) to control 

Russian olive (A,B). Following 

mechanical treatments, Russian 

olive stumps were individually 

treated with an herbicide 

(triclopyr®) penetrating oil mix 

to kill the tree; however, many 

stumps resprouted (B).

C

B

A
108 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

trials. After 6 years of monitoring permanently marked saltcedar plants distributed across 

the habitat area, it was determined that 11 percent of tagged saltcedar plants were killed 

by insect herbivory. The biocontrol insects continue to disperse over the Yellowtail CRM 

area. Long-term monitoring and experimental studies have assisted in determining rates 

of population growth, dispersal, and impact of Diorhabda elongate on saltcedar and other 

plants. The first notable increases in populations of the insect were detected in 2003; by 

2006, insects had dispersed to more than 50 percent of the CRM area. In 2007, the insect 

population began declining (cause unknown); this trend continued for the next 2 years. A 

slight increase in population numbers was observed in 2010, followed by another decline 

in 2011 (Shoshone Conservation District and Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource 

Management 2012). USDA ARS is considering another release of the insect to the site.

The effectiveness of the insect was also tested in combination with other treatments. 

The following five treatment combinations were tested: (1) mechanical mulching plus 

chemical (Trichlopyr) plus insects (Diorhabda elongata) plus goat browsing; (2) mechanical mulching plus insects (Diorhabda elongata) plus goat browsing; (3) mechanical 

mulching plus chemical (Trichlopyr) plus insects (Diorhabda elongata); (4) mechanical 

mulching plus insects (Diorhabda elongata); (5) mechanical mulching alone. Monitoring 

results have shown that mechanical mulching followed by foliar herbicide (trichlopyr) 

and insects resulted in the highest mortality of saltcedar (Shoshone Conservation District 

and Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management 2007).

In May 2013, approximately 1,500 acres of the riparian floodplain in the YWHMA 

burned along the Shoshone River. The Big Fork Fire began as a controlled agricultural 

burn but went out of control due to changing wind conditions. The loss of spring nesting habitat for turkeys, pheasants, and waterfowl was an immediate concern, although 

vegetative recovery is expected. However, many large cottonwood trees were burned and 

likely killed. As noted above, plains cottonwood is the dominant native riparian tree in 

the YWHMA and is known to be a weak sprouter after fire (Taylor 2001). Some individuals may sprout from roots, root crowns, or the main stem, but generally sprouts are few 

and most die. In a study conducted in Alberta, Canada, 5 years after a spring fire, Gom 

and Rood (1999) showed that only 10 percent of plains cottonwood boles still supported 

live sprouts. In addition, natural replacement of the killed cottonwood trees in YWHMA 

is unlikely. Cottonwoods generally require flooding that occurs during the natural spring 

runoff to establish new individuals. The natural flow regime of the Shoshone River has 

been altered by the upstream Buffalo Bill Dam and no longer provides the spring flow 

events required for extensive cottonwood establishment.

6.3 Management of Woody Encroachment into Riparian 

Meadows: Fremont-Winema National Forests, Oregon

The encroachment of montane meadows by conifers is occurring throughout the 

western States and has been attributed to several factors (Lepofsky et al. 2003), including 

fire suppression (Arno and Gruell 1986) and changes in climate and land use (Haugo and 

Halpern 2007). The ecological consequences of woody encroachment can be extensive, 

ranging from changes in soil characteristics (Griffiths et al. 2005) and vegetation structure (Haugo and Halpern 2007) to decrease of native plant diversity (Moore and Huffman 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 109

2004), thus influencing wildlife habitat and ecosystem processes. Although woody encroachment of upland meadows occurs in grasslands, montane forests (Magee and Antos 

1992; Haugo and Halpern 2007), and alpine areas, recent increases in conifer cover have 

also been notable in many riparian meadows (Lepofsky et al. 2003).

In national forests of central Oregon, resource managers have used a combination of 

thinning and prescribed fire to reduce the cover and stem density of invading lodgepole 

pine (Pinus contorta) in riparian meadows. The purpose of these projects is to increase 

available habitat for native and sensitive plant species found in meadow environments, 

as well as improve the quality of wildlife habitat for Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus 

canadensis nelsonii) and nesting and brood rearing of bird species dependent on open 

meadows (e.g., sandhill cranes[Grus canadensis]). In central Oregon, native meadow 

habitats were historically maintained by periodic low-intensity wildfires that occurred on 

a 1–35-year occurrence cycle. These fires controlled the number and extent of encroaching trees and other forest vegetation while maintaining the native grass and forbs favored 

by a variety of bird species and Rocky Mountain elk. The combination of fire suppression 

and aggressive fire control efforts in the last century has apparently limited the periodic, 

low-intensity fires and contributed to the encroachment of lodgepole pine into meadow 

habitats.

On the Fremont-Winema National Forest, Bullfrog Meadow was treated in 2000–

2001 (fig. 34). The desired area for tree removal—that is, the area that was historically 

open and free of trees—was determined using an aerial photo of the meadow from the 

1960s. First, the numerous, dense, small-diameter (average diameter at breast height was 

approximately 10 cm) trees were cut using chainsaws; no mechanized harvest equipment 

was used. Trees were severed at the base, left in place, and allowed to cure for approximately 1 year (fig. 34a). The fuel bed was approximately 1.2 m deep, but the trees were 

not sectioned or limbed, and remained braced by their branches to allow air circulation 

throughout the fuel profile (fig. 34a). In November 2001, the unit was burned (nearly 5 

acres; fig. 34b,c). The prescribed fire was implemented as planned, burned very quickly 

with little smoke and low emissions. The clean burn was partly attributed to the arrangement of the fuels, which allowed air and flames to flow under and around the downed 

trees, lifting the heat up and away from the soil. Fire residence time was minimal, and 

no soil damage occurred. A similar treatment combination (chain-saw thinning, followed 

by prescribed fire) has been implemented at nearby Rider’s Camp Meadow with similar 

results.

The meadows have been largely restored as open meadows (fig. 35). However, 

lodgepole pine has continued to invade portions of the meadow, as can be seen by patches 

of high conifer stem density in figure 35. It appears that maintenance of open meadows 

will require periodic treatment over time, such as cutting out the saplings that have 

recruited since treatment. Additional research is needed on the ecology and management 

of riparian meadows to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of conifer 

encroachment and to continue testing methods for controlling encroachment and restoring 

meadow habitats.
110 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Figure 34—Treatment of conifer 

encroachment of Bullfrog 

Meadow, Fremont-Winema 

National Forest Oregon 

(November 2001). Dense, 

small-diameter lodgepole 

pine trees were cut with 

chainsaws, left in place, and 

allowed to cure for 1 year; 

the depth of the fuel bed 

was approximately 1.2 m 

(A). The prescribed fire was 

implemented as planned; fuels 

burned quickly, with minimal 

smoke, low emissions, and 

no detectable soil damage 

(B,C). The size and density of 

lodgepole stands surrounding 

the meadow are evident 

(photos by Edwin Brown, 

Fremont-Winema National 

Forest, used with permission).

C

B

A
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 111

Figure 35—Treatment of conifer 

encroachment of Bullfrog 

Meadow, Fremont-Winema 

National Forest, Oregon 

(October 2015, 14 years after 

treatment). The meadow was 

opened with the thinning and 

prescribed fire treatments, 

but remains vulnerable to 

continued encroachment by 

lodgepole pine (photos by 

Faith Brown, Fremont-Winema 

National Forest, used with 

permission).
112 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

References

Abernathy, B.; Rutherford, I.D. 2001. The distribution and strength of riparian tree roots in relation 

to riverbank reinforcement. Hydrological Processes. 15: 63–79.

Adams, D.E.; Anderson, R.C.; Collins, S.L. 1982. Differential response of woody and herbaceous 

species to summer and winter burning in Oklahoma grassland. The Southwestern Naturalist. 

27: 55–61.

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science. 72 

(Special Issue): 24–34.

Agee, J.K. 2002. Fire as a coarse filter for snags and logs. In: Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr.; Shea, P.J.; 

Valentine, B.E.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; Lisle, T.E., eds. Proceedings of the symposium on the 

ecology and management of dead wood in western Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 359–368.

Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 211: 83–96.

Agee, J.K.; Wright, C.S.; Williamson, N.; Huff, M.H. 2002. Foliar moisture of Pacific Northwest 

vegetation and its relation to wildland fire behavior. Forest Ecology and Management. 167: 

57–66.

Ager, A.A.; Day, M.A.; McHugh, C.W.; Short, K.; Gilbertson-Day, J.; Finney, M.A.; Calkin, 

D.E. 2014. Wildfire exposure and fuel management on western US national forests. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 145: 54–70.

Allen, J.D. 1995. Stream ecology: Structure and function of running waters. Chapman and Hill. 

388 p.

Andrus, C.; Froehlich, H.A. 1988. Riparian forest development after logging or fire in the Oregon 

Coast Range: Wildlife habitat and timber value. In: Raedeke, K.J., ed. Streamside management: 

Riparian wildlife and forestry interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest 

Resources, Contribution No. 59:139–152.

Archer, E.K.; Hough-Snee, N.; Van Wagenen, A.; Lokteff, R.; Roper, B.B. 2012a. The PACFISH 

INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program and Invasive Plant 

Species Detection: A retrospective summary 2003–2011. Logan, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring 

Program.

Archer, E.K.; Van Wagenen, A.R.; Coles-Ritchie, M.; Ebertowski, P.; Becker, A.D.; Uhler, K.B.; 

Eskandari, P.G.; Babich, L.; Leary, R.J. 2012b. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and 

riparian areas: Sampling protocol for vegetation parameters. Unpublished paper on file at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp.

Arkle, R.S.; Pilliod, D.S. 2010. Prescribed fires as ecological surrogates for wildfires: A stream 

and riparian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management. 259: 893–903.

Arkle, R.S.; Pilliod, D.S.; Strickler, K. 2010. Fire, flow, and dynamic equilibrium in stream 

macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology. 55: 299–314.

Armstrong, J.B.; Schindler, D.E. 2013. Going with the flow: spatial distributions of Juvenile Coho 

salmon track an annually shifting mosaic of water temperature. Ecosystems. 16: 1429–1441.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 113

Arno, M.K. 1996. Reestablishing fire-adapted communities in the ponderosa pine zone. In: Arno, 

S.F.; Hardy, C.C., eds. The use of fire in forest restoration. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-341. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 

42–43.

Arno, M.K. 2000. Fire regimes in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, J.K., ed. Effects of fire on 

flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-42. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97–120.

Arno, S.F.; Allison-Bunnell, S. 2002. Flames in our forest: Disaster or renewal? Washington, DC: 

Island Press. 227 p.

Arno, S.F.; Gruell, G.E. 1986. Douglas-fir encroachment into mountain grasslands in southwestern 

Montana. Journal of Range Management. 39: 272–276.

Arno, S.F.; Smith, H.Y.; Krebs, M.A. 1997. Old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand 

structures: Influences of pre-1900 fires and fire exclusion. Res. Pap. INT-495. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 20 p.

Baker, M.B. 1990. Hydrologic and water quality effects of fire. In: Krammes, J.S., ed. Effects 

of fire management of southwestern natural resources. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-191. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 31–42.

Baker, W.L. 1989. Classification of the montane and subalpine zones of western Colorado. Great 

Basin Naturalist. 9: 214–228.

Baker, W.L. 1992. Effects of settlement and fire suppression on landscape structure. Ecology. 73: 

1879–1887.

Banister, B.; Lockwood, P. 2010. Fontenelle Willow Rx Prescribed Fire Plan. Internal report on 

file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, 

WY. 58 p.

Barrett, S.W. 2000. Fire history and fire regimes, South Fork Salmon River drainage, central 

Idaho. Unpublished report No. 43-0256-9-0651 on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Payette National Forest, Krassel Ranger District, McCall, ID.

Barrett, S.W.; Arno, S.F.; Menakis, J.P. 1997. Fire episodes in the inland Northwest (1540–1940) 

based on fire history data. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- GTR-370. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Barrett, S.W.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J.A. 2010. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook 

Version 3.0. National Interagency Fuels, Fire, and Vegetation Technology Transfer. 26 p. http://

www.fire.org/niftt/released/FRCC_Guidebook_2010_final.pdf.

Barrows, J.S. 1951a. Fire behavior in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. Station Paper 29. 

Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 134 p.

Barrows, J.S. 1951b. Forest fires in the northern Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. RM-28. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 252 p.

Bartos, D.L.; Campbell, R.B., Jr. 1998. Decline of quaking aspen in the interior west, examples 

from Utah. Rangelands. 20: 17–24.
114 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Battaglia, M.A.; Dodson, J.M.; Shepperd, W.D.; Platten, M.J.; Tallmadge, O.M. 2005. Colorado 

Front Range fuel photo series. Gen Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-155WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 39 p.

Battaglia, M.A.; Rocca, M.E.; Rhoades, C.C.; Ryan, M.G. 2010. Surface fuel loadings within 

mulching treatments in Colorado coniferous forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 260: 

1557–1566.

Baxter, C.V.; Fausch, K.D.; Saunders, W.C. 2005. Tangled webs: Reciprocal flows of invertebrate 

prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology. 50: 201–220.

Bêche, L.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Resh, V.H. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada 

(California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management. 218: 37–59.

Beever, E.A.; Pyke, D.A.; Chambers, J.C.; Landau, F.; Smith, S.D. 2005. Monitoring temporal 

change in riparian vegetation of Great Basin National Park. Western North American Naturalist. 

65(3): 382–402.

Belsky, A.J.; Matzke, A.; Uselman, S. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian 

ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 54: 141–158.

Belt, G.H.; O’Laughlin, J.; Merrill, T. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for the 

protection of water quality: Analysis of scientific literature. Report No. 8. Idaho Forest, Wildlife 

and Range Policy Analysis Group.

Benavides-Solorio, J.; MacDonald, L.H. 2001. Post-fire runoff and erosion from simulated rainfall 

on small plots, Colorado Front Range. Hydrological Processes. 15: 2877–2892.

Benda, L.; Miller, D.; Sias, J.; Martin, D.; Bilby, R.; Veldhuisen, C.; Dunne, T. 2003a. Wood 

recruitment processes and wood budgeting. In: Gregory, S.V.; Boyer, K.L.; Gurnell, A.M., 

eds. The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. Symposium 37. Bethesda, MD: 

American Fisheries Society: 49–73.

Benda, L.; Miller, D.; Bigelow, P.; Andrus, K. 2003b. Effects of post-wildfire erosion on channel 

environments, Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 105–120.

Bendix, J. 1994. Among-site variation in riparian vegetation of the Southern California Transverse 

Ranges. American Midland Naturalist. 132(1): 136–151.

Bendix, J.; Cowell, C. 2010. Fire, floods and woody debris: Interactions between biotic and 

geomorphic processes. Geomorphology. 116: 297–304.

Benson, R.E. 1982. Management consequences of alternative harvesting and residue treatment 

practices—lodgepole pine. INT-GTR-132. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 132 p.

Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W.; Holtby, L.B.; Hofsta, T.D. 1987. Stream temperature and 

aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Forestry 

and Fisheries Interactions. Contribution Number 57. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 

Institute of Forest Resources: 191–232.

Bessie, W.C.; Johnson, E.A. 1995. The relative importance of fuels and weather on fire behavior in 

a subalpine forest. Ecology. 76: 747–762.

Bilby, R.E.; Bisson, P.A. 1992. Allochthonous versus autochthonous organic matter contributions 

to the trophic support of fish populations in clear-cut and old-growth forested streams. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 49: 540–551.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 115

Bilby, R.E.; Bisson, P.A. 1998. Function and distribution of large woody debris. In: Naiman, R.J.; 

Bilby, R.E., eds. River ecology and management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Region. 

New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.: 324–346.

Bilby, R.E.; Ward, J.W. 1991. Characteristics and functions of large woody debris in streams 

draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern Washington. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 48: 2499–2508.

Binkley, D.; Brown, T.C. 1993. Forest practices as nonpoint sources of pollution in North 

America. Water Resources Bulletin. 29: 729–740.

Binkley, D.; Bird, S.; Ryan, M.G.; Rhoades, C.C. 2003. Impact of wood chips on forest soil 

temperature, moisture, and nitrogen supply. Report to: Colorado State University, Interior West 

Center for the Innovative Use of Small Diameter Wood.

Bisson, P.A.; Bilby, R.E. 1998. Organic matter and trophic dynamics. In: Naiman, R.J.; Bilby, 

R.E., eds. River ecology and management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Region. New York: 

Springer-Verlag, Inc.: 373–398.

Bisson, P.A.; Sedell, J.R. 1984. Salmonid populations in streams in clearcut vs. old-growth 

forests of western Washington. In: Meehan, W.R.; Merrell, Jr., T.R.; Hanley, T.A., eds. Fish 

and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests. Juneau, AK: American Institute of Fisheries 

Research Biologists: 121–129.

Bisson P.A.; Rieman, B.E.; Luce, C.; Hessburg, P.F.; Lee, D.C.; Kershner, J.L.; Reeves, G.H.; 

Gresswell, R.E. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: Current knowledge and 

key questions. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 213–229.

Bixby, R.J.; Cooper, S.D.; Gresswell, R.E.; Brown, L.E.; Dahm, C.N.; Dwire, K.A. 2015. Fire 

effects on aquatic ecosystems: An assessment of the current state of the science. Freshwater 

Science. 34(4): 1340–1350. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/50479.

Blanton, P.; Marcus, W.A. 2009. Railroads, roads, and lateral disconnection in the river landscapes 

of the continental United States. Geomorphology. 112: 212–227.

Bledsoe, B.P.; Watson, C.C. 2001. Effects of urbanization on channel instability. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 37: 255–270.

Blumfield, T.J.; Xu, A.H. 2003. Impact of forest residues on soil mineral nitrogen dynamics 

following clearfall harvesting of a hoop pine plantation in subtropical Australia. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 179: 55–67.

Bock, C.E.; Block, W.M. 2005. Fire and birds in the southwestern United States. In: Saab, V.; 

Powell, H.D.W., eds. Fire and avian ecology in North America. Studies in Avian Biology 30. 

Cooper Ornithological Society: 14–32.

Boggs, K.; Hansen, P.; Pfister, R.; Joy, J. 1990. Classification and management of riparian and 

wetland sites in northwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of 

Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana Riparian Association.

Bragg, D.C. 2000. Simulating catastrophic and individualistic large woody debris recruitment for a 

small riparian system. Ecology. 81: 1383–1394.

Bragg, D.C.; Kershner, J.L. 2004. Sensitivity of a riparian large woody debris recruitment model 

to the number of contributing banks and tree fall pattern. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

19: 117–122.
116 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Bragg, D.C.; Kershner, J.L.; Roberts, D.W. 2000. Modeling large woody debris recruitment for 

small streams of the central Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-55. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Brass, J.A.; Ambrosia, V.G.; Riggan, P.J.; Sebesta, P.D. 1996. Consequences of fire on aquatic 

nitrate and phosphate dynamics in Yellowstone National Park. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 6: 53–57.

Brooks, M.L. 2008. Plant invasions and fire regimes. In: Zouher, K.; Smith, J.K.; Sutherland, S.; 

Brooks, M.L. eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 33–46.

Brooks, M.L.; D’Antonio, C.M., Richardson, D.M.; Grace, J.B.; Keeley, J.E.; DiTomaso, J.M.; 

Hobbs, R.J.; Pellant, M.; Pyke, D. 2004. Effects of invasive plants alien plants on fire regimes. 

BioScience 54: 677–688.

Brosofske, K.D.; Chen, J.; Naiman, R.J.; Franklin, J.F. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimate 

gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications. 7: 

1188–1200.

Brown, G.W. 1983. Forestry and water quality. 2nd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, 

College of Forestry.

Brown, J.K. 2000. Introduction and fire regimes. In: Brown, J.K.; Smith; J.K. eds. Wildland fire in 

ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 1–8.

Brown, J.K.; Reihhardt, E.D.; Kramer, K.A. 2003. Coarse woody debris: Managing benefits and 

fire hazard in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p.

Bull, E.L.; Parks, C.G.; Torgersen, T.R. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior 

Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p.

Burton, T.A. 2005. Fish and stream habitat risks from uncharacteristic wildfire: Observations from 

17 years of fire-related disturbances on the Boise National Forest, Idaho. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 211: 140–149.

Burton, T.A.; Smith, S.J.; Cowley, E.R. 2008. Monitoring stream channels and riparian 

vegetation—multiple indicators. Interagency Technical Bulletin Version 5.0. BLM/ID/GI08/001+1150. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region; U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Idaho State Office.

Burton, T.A.; Smith, S.J.; Cowley, E.R. 2011. Multiple indicator monitoring of stream channels 

and streamside vegetation. TR 1737-23. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 170 p.

Bury, R.B. 2004. Wildfire, fuel reduction, and herpetofaunas across diverse landscape mosaics in 

northwestern forests. Conservation Biology. 18: 968–975.

Bury, R.B.; Corn, P.S. 1988. Responses of aquatic and streamside amphibians to timber harvest: 

A review. In: Raedeke, K.J., ed. Streamside management: Riparian wildlife and forestry 

interactions. Institute of Forest Resources. Seattle: University of Washington. Contribution No. 

59: 165–181.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 117

Busch, D.E. 1995. Effects of fire on southwestern riparian plant community structure. The 

Southwestern Naturalist. 40: 259–267.

Busch, D.E.; Smith, S.D. 1993. Effects of fire on water and salinity relations of riparian woody 

taxa. Oecologia. 94: 186–194.

Busch, D.E.; Smith, S.D. 1995. Mechanisms associated with decline of woody species in riparian 

ecosystems of the southwestern U.S. Ecological Monographs. 65: 347–370.

Caissie, D. 2006. The thermal regime of rivers: A review. Freshwater Biology. 51: 1389–1406.

Camp, A.; Oliver C.; Hessburg, P.; Everett, R. 1997. Predicting late-successional fire refugia predating European settlement in the Wenatchee Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management. 95: 

63–77.

Cannon, S.H.; Bigio, E.R.; Mine, E. 2001. A process for fire-related debris flow initiation, Cerro 

Grande fire, New Mexico. Hydrological Processes. 15(15): 3011–3023.

Canterbury, G.E.; Martin, T.E.; Petit, D.R.; Petit, L.J.; Bradford, D.F. 2000. Bird communities 

and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conservation 

Biology. 14: 544–558.

Carsey, K.; Kittel, G.; Decker, K.; Cooper D.J.; Culver, D. 2003. Field guide to the wetland and 

riparian plant associations of Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 

466 p.

Case, R.L.; Kauffman, J.B. 1997. Wild ungulate influences on the recovery of willows, black 

cottonwood and thin-leaved alder following cessation of cattle grazing in northeastern Oregon. 

Northwest Science. 71: 115–126.

Caskey, S.T.; Blaschak, T.S.; Wohl, E.; Schnackenberg, E.; Merritt, D.M.; Dwire, K.A. 2015. 

Downstream effects of stream flow diversion on channel characteristics and riparian vegetation 

in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 40: 586–598.

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review. Oecologia. 143: 1–10.

Chambers, J.C.; Miller, J.R., eds. 2004. Great Basin riparian ecosystems: Ecology, management, 

and restoration. Island Press. 305 p.

Chambers, J.C.; Roundy, B.A.; Blank, R.R.; Meyer, S.E.; Whittaker, A. 2007. What makes Great 

Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs. 77: 

117–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/05-1991

Chapman, D.W.; Knudsen, E. 1980. Channelization and livestock impacts on salmonid habitat and 

biomass in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 109: 357–363.

Chen, X.; Wei, X.; Scherer, R. 2005. Influence of wildfire and harvest on biomass, carbon pool, 

and decomposition of large woody debris in forested streams of southern interior British 

Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management. 208: 101–114.

Chin, A.; Daniels, M.D.; Urban, M.A.; Piegay, H.; Gregory, K.J.; Bigler, W.; Boyer, K.; Butt, A.; 

Grable, J.; Gregory, S.V.; LaFrenz, M.; Laurencio, L.R.; Wohl, E. 2008. Perceptions of wood in 

rivers and challenges for stream restoration in the United States. Environmental Management. 

41(6): 893–903.

Chorover, J.; Vitousek, P.M.; Everson, D.A.; Esperanza, A.M.; Turner, D. 1994. Solution 

chemistry profiles of mixed-conifer forests before and after fire. Biogeochemistry. 26: 115–144.

Converse, S.J.; Block, W.M.; White, D.C. 2006. Small mammal population and habitat responses 

to forest thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management. 228: 263–273.
118 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Cooper, D.J.; Merritt, D.M. 2012. Assessing the water needs of riparian and wetland vegetation 

in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-282. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 125 p.

Cooper, S.D.; Page, H.M.; Wiseman, S.W.; Klose K.; Bennnett, D.; Even, T.; Sadro, S.; Nelson, 

C.E.; Dudley, T.L. 2015. Physicochemical and biological responses of streams to wildfire 

severity in riparian zones. Freshwater Biology. 60: 2600–2619. doi:10.1111/fwb.12523.

Corn, P.S.; Bury, R.B. 1989. Logging in western Oregon: Response of headwater habitats and 

stream amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management. 29: 39–57.

Countryman, C.M. 1971. Fire whirls...why, when, and where. Station Paper. Berkeley, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 11 p.

Coutant, C.C. 1999. Perspective on temperature in the Pacific Northwest’s fresh water. 

Environmental Sciences Division. Publication No. 4849. ORNL/TM–1999/44. Oak Ridge, TN: 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 109 p.

Covington, W.W.; Moore M.M. 1994. Postsettlement changes in natural fire regimes and forest 

structure: Ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pine forest. In: Sampson, R.N.; 

Adams, D.L., eds. Assessing forest ecosystem health in the Inland West. New York. The 

Haworth Press Inc.: 153–181.

Covington, W.W.; Sackett, S.S. 1992. Soil mineral nitrogen changes following prescribed burning 

in ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management. 54: 175–191.

Covington, W.W.; DeBano, L.F.; Huntsberger, T.G. 1991. Soil nitrogen changes associated with 

slash pile burning in pinyon-juniper woodlands. Forest Science. 37: 347–355.

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dale, V.H.; Joyce, L.A.; McNulty, S.; Neilson, R.P.; Ayres, M.P.; Flannigan, M.D.; Hanson, P.J.; 

Irland, L.C.; Lugo, A.E.; Peterson, C.J.; Simberloff, D.; Swanson, F.J.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, 

B.M. 2001. Forest disturbances and climate change. BioScience. 51: 723–734.

Danehy, R.J.; Kirpes, B.J. 2000. Relative humidity gradients across riparian areas in eastern 

Oregon and Washington forests. Northwest Science. 74: 224–233.

DeBano, L.F. 2000. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: 

A review. Journal of Hydrology. 231: 195–206.

DeBano, L.F.; Neary, D.G.; Ffolliott, P.F. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. New York: John 

Wiley and Sons.

DeFerrari, C.M.; Naiman, R.J. 1994. A multi-scale assessment of the occurrence of nonindigenous plants on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Journal of Vegetation Science. 5: 

247–258.

Derr, T.; Moote, A.; Savage, M.; Schumann, M.; Abrams, J.; Lowe, K. 2005. Handbook two: 

Developing a multiparty monitoring plan. Collaborative Forest Restoration Program: 

The Multiparty Handbook Series. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University, Ecological 

Restoration Institute. 19 p.

Dombeck, M.P.; Williams, J.E.; Wood, C.A. 2004. Wildfire policy and public land: Scientific 

understanding with social concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology. 18: 883–889.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 119

Dunaway, D.; Swanson, S.R.; Wendel, J.; Clary, W. 1994. The effect of herbaceous plant 

communities and soil textures on particle erosion of alluvial streambanks. Geomorphology. 9: 

47–56.

Dunham, J.B.; Rosenberger, A.E.; Luce, C.H.; Rieman, B.E. 2007. Influences of wildfire and 

channel reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in stream temperature and the 

distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems 10: 335–346.

Dunham, J.B.; Young, M.K.; Gresswell, R.E.; Rieman, B.E. 2003. Effects of fire on fish 

populations on fish populations: Landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and 

nonnative fish invasions. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 183–196.

Dwire, K.A.; Kauffman, J.B. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western 

USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 61–74.

Dwire, K.A.; Bazan, R.; Hubbard, R. 2015b. Forest attributes and fuel loads of riparian vs. upland 

stands in mountain pine beetle infested watersheds, southern Rocky Mountains. In: Potter, 

K.M.; Conkling, B.L., eds. Forest health monitoring: National status, trends and analysis 2013. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-207. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 177–185. http://fhm.fs.fed.us/pubs/index.shtml.

Dwire, K.A.; Hubbard, R.; Bazan, R. 2015a. Comparison of riparian and upland forest stand 

structure and fuel loads in beetle infested watersheds, southern Rocky Mountains. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 335: 194–206. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.09.039.

Dwire, K.A.; Kauffman, J.B.; Baham, J. 2006a. Plant species distribution in relation to water table 

depth and soil redox potential in montane riparian meadows. Wetlands. 26(1): 131–146.

Dwire, K.A.; Kauffman, J.B.; Brookshire, E.N.J.; Baham, J. 2004. Plant biomass and species 

composition along an environmental gradient in montane riparian meadows. Oecologia. 139(2): 

309–317.

Dwire, K.A.; McIntosh, B.A.; Kauffman, J.B. 1999. Ecological influences of the introduction of 

livestock on Pacific Northwest ecosystems. In: Goble, D.D.; Hirt, P.W., eds. Northwest lands 

and peoples: Readings in environmental history. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press: 

313–335.

Dwire, K.A.; Rhoades, C.C.; Young, M.K. 2010. Potential effects of fuel management activities in 

riparian areas. In: Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L. eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel 

management in the western United States. Gen.Tech.Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 176–205.

Dwire, K.A.; Ryan, S.E.; Shirley, L.J.; Lytjen, D.; Otting, N.; Dixon, M.K. 2006b. Influence of 

herbivory on regrowth of riparian shrubs following a wildland fire. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association. 42: 201–212.

Ebersole, J.L.; Liss, W.J.; Frissell, C.A. 2001. Relationship between stream temperature, thermal 

refugia and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss abundance in arid-land streams of the 

northwestern United States. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 10: 1–10.

Elliott, K.J.; Hendrick, R.L.; Major, A.E.; Vose, J.M.; Swank, W.T. 1999. Vegetation dynamics 

after a prescribed fire in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 114: 

199–213.

Ellis, L. 2001. Short-term response of woody plants to fire in a Rio Grande riparian forest, Central 

New Mexico, USA. Biological Conservation. 97: 159–170.
120 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Elliott, K.J.; Hendrick, R.L.; Major, A.E.; Vose, J.M.; Swank, W.T. 1999. Vegetation dynamics 

after a prescribed fire in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 114: 

199–213.

Elzinga, C.L.; Salzer, D.W.; Willoughby, J.W. 1998. Measuring and monitoring plant populations. 

Tech Reference 1730-1, BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management, 

National Business Center.

Everest, F.H.; Reeves, G.H. 2006. Riparian and aquatic habitats of the Pacific Northwest and 

Southeast Alaska: Ecology, management history and potential management strategies. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-692. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 130 p.

Everett, R.; Schellhaas, R.; Ohlson, P.; Spurbeck, D.; Keenum, D. 2003. Continuity in fire 

disturbance between riparian and adjacent sideslope Douglas-fir forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 175: 31–47.

Everitt, B.L. 1998. Chronology of the spread of tamarisk in the central Rio Grande. Wetlands. 18: 

658–668.

Fahey, T.J.; Yavitt, J.B. 1988. Soil solution chemistry in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta ssp. 

latifolia) ecosystems, southeastern Wyoming, USA. Biogeochemistry. 6: 91–118.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for identifying and 

delineating wetlands. Coop. Tech. Pub. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Feller, M.C. 1988. Relationships between fuel properties and slashburning-induced nutrient losses. 

Forest Science. 34: 998–1015.

Finlay, J.C. 2001. Stable-carbon-isotope ratios of river biota, implications for energy flow in lotic 

food webs. Ecology 82: 1052–1064.

Fisher, R.F.; Binkley, D. 2000. Ecology and management of forest soils. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley 

and Sons.

Fisk, H.; Megown, K.; Decker, L. 2004. Riparian burn area analysis: Process and applications. 

RSAC-57-TIP1. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Remote 

Sensing Applications Center. 4 p.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem 

management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. Environmental Protection 

Agency.

Fornwalt, P.J.; Rhoades, C.C. 2011. Rehabilitating slash pile burn scars in upper montane forests 

of the Colorado Front Range. Natural Areas Journal. 31: 177–182.

Foster, R.D.; Wetzel, P.R. 2005. Invading monotypic stands of Phalaris arundinacea: A test of 

fire, herbicide, and woody and herbaceous native plant groups. Restoration Ecology. 13(2): 

318–324.

Friedman, J.M.; Auble, G.T.; Shafroth, P.B.; Scott, M.L.; Merigliano, M.F.; Freehling, M.D.; 

Griffin, E.R. 2005. Dominance of non-native riparian trees in the western USA. Biological 

Invasions. 7(4): 747–751.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 121

Fulé; P.Z.; Covington,W.; Moore, M.M. 1997. Determining reference conditions for ecosystem 

management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications. 7(3): 895–908.

Fulé, P.Z.; Heinlein, T.A.; Covington, W.W.; Moore, M.M. 2003. Assessing fire regimes on Grand 

Canyon landscapes with fire-scar and fire-record data. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 

12(2): 129–145.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. 

Conservation Biology. 8: 629–644.

Gabet, E.J.; Bookter, A. 2008. A morphometric analysis of gullies scoured by post-fire 

progressively bulked debris flows in southwest Montana, USA. Geomorphology. 96: 298–309.

Gage, E.A.; Cooper, D.J. 2013. Historical range of variation assessment for wetlands and riparian 

ecosystems, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-286. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 239 p.

GAO [U.S. General Accounting Office]. 2003. Forest service fuels reduction. Report GAO-03-

689R. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.

Gartner, J.E.; Cannon, S.H.; Santi, P.M.; Dewolfe, V.G. 2008. Empirical models to predict 

the volumes of debris flows generated by recently burned basins in the western U.S. 

Geomorphology. 96: 339–354.

Gecy, J.L.; Wilson, M.V. 1990. Initial establishment of riparian vegetation after disturbance by 

debris flows in Oregon. American Midland Naturalist. 123: 282–291.

Giardina, C.P.; Rhoades, C.C. 2001. Clear cutting and burning affect nitrogen supply, phosphorus 

fractions and seedling growth in soils from a Wyoming lodgepole pine forest. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 140: 19–28.

Gom, L.A.; Rood, S.B. 1999. Fire induces clonal sprouting of riparian cottonwoods. Canadian 

Journal of Botany. 77(11): 1604–1616.

Gomi, T.; Sidle, R.C.; Richardson, J.S. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream linkages 

of headwater systems. BioScience. 52(10): 905–916.

Graham, R.T.; Jain, T.B.; Loseke, M. 2009. Fuel treatments, fire suppression, and their interactions 

with wildfire and its effects: The Warm Lake experience during the Cascade Complex of 

Wildfires in central Idaho, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 36 p.

Graham, R.T.; Jain, T.B.; Matthews, S. 2010. Fuel management in forests of the Inland West. In: 

Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L. eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the 

western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 19–68.

Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey S.; Jain, T.B., eds. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to 

modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p.

Gregory, S.V. 1997. Riparian management in the 21st century. In: Kohm, K.A.; Franklin, J.F., eds. 

Creating a forestry for the 21st Century: The science of ecosystem management. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 69–85.

Gregory, S.V.; Boyer, K.L.; Gurnell, A.M., eds. 2003. The ecology and management of wood in 

world rivers. Symposium 37. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 431 p.
122 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Gregory, S.V.; Swanson, F.V.; McKee W.A.; Cummins. K.W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of 

riparian zones. BioScience. 41: 540–551.

Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 128: 193–221.

Griffiths, R.; Madritch, M.; Swanson, A. 2005. Conifer invasion of forest meadows transforms soil 

characteristics in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 208: 347–358.

Grizzel, J.D.; Wolff, N. 1998. Occurrence of windthrow in forest buffer strips and its effect on 

small streams in northwestern Washington. Northwest Science. 72: 214–223.

Groffman, P.M.; Gold, A.J.; Simmons, R.C. 1992. Nitrate dynamics in riparian forests: Microbial 

studies. Journal of Environmental Quality. 21: 666–671.

Halofsky, J.E.; Hibbs, D.E. 2008. Determinants of riparian fire severity in two Oregon fires, USA. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38: 1959–1973.

Halofsky, J.E.; Hibbs, D.E. 2009a. Controls on early post-fire woody plant colonization in riparian 

areas. Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 1350–1358.

Halofsky, J.E.; Hibbs, D.E. 2009b. Relationships among indices of fire severity in riparian zones. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 18: 584–593.

Halpern, C.B.; Spies, T.A. 1995. Plant species diversity in natural and managed forests of the 

Pacific Northwest. Ecological Application. 5: 913–934.

Halpern, C.P.; Franklin, J.F.; McKee, A. 1992. Changes in plant species diversity after harvest of 

Douglas-fir forests. Northwest Environmental Journal. 8: 205–207.

Hansen, A.J.; Spies, T.A.; Swanson, F.J.; Ohmann, J.L. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed 

forests. BioScience. 41: 382–392.

Harrod, R.; Ohlson, P.; Flatten, L.; Peterson, D.; Ottmar, R. 2009. A user’s guide to thinning with 

mastication equipment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

Harrod, R.J.; Reichard, S. 2001. Fire and invasive species within the temperate and boreal 

coniferous forests of western North America. In: Galley, K.E.M.; Wilson, T.P., eds. Proceedings 

of the invasive species workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species; 

fire conference 2000: The first national congress on fire ecology, prevention, and management; 

2000 Nov 27–Dec 1; San Diego, CA. Misc. Publ. No. 11. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers 

Research Station: 95–101.

Hauer, F.R.; Poole, G.C.; Gangemi, J.T.; Baxter, C.V. 1999. Large woody debris in bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus) spawning streams of logged and wilderness watersheds in northwest 

Montana. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 56: 915–924.

Haugo, R.D.; Halpern, C.B. 2007. Vegetation responses to conifer encroachment in a western 

Cascade meadow: A chronosequence approach. Canadian Journal of Botany. 85: 285–298.

Hawkins, C.P.; Murphy, M.L.; Anderson, N.H.; Wilzbach, M.A. 1983. Density of fish and 

salamanders in relation to riparian canopy and physical habitat in streams of the northwestern 

United States. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 40: 1173–1185.

Hayes, M.P.; Jennings, M.R. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: Are 

bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology. 20: 490–509.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 123

Hedin, L.O.; von Fischer, J.C.; Ostrom, N.E.; Kennedy, B.P.; Brown, M.G.; Robertson, G.P. 1998. 

Thermodynamic constraints on nitrogen transformations and other biogeochemical processes at 

soil-stream interfaces. Ecology. 79: 684–703.

Hemstrom, M.A.; Franklin, J.F. 1982. Fire and other disturbances of the forest in Mount Rainier 

National Park. Quaternary Research. 18: 32–51.

Hessburg, P.F.; Agee, J.K. 2003. An environmental narrative of inland northwest United States 

forests, 1800–2000. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 23–59.

Hibbs, D.E.; Bower, A.L. 2001. Riparian forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 154: 201–213.

Hibbs, D.E.; Giordano, P.A. 1996. Vegetation characteristics of alder-dominated riparian buffer 

strips in the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Science. 7: 213–223.

Hicks, B.J.; Hall, J.D.; Bisson, P.A.; Sedell, J.R. 1991. Response of salmonids to habitat changes. 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication. 19: 83–138.

Hill, A.R. 1996. Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. Journal of Environmental Quality. 25: 

743–754.

Howard, J. L. 2004. Ailanthus altissima. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2014, February 7].

Hunter, M.E.; Shepperd, W.D.; Lentile, L.B.; Lundquist, J.E.; Andreu, M.G.; Butler, J.L.; Smith, 

F.W. 2007. A comprehensive guide to fuels treatment practices for ponderosa pine in the Black 

Hills, Colorado Front Range, and Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-198. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 93 p.

Huntzinger, M. 2003. Effects of fire management practices on butterfly diversity in the forested 

western United States. Biological Conservation. 113: 1–12.

Hutchison, M. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea

L.). Natural Areas Journal. 12(3): 159.

Isaak, D.J.; Luce, C.; Rieman, B.E.; Nagel, D.; Peterson, E.; Horan, D.; Parkes, S.; Chandler, G. 

2010. Effects of climate change and wildfire on stream temperatures and salmonid thermal 

habitat in a mountain river network. Ecological Applications. 20: 1350–1371.

Jackson, B.K.; Sullivan S.M.P. 2009. Influence of wildfire severity on riparian plant heterogeneity 

in an Idaho, USA wilderness. Forest Ecology and Management. 259: 24–32.

Jackson, B.K.; Sullivan, S.M.P.; Malison, R.L. 2012. Wildfire severity mediates fluxes of plant 

material and terrestrial invertebrates to mountain streams. Forest Ecology and Management. 

278: 27–34.

Jain, T.B.; Battaglia, M.A.; Han, A.S.; Graham, R.T.; Keyes, C.R.; Fried, J.S.; Sandquist, J.E. 

2012. A comprehensive guide to fuel management practices for dry mixed conifer forests in 

the northwestern United States. Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-292. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 331 p.

Jain, T.B.; Juillerat, M.; Sandquist, J.; Ford, M.; Sauer, B.; Mitchell, R.; McAvoy, S.; Hanley, J.; 

David, J. 2007. Photographic handbook for comparing burned and unburned sites within a dry 

forested and grassland mosaic: A tool for communication, calibration, and monitoring post-fire 

effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-197. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 57 p.
124 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Jarrett, R.D. 1987. Flood hydrology of foothill and mountain streams in Colorado. Thesis, 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Jarrett, R.D. 1990. Hydrologic and hydraulic research in mountain rivers. Water Resources 

Bulletin. 28: 419–429.

Johansson, M.E.; Nilsson, C. 2002. Responses of riparian plants to flooding in free flowing and 

regulated rivers: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Ecology. 39: 917–986.

Johnson, D.W.; Susfalk, R.B.; Dahlgren, R.A.; Klopatek, J.M. 1998. Fire is more important than 

water for nitrogen fluxes in semi-arid forest. Environmental Science and Policy. 1: 79–86.

Johnson, S.L.; Swanson, F.J.; Grant, G.E.; Wondzell, S.M. 2000. Riparian forest disturbances by a 

mountain flood: The influence of floated wood. Hydrological Processes. 14: 3031–3050.

Jones, J.R.; DeByle, N.V. 1985. Fire. In: DeByle, N.V.; Winokur, R.P., eds. Aspen: Ecology 

and management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-119. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 77–81.

Kaczynski, K.M.; Cooper, D.J. 2015. Post-fire response of riparian vegetation in a heavily 

browsed environment. Forest Ecology and Management 338: 14–19.

Kauffman, J.B. 1990. Ecological relationships of vegetation and fire. In: Walstad, J.D.; 

Radosevich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., eds. Prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University Press: 39–51.

Kauffman, J.B.; Martin, R.E. 1989. Fire behavior, fuel consumption, and forest floor changes 

following prescribed understory fires in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research. 19: 455–462.

Kauffman, J.B.; Martin, R.E. 1990. Sprouting shrub response to varying seasons and fuel 

consumption levels of prescribed fire in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer ecosystems. Forest 

Science. 36: 748–764.

Kauffman, J.B.; Mahrt, M.; Mahrt, L.A.; Edge, W.D. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. In: 

Johnson, D.H.; O’Neil, T.A., eds. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 361–388.

Kauffman, J.B.; Thorpe, A.S.; Brookshire, E.N.J. 2004. Livestock exclusion and belowground 

ecosystem responses in riparian meadows of eastern Oregon. Ecological Applications. 14: 

1671–1679.

Kaye, J.P.; Hart, S.C. 1998. Ecological restoration alters nitrogen transformations in a ponderosa 

pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Ecological Applications. 8: 1052–1060.

Keane, R.E.; Agee, J.; Fulé; P.; Keeley, J.E.; Key, C.; Kitchen, S.G.; Miller, R; Schulte, L.A. 2008. 

Ecological effects of large fires on the US landscapes: Benefit or catastrophe? International 

Journal of Wildland Fire. 17: 696–712.

Keane, R.E.; Ryan, K.C.; Veblen, T.T.; Allen, C.D.; Logan, J.A.; Hawkes, B. 2002. The cascading 

effects of fire exclusion in Rocky Mountain ecosystems. In: Jill S. Baron, ed. Rocky Mountain 

Futures: An ecological perspective. Island Press: 133–152.

Keeley, J.E. 2009. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: A brief review and suggested 

usage. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 18: 116–126.

Kelsey, K.A.; West, S.D. 1998. Riparian wildlife. In: Naiman, R.J.; Bilby, R.E., eds. River ecology 

and management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Region. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.: 

235–258.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 125

Kershner, J.L. 2002. Effectiveness monitoring of aquatic and riparian resources in the areas of 

PACFISH/INFISH and the biological opinions for bull trout, salmon, and steelhead. Final Plan. 

Logan, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 56 p.

Kershner, J.L.; Cowley, E.; Henderson, R.; Kratz, K.; Martin, D.; Quimby, D.; Stein, K.; Turner, 

D.; Ulmner, L.; Vison, M.C.; Young, D. 2001. Effectiveness monitoring of aquatic and riparian 

resources in the areas of PACFISH/INFISH and the biological opinions for bull trout, salmon, 

and steelhead. Draft Plan. Logan, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 50 p.

Kilbride, K.M.; Paveglio, F.L. 1999. Integrated pest management to control reed canarygrass in 

seasonal wetlands of southwestern Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27(2): 292–297.

Kluber, M.R.; Olson, D.H.; Puettmann, K.J. 2008. Amphibian distributions in riparian and upslope 

areas and their habitat associations on managed forest landscapes on the Oregon Coast Range. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 256: 529–535.

Knapp, E.E.; Estes, B.L.; Skinner, C.N. 2009. Ecological effects of prescribed fire season: A 

literature review and synthesis for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-224. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 80 p.

Knapp, E.E.; Keeley, J.E.; Ballenger, E.A.; Brennan, T.J. 2005. Fuel reduction and coarse woody 

debris dynamics with early season and late season prescribed fire in a Sierra Nevada mixed 

conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 208: 383–397.

Knoepp, J.D.; Swank, W.T. 1993. Site preparation burning to improve southern Appalachian 

pine-hardwood stands: Nitrogen responses in soil, soil water, and streams. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 23: 2263–2270.

Knopf, F.L. 1986. Changing landscapes and the cosmopolitanism of the eastern Colorado 

avifauna. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14: 132–142.

Knopf, F.L.; Johnson, R.R.; Rich, T.; Samson, F.B.; Szaro, R.C. 1988. Conservation of riparian 

systems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin. 100: 272–284.

Knutson, K.L.; Naef, V.L. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority 

habitats: Riparian. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 181 p.

Kobziar, L.N.; McBride, J.R. 2006. Wildfire burn patterns and riparian vegetation response along 

two northern Sierra Nevada streams. Forest Ecology and Management. 222: 254–265.

Korb, J.E.; Johnson, N.C.; Covington, W.W. 2004. Slash pile burning effects on soil biotic and 

chemical properties and plant establishment: Recommendations for amelioration. Restoration 

Ecology. 12: 52–62.

Kushla, J.D.; Ripple, W.J. 1997. The role of terrain in a fire mosaic of a temperate coniferous 

forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 95: 97–107.

Lalande, R.; Furlan, V.; Angers, D.A.; Lemieux, G. 1998. Soil improvement following addition of 

chipped wood from twigs. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 13: 132-137.

Landres, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F.J. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts 

in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications. 9: 1179–1188.

Lee, P.; Smyth, C.; Boutin, S. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from 

Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management. 70: 165–180.

Lentile, L.B.; Holden, Z.A.; Smith, A.M.S.; Falkowski, M.J.; Hudak, A.T.; Morgan, P.; Lewis, 

S.A.; Gessler, P.E.; Benson, N.C. 2006. Remote sensing techniques to assess active fire and 

post-fire effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 15: 319–345.
126 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Lentile, L.B.; Morgan, P.; Hudak, A.; Bobbitt, M.J.; Lewis, S.A.; Smith, A.M.S.; Robichaud, P.R. 

2007. Burn severity and vegetation response following eight large wildfires across the western 

US. Fire Ecology. 3: 91–108.

Lepofsky, D.; Heyerdahl, E.K.; Lertzman, K.; Schaepe, D.; Mierendorf, B. Historical meadow 

dynamics in southwest British Columbia: A multidisciplinary analysis. Conservation Ecology. 

7(3): 5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art5/.

Li, H.W.; Lamberti, G.A.; Persons, T.N.; Tait, C.K.; Li, J.L.; Buckhouse, J.C. 1994. Cumulative 

effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 123: 627–640.

Lowrance, R.; Altier, L.S.; Newbold, J.D.; Schnabel, R.R.; Groffman, P.M.; Denver, J.M.; 

Correll, D.L.; Gilliam, J.W.; Robinson, J.L.; Brinsfield, R.B.; Staver, K.W.; Lucas, W.; Todd 

A.H. 1997. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. 

Environmental Management. 21: 687–712.

Luce, C.; Morgan, P.; Dwire, K.A.; Isaak, D.; Rieman B. 2012. Climate change, forests, fire, 

water, and fish: Building resilient landscapes, streams and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-290. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 207 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/41932.

Lutes, D.C.; Keane, R.E.; Caratti, J.F.; Key, C.H.; Benson, N.C.; Sutherland, S.; Gangi, L.J. 2006. 

FIREMON: Fire effects monitoring and inventory system. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR164-CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 1 CD.

Lyon, L.J.; Huff, M.H.; Smith, J.K. 2000. Fire effects on wildlife foods. In: Smith, J.K., ed. 

Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 

51–58.

Mack, M.C.; D’Antonio, C.M. 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 13: 195–198.

Magee, T.K.; Antos, J.A. 1992. Tree invasion into a mountain-top meadow in the Oregon Coast 

Range, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science. 3: 485–494.

Mahoney, J.M.; Koegler, P.; Rood, S.B. 1991. The accuracy of tree ring analysis for estimating the 

age of riparian poplars. In: Proceedings of the biology and management of southern Alberta’s 

cottonwoods conference; 1990 May. Lethbridge, Alberta: University of Lethbridge.

Malison, R.L.; Baxter, C.V. 2010a. Effects of wildfire of varying severity on benthic stream 

insect assemblages and emergence. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 29: 

1324–1338.

Malison, R.L.; Baxter, C.V. 2010b. The fire pulse: Wildfire stimulates flux of aquatic prey to 

terrestrial habitats driving increases in riparian consumers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. 67: 570–579.

May, C.L. 2002. Debris flows through different forest age classes in the central Oregon Coast 

Range. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38(4): 1097–1113.

May, C.L.; Gresswell, R.E. 2003a. Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater 

streams in the southern Oregon Coast Range, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33: 

1352–1362.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 127

May, C.L.; Gresswell, R.E. 2003b. Processes and rates of sediment and wood accumulation in 

headwater streams of the central Oregon Coast range. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 

28: 409–424.

McAllister, L.S. 2008. Reconstructing historical conditions of two river basins in Eastern Oregon, 

USA. Environmental Management. 42: 412–425.

McClain M.E.; Bilby, R.E.; Triska, F.J. 1998. Nutrient cycles and responses to disturbance. In: 

Naiman, R.J.; Bilby, R.E., eds. River ecology and management: Lessons from the Pacific 

Coastal Region. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.: 347–372.

McClain, M.E.; Boyer, E.W.; Dent, C.L.; Gergel, S.E.; Grimm, N.B.; Groffman, P.M.; Hart, S.C.; 

Harvey, J.W.; Mayorga, E.; McDowell, W.H.; Pinay, G. 2003. Biogeochemical hot spots and 

hot moments at the interface of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecosystems. 6: 301–312.

McComb, W.C.; McGarigal, K.; Anthony, R.G. 1993. Small mammal and amphibian abundance 

in streamside and upslope habitats of mature Douglas-fir stands, western Oregon. Northwest 

Science. 67: 7–15.

McCormick, F.H.; Rieman, B.E.; Kershner, J.L. 2010. Biological responses to stressors in aquatic 

ecosystems of western North America: Cumulative watershed effects of fuel treatments, 

wildfire, and post-fire remediation. In: Elliot, W.J., Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. Cumulative 

watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station: 206–233.

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.

McIntosh, B.A.; Sedell, J.R.; Smith, J.E.; Wissmar, R.C.; Clarke, S.E.; Reeves, G.H.; Brown, 

L.A. 1994a. Historical changes in fish habitat for select river basins of eastern Oregon and 

Washington. Northwest Science. 68: 36–52.

McIntosh, B.A.; Sedell, J.R.; Smith, J.E.; Wissmar, R.C.; Clarke, S.E.; Reeves, G.H.; Brown, L.A. 

1994b. Management history of eastside ecosystems: Changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 

1935–1992. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-321. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p.

Megahan, W.F.; Potyondy, J.P.; Seyedbagheri, K.A. 1992. Best management practices and 

cumulative effects from sedimentation in the South Fork Salmon River: An Idaho case study. 

In: Naiman, R.J., ed. Watershed management: Balancing sustainability and environmental 

change. NewYork: Springer-Verlag: 401–414.

Mellon, C.D.; Wipfli, M.S.; Li, J.L. 2008. Effects of forest fire on headwater macroinvertebrate 

communities in eastern Washington, USA. Freshwater Biology. 53: 2331–2343.

Merritt, D.M.; Bateman, H.L. 2012. Linking stream flow and groundwater to avian habitat in a 

desert riparian system. Ecological Applications. 22 (7): 1973–1988.

Merritt, D.M.; Poff, N.L. 2010. Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along 

gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecological Applications. 20(1): 

135–152.

Messier, M.S.; Shatford, J.P.A.; Hibbs, D.E. 2012. Fire exclusion on riparian forest dynamics in 

southwestern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 264: 60–71.
128 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Meyer, G.A.; Pierce, J.L.; Wood, S.H.; Jull, A.J.T. 2001. Fire, storms, and erosional events in the 

Idaho batholith. Hydrologic Processes. 15: 3025–3038.

Meyer, G.A.; Wells, S.G.; Balling, R.C., Jr.; Jull, A.J.T. 1992. Response of alluvial systems to fire 

and climate change in Yellowstone National Park. Nature. 357: 147–150.

Meyer, K.E.; Dwire, K.A.; Champ, P.; Ryan, S.E.; Riegel, G.; Burton, T. 2012. Burning questions 

for managers: Fuels management practices in riparian areas. Fire Management Today. 72: 

16–23.

Mihuc, T.B.; Minshall, G.W. 1995. Trophic generalists vs. trophic specialists: Implications for 

food web dynamics in post-fire streams. Ecology. 76: 2361–2372.

Miller, M. 2000. Fire autecology. In: Brown, J.K., Smith, J.K., eds. Wildland fire and ecosystems: 

Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 9–34.

Miller, S. 2015. Slash from the past: Rehabilitating pile burn scars. Science You Can Use 

Bulletin. Issue 15, July/August 2015. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Minshall, G.W. 2003. Responses of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to fire. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 178: 155–161.

Minshall, G.W.; Brock, J.T. 1991. Observed and anticipated effects of forest fire on Yellowstone 

stream ecosystems. In: Keiter, R.B.; Boyce, M.S., eds. The Greater Yellowstone ecosystem: 

Redefining America’s wilderness heritage. Yale University Press: 123–135.

Minshall, G.W.; Brock, J.T.; Varley, J.D. 1989. Wildfires and Yellowstone’s stream ecosystems: A 

temporal perspective shows that aquatic recovery parallels forest succession. BioScience. 39: 

707–715.

Minshall, G.W.; Robinson, C.T.; Lawrence, D.E. 1997. Immediate and mid-term responses of lotic 

ecosystems in Yellowstone National Park, USA to wildfire. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science. 54: 2509–2525.

Minshall, G.W.; Robinson, C.T.; Royer, T.V.; Rushforth, S.R. 1995. Benthic community structure 

in two adjacent streams in Yellowstone National Park 5 years after the 1988 wildfires. Great 

Basin Naturalist. 55: 193–200.

Minshall, G.W.; Royer, T.V.; Robinson, C.T. 2001. Response of Cache Creek macroinvertebrates 

during the first 10 years following disturbance by the 1988 Yellowstone wildfires. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 58: 1077–1088.

Minshall, G.W.; Royer, T.V.; Robinson, C.T. 2004. Stream ecosystem responses following the 

Yellowstone wildfires: The first 10 years. In: Wallace, D., ed. After the fires: The ecology of 

change in Yellowstone National Park. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 87–97.

Monleon, V.J.; Cromack, K., Jr. 1996. Long-term effects of prescribed underburning on litter 

decomposition and nutrient release in ponderosa pine stands in central Oregon. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 81:143–152.

Monleon, V.J.; Cromack, K., Jr.; Landsberg, J.D. 1997. Short- and long-term effects of prescribed 

underburning on nitrogen availability in ponderosa pine stands in central Oregon. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 27: 369–378.

Montgomery, D.R.; Collins, B.D.; Buffington, J.M.; Abbe, T.B. 2003. Geomorphic effects of wood 

in rivers. In: Gregory, S.V.; Boyer, K.L.; Gurnell, A.M., eds. The ecology and management of 

wood in world rivers. Symposium 37. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 21–47.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 129

Moody, J.A.; Martin, D.A. 2001. Initial hydrologic and geomorphic response following a wildfire 

in the Colorado Front Range. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26(10): 1049–1070.

Moore, R.D.; Spittlehouse, D.L.; Story, A. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature 

response to forest harvesting: A review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 

41: 813–834.

Morrison, P.H.; Swanson, F.J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p.

Mosley, J.C.; Cook, P.S.; Griffis, A.J.; O’Laughlin, J. 1997. Guidelines for managing cattle grazing 

in riparian areas to protect water quality: Review of research and best management practices 

policy. Report No. 15. Moscow, ID: Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group.

Murphy, K.; Rich, T.; Sexton T. 2007. An assessment of fuel treatment effects on fire behavior, 

suppression effectiveness, and structure ignition on the Angora Fire. R5-TP-025. Vallejo, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Naiman, R.J.; Décamps, H. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics. 28: 621–658.

Naiman, R.J.; Décamps, H.; McClain, M.E. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, conservation, and 

management of streamside communities. London, UK: Elsevier, Inc. 430 p.

Naiman, R.J.; Décamps, H.; Pollock, M. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining 

regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications. 3: 209–212.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas: Functions and strategies for management. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 436 p.

Neary, D.G.; Klopatek, C.C.; DeBano, L.F.; Ffolliott, P.F. 1999. Fire effects on belowground 

sustainability: A review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management. 122: 51–71.

Nierenberg, T.R.; Hibbs, D.E. 2000. A characterization of unmanaged riparian areas in the central 

Coast Range of western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 129: 195–206.

Norris, V. 1993. The use of buffer zones to protect water quality: A review. Water Resources and 

Management. 7: 257–272.

Nowakowski, A.L.; Wohl, E. 2008. Influences on wood load in mountain streams of the Bighorn 

National Forest, Wyoming, USA. Environmental Management. 42: 557–571.

Olson, D.H.; Leirness, J.B.; Cunningham, P.G.; Steel, E.A. 2014. Riparian buffers and forest 

thinning: Effects on headwater invertebrates 10 years after thinning. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 321: 81–93.

Olson, D.L. 2000. Fire in riparian zones: A comparison of historical fire occurrence in riparian and 

upslope forests in the Blue Mountains and southern Cascades of Oregon. Thesis. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington. 274 p.

Olson, D.L.; Agee, J.K. 2005. Historical fires in Douglas-fir dominated riparian forests of the 

southern Cascades, Oregon. Fire Ecology. 1: 50–74.

Osborne, L.L.; Kovacic, D.A. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration 

and stream management. Freshwater Biology. 29: 243–258.
130 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Otting, N.J. 1998. Ecological characteristics of montane floodplain plant communities in the 

Upper Grande Ronde River Basin, Oregon. Thesis. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 

71 p.

Pabst, R.J.; Spies, T.A. 1998. Distribution of herbs and shrubs in relation to landform and canopy 

cover in riparian forests of coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Botany. 76: 289–315.

Pabst, R.J.; Spies, T.A. 1999. Structure and composition of unmanaged riparian forests in the 

coastal mountains of Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 29: 1557–1573.

Pannkuk, C.K.; Robichaud, P.R. 2003. Effectiveness of needle cast at reducing erosion after forest 

fires. Water Resources Research. 39(12): 1333. doi:10.1029/2003WRR002318.

Parks, C.G.; Radosevich, S.R.; Endress, B.A.; Naylor, B.J.; Anzinger, D.; Rew, L.J.; Maxwell, 

B.D.; Dwire, K.A. 2005. Natural and land-use history of the Northwest mountain ecoregions 

(USA) in relation to patterns of plant invasions. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and 

Systematics. 7: 137–158.

Parsons, W.F.J.; Knight, D.H.; Miller, S.L. 1994. Root gap dynamics in lodgepole pine forest: 

Nitrogen transformations in gaps of different sizes. Ecological Applications. 4: 354–362.

Patten, D.T. 1998. Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: Diversity and human impacts. 

Wetlands. 18: 498–512.

Paysen, T.E.; Ansley, R.J.; Brown, J.K.; Gottfried, G.J.; Haase, S.M.; Harrington, M.G.; Narog, 

M.G.; Sackett, S.S.; Wilson, R.C. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland 

ecosystems. In: Brown, J.K., Smith, J.K., eds. Wildland fire and ecosystems: Effects of fire 

on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121–159.

Perry, D.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Spies, T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Taylor, A.H.; Franklin, 

J.F.; McComb, B.; Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of mixed severity fire regimes in Washington, 

Oregon, and Northern California. Forest Ecology and Management. 262: 703–717.

Peterjohn, W.T.; Correll, D.L. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations 

on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology. 65: 1466–1475.

Peterson, D.L. 1998. Large-scale fire disturbance: From concepts to models. Northwest Science. 

72; 1–3 (special issue).

Peterson, D.L.; Evers, L.; Gravenmier, R.; Eberhardt, E. 2007. A consumer guide: Tools to manage 

vegetation and fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-690. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 151 p. www.treesearch.fs.fed.

pubs/25953.

Pettit, N.E.; Naiman, R.J. 2007. Fire in the riparian zone: Characteristics and ecological 

consequences. Ecosystems. 10: 673–687.

Piegay, H.; Gregory, K.J.; Bondarev, V.; Chin, A.; Dahlstrom, N.; Elosegi, A.; Gregory, S.V.; 

Joshi, V.; Mutz, M.; Rinaldi, M.; Wyzga, B.; Zawiejska, J. 2005. Public perception as a barrier 

to introducing wood in rivers for restoration purposes. Environmental Management. 36(5): 

665–674.

Pierce, J.L.; Meyer, G.A.; Jull, A.J.T. 2004. Fire-induced erosion and millennial-scale climate 

change in northern ponderosa pine forests. Nature. 432: 87–90.

Pierson, F.B.; Robichaud, P.R.; Spaeth, K.E. 2001. Spatial and temporal effects of wildfire on the 

hydrology of a steep rangeland watershed. Hydrological Processes. 15: 2905–2916.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 131

Pilliod, D.S.; Bull, E.L.; Hayes, J.L.; Wales, B.C. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel 

reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests of the Western United States: A synthesis. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-173. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p.

Pilliod, D.S.; Bury, R.B.; Hyde, E.J.; Pearl, C.A.; Corn, P.S. 2003. Fire and amphibians in North 

America. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 163–181.

Planty-Tabacchi, A.; Tabacchi, E.; Naiman, R.J.; DeFerrari, C.; Decamps, H. 1996. Invasibility of 

species-rich communities in riparian zones. Conservation Biology. 10: 598–607.

Pollen, N.; Simon, A.; Collison, A.J.C. 2004. Advances in assessing the mechanical and 

hydrologic effects of riparian vegetation on streambank stability. In: Bennett, S.; Simon, 

A., eds. Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphology. Water Science and Applications 8. 

American Geophysical Union: 125–139.

Pollock, M.M.; Naiman, R.J.; Hanley, T.A. 1998. Plant species richness in riparian wetlands—A 

test of biodiversity theory. Ecology. 79: 94–105.

Polvi, L.E.; Wohl, E.E.; Merritt, D.M. 2011. Geomorphic and process domain controls on riparian 

zones in the Colorado Front Range. Geomorphology. 125: 504–516.

Poole, G.C.; Berman, C.H. 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream temperature: Natural heat 

dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal degradation. Environmental Management. 

27: 787–802.

Popp, J.B.; Lundquist, J.E. 2006. Photo series for quantifying forest residues in managed lands of 

the Medicine Bow National Forest. Gen Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-172. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 105 p.

Prichard, D.; Barrett, H.; Cagney, J.; Clark, R.; Fogg, J.; Gebhardt, K.; Hansen, P.; Mitchell, B.; 

Tippy, D. 1993; revised 1995, 1998. Riparian area management: Process for assessing proper 

functioning condition. Technical Reference 1737-9. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management. 

BLM/SC/ST-93/003+1737+REV95+REV98. 60 p.

Racine, C.H.; Johnson, L.A.; Viereck, L.A. 1987. Patterns of vegetative recovery after tundra fires 

in northwestern Alaska, USA. Arctic and Alpine Research. 19: 461–469.

Raedeke, K.J., ed. 1988. Streamside management: riparian wildlife and forestry interactions, 

Contribution No. 59. Seattle: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources.

Ralph, S.C.; Poole, G.C.; Conquest, L.L.; Naiman, R.J. 1994. Stream channel morphology and 

woody debris in logged and unlogged basins of western Washington. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 51: 37–51.

Reeves, G.H.; Benda, L.E.; Burnett, K.M.; Bisson, P.A.; Sedell, J.R. 1995. A disturbancebased ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily 

significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 17: 344–349.

Reeves, G.H.; Bisson, P.A.; Rieman, B.E.; Benda, L.E. 2006. Postfire logging in riparian areas. 

Conservation Biology. 20 (4): 994–1004.

Reich, M.; Kershner, J.L.; Wildman, R.C. 2003. Restoring streams with large wood: A synthesis. 

In: Gregory, S.V.; Boyer, K.L.; Gurnell, A.M., eds. The ecology and management of wood in 

world rivers. Symposium 37. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 355–366.
132 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Reid, L.M. 2010. Cumulative effects of fuel treatments on channel erosion and mass wasting. 

In: Elliot, W.J., Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management 

in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 101–125.

Reuss, J.O.; Stottlemyer, R.; Troendle, C.A. 1997. Effect of clear cutting on nutrient fluxes in a 

subalpine forest at Fraser, Colorado. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 1: 333–344.

Rhoades, C.C.; Entwistle, D.; Butler, D. 2011. The influence of wildfire extent and severity on 

streamwater chemistry, sediment and temperature following the Hayman Fire, Colorado. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20: 430–442.

Rhoades, C.R.; Battaglia, M.A.; Rocca, M.E.; Ryan, M.G. 2012. Short-and-medium-term effects 

of fuel reduction mulch treatments on soil nitrogen availability in Colorado conifer forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 276: 231–238.

Rhoades, C.R.; Fornwalt, P.J. 2015. Pile burning creates a fifty-year legacy of openings in 

regenerating lodgepole pine forests in Colorado. Forest Ecology and Management. 336: 

203–209.

Rhoades, C.R.; Fornwalt, P.J.; Paschke, M.W.; Shanklin, A.; Jonas, J.L. 2015. Recovery of 

small pile burn scars in conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 347: 180–187.

Rieman, B.E.; Clayton, J.L. 1997. Fire and fish: issues of forest health and conservation of native 

fishes. Fisheries. 22(11): 6–15.

Rieman, B.; Lee, D.; Burns, D.; Gresswell, R.; Young, M.; Stowell, R.; Rinne, J.; Howell, P. 2003. 

Status of native fishes in the western United States and issues for fire and fuels management. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 197–211.

Robichaud, P.R. 2000. Fire effects on infiltration rates after prescribed fire in Northern Rocky 

Mountain forests, USA. Journal of Hydrology. 231/232: 220–229.

Robichaud, P.R.; Beyers, J.L.; Neary, D.G. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire 

rehabilitation treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-63. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 85 p.

Robichaud, P.R.; MacDonald, L.H.; Foltz, R.B. 2010. Fuel management and erosion. In: Elliot, 

W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the 

western United States. Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 79–100.

Robichaud, P.R.; Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Brown, R.E.; Spigel, K.M. 2009. Three years of hillslope 

sediment yields following the Valley Complex fires, western Montana. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-77. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 8 p.

Romme, W.H.; Knight, D.H. 1981. Fire frequency and subalpine forest succession along a 

topographic gradient in Wyoming. Ecology. 62: 319–326.

Romme, W.H.; Turner, M.B.; Wallace, L.L.; Walker, J.S. 1995. Aspen, elk, and fire in northern 

Yellowstone National Park. Ecology. 76: 2097–2106.

Rood, S.B.; Hillman, C.; Sanche, T.; Mahoney, J.M. 1994. Clonal reproduction of riparian 

cottonwoods in southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 72: 1766–1774.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 133

Ruff, C.P.; Schindler, D.E.; Armstrong, J.B.; Bentley, K.T.; Brooks, G.T.; Holtgrieve, G.W.; 

McGlauflin, M.T.; Torgersen, C.E.; Seeb, J.E. 2011. Temperature-associated population 

diversity in salmon confers benefits to mobile consumers. Ecology. 92: 2073–2084.

Ruffing, C.; Daniels, M.; Dwire, K.A. 2015. Disturbance legacies of historic tie-drives persistently 

alter geomorphology and large wood characteristics in headwater streams, southeast Wyoming. 

Geomorphology. 231: 1–14.

Rummer, B. 2010. Tools for fuel management. In: Elliot, W.J., Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. 

Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 69–78.

Russell, W.H.; McBride, J.R. 2001. The relative importance of fire and watercourse proximity 

in determining stand composition in mixed conifer riparian forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 150: 259–265.

Ryan, K.C. 2001. Global change and wildland fire. In: Brown, J.K.; Smith, J.K., eds. Wildland fire 

in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 175–184.

Ryan, S.E.; Dwire, K.A.; Dixon, M.K. 2011. Impacts of wildfire on runoff and sediments loads, 

Little Granite Creek, western Wyoming. Geomorphology. 129: 113–130.

Saab, V.; Block, W.; Russell, R.; Lehmkuhl, J.; Bate, L.; White, R. 2007. Birds and burns of the 

interior West: descriptions, habitats, and management in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-712. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

23 p.

Saab, V.; Powell, H.D.W., eds. 2005. Fire and avian ecology in North America. Studies in Avian 

Biology. 30.

Saab, V.; Powell, H.D.W.; Kotliar, N.B.; Newlon, K.R. 2005. Variation in fire regimes of the 

Rocky Mountains: implications for avian communities and fire management. In: Saab, V.; 

Powell, H.D.W., eds. Fire and avian ecology in North America. Studies in Avian Biology. 30: 

76–96.

Safford, H.D.; Schmidt, D.A.; Carlson, C. 2009. Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity in an 

area of wildland-urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe basin, California. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 258: 773–787.

Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. 1987. Forestry and fisheries interactions. Contribution Number 57. 

Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources.

Santi, P.M.; deWolfe, V.G.; Higgins, J.D.; Cannon, S.H.; Gartner, J.E. 2008. Sources of debris flow 

material in burned areas. Geomorphology. 96: 310–312.

Sarr, D.; Odion, D.C.; Hibbs, D.E.; Weikel, J.; Gresswell, R.E.; Burry, R.B.; Czarnomski, N.M.; 

Pabst, R.J.; Shatford, J.; Moldenke, A.R. 2005. Riparian zone management and the protection 

of biodiversity: A problem analysis. Tech. Bull. No. 908. Research Triangle Park, NC: National 

Council for Air and Stream Improvement. 107 pages + appendices.

Scheidt, N.E. 2006. Stream succession: Channel changes after wildfire disturbance. Thesis. Boise, 

ID: Boise State University. 60 p.

Schier, G.A. 1973. Origin and development of aspen root suckers. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 3: 45–53.
134 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Schoennagel, T.; Veblen, T.T.; Romme, W.H. 2004. The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate 

across Rocky Mountain forests. BioScience. 54: 661–676.

Sedell, J.R.; Beschta, R.L. 1991. Bringing back the “bio” in bioengineering. In: Colt, J.; Dendall, 

S., eds. Fisheries bioengineering: Proceedings of the symposium. American Fisheries Society 

10 Bethesda, MD: 160–175.

Sensenig, T.S. 2002. Development, fire history, and current and past growth of old-growth and 

young-growth forest stands in the Cascade, Siskiyou and mid-coast mountains of southwestern 

Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Dissertation.

Sestrich, C.M.; McMahon, T.E.; Young, M.K. 2011. Influence of fire on native and nonnative 

salmonid populations and habitat in a western Montana basin. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society. 140(1): 136–146.

Shafroth, P.B.; Stromberg, J.C.; Patten, D.T. 2002. Riparian vegetation response to altered 

disturbance and stress regimes. Ecological Applications. 12: 107–123.

Shepperd, W.D.; Smith, F.W. 1993. The role of near-surface lateral roots in the life cycle of aspen 

in the central Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management. 61: 157–170.

Shlisky, A.; Waugh, J.; Gonzalez, P.; Gonzalez, M.; Manta, M.; Santoso, H.; Alvarado, E.; 

Nuruddin, A.A.; Rodriguez-Trejo, D.A.; Swaty, R.; Schmidt, D.; Kaufmann, M.; Myers, R.; 

Alencar, A.; Kearns, F.; Johnson, D.; Smith, J.; Zollner, D. 2007. Fire ecosystems and people: 

Threats and strategies for global biodiversity conservation. GFI Tech. Rep. 2007-2. Arlington, 

VA: The Nature Conservancy. 28 p.

Shoshone Conservation District and Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management. 2007. 

Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) Invasive Plant Management. 

Unpublished Project Completion Report on file with: Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource 

Trust Board, Cheyenne, WY. 24 p.

Shoshone Conservation District and Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management. 2012. 

Yellowtail Area Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) Invasive Plant Management. 

Unpublished Project Completion Report on file with: Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource 

Trust Board, Cheyenne, WY. 21 p.

Simon, A.; Collison, A. 2002. Quantifying the mechanical and hydrological effects of riparian 

vegetation on streambank stability. Earth Surfaces Processes and Landforms. 27: 527–546.

Skinner, C.N. 2002. Influence of fire on the dynamics of dead woody material in forests of 

California and southwestern Oregon. In: Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr.; Shea, P.J.; Valentine, B.E.; 

Weatherspoon, C.P.; Lisle, T.E., eds. Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and 

management of dead wood in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 445–454.

Skinner, C.N. 2003. A tree-ring based fire history of riparian reserves in the Klamath Mountains. 

In: Faber, P.M., ed. Proceedings, California riparian systems: Processes and floodplains 

management, ecology, and restoration; 2001 March 12–15; Sacramento, CA. Sacramento, CA: 

Riparian Habitat Joint Venture: 116–119.

Smith, J.K., ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-42 Vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p.

Smith, S.D.; Devitt, A.; Sala, A.; Cleverly, J.R.; Busch, D.E. 1998. Water relations of riparian 

plants from warm desert regions. Wetlands. 18: 687–696.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 135

Spencer, C.N.; Gabel, K.O.; Hauer, F.R. 2003. Wildfire effects on stream food webs and nutrient 

dynamics in Glacier National Park, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 141–153.

Squires, J.R.; Reynolds, R.T. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In: Pool, A.; Gill, F., 

eds. The birds of North America. No. 298. Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ 

Union, The Academy of Natural Sciences. 31 p.

Stanford, J.A.; Ward, J.V. 1988. The hyporheic habitat of river ecosystems. Nature. 335: 64–66.

Stanford, J.A.; Ward, J.V. 1993. An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: Connectivity and the 

hyporheic corridor. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 12: 48–60.

Starr, B. 2004. Long-term effects of clear-cutting on N availability and soil solution chemistry in 

the Fraser Experimental Forest, Colorado. Thesis. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 

33 p.

Steel, E.A.; Naiman, R.J.; West, S.D. 1999. Use of woody debris piles by birds and small 

mammals in a riparian corridor. Northwest Science. 73: 19–26.

Stephens, J.L.; Alexander, J.D. 2011. Effects of fuel reduction on bird density and reproductive 

success in riparian areas of mixed-conifer forest in southeast Oregon. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 261: 43–49.

Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J. 2005. Fuel treatment effects on snags and coarse woody debris in 

a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 214: 53–64.

Stephens, S.L.; Ruth, L.W. 2005. Federal forest-fire policy in the United States. Ecological 

Applications. 15: 532–542.

Stickney, P.F. 1986. First decade plant succession following the Sundance Forest Fire, northern 

Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-INT-197. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 26 p.

Stohlgren, T.J.; Bull, K.A.; Otsuki, Y.; Villa, C.; Lee, M. 1998. Riparian zones as havens for 

nonnative plant species. Plant Ecology. 138: 113–125.

Stokes, A.; Mattheck, C. 1996. Variation of wood strength in tree roots. Journal of Experimental 

Botany. 47: 693–699.

Stone, K.R.; Pilliod, D.S.; Dwire, K.A.; Rhoades, C.C.; Wollrab, S.P.; Young, M.K. 2010. 

Fuel reduction management practices in riparian areas of the western USA. Environmental 

Management. 46: 91–100. doi10.1007/s00267-010-9501-7.

Stottlemyer, R.; Troendle, C.A. 1999. Effect of subalpine canopy removal on snowpack, soil 

solution, and nutrient export, Fraser Experimental Forest, CO. Hydrological Processes. 13: 

2287–2299.

Stratton, R.D. 2006. Guidance on spatial wildland fire analysis: Models, tools, and techniques. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-183. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 15 p. www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/25139.

Suzuki, N.; Olson, D.H. 2007. Options for biodiversity conservation in managed forest landscapes 

of multiple ownerships in Oregon and Washington, USA. Biodiversity Conservation. 16: 

3895–3917.

Swank, W.T. 1988. Stream chemistry response to disturbance. In: Swank, W.T.; Crossley, D.A., Jr., 

eds. Forest hydrology and ecology at Coweeta. New York: Springer-Verlag: 339–358.
136 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Swanson, F.J.; Benda, L.E.; Duncan, S.H.; Grant, G.E.; Megahan, W.F.; Reid, L.M.; Ziemer, R.R. 

1987. Mass failures and other processes of sediment production in Pacific Northwest forest 

landscapes. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: Forestry and fishery 

interactions. Contribution #59. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Institute of Forest 

Resources: 9–38.

Tabacchi, E.; Correll, D.L.; Hauer, R.; Pinay, G.; Planty-Tabacchi, A.; Wissmar, R.C. 1998. 

Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. Freshwater 

Biology. 40: 497–516.

Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late successional 

reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 111: 285–301.

Taylor, J.L. 2001. Populus deltoides. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2015, September 27].

Thomas, J.W.; Maser, C.; Rodiek, J.E. 1979. Riparian zones. In: Thomas, J.W., ed. Wildlife habitat 

in managed forests: The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 553. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 40–47.

Thorne, C.R. 1990. Effects of vegetation on riverbank erosion and stability. In: Thornes, J.B., ed. 

Vegetation and erosion: Processes and environments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons: 

125–144.

Tiedemann, A.R.; Klemmedson, J.O.; Bull, E.L. 2000. Solution of forest health problems with 

prescribed fire: Are forest productivity and wildlife at risk? Forest Ecology and Management. 

127: 1–8.

Torgersen, C.E.; Price, D.M.; Li, H.W.; McIntosh, B.A. 1999. Multiscale thermal refugia and 

stream habitat associations of Chinook salmon in northeastern Oregon. Ecological Applications. 

9: 301–319.

Trammell, T.L.E.; Rhoades, C.C.; Bukaveckas, P.A. 2004. Effects of prescribed burns on nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and base-cation loss from forest-glade habitats in central Kentucky. Restoration 

Ecology. 12: 596–603.

Triska, F.J.; Kennedy, V.C.; Avanzino, R.J.; Zellweger, G.W.; Bencala, K.E. 1989. Retention and 

transfer of nutrients in a third-order stream in Northwestern California: Hyporheic processes. 

Ecology. 70: 1893–1905.

Troendle, C.A.; Reuss, J.O. 1997. Effect of clear cutting on snow accumulation and water outflow 

at Fraser, Colorado. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 1: 325–332.

Turner, M.G.; Romme, W.H. 1994. Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosystems. Landscape 

Ecology. 9(1): 59–77.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Decision Notice/Decision Record, FONSI. Ecological analysis 

and appendices for the inland fish strategy (INFISH). Interim strategies for managing fishproducing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and 

portions of Nevada. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed condition framework: A framework for assessing and 

tracking changes to watershed condition. USDA Forest Service. FS-977. 24 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management 

on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. 165 p.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 137

USDA Forest Service; USDI. 2001. Managing the impact of wildfires on communities and the 

environment: A report to the President in response to the wildfires of 2000, September 8, 2000. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the 

Interior.

USDA Forest Service; USDI. 2002. A collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to 

communities and the environment: 10-year comprehensive strategy: Implementation plan. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 27 p. https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/11-23-en.pdf. 

[07 June 2016].

USDA Forest Service; USDI. 2008. Healthy Forests Report: FY 2008 Accomplishments. https://

www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/reports/documents/healthyforests/2008/healthy_

forests_report_fy2008.pdf.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. [n.d.] [Draft]. Fuel and fire effects monitoring guide. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/fire/

downloads/monitor.pdf

USDI National Park Service. 2001. Fire monitoring handbook. Boise, ID: National Interagency 

Fire Center. 283 p.

Van de Water, K.; North, M. 2011. Stand structure, fuel loads, and fire behavior in riparian and 

upland forests, Sierra Nevada Mountains, USA: A comparison of current and reconstructed 

conditions. Forest Ecology and Management. 262: 215–228.

Van Mantgem, P.; Schwartz, M.; Keifer, M. 2001. Monitoring fire effects for managed burns and 

wildfires: Coming to terms with pseudoreplication. Natural Areas Journal. 21(3): 266–273.

Vannote, R.L.; Minshall, G.W.; Cummins, K.W.; Sedell, J.R.; Cushing, C.E. 1980. The river 

continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 37: 130–137.

Van Sickle, J.; Gregory, S.V. 1990. Modeling inputs of large woody debris to streams from falling 

trees. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 1593–1601.

Vaz, P.G.; Merten, E.C.; Warren, D.R.; Robinson, C.T.; Pinto, P.; Rego, F.C. 2013. Which stream 

wood becomes functional following wildfires? Ecological Engineering. 53: 82–89.

Verkaik, I.; Rieradevall, M.; Cooper, S.D.; Melack, J.M.; Dudley, T.L.; Prat, N. 2013. Fire as a 

disturbance in Mediterranean climate streams. Hydrobiologia. 719: 353–382.

Vidon, P.G.F.; Hill, A.R. 2004. Landscape controls on nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. 

Water Resources Research. 40: 1–14.

Wagener, S.M.; Oswood, M.W.; Schimel, J.P. 1998. Rivers and soils: Parallels in carbon and 

nutrient processing. BioScience. 48: 104–108.

Waggy, Melissa A. 2010. Phalaris arundinacea. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [accessed 2013, August 10]. 

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increases western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science. 313: 940–943. doi: 10.1126/

science.1128834.

Whitlock, C.; Shafer, S.L.; Marlon, J. 2003. The role of climate and vegetation in shaping past and 

future fire regimes in the northwestern US and the implications for ecosystem management. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 5–21.
138 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Williamson, N.M. 1999. Crown fuel characteristics, stand structure, and fire hazard in riparian 

forests of the Blue Mountains, Oregon. Thesis. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 98 p.

Wimberly, M.C.; Spies, T.A. 2001. Influences of environment and disturbance on forest patterns in 

coastal Oregon watersheds. Ecology. 82: 1443–1459.

Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-47. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 49 p.

Wohl, E. 2001. Virtual rivers: Lessons from the mountain rivers of the Colorado Front Range. 

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 210 p.

Wohl, E. 2006. Human impacts to mountain streams. Geomorphology. 79: 217–248.

Wohl, E.; Jaeger, K. 2009. A conceptual model for the longitudinal distribution of wood in 

mountain streams. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 34(3): 329–344.

Wondzell, S.M. 2001. The influence of forest health and protection treatments on erosion and 

stream sedimentation in forested watersheds of eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest 

Science. 75: 128–140.

Wondzell, S.M.; Bisson, P.A. 2003. Influence of wood on aquatic biodiversity. In: Gregory, 

S.V.; Boyer, K.L.; Gurnell, A.M., eds. The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. 

Symposium 37. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 249–265.

Wondzell, S.M.; King, J.G. 2003. Postfire erosional processes in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky 

Mountain regions. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 75–87.

Wright, J.M.; Chambers, J.C. 2002. Restoring riparian meadows currently dominated by Artemisia 

using alternative state concepts—Above-ground vegetation response. Applied Vegetation 

Science. 5: 237–246.

Wu, T.H. 1986. Root geometry model and simulation. National Science Foundation Grant 

CEE-811253. USDA Forest Service Grant PNW-83-317. Unpublished final report on file at: 

Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio State University. 62 p.

Young, M.K. 1994. Movement and characteristics of stream-borne coarse woody debris in 

adjacent burned and undisturbed watersheds in Wyoming. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

24: 1933–1938.

Young, M.K.; Haire, D.; Bozek, M.A. 1994. The effect and extent of railroad tie drives in streams 

of southeastern Wyoming. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 9(4): 125–130.

Zelt, R.B.; Wohl, E. 2004. Channel and woody debris characteristics in adjacent burned and 

unburned watersheds a decade after wildfire, Park County, Wyoming. Geomorphology. 57: 

217–233.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 139

Appendix—A Guide to Fuels Management in Riparian 

Areas of the Interior West 

[Note: This is the survey as it appeared online, with the exception of page breaks, which have been removed. 

Also, referenced page numbers won’t match with this document.]

Section 1: Background Information 

Prescribed fire and other types of fuels treatments are being used more frequently by local, state, and 

federal government agencies to reduce the risk of wildfire throughout the western United States. Little 

is known about the extent and degree to which fuels management practices are carried out in riparian 

areas or wetlands. In this survey we will ask about fuel treatment projects that have been conducted or 

proposed in riparian areas in the administrative unit that you manage. 

Please use the definition below to determine whether a particular fuel treatment was in a riparian area. 

We recognize that your agency may be operating under a different administrative definition of riparian areas, but ask you to consider the ecological definition below as riparian areas may extend beyond 

administrative boundaries. For wetlands, we use the classification developed by Cowardin and others 

(1979; USACOE 1987). 

Riparian and Wetland Definitions

A riparian area is a three-dimensional area of direct physical and biotic interactions between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; the riparian area extends laterally from the active stream channel to include 

the limits of flooding and upward into the canopy of streamside vegetation (Gregory at al. 1991). 

Wetlands may be isolated or occur as part of a riparian area. Wetlands are areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface or ground water (hydrology) at a frequency and duration sufficient to support 

hydrophytic vegetation adapted to saturated soil conditions (hydric soils). Wetlands must have one or 

more of the following attributes: (l) the wetland supports hydrophytic vegetation, (2) the substrates are 

primarily hydric soils, and (3) the substrate is saturated or covered by shallow water during all or part 

of the growing season (Cowardin and others 1979).

1.1 Please enter the information for your work location and position in the spaces provided below.

State: __________________________________________________________________

Agency (USFS, NPS, BLM, USFWS, etc.): __________________________________

Administrative unit (National Forest Ranger District, National Park, National Park Group [list parks in group], 

National Park District, BLM District Office/Field Office):

________________________________________________________________________

Your name: ____________________________________________________________

Your position: _________________________________________________________

Number of years in current position: _______________________________________
140 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Number of fuels management projects personally involved in planning: _________

1.2 Under your forest / fire management plan, are prescribed fires permitted to backburn into riparian or wetland areas? Check one box.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Not specified / not sure

1.3 Under your forest / fire management plan, are fires designated as “Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit” 

permitted to burn into riparian or wetland areas? Check one box.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Not specified / not sure

1.4 During what months of the year are fires most likely to ignite and spread naturally in your administrative 

unit? Check all months that apply.

□ January

□ February

□ March

□ April

□ May

□ June

□ July

□ August

□ September

□ October

□ November

□ December

Section 2: Project Information (Page 1)

In this section, we ask if you have completed fuels projects in riparian areas and / or wetlands. If so, we 

ask for detailed background information on the project that you selected for this survey. If not, you will 

be automatically directed to another section.

2.1 In the past ten years, have you been involved in any fuels treatment projects in riparian areas or wetlands 

that were completed in the administrative unit where you currently work? Also include projects that extended into riparian or wetland areas. Check one box.

□ Yes (proceed to question 2.2 on page 4 below)

□ No (skip to question 2.1, under “if no”, on page 22)

□ Not sure (skip to question 2.1, under “if no”, on page 22)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 141

Section 2: Project Information (Page 2)

2.2 How many projects in riparian / wetland areas have you completed in the last 10 years? Check one box.

□ One project completed 

□ Two projects completed 

□ Three projects completed 

□ More than three projects completed

Section 2: Project Information (Page 3)

Please select the most recent fuels project or the fuels project completed in your administrative unit that contained the largest riparian / wetland component. You will need detailed information on the selected project, including the project name, project objectives, treatments used and timing of treatment implementations, size and 

dimensions of the project area, other agencies involved in the project, project monitoring activities and reports, 

and the general physical and biological characteristics of the project area. 

Definitions

The Wildland Urban Interface is defined as areas where human habitation and development meet or intermix 

with undeveloped wildland vegetation and fuels 

2.3 Provide the project name, the year the project was completed, and list other collaborators, if any, in the 

appropriate boxes below.

Project name ____________________________________________________

Year project was completed ________________________________________

Other agencies involved (list agencies or type “none” if no other agencies were involved ___________

____________________________________________

2.4 For this project, please rate the importance of the objectives listed below. Note: you will be asked to provide ratings of how effective the project was at meeting the project objectives at a later point in this survey, 

so it will be helpful to keep track of your responses to this question. Check one box for each objective.

Project objectives Primary 

Objective

Secondary 

Objective

Tertiary 

Objective

Not a priority / 

Not Applicable

Hazardous fuels 

reduction □ □ □ □

Restore historical 

fire regime □ □ □ □

Habitat restoration / 

enhancement □ □ □ □

Invasive / noxious 

plant species □ □ □ □

Protection of values 

at risk □ □ □ □

Other □ □ □ □

If objectives were “other”, please list the objectives in the space provided below.

______________________________________________________________________
142 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 2.5 Complete the table below by identifying the treatments that were used in the project. Select the starting and ending month within each year for when the majority of the treatment was implemented to indicate the season that the treatment took place. Also, select the year that the treatment was initiated and the year that the treatment was completed. Only complete the rows for the treatments that were used. Treatment Treatment used? Start month End month Year treatment was initiated Year treatment was completed Prescribed fire Y/N in pull-down menu List of 12 months will be in a pull-down menu List of 12 months will be in a pull-down menu List of years will be in a pull-down menu (1998- 2010) List of years will be in a pull-down menu (1998- 2010) Mechanical Thinning (us- ing chainsaws and crews) Mechanical Thinning (us- ing heavy equipment) Lopping and pruning Pile burning Mastication Other If “other” treatments were used, please list those treatments in the space provided below. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 143

2.6 Please indicate if the entire project was specific to the riparian/wetland area, or if the riparian / wetland 

portion was part of a larger upland project. Check one box.

□ Specific to riparian area

□ Took place in riparian as a portion of a larger upland project

2.7 Was any part of the project in the Wildland Urban Interface? Check one box.

□ Part or all of the project was in the Wildland Urban Interface

□ No part of the project was in the Wildland Urban Interface

□ Not sure

2.8 Using your best estimate, please fill in the information about the size and dimensions of the project in the 

spaces provided below. Note: you can only enter positive whole numbers in the space provided. Do not 

use commas, decimals, text, fractions, etc.

Overall project size (acres) ________________________________

Size of area within riparian / wetland area ________________________________

(acres)

Estimated length of riparian / wetland area ________________________________

being treated (meters)

Estimated average width of riparian/wetland ________________________________

area being treated (meters)

2.9 What are the approximate Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates (UTMs) for your project area? 

Note: If you do not know the UTMs for the project area, write unknown in the spaces provided. 

Zone ________________________________

Easting ________________________________

Northing ________________________________
144 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Section 3: Features of the Project Area (Page 1)

Each administrative unit or project area has unique physical and biological characteristics that can influence fire occurrence and behavior. These characteristics may also determine the need for an area to be 

treated, depending on management objectives. In this section, we request information on the physical 

and biological features of the area that was treated by the fuels project. Use the definitions below to 

assist with the questions in this section.

Definitions

Freshwater wetlands and deepwater habitats can be classified into three general types . Riverine Habitats include wetlands associated with stream or river channels Lacustrine Habitats include wetlands 

that are situated in topographic depressions, dammed river channels, or are associated with lakes. Palustrine Habitats include wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs and persistent emergents, such as swamps 

and marshes (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). 

Stream order is a simple classification of the position of a stream within the hierarchy of a drainage 

network. Each order is a numeric assignment; first order streams are unbranched headwaters; a second 

order stream is formed at the junction of any two first-order streams; third order by the junction of any 

two second-order streams (Strahler 1952). 

Channel slope is the up-valley slope (in percent slope) of a stream reach or segment. 

Drainage area (also referred to as watershed area or catchment area) includes all of the upstream land 

and water surface area that drains to a specific location on a stream (Gordon et al. 2008).

The Rosgen Classification System is a widely-used method for classifying streams and rivers based on 

common patterns of channel morphology (Rosgen 1996).

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is an approach for estimating the relative degree of departure 

from reference or historic conditions of an ecosystem or landscape. The classes are FRCC 1 (low [<33 

percent] departure from reference conditions); FRCC2 (moderate [33 to 66 percent] departure from 

reference conditions); or FRCC3 (high [>66 percent] departure from reference conditions) (Hann and 

others 2004).

3.1 In what elevation range was the project located? Check one box.

□ 0 to 900 meters (0 to 3,000 feet)

□ 900 to 1,800 meters (3,000 to 6,000 feet)

□ 1,800 to 2,700 meters (6,000 to 9,000 feet)

□ Greater than 2,700 meters (9,000 feet)

3.2 Please select the predominant wetland habitat classification for the riparian / wetland area where the project was conducted. Check one box.

□ Riverine Habitat (streams, rivers)

□ Lacustrine Habitat (lakes, ponds)

□ Palustrine Habitat (wetlands, marshes)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 145

3.3 Please rate the presence of vegetation types within the riparian / wetland area treated at the time the project 

was implemented. Check one box for each vegetation type.

 

Not present Occasionally 

Present Subdominant Dominant

Willows / riparian shrubs □ □ □ □

Cottonwood / hardwood 

forests □ □ □ □

Coniferous forests □ □ □ □

Upland Shrub / Woodland □ □ □ □

Meadow □ □ □ □

Other □ □ □ □

3.4 Please indicate the stream orders that were included in the project area. Check all that apply. 

□ 1st Order 

□ 2nd Order 

□ 3rd Order

□ 4th Order 

□ Not sure / not applicable

3.5 What is the estimate of the predominant channel slope within the project area? Check all that apply.

□ Less than 1 percent

□ 1 to 2 percent

□ 2 to 4 percent

□ 4 to 8 percent

□ Greater than 8 percent

□ Not sure / not applicable

3.6 Please indicate the approximate drainage area for the watershed in which the project was conducted. 

Check one box.

□ Less than 1 km2 (0.5 mi2)

□ 1 to 10 km2 (0.5 to 5 mi2)

□ 10 to 50 km2 (5 to 20 mi2)
146 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

□ 50 to 100 km2 (20 to 40 mi2)

□ 100 to 500 km2 (40 to 190 mi2)

□ Greater than 500 km2 (190 mi2)

□ Not sure / not applicable

3.7 Within the project boundaries, what were the most prevalent stream types using the Rosgen Classification 

System? Check all that apply.

□ A channel (cascade to step-pool)

□ B channel (plane bed)

□ C channel (pool-riffle)

□ D channel (braided or bar-braided)

□ E channel (consistent series of pool-riffle reaches)

□ F channel (meandering, moderated pool-riffle sequence)

□ G channel (entrenched, narrow, and deep step-pool)

□ Not sure / not applicable

3.8 For the stream channels within the project area, what is the predominant grain (particle) size in the channel? 

Check all that apply.

□ Boulder

□ Cobble

□ Cobble-gravel

□ Gravel

□ Gravel-sand

□ Sand

□ Fines

□ Not sure / not applicable

3.9 For the streams within the project area, what is the degree of channel constraint? Check all that apply.

□ Highly constrained (cannot move laterally)

□ Moderately constrained (limited horizontal restriction)

□ Wide valley bottom (channel free to move laterally)

□ Not sure / not applicable
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 147

3.10 Within the project area, rate the presence of vegetation types of the surrounding uplands at the time 

the project was implemented. Check one box for each vegetation type.

Not present Occasionally 

Present Subdominant Dominant

Ponderosa Pine □ □ □ □

Lodgepole Pine □ □ □ □

Spruce/fir □ □ □ □

Mixed Conifer □ □ □ □

Piñon-Juniper / Woodland / 

Shrubland □ □ □ □

Shrub Steppe □ □ □ □

Grassland □ □ □ □

Other □ □ □ □

3.11 Are Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCCs) applicable to the riparian or wetland areas within your 

project area? Check one box.

□ Yes (continue to question 3.12 on page 13 below)

□ No (go to question 3.13 on page 14)

□ Not sure (go to question 3.13 on page 14)

Section 3: Features of the Project Area (Page 2)

3.12 What was the FRCC of the riparian / wetland areas in the project area at the time it was implemented? Check one box.

□ FRCC 1 (low [<33 percent] departure from reference conditions)

□ FRCC 2 (moderate [33 to 66 percent] departure from reference conditions)

□ FRCC 3 (high [>66 percent] departure from reference conditions)

□ Not sure

Section 3: Features of the Project Area (Page 3)

3.13 Select the FRCC applicable to the surrounding uplands at the time the project was implemented. 

Check one box.

□ FRCC 1 (low [<33 percent] departure from reference conditions)

□ FRCC 2 (moderate [33 to 66 percent] departure from reference conditions)

□ FRCC 3 (high [>66 percent] departure from reference conditions)

□ Not sure
148 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

3.14 Were invasive/noxious plant species prevalent in riparian / wetland habitats within the project area at 

the time of project implementation? Check one box.

□ Yes 

□ No

□ Not sure

3.15 Were invasive/noxious plant species prevalent in uplands within the project area at the time of project 

implementation? Check one box.

□ Yes 

□ No

□ Not sure

3.16 Were insects and disease prevalent in riparian / wetland habitats within the project area at the time of 

project implementation? Check one box.

□ Yes 

□ No

□ Not sure

3.17 Were insects and disease prevalent within uplands within the project area at the time of project implementation? Check one box.

□ Yes 

□ No

□ Not sure

Section 4: Monitoring (Page 1)

Monitoring is frequently used by land managers to determine the condition of riparian / wetland resources, to track trends in response to management, and to determine if projects are meeting objectives. 

In this section, we ask if and what types of monitoring have taken place, including ongoing monitoring 

not related to a fuels project and monitoring to track the effectiveness of the fuels project.

4.1 Following project implementation, did you monitor the project’s effectiveness at meeting management 

objectives in riparian or wetland areas (using either visual or quantitative sampling methods)? Check only 

one box.

□ Yes (continue to question 4.2 on page 16 below)

□ No (Skip to question 4.3 on page 17)

□ Not sure (Skip to question 4.3 on page 17)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 149 Section 4: Monitoring (Page 2) 4.1 Please complete the table below to indicate the ecological components that were / are being monitored to track the effectiveness of the fuels manage- ment project. Select all that apply and complete the information in the table for each component that applies. Only complete the rows for components being monitored. Ecological component Monitored? Monitoring methods Protocols and / or sampling design? Duration of monitoring Frequency of monitoring Pre- and post- data collected? water quality and / or quantity Pull-down menu Y/N Pull-down menu list methods Pull-down menu Y/N Pull-down menu years (< 1month, 1-2 months, Pull-down menu years or months Pull-down menu Erosion / runoff (Visual / rapid assess- ment, Photopoints, Sample collection, Data collection from 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 years,...10 years, between monitoring (< 1/month, every month, Pre- and post- treat- ment, Post- treamtment stream biota (fish, amphibians, macroinvertebrates) transects/points/plots/ sediment fences, Measurements from instruments or sensors More than 10 years) Every 6 months, Annually, only, or Pre- treatment only? vegetation Other) Every 2 years) fuel types and loads terrestrial wildlife otherPlease describe any “other” selections in this table. Note: if your administrative unit uses existing monitoring protocols such as PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion Monitoring (PIBO), Multiple Indicators Monitoring (MIM), or Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). _______________________ _________________________________________________________________
150 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Section 4: Monitoring (Page 3)

4.2 How effective was the project at meeting the project objectives? The response to this question should relate 

back to the management objectives you selected in question 2.4 in Section 2 of this survey. Check one box

for each objective. 

Project 

objectives

Not at all 

effective

Somewhat 

ineffective

Don’t 

know or 

unsure

Somewhat 

effective

Very 

effective

Not 

applicable

Hazardous fuels 

reduction □ □ □ □ □ □

Restore historical 

fire regime □ □ □ □ □ □

Habitat 

restoration / 

enhancement

□ □ □ □ □ □

Invasive / 

noxious plant 

species

□ □ □ □ □ □

Protection of 

values at risk □ □ □ □ □ □

Other □ □ □ □ □ □

Section 4: Monitoring (Page 4)

Apart from monitoring that is specifically for fuels projects, we are also interested in ongoing monitoring taking 

place in riparian / wetland areas in your administrative unit (for example, monitoring that is part of an inventory and monitoring program).

4.3 Is ongoing monitoring, not associated with fuels projects, being conducted in any riparian or wetland areas 

within your administrative unit? Check only one box.

□ Yes (continue to question 4.5 on page 19 below)

□ No (Skip to question 5.1 under Section 5 on page 20)

□ Not sure (Skip to question 5.1 under Section 5 on page 20)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 151 Section 4: Monitoring (Page 5) 4.1 For the monitoring that is not associated with fuels projects, please complete the table below. Select all that apply and complete the information in the table for each ecological component that applies. Only complete the rows for components being monitored. Ecological component Monitored? Monitoring methods Protocols and / or sampling design? Duration of monitoring Frequency of monitoring water quality and / or quantity Pull-down menu Y/N Pull-down menu list methods Pull-down menu Y/N Pull-down menu years (> 1 month, 1-2 months, Pull-down menu years or months Erosion / runoff (Visual / rapid assessment, Photopoints, Sample collec- tion, Data collection from 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 years,...10 years, between monitoring (< 1/month, every month, stream biota (fish, amphibians, macroinvertebrates) transects/points/plots/sedi- ment fences, Measurements from instruments or sensors More than 10 years) Every 6 months, Annually, vegetation other) Every 2 years) fuel types and loads terrestrial wildlife otherPlease describe any “other” selections in this table. Note: if your administrative unit uses existing monitoring protocols such as PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion Monitoring (PIBO), Multiple Indicators Monitoring (MIM), or Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
152 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Section 5: Proposed Projects (Page 1)

You may also have projects that are being proposed, in the planning process, or being implemented at 

the current time. In this section, we ask if other projects are in process and if there are constraints or 

concerns that inhibit your ability to conduct treatments in riparian or wetland areas.

5.1 Are any riparian or wetland fuels treatments other than the project described above, being proposed or in 

process within your administrative unit? Check only one box.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

5.2 How many projects are proposed or in process in riparian areas and / or wetlands? Check one box.

□ One project 

□ Two projects 

□ Three projects 

□ More than three projects 

5.3 What are the constraints/concerns for conducting treatments in riparian / wetland areas in the administrative 

unit where you work? Check all that apply from the list below.

□ Potential litigation

□ Threatened / endangered or sensitive species

□ Cultural resources

□ Administrative policies

□ Limited / lack of line officer support

□ Limited / lack of agreement among resource specialists and/or FMOs

□ Other

□ N/A

“Other” (please specify)

__________________________________________________________________
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 153

Section 5: Proposed Projects (Page 2)

We would like to know what your experiences have been. If you have recommendations on fuels treatments in 

riparian or wetland areas please complete the question below. 

5.4 Please use the space below if you have any recommendations for techniques that were highly effective or 

not effective.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Section 5: Future Monitoring (Page 1)

The following question is in regards to monitoring the effects of future riparian / wetland projects.

5.1 Do you plan to monitor the effectiveness of proposed fuels projects in relation to management objectives 

in riparian / wetland areas (using either visual or quantitative sampling methods)? Check only one box.

□ Yes (continue to question 5.2 on page 32)

□ No (Skip to question 5.3 on page 33)

□ Not sure (Skip to question 5.3 on page 33)

Section 5: Future Monitoring (Page 2) The following question is in regards to monitoring the effects of 

future projects.

5.2 Please complete the table below to indicate the ecological components that will be monitored when future 

projects are implemented. Select all that apply and complete the information in the table for each component that applies. Only complete the rows for components that will be monitored.

Ecological component Monitored? Monitoring 

methods 

Protocols 

and / or 

sampling 

design?

Duration 

of monitoring 

Frequency of 

monitoring 

Pre- and postdata collected?

water quality and / 

or quantity 

Pull-down 

menu Y/N

Pull-down menu 

list methods 

Pull-down 

menu Y/N

Pull-down 

menu 

years (< 1 

month, 1-2 

months, 

Pull-down 

menu years or 

months 

Pull-down menu 
154 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Erosion / runoff

(Visual / rapid 

assessment, Photopoints, Sample 

collection, Data 

collection from 

3-6 

months, 

1 year, 2 

years,...10 

years, 

between 

monitoring (< 

1/month, every 

month, 

Pre- and posttreatment, 

Post-treatment 

only, or Pretreamtment

stream biota 

(fish, amphibians,

macroinvertebrates)

transects/points/

plots/sediment 

fences, Measurements from instruments or sensors 

More than 

10 years)

Every 6 

months, Annually, only?

vegetation Other) Every 2 years)

fuel types and 

loads

terrestrial wildlife

other

Please describe any “other” selections in this table. Note: if your administrative unit uses existing monitoring 

protocols such as PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion Monitoring (PIBO), Multiple Indicators Monitoring 

(MIM), or Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). __________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Section 5: Future Monitoring (Page 3)

The following question is in regards to ongoing riparian / wetland monitoring in your administrative unit.

5.3 Is ongoing monitoring, not associated with fuels projects, being conducted in any riparian or wetland areas 

within your administrative unit? Check only one box.

□ Yes (continue to question 5.4 on page 34)

□ No (Skip to end of the survey on page 35)

□ Not sure (Skip to end of the survey on page 35)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 155

Section 5: Future Monitoring (Page 4)

The following question is in regards to ongoing riparian / wetland monitoring in your administrative unit.

5.4 For monitoring that is not associated with fuels projects, please complete the table below. Select all that 

apply and complete the information in the table for each ecological component that applies. Only complete 

the rows for components being monitored.

Ecological component Monitored? Monitoring 

methods 

Protocols 

and / or sampling design?

Duration 

of monitoring 

Frequency of monitoring 

water quality and / 

or quantity 

Pull-down 

menu Y/N

Pull-down 

menu list 

methods 

Pull-down 

menu Y/N

Pull-down 

menu 

years (< 1 

month, 1-2 

months, 

Pull-down menu years 

or months 

Erosion / runoff

(Visual / rapid 

assessment, 

Photopoints, 

Sample collection, Data 

collection 

from 

3-6 

months, 

1 year, 2 

years,...10 

years, 

between monitoring 

(> 1/month, every 

month, 

stream biota 

(fish, amphibians,

macroinvertebrates)

transects/

points/plots/

sediment fences, Measurements from 

instruments or 

sensors 

More than 

10 years)

Every 6 months, Annually, 

vegetation Other) Every 2 years)

fuel types and loads

terrestrial wildlife

other

Please describe any “other” selections in this table. Note: if your administrative unit uses existing monitoring protocols such as PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion Monitoring (PIBO), Multiple Indicators 

Monitoring (MIM), or Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________
156 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016.

Thank you!

Thank you for your time and willingness to participate in this survey! We greatly appreciate your feedback.

References

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the 

United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

103 p.

Gordon, N.D.; McMahion, T.A.; Finlayson, B.L.; Gippel, C.J.; Nathan, R.J. 2008. Stream hydrology: An introduction for 

ecologists. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Hann, W.; Shlisky, A.; Havlina, D.; Schon, K.; Barrett, S.; DeMeo, T.; Pohl, K.; Menakis, J.; Hamilton, D.; Jones, J.; 

Levesque, M.; Frame, C. 2004. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Updated January 2008: Version 

1.3.0. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Geological Service; The 

Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management. https://www.frames.gov/documents/frcc/documents/

FRCC+Guidebook_2008.10.30.pdf.

Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. 2007. Wetlands. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied river geomorphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology. 843 p.

Strahler, A.N. 1952. Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Bulletin of the Geologic Society of 

America. 63: 1117–1142.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Tech. Rep. Y-87-1. Vicksburg, 

MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. 100 p. and appendices. 
The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact 

the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or 

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program 

information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in 

the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint 

form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/
This is the spine 

text. Center text 

on spine.

Riparian Fuel Treatments in the Western USA: Challenges and Considerations RMRS-GTR-352