GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-80

JACK WARD THOMAS

CHRIS MASER

JON E.RODlEK

PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION

FOREST SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
This publication is part of the series

Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands -

The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon. The

purpose of the series is to provide a range

manager with the necessary information on

wildlife and its relationship to habitat conditions in managed rangelands in order that the

manager may make fully informed decisions.

The information in this series is specific to

the Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon and is

generally applicable to the shrub-steppe areas

of the Western United States. The principles

and processes described, however, are generally applicable to all managed rangelands. The

purpose of the series is to provide specific information for a particular area but in doing so

to develop a process for considering the

welfare of wildlife when range management

decisions are made.

The series is composed of 14 separate

publications designed to form a comprehensive

whole. Although each part will be an independent treatment of a specific subject, when

combined in sequence, the individual parts will

be as chapters in a book.

Individual parts will be printed as they

become available. In this way the information

will be more quickly available to potential

users. This means, however, that the sequence

of printing will not be in the same order as the

final organization of the separates into a comprehensive whole.

A list of the publications in the series, their

current availability, and their final organization is shown on the inside back cover of this

publication.

Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands

- The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon

is a cooperative effort of the USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station, and United States

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.
Introduction

Riparian zones can be identified by the

presence of vegetation that requires free or unbound water or conditions that are more moist

than normal (fig. 1) (Franklin and Dyrness

1973, Minore and Smith 1971). Riparian zones

can vary considerably in size and vegetative

complex because of the many combinations

that can be created between water sources

(fig. 2) and physical characteristics of a site.

Such characteristics include gradient, aspect,

topography, soil, type of stream bottom, water

quality, elevation, and plant community

(Odum 1971). All riparian zones within managed rangelands of the western United

States, however, have the following in common: (1) they create well-defined habitat

zones within the much drier surrounding

areas; (2) they make up a minor proportion

of the overall area; (3) they are generally

more productive in terms of biomass-plant

and animal-than the remainder of the area;

and (4) they are a critical source of diversity

within rangelands (fig. 3). Carothers (1977),

Carothers and Johnson (19751, and Curtis and

Ripley (1975) have prepared summary papers

on the subject of riparian habitats as

associated with both range and forest areas.

Sagebrush and grass

Deciduous trees

Shrubs -4

Sedges and rushes

-

Aquatic ;Zone Upland

v Zone -

Figure l.- Riparian zones are identified by the presence of vegetation that requires large

amounts of free or unbound water.
Ponds Seeps, Bogs, Meadows

STANDING WATER (Lentic) HABITATS

Rivers St reams Springs

RUNNING WATER ( Lotic) HABITATS

Figure 2.-The type of water source influences riparian vegetation (Odum 1971, p. 295).

IMPORTANCE OF RIPARIAN ZONES

Wildlife use riparian zones disproportionately more than any other type of habitat

(Beidleman 1948 and 1954, Rottorff 1974,

Dumas 1950, Gains 1977, Hinschberger 1978,

Hubbard 1977, Kelley et al. 1975, Kirby 1975,

and Wooding 1973). For example, of the 363

terrestrial species known to occur in the

Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon, 288 are

either directly dependent on riparian zones or

utilize them more than other habitats (fig. 4).

Many aquatic and semi-aquatic species are

found nowhere else. Among such species are

waterfowl and mammals, such as otter (Lutru

canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), and

muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus). Vertebrates

that either reproduce or feed in water are

totally dependent on riparian and adjacent

2
Figure 3.- Riparian zones are a critical source of diversity on western managed

rangelands. Note the beaver (Castor canadensis) lodge in the upper right of

the picture. (Robert R. Kindschy photograph).

aquatic zones. Of course, the water in these

zones is the habitat for aquatic life formsfrom invertebrates to fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. In short,

riparian zones are the most critical wildlife

habitats in managed rangelands.

Riparian zones in managed rangelands are

also disproportionately important for other

uses (fig. 5). Stream margins frequently contain highly productive forage sites. Cattle use

the vegetation in riparian areas more heavily

than that in other areas (Ames 1977, Kennedy

1977) because they concentrate in riparian

areas to drink. The relative gentle topography,

particularly in areas of otherwise rugged

topography, makes riparian zones attractive

for road locations. Streams, rivers, and their

banks are also handy sources of rock and

gravel for building roads. Mining has and does

have direct and indirect impacts on riparian

zones (Hill 1974) (fig. 6). Recreationists concenFigure 4.-Wildlife uses riparian zones

disproportionately more than any other

habitat type. (Robert R. Kindschy

photograph).

3
Figure 5.- Riparian zones are disproportionately important to many uses which

makes them the most critical zones for multiple-use planning.

trate their use in such areas (Nash 1977). In

addition, scenic values are often high. The

water in such zones, particularly on dry

western ranges, is critical to man’s use, and

rangelands are second only to cultivated lands

as a source of water quality problems (Satterlund 1975). As a result, riparian zones are

the most critical zones for multiple-use planning (Countess et al. 1977, Fox 1977, Lewis

and Marsh 1977, Likens and Bormann

1974, Tuinstra 1967).

There are many reasons why riparian zones

are so important to wildlife. Not all of these

can be attributed to every riparian zone. Each

combination of water source, site attributes,

and management objectives must be considered separately by range managers. Some

of these reasons are discussed below:

1. The presence of water lends importance

to the zone. Wildlife habitat is composed of

food, cover, and water. All riparian zones offer

water, one of the critical habitat components,

and some offer all three.

2. The greater availability of water to

plants, frequently in combination with deeper

soils, increases plant biomass production and

provides a suitable site for plants that are

limited elsewhere by inadequate water

4
Figure 6.--Mining activity has been frequently located in or adjacent to riparian

zones causing severe disturbance. (Robert R. Kindschy photograph).

(Minore 1970, Minore and Smith 1971). In combination, these factors frequently lead to

increased diversity of plant species and structural diversity in the community. Much of the

diversity in species composition is accounted

for by the presence of plants particularly

adapted to wet or moist conditions, particularly those provided by surface as opposed to

ground water (Campbell and Green 1968, Horton 1972, Maximov 1931). In the management

sense, this means that riparian zones generally

have a high rate of recovery or successional advancement of the vegetation when afforded

proper conditions by protection or appropriate

management.

3. The dramatic contrasts of the plant

complex of the riparian zone with the general

surrounding upland range vegetation adds to

the structural diversity of the area (Jain 1976).

For example, open wet meadows or groves of

deciduous trees around seeps provide edges

with stark contrast when they, in turn, are

surrounded by relatively drier grasslands

or shrublands. Moreover, those riparian zones

dominated by deciduous vegetation provide

one type of habitat during the summer when in

full-leaf and another type of habitat during the

winter following leaf-fall (Anderson and

Ohmart 1977).

4. The shape of many riparian zones, particularly the linear nature of streams, maximizes the development of edge which is so productive of wildife (Bottorff 1974, Patton 1975).

in those cases where streams flow through

canyons, the canyon walls combine with the

riparian zone to provide a unique habitat complex (fig. 7).

5. Riparian zones in rangelands frequently

produce more edges within a small area than

would be expected elsewhere (fig. 8). In addition, there are many vegetative strata exposed

in stair-step fashion (fig. 8). This stair stepping

of vegetation of contrasting form (deciduous

vs. coniferous; shrubs vs. trees) provides

diverse nesting and feeding opportunities for

wildlife-especially birds and bats. The association of particular birds with distinct layers

of vegetation has been repeatedly demonstrated (Dambach 1944, Lack 1933, MacArthur et al. 1962, Preston and Norris 1947,

Thomas et al. 1977). In addition, birds have

been shown to select between coniferous and

deciduous vegetative volumes in distinct

strata (DeGraaf 1976 and Thomas 19731.

5
Figure 7.-Where streams run through steep canyons, the cliff faces and the

riparian zones combine to form a unique habitat unit. (Bureau of Land

Management photograph).

VEGETATIVE STRATA

4

i ‘2 ‘3 .4 5

EDGES

Figure 8.- Riparian zones frequently have a high number of edges and strata in a

comparatively small area. This produces habitat for a greater number of species,

reflecting the diversity of plant species and community structure.

6
Spring-Fall Range

Winter Range L- -+I&

/-.; ----/.y \

ru

6. The microclimate of riparian zones is

different from that of the surrounding

rangelands due to increased humidity, a higher

rate of transpiration, more shade, and increased air movement. Some wildlife species

are attracted to this microclimate. Mule deer

(Odocoileus hemionus) spend a disproportionate amount of time in such areas due to the

presence of cover that helps to maintain

homeostasis or a condition where energy expenditure is minimized (see Thomas et al.

1979b for a review of this concept). The attraction of deer, elk, and other wild and

domestic ungulates to these areas is caused

by the abundance of thermal cover and the

microclimate produced by that vegetation.

7. Riparian zones along intermittent and

permanent streams and rivers provide migration routes for wildlife, such as birds, bats,

deer, and elk (Stevens et al. 1977, Wauer 1977).

In the case of deer and elk, such areas are frequently used as travel corridors between high

elevation summer ranges and low elevation

winter ranges (fig. 9).

8. Riparian zones, particularly along rivers

and streams, may serve as forested connectors

_ -7% -:.-.,

-

between habitats.

Figure 9.-Riparian

zones along rivers and

streams are frequently

used as migration routes

by wildlife. A migration

corridor used by mule

deer (Odocoileus

hemionus) between

summer range at high

elevation and winter

range at low elevation

is illustrated.

Wildlife may use such

riparian zones for cover while traveling across

otherwise open areas. Some species, especially

small mammals and birds may use such routes

in dispersal from their original habitats caused

by population pressure or food, water, or other

shortage. The riparian zones provide cover and

often provide food and water during such

movements (fig. 10).

SENSITIVITY TO DISTURBANCE

Riparian zones occupy relatively small

areas and should be considered vulnerable to

severe alteration. Because of the distinct

vegetative community and the structure of

riparian zones, they must also be considered

fragile. The more mature the vegetative complex of the riparian zone, the more apt it is to

assume distinct edges and strata that intensify

edge-effect and increase diversity. This mature

condition is sensitive to management activities

that occur within the riparian zone itself or on

the surrounding rangeland (fig. 111.

The sensitivity of the vegetatively mature

riparian zone as wildlife habitat can also be

attributed to its distinct microclimate. Such

7
p __ ~ Subalpine fir g(. *:

I],::,- Mountain grassland *,:

cl Mixed conifer

~

Ponderosa pine

IJL] Sagebrush Jc “-(

_,, c

Figure lO.- Riparian zones along rivers and streams serve as connectors oeIween

habitat types; they provide cover, food, and water as the animals move from one

location to another.

8
Figure ll.- Riparian zones must be considered as “delicate” due to the combination of restricted area, distinct microclimate, vegetative structure and composition, and water quantity and quality.

Distinct structure

sensitivity includes both the terrestrial portions of the riparian zone and the characteristics of water quality (including temperature) of the associated aquatic zone

(Boussu 1954, Gunderson 1968, Tuinstra

1967). Changes in the canopy cover can alter

these characteristics markedly (Brown et al.

1971, Brown and Krygier 1967, Collings and

Myrick 1966, Cordone and Kelley 1961,

Meehan 1970). For example, an increase of a

few degrees in water temperature may eliminate a stream as a trout fishery.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Riparian zones are so different from one

another that generalized animal-to-habitat

relationships are difficult to develop for these

areas. To do a good management job with such

areas, one must derive a specific set of relationships for each particular case. Rangeland

managers should consult both fishery and

wildlife biologists when management activities are planned within the riparian zone. The

following considerations can be helpful:

9
1. Road construction in riparian zones will

lessen the effectiveness of the zone as habitat

for many wildlife species (fig. 12). This results

from both the alteration in the vegetative complex and in the increased disturbance from

traffic along the road. Increased sedimentation

from road construction may be detrimental to

water quality and hence to aquatic life. Many

streams in managed rangelands are already

paralleled by roads. Each time a new streamside road is considered, managers need to

determine how much riparian habitat will be

seriously impaired by such roads. This can be

done by comparing the percent of streams with

roads alongside of them with the percent of

streams without roads. Road construction

probably has a more critical and long-lasting

impact on riparian zones than any other

management activity.

2. The narrower the riparian zone the more

easily it is altered by management action.

3. Construceion of campgrounds in riparian zones enhances the opportunity for

human-wildlife contacts but simultaneously

decreases effectiveness of the riparian zone

as wildlife habitat due to the disturbance

by humans, trampling, soil erosion, compaction, and loss of vegetation (Aitchison 1977,

Aitchison et al. 1977, Settergren 1977).

4. Improper grazing practices in riparian

zones can reduce water quality, eliminate

streamside shrubs, cause soil compaction,

acceiera te erosion, and breakdown streambanks (Ames 1977, Buckhouse and Gifford

1976, Coltharp and Darling 1973, Diesch 1970,

Marcuson 1977, Winegar 1975). Proper grazing management should include particular

attention to insuring the welfare of riparian

zones.

If livestock grazing is to take place in a

riparian zone, the environmental impact on the

zone should be carefully evaluated. The

heavier the grazing and the more prolonged

the grazing period the more severe will be the

impacts (fig. 13). The environmental impacts of

grazing in such zones may be magnified beROADS IN RIPARIAN ZONES

1.

$1

4.

Destroy habitat

Alter microclimate

Introduce disturbance

Impact water quality

Figure 12.- Road construction in riparian zones reduces their usefulness as

wildlife habitat. Roads in riparian zones: (1) alter vegetative structure, (2) alter

microclimate, (3) reduce the size of riparian zones, (4) disturb the wildlife, (5) impact water quality in the aquatic zone, and (6) destroy the wildlife habitat.

10
Figure 13.-When livestock are grazed in riparian zones, consideration of

environmental impact is even more important than usual.

cause of the sensitivity of the microclimate and

water temperature to increases in solar radiation reaching the ground or water surface.

Some erosion disturbances are multiplied by

proximity to the riparian zone. The key to

prevention of surface erosion is the prevention

or lessening of overland flow which is related

to infiltration of precipitation. Infiltration may

be enhanced by the maintenance of plant cover,

both alive and dead. Under excessive grazing,

livestock not only remove protective ground

cover but also compact the soil, both of which

accelerate erosion (Dambach 1944, Satterlund

1975).

Springs and seeps are often associated with

relatively small, wet meadows. These

meadows are critical to the existence of

animals such as the montane vole (Microtus

montalzus) which, in turn, is food for many

other vertebrates. Satterlund (1975, p. 24)

observed:

Meadows along stream channels

are likely to be among the most

productive parts of the range [in terms

of livestock forage] because of the

greater amount of water available for

plant growth. Further, this same

11
moistness makes them more susceptible to compaction. And finally,

most animals [livestock] prefer to

stay near available water, so this

area receives the greatest impact of

animal use. Therefore, these areas

are key considerations in the prevention of erosion.

Development of seeps and springs for

livestock (collecting the water into tanks and

troughs) usually lessens the habitat value for

wildlife (Heady and Bartolome 1977, USDA

Soil Conservation Service 1967). When

developing seeps and springs, one can increase

values to wildlife by fencing the meadow surrounding a spring or seep to exclude livestock

and piping the necessary water outside of the

exclosure into troughs or other storage facilities (fig. 14). Small, wet meadows can also be

created by piping overflow water from livestock troughs into fenced areas thereby

creating and maintaining such meadows. A

combination of the above techniques will provide the greatest area of “wet” habitat and,

therefore, the greatest production of these

rare and highly productive wildlife habitats.

5. Location of water impoundments are

important if maximum benefits to wildlife are

to be realized. Some areas which potentially

receive the heaviest animal use are mature and

decadent stands of western jumper (Juniperus

occidentalis) and curlieaf mountain-mahogany

(Cercocarpus ledifolius), cliffs, and edges between plant communities or structural conditions within plant communities (Maser et al.

1979, Maser and Gashwiler 1978, Thomas et

al. 1978, Thomas et al. 1979c). Where water is

a limiting factor, wildlife habitat may be

created or enhanced by proper placement and

design of water impoundments.

6. Although man-caused debris should be

removed, a water source should not be “overcleaned.” Leave moderate amounts of stable

debris intact since it serves as critical, small

habitats-usually for reproduction of small

animals.

7. Recreational use per unit area of the

riparian zone is many times that of other

vegetative types (Heberlein 197’7, Lewis and

Marsh 1977, USDA Forest Service 1977). The

impact of such use on wildlife varies with the

season and type, intensity, and duration of use

(Kuska 1977, Pfister 1977). Construction of

trails, picnic tables, and docks encourages

recreational use and increases the potential for

conflicts with wildlife welfare.

8. Range management activities that take

place outside the riparian zone may have impact on the riparian zone itself by changing the

quantity and quality of water entering and inFigure 14. -Wildlife habitat can be maintained and/or enhanced by fencing a meadow surrounding a spring or seep to exclude livestock. The necessary water can then be piped

outside of the exclosure into troughs, and by piping overflow water from livestock troughs

into fenced areas, small, wet meadows can be created and maintained.

12
fluencing the riparian zones (Buckhouse 1975,

Environmental Protection Agency 1976). Of

the many factors that influence the amount of

surface erosion and subsequent water quality,

some can be controlled through management

action, and the most important action is the

maintenance of appropriate vegetative cover

and soil conditions (Satterlund 1975). These influences may involve changes in suspended

solids, nutrients, electrical conductance, and

minerals as well as water temperature and

water volume (Hibbert et al. 1974, 1975,

Sharpe 1975). Leopold (1941, p. 17) put it

this way: “Soil and water are not two

organic systems, but one. Both are organs

of a single landscape; a derangement in

either affects the health of both....”

9. Any grazing management scheme that

is instituted with the idea of preserving,

enhancing, or reestablishing woody vegetation along streamsides or other riparian zones

must consider the physiology of these plants

and their response to grazing. Standard

grazing sys terns, such as continuous rest

rotation or deferred rotation (Heady 1975)‘

in various forms, have generally been developed considering only the production

and maintenance of forage plants-primarily

grasses and forbs. It is likely that the application of such systems to maintain woody

streamside vegetation and streambank integrity will not be satisfactory until the

physiology of shrubs and trees is given consideration equal to forage plants.

Information on how grazing systems may

be used to accomplish such goals as maintenance of woody streambank vegetation and

the prevention of bank crumbling and soil compaction is only now being derived by experience and research. It is likely that special

systems may have to be instituted, such as six

or more pastures in the rotation grazing

systems (compared to the presently standard

two to five pastures) or complete protection for

some period coupled with restricted grazing

after satisfactory conditions are achieved.

“Business as usual” has resulted in

deterioration of many riparian wildlife and fish

habitats. New approaches to grazing management in riparian zones may be required to

restore or maintain the fish and wildlife

habitat values of this most critical zone.

A “RED FLAG” FOR RIPARIAN ZONES

The riparian zone is the most important

wildlife habitat type in the managed rangelands. It is also the area of maximum potential

conflict between users of timber, grazing,

recreation, water, and wildlife resources.

Riparian zones are usually quite sensitive to

management activities and should be cautiously managed (Beschta 1978). As each

riparian zone is somewhat different, the land

manager should consult a wildlife biologist and

a fishery biologist during the planning process

if fish and wildlife welfare are objectives of

management. The purpose of this chapter has

been to raise a “red flag” where riparian zones

are concerned. Habitat alterations will affect

wildlife far more than indicated by the proportion of the total area disturbed.

13
Literature Cited

Aitchison, Stewart W.

1977. Some effects of a campground on

breeding birds in Arizona. In Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. R. Roy Johnson and Dale A.

Jones (Tech. Coordinators). USDA For.

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43, p. 175-

182. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Aitchison, Stewart W., Steven W. Carothers,

and R. Roy Johnson.

1977. Some ecological considerations associated with river recreation management. In Proceedings, River Recreation

Management and Research Symposium.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC28, p. 222-225. North Cent. For. Exp.

Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Ames, Charles R.

1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian management: Grazing. In Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian

Habitat: A Symposium. R. Roy Johnson and Dale A. Jones (Tech. Coordinators). USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RM-43, p. 49-51. Rocky Mt. For.

and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Anderson, Bertin W., and Robert D. Ohmart.

1977. Vegetation structure and bird use in

the lower Colorado River Valley. In Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. R. Roy Johnson and Dale A.

Jones (Tech. Coordinators). USDA For.

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43, p. 23-24.

Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn.,

Fort Collins, Colo.

Beidleman, R. G.

1948. The vertebrate ecology of a Colorado

cottonwood river bottom. M.S. thesis.

Univ. Colo., Boulder. 351 p.

Beidleman, R. G.

1954. The cottonwood river-bottom community as a vertebrate habitat. Ph.D.

thesis. Univ. Colo., Boulder. 358 p.

Beschta, Robert L.

1978. Inventorying small streams and

channels on wildland watersheds. In

Integrated Inventories of Renewable

Natural Resources: Proceedings of the

Workshop. H. Gyde Lund, Vernon J.

LaBau, Peter F. Ffolliott, and David

Robinson (Tech. Coordinators). USDA

For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-55,

p. 104- 113. Rocky Mt. For. and Range

Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Bottorff, R. L.

1974. Cottonwood habitats for birds in

Colorado. Am. Birds 28(6):975-979.

Boussu, Marvin F.

1954. Relationship between trout populations and cover on a small stream. J.

Wildl. Manage. 18(2):229-239.

Brown, George W., and James T. Krygier.

1967. Changing water temperatures in

small mountain streams. J. Soil and

Water Conserv. 22(6):242-244.

Brown, George W., Gerald W. Swank, and

Jack Rothacher.

1971. Water temperature in the Steamboat

drainage. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

PNW-119, 17 p. Pac. Northwest For.

and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Buckhouse, John C.

1975. Water quality impact of burning and

grazing on a chained pinyon-juniper site

in southeastern Utah. Ph.D. thesis,

Utah State Univ., Logan. 103 p.

Buckhouse, John C., and Gerald F. Gifford.

1976. Water quality implications of cattle

grazing on a semi-arid watershed in

southeastern Utah. J. Range Manage.

29(2):109-l 13.

Campbell, C. J.

1970. Ecological implications of riparian

vegetation management. J. Soil and

Water Conserv. 25(2):49-52.

Campbell, C. J., and W. Green.

1968. Perpetual succession of streamchannel vegetation in a semi-arid region.

J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 5(2):86-98.

Carothers, Steven W.

1977. Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitats: An overview. In Importance, Preservation and

Management of Riparian Habitat: A

Symposium. R. Roy Johnson and Dale

A. Jones (Tech. Coordinators). USDA

For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43,

14
p. 2-4. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Carothers, Steven W., and R. Roy Johnson.

1975. Water management practices and

their effects on nongame birds in range

habitats. Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Forest and

Range Habitats for Nongame birds,

edited by D. R. Smith. USDA For. Serv.

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1, p. 210-222.

Washington, D.C.

Collings, M. R., and R. M. Myrick.

1966. Effects of juniper and pinyon eradication on stream flow from Corduroy

Creek Basin, Arizona. Geol. Surv. Prof.

Pap. 491-B, 12 p.

Coltharp, George B., and Leslie A. Darling.

1973. Livestock grazing-a non-point

source of water pollution in rural areas?

Rural Environ. Eng. Symp., p. 341-358.

Univ. Vermont, Burlington.

Cordone, Almo J., and Don E. Kelley.

1961. The influence of inorganic sediment

on the aquatic life of streams. Calif. Fish

and Game 47i2):189-228.

Countess, Michael L., Walter I,. Criley, and B.

R. Allison.

1977. Problems and conflicts associated

with river recreation programming and

management in the east. In Proceedings, River Recreation Management

and Research Symposium. USDA

For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-28,

p. 147-150. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn..

St. Paul, Minn.

Curtis, Robert L., and Thomas H. Ripley.

1975. Water management practices and

their effect on nongame bird habitat

values in a deciduous forest community.

In Proceedings of the Symposium on

Management of Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds, edited by D. R.

Smith. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.

Rep. WO-1, p. 128-141. Washington,

D.C.

Dambach, Charles A.

1944. A ten-year ecological study of adjoining grazed and ungrazed woodlands in

northeastern Ohio. Ecol. Monogr.

14(3):257-270.

DeGraaf, Richard Matthew.

1976. Suburban habitat associations of

birds. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Mass.,

Amherst. 317 p.

Diesch, Stanley L.

1970. Disease transmission of waterborne

organisms of animal origins. In Agricultural Practices and Water Quality,

edited by T. L. Willrich and G. E. Smith,

p. 265285. Iowa State Univ. Press,

Ames.

Dumas, Philip C.

1950. Habitat distribution of breeding

birds in southeastern Washington.

Condor 52(5):232-237.

Environmental Protection Agency.

1976. Forest harvest, residue treatment, reforestation and protection of water

quality. EPA 910/g-76-020. Reg. 10, 273

p. Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield,

Va.

Fox, Kel.

1977. Importance of riparian ecosystems:

Economic considerations. In Importance, Preservation and Management

of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. R.

Roy Johnson and Dale A. Jones (Tech.

Coordinators). USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-43, p. 19-22. Rocky

Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort

Collins, Colo.

Franklin, Jerry F., and C. T. Dyrness.

1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and

Washington. USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-8, 417 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Gains, David A.

1977. Chapter 7. The valley riparian forests

of California: Their importance to bird

populations. In Riparian Forest in

California: Ecology and Conservation,

Anne Sands fed.). Inst. Ecol. Publ. No.

15, p. 57-85. Univ. Calif., Davis.

Gunderson, Donald R.

1968. Floodplain use related to stream morphology and fish populations. J. Wildl.

Manage. 32(3):507-514.

Heady, Harold F.

1975. Rangeland management. 460 p.

McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.

1 5
Heady, Harold F., and James Bartolome.

1977. The Vale rangeland rehabilitation

program: The desert repaired in southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv.

Resour. Bull. PNW-70, 139 p. Pac.

Northwest For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Heberlein, Thomas A.

1977. Density, crowding, and satisfaction:

Sociological studies for determining

carrying capacities. In Proceedings,

River Recreation Management and

Research Symposium. USDA For. Serv.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-28 p. 67-76. North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Hibbert, Alden R., Edwin A. Davis, and David

G. Scholl.

1974. Chaparral conversion potential in

Arizona. Part 1: Water yield response

and effects on other resources. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-126, 36 p.

Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn.,

Fort Collins, Colo.

Hibbert, Alden R., Edwin A. Davis, and

Thomas C. Brown.

1975. Managing chaparral for water and

other resources in Arizona. In Watershed Management Symposium, p. 445-

468. ASCE Irrigation and Drainage

Division, Logan, Utah.

Hill, Ronald D.

1974. Mining impacts on trout habitat. In

USDA Forest Service Symposium on

Trout Habitat Research and Management Proceedings, p. 47-57. Southeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Hinschberger, Mark Steven.

1978. Occurrence and relative abundance of

small mammals associated with riparian

and upland habitats along the Columbia

River. M.S. thesis, Oreg. State Univ.,

Corvallis. 78 p.

Horton, Jerome S.

1972. Management problems in phreatophyte and riparian zones. J. Soil and

Water Conserv. 27(2):57-61.

Hubbard, John P.

1977. Importance of riparian ecosystems:

Biotic considerations. In Importance,

Preservation and Management of

Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. R.

Roy Johnson and Dale A. Jones (Tech.

Coordinators). USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-43, p. 14-18. Rocky

Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort

Collins, Colo.

Jain, Subodh (ed.1

1976. Vernal pools-their ecology and conservation. Inst. Ecol. Publ. No. 9, 93 p.

Univ. Calif, Davis.

Kelly, W., R. Hubbell, S. Loe, and L. Shikany.

1975. Management of riparian habitats.

USDA For. Serv. Coord. Guides for

Wildi. Hab. No. 9,9 p. Calif. Reg.

Kennedy, Charles E.

1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian management: Water. In Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. R. Roy Johnson and

Dale A. Jones (Tech. Coordinators).

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-43, p. 52-58. Rocky Mt. For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Kirby, Ronald E.

1975. Wildlife utilization of beaver flowages on the Chippewa National Forest,

North Central Minnesota. Loon 47(4):

180-185.

Kuska, James J.

1977. Biological approach to river planning

and management. In Proceedings, River

Recreation Management and Research

Symposium. USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-28, p. 296-303. North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Lack, David.

1933. Habitat selection in birds, with

special reference to the effects of afforestation on the Breckland avifauna.

J. Anim. Ecol. 2(2):239-262.

Leopold, Aldo.

1941. Lakes in relation to terrestrial life

patterns. In Univ. Wisconsin Symposium, Volume on Hydrology, p. 17-22.

Madison.

Lewis, Darrell E., and Gary G. Marsh.

1977. Problems resulting from the increased recreational use of rivers in the

west. In Proceedings, River Recreation

Management and Research Symposium.

16
USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC28, p. 27-31. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn.,

St. Paul, Minn.

Likens, Gene E., and F. Herbert Bormann.

1974. Linkages between terrestrial and

aquatic ecosystems. BioScience 24(8):

447-456.

MacArthur, Robert H., John W. MacArthur,

and James Preer.

1962. On bird species diversity. II. Prediction of bird census from habitat measurements. Am. Nat. 96(888):167-174.

Marcuson, Patrick E.

1977. The effect of cattle grazing on brown

trout in Rock Creek, Montana. Mont.

Dep. Fish and Game, Fish. Div., Spec.

Rep. Proj. No. F-20-R-21, II-a. 26 p.

Msser, Chris, and Jay S. Gashwiler.

1978. Interrelationships of wildlife and

western jumper. In Proceedings of the

Western Juniper Ecology and Management Workshop, Robert E. Martin, J.

Edward Dealy, and David L. Carather

(eds.). USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW 74, p. 37-82. Pac. Northwest For.

and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Maser, Chris, Jon E. Rodiek, and Jack Ward

Thomas.

1979. Cliffs, talus, and caves. In Wildlife

Habitats in Managed Forests - The

Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Jack Ward Thomas (Tech. Ed.)

U.S. Dep. Agric. Agric. Handb. 553. (In

press. 1

Maximov, N. A.

1931. The physiological significance of the

xeromorphic structure of plants. J. Ecol.

19(2):273-282.

Meehan, William R.

1970. Some effects of shade cover on stream

temperature in Southeast Alaska.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-113.9

p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Minore, Don.

1970. Seedling growth of eight northwestern tree species over three water

tables. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

PNW-115, 8 p. Pac. Northwest For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Minore, Don, and Clark E. Smith.

1971. Occurrence and growth of four northwestern tree species over shallow water

tables. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

PNW-160, 9 p. Pac. Northwest For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Nash, Roderick.

1977. River recreation: History and future.

In Proceedings, River Recreation

Management and Research Symposium.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC28, p. 2-7. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn.,

St. Paul, Minn.

Odum, Eugene P.

1971. Fundamentals of ecology - third edition. 574 p. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Penn.

Patton, David R.

1975. A diversity index for quantifying

“edge.” Wildl. Sot. Bull. 3(4):171-173.

Pfister, Robert E.

1977. Campsite choice behavior in the river

setting: A pilot study on the Rogue

River, Oregon. In Proceedings, River

Recreation Management and Research

Symposium. USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-28, p. 351-358. North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Preston, F. W., and R. T. Norris.

1947. Nesting heights of breeding birds.

Ecology 28(3):241-273.

Satterlund, Donald R.

1975. The water resource in range ecosystems management. In Range, Multiple Use Management, p. 19-26. Wash.

State Univ., Oreg. State Univ., Univ. of

Idaho.

Settergren, Carl D.

1977. Impacts of river recreation use on

streambank soils and vegetation-state

of-the-knowledge. In Proceedings, River

Recreation Management and Research

Symposium. USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-28, p. 55-59. North Cent.

For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Sharpe, William E.

1975. Timber management influences on

aquatic ecosystems and recommendations for future research. Water Resour.

Bull. 1 l(3): 546-550.

1 7
Stevens, Lawrence E., Bryan T. Brown, James

M. Simpson, and R. Roy Johnson.

1977. The importance of riparian habitat to

migrating birds. in Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian

Habitat: A Symposium. R. Roy Johnson

and Dale A. Jones (Tech. Coordinators).

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-43, p. 156-164. Rocky Mt. For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Thomas, Jack Ward.

1973. The determination of habitat requirements for birds in suburban areas:

A pilot study. Ph.D. diss., Univ. Mass.,

Amherst. 245 p.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Richard M. DeGraaf, and

Joseph C. Mawson.

1977. Determination of habitat requirements for birds in suburban areas.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-357, 15

p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Upper

Darby, Pa.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Chris Maser, and Jon E.

Rodiek.

1978. Edges-their interspersion, resulting

diversity and its measurement. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Nongame

Bird Habitat Management in Coniferous Forests of the Western United

States. Richard M. DeGraaf (Tech.

Coordinator). USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-64, p. 91-100. Pac.

Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,

Portland, Oreg.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Chris Maser, and Jon E.

Rodiek.

1979a. Riparian zones. In Wildlife Habitats

in Managed Forests - The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, Jack

Ward Thomas (Tech. Ed.) U.S. Dep.

Agric. Agric. Handb. 553. (In press.)

Thomas, Jack Ward, Hugh C. Black, Jr.,

Richard J. Scherzinger, and Richard J.

Pedersen.

1979b. Deer and elk. In Wildlife Habitats in

Managed Forests - The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, Jack

Ward Thomas (Tech. Ed.) U.S. Dep.

Agric. Agric. Handb. 553. (In press.)

Thomas, Jack Ward, R. Miller, Chris Maser,

Ralph Anderson, and Bernie Carter.

1979c. Plant communities and successional

stages. In Wildlife Habitats in Managed

Forests - The Blue Mountains of

Oregon and Washington, Jack Ward

Thomas (Tech. Ed.) U.S. Dep. Agric.

Agric. Handb. 553. (In press.)

Tuinstra, K. E.

1967. Vegetation of the floodplains and

first terraces of Rock Creek near Red

Lodge, Montana. Ph.D. thesis. Montana

State Univ., Bozeman. 110 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

1967. National handbook for range and

related grazing lands. U.S. Gov. Print.

Off., Washington, D.C. 84 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service.

1977. Proceedings-symposium on river

recreation management and research.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC28, 455 p. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn.,

St. Paul, Minn.

Wauer, Roland H.

1977. Significance of Rio Grande riparian

systems upon the avifauna. In Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium. R. Roy Johnson and Dale A.

Jones (Tech. Coordinators). USDA For.

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43, p. 165-

174. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Winegar, Harold.

1975. Camp Creek: Rebirth of a section.

Oreg. Wildl. 30(11):6-7.

Wooding, J.

1973. Census of the breeding birds of the

Roaring Creek Watershed. Colo. Field

Ornithol. 18:36-41.

1 8