1

RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT

Management Techniques in Riparian Areas

by

Bruce Smith

Fishery Biologist

U.S. Forest Service

Salmon National Forest, Idaho

Don Prichard

Fishery Biologist/Riparian-Wetland Coordinator

Bureau of Land Management

Service Center, Colorado

Technical Reference 1737-6

1992

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Service Center

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, CO 80225-0047
2

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the following individuals for the time they offered in review,

comment, and development of this document: Clay Bridges, Jim Fogg, Mike Gaylord, Mark

Gorges, Ned Habich, and Bill Williams.

The authors also wish to thank the many providers, too numerous to list, of the various

management techniques.

A special thanks to Linda Hill (Writer/Editor - Service Center) and the Technology Transfer

Staff for making this a quality document.
3

Table of Contents

Page

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

II. Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 2

III. Biological Considerations or Aspects of Riparian Ecosystem Management ............. 3

IV. Consideration of Natural Vectors for Riparian Improvement.................................... 4

V. Physical Factors of Consideration .............................................................................. 5

VI. Technique(s) Format .................................................................................................. 6

VII. Riparian Management Techniques ............................................................................. 7

1. Fencing ................................................................................................................. 7

2. Prescribed Burns................................................................................................... 9

3. Forestry Practices ............................................................................................... 13

4. Vegetation Plantings........................................................................................... 15

5. Opportunities from Mineral Activities ............................................................... 19

6. Structures ............................................................................................................ 21

7. Beaver................................................................................................................. 24

8. Bank Stabilization .............................................................................................. 28

9. Recreation Planning ........................................................................................... 30

10. Road Construction and Maintenance ................................................................. 33

Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A - Biological References ................................................................................... 39

Appendix B - Natural Vectors References .......................................................................... 41

Appendix C - Physical Factors References ......................................................................... 43
4
5

I. Introduction

A large number of techniques have been developed to assist in managing riparian areas.

These management (treatment) techniques can be as varied as the multiple uses that occur

within riparian zones. Even though these techniques are discussed in relationship to riparian

zones, some can be applied to other forms of wetlands. The following management techniques and their associated concepts are discussed in this document:

1. Fencing

2. Prescribed Burns

3. Forestry Practices

4. Vegetation Plantings

5. Opportunities from Mineral Activities

6. Structures

7. Beaver

8. Bank Stabilization

9. Recreation Planning

10. Road Construction and Maintenance

More detailed and comprehensive information (e.g., structure design and construction, costs,

etc.) can be found in documents listed in the reference section under each technique.

Technical Reference 1737-4 “Riparian Area Management: Grazing Management in Riparian

Areas” (Kinch, 1989) and “Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas” (Chaney et al.,

1990) are two documents that provide detailed information on livestock grazing and management in riparian areas. Therefore grazing management is not addressed in this manual.

Management Techniques in Riparian Areas
6

II. Purpose

The purpose of managing riparian areas is to achieve specific goals and objectives. For

riparian areas specific goals and objectives typically fall into one of four general management

strategies:

1. Maintenance of existing riparian conditions

2. Improvement of degraded riparian conditions

3. Recovery of lost riparian areas

4. Development of new riparian areas

When developing these goals and objectives they should be simply defined, quantified, and

incorporated into specific program and project case files as part of the management record.

These records provide the basis for future results-oriented management assessments.

For example, a treatment should not be evaluated on the basis of vegetation species composition if the initial objectives were to reduce bank erosion or soil compaction and improve

ground cover. Regardless of the technique applied, the intent should be the same in all cases:

achievement of the management objective.

This document is not a cookbook for riparian treatments, but rather a general technical

overview to assist individuals in developing original solutions to their own, unique management requirements. The references listed in the text and appendices provide detailed information on techniques and ecosystem management.
7

III. Biological Considerations or Aspects of Riparian

Ecosystem Management

In ecosystem-oriented management, the basis for riparian treatments lies with the relationships between biotic and abiotic components. Ideally, the basic unit for management is a

watershed. Using the watershed as a management unit provides a focus toward the entire

stream system, as well as its individual streams, as opposed to isolated, site-specific treatments. Key components for consideration are overall watershed geomorphology; hydrology;

existing, historic, and potential vegetation; and animal community dynamics. Human activities can also significantly influence riparian ecosystems and should be considered as well.

They are usually the most impacting, and yet the most readily controllable factors.

Riparian ecosystems tend toward some form of succession and the development of ecosystem

order and dynamic equilibrium. The processes and products of geologic (natural) erosion on

steeper, less stable upland mineral soils have historically provided materials for the development of ecologically more productive and complex vegetative and animal communities in

floodplains throughout the watershed.

The most common biological features establishing or affecting the relationships of channel

and valley slope have been native pioneer species of vegetation (willow, aspen, and alder)

and long-term beaver activity. In both cases, high energy runoff and its associated transported sediment have been moderated by dissipation, through spreading across floodplains,

vegetative entrapment, development of sinuous meander patterns, and seasonal recharge of

ground-water aquifers and riparian bank storage.

The historic use of natural resources has caused major alterations in the dynamic equilibrium

in riparian areas. This use has led to extensive destabilization, accelerated erosion, and the

ultimate loss of many historic riparian ecosystems and their associated values. By reemploying the basic principles and processes that were present in the original formation of riparian

ecosystems, it is possible to manage for the improvement and recovery of historic riparian

resource values.

Watersheds are most effectively restored through a team approach, by integrating the interdisciplinary technical skills and abilities of a variety of resource specialists. This process should

also include seeking assistance, expertise, and cooperation from other agency personnel,

academia, and public resource users. The interdisciplinary approach applies to all forms of

activity plans, such as Habitat Management Plans, Allotment Management Plans, and Mining

Plans.

Numerous inoperative physical “watershed treatments” of the 1950’s and 1960’s today stand

as mute testimony to the fact that the mere application of money-intensive solutions (without

associated long-term commitments to improved land management programs) provides only a

brief respite to riparian productivity losses.

Appendix A contains additional references pertaining to biological considerations.
8

IV. Consideration of Natural Vectors for Riparian

Improvement

Isolated stands of riparian vegetation can serve as ecological seeds within a watershed to help

speed recovery of riparian species diversity throughout the system. Air, water, and animal

distribution of seeds or plant material can be important recovery vectors, if suitable seed sites

are available. Up to a 35 percent increase in species richness of birds has been observed in

improved riparian habitats and is indicative of the latent natural potential for utilizing birds to

stimulate recovery as they transport seeds, plants, spores, etc., from outside areas.

Rodent activity can also be an important factor when, in response to increasing cover, their

populations function to accelerate relocation of seeds and plant material, nutrient recycling

processes, or sprouting of pruned riparian vegetation. Beaver and muskrat can be active

agents in redistribution and regeneration of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation through cyclic

cutting. Ungulate browsing of vegetation can also be beneficial in stimulating the sprouting

or regrowth of woody plants, such as willows.

Management objectives, in most cases, should be to improve the riparian condition throughout the drainage, rather than create an oasis effect in specific project areas. Managing the

drainage helps avoid excessive utilization by livestock or wildlife, which may override

recovery gained through intensive site management practices.

Appendix B contains additional references pertaining to natural vectors.
9

V. Physical Factors of Consideration

Physical factors to consider in riparian ecosystem management commonly include elements

of hydrology related to natural (versus accelerated) erosional processes such as:

1. Valley slope versus channel slope.

2. Runoff quantity timing.

3. Ice flows and aufeis.

4. Degree of riparian soil compaction and infiltration.

5. Types of erosion occurring within the watershed and the degree to which they are

related to human activity.

6. Permafrost.

7. Water quality (chemical and physical parameters).

8. Gully volume determinations to determine past soil losses and present storage

capacities.

9. Flow velocities and site potentials for water spreading to reduce velocities.

10. Potential areas for sediment deposition or accumulation and their storage

capacities.

These factors and their relationships to the management situation should be considered and

incorporated into strategies for riparian area maintenance, improvement, or recovery.

Appendix C contains additional references pertaining to physical factors.
10

VI. Technique(s) Format

Each riparian area management (treatment) technique included in this technical reference is

described and discussed using the following standard format:

Name: States the name or category of the treatment technique(s).

Reference(s): Lists documents that explain the technique(s) in detail, as well as additional

sources of information.

Objective(s): Describes the major objective(s) or purpose(s) of the technique(s).

Areas of Applicability: Describes the region, state, or locality where the technique(s) has

been proven to work.

Technique(s): Gives a general description of how the technique(s) are applied.

Ease of Application: Provides an estimate of how easily the technique can be applied by

professional land resource specialists and users.

Expected Response(s): Identifies environmental changes that can be expected to take place

in the riparian system.

Limitation(s): Describes known limitations in the application of the technique.
11

VII. Riparian Management Techniques

1. Name: Fencing

References:

Electric Fencing - Do’s and Don’ts No. 4. Gallagher Electronics Ltd. P.O. Box 5324.

Frankton, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Max-Ten 200 - High Tensile Wire Fence Construction Handbook. United States Steel Co.,

600 Grant St. Pittsburgh, PA, 15230, No. 412:433-3285.

Snell Power Fencing Systems Handbook. P.O. Box 17769. San Antonio, TX, 78217, No.

512:657-1140.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Special Wire Fences. Wildlife Resources Management

Manual, L.E. Marcy, Dept. of the Army Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers,

Tech. Rep. EL-86-16 Sec. 5.2.2., Vicksburg, MS.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Application of the New Zealand Type Electric Fences.

Forest Service Intermountain Region, Habitat Express No. 83-12, Jan. 1984. Ogden, UT.

_________. 1986. Range Structural Improvement Handbook - Part 1 - Fences. Forest Service

Equipment Development Center, Missoula, MT.

United States Department of the Interior. 1989. Fencing Manual Handbook H-1741-1. Bureau

of Land Management, Washington, DC.

_________ and USDA. 1988. Fences. BLM and FS. July 1988.

Objectives: The reasons for using fencing in riparian zones are quite varied. One reason is

to provide exclosures so that response to grazing management systems can be evaluated or

site potential can be determined. Exclosures from a few square feet to a few acres may be

necessary. To measure watershedwide objectives, special exclosures of several acres to

several hundred acres may be necessary.

Sometimes it is more expedient, practical, and cost-effective to isolate a degraded riparian

system or special project area in order to enhance its recovery and management. Fencing the

system may cause less impact to the entire allotment than initiating large-scale planning and/

or changes in grazing prescriptions. Use of fencing, for whatever reasons, should be evaluated for the most practical mix of multiple-use purposes.

Areas of Applicability: Each individual area needs to be scrutinized as to what type of fence

will work best, but in general, there is universal application.

Techniques: Deciding what type of fence to use requires an analysis of the terrain, climate,

type of riparian system, wildlife, livestock, and human activities. Depending on the mix of

requirements, fencing may be made from hardware cloth; chicken wire; rodeo or net sheep

wire; barbed or smooth wire on steel; wood or fiberglass posts; pole top; post and rail; buck
12

and pole; or high-voltage (5,000-volt) electric fencing. Natural materials, such as downed

timber, and physical features, such as gullies, canyons, and cliffs, can be used to manage

access.

Criteria to be considered in selecting a particular design and location for fences include

climatic factors (e.g., deep snow, high water), big-game migrations, cattle, sheep, vehicles,

people, public access, falling trees, swampy ground, beaver activity, visual contrast, topography, and soil type. A thorough evaluation of these factors, with an eye toward avoiding

management and maintenance problems in the future, will enhance the prospects for management success. As a general rule, fences have the least amount of problems when kept out of

the riparian zone or floodplain. Crossing public access routes and providing for passage (e.g.,

cattle guard or stile) is often much simpler and less prone to conflict than adjoining or paralleling a road or trail and crossings with gates. Typically, the larger the size of the area

fenced, the greater its cost-effectiveness and utility.

All of the above, combined with proper construction, affect the future fence maintenance

requirements. The best fence design, in the best location, for the best reason, will still

become a maintenance and management problem if it is not built correctly. Inspection and

maintenance should be performed regularly and in a timely manner. Design problems should

be identified early and modified as soon as possible to prevent a small problem from becoming a major one.

Ease of Application: The terrain, climate, type of riparian system, and type of fence, as well

as the type of livestock, will determine the ease of application. Fencing projects will vary

from being easy to extremely difficult.

Expected Responses: Fencing of riparian areas to exclude livestock and establish riparian

pastures has been very effective. Most systems respond in the first few years and begin

functioning properly. However, some systems (e.g., horizontally unstable systems) may take

years to heal.

Limitations: Fences constructed improperly across drainages are going to require extensive

maintenance as a result of climatic events. There are a number of designs of swing panels,

breakaways, etc., but all seem to require maintenance from time to time.

Fences are going to interfere or disrupt movements of wildlife and access of humans. Proper

design and location can lessen most of these impacts (e.g., fishermen ladders, smooth wire,

wire spacing, etc.).
13

2. Name: Prescribed Burns

References:

Britton, C.M., J.E. Cornely, and F.A. Sneva. 1980. Burning, haying, grazing and non-use of

flood meadow vegetation. Research in Rangeland Management, 1980 Prog. Rept., Spec.

Rept. 586, Agr. Exp. Sta., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.

Fischer, W.C. 1978. Planning and evaluating prescribed fires. A standard procedure. USDA,

FS Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-43.

Gruell, G.E. 1983. Fire and vegetative trends in the northern Rockies: Interpreted from 1871-

1982 photographs. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-158.

Lawrence, W.H. 1954. Michigan beaver populations as influenced by fire and logging. Ph.D.

dissertation. Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Mueggler, W.F. 1976. Ecological role of fire in western woodland and range ecosystems.

Shier, G.A. and R.B. Campbell. 1978. Aspen sucker regeneration following burning and

clearcutting on two sites in the Rocky Mountains. Forest Science 24(2):303-308.

White, R.S. and P.O. Currie. 1983. The effects of prescribed burning on silver sagebrush. J.

Range Mgt. 36(5):611-613.

Objectives: Prescribed burns offer opportunities for modifying vegetation communities or

vertical structure. Burns accelerate nutrient cycling, spring greenup, sprouting, forage

availability, and soil movement; modify soil surface temperatures and moisture conditions;

and provide vegetative treatments in lieu of herbicides.

Areas of Applicability: There is universal application to riparian systems.

Techniques: The techniques to burn riparian areas are basically the same as they are for

upland areas and include defining the goal and objectives of the burn, selecting the treatment

area, determining the size, and assembling a fire prescription.

Various techniques are available to help achieve burn objectives under different conditions of

weather, topography, and fuel characteristics. These different firing techniques can be

correlated closely with burning objectives, fuels, and weather factors to prevent harmful

effects to vegetation, wildlife, air quality, and human health.

Basically, all fires can be categorized on the basis of behavior and spread. Fires move either

in the same direction as the wind (head fire), in the opposite direction of the wind (back fire),

or at a right angle to the wind (flank fire).

Head fires are the most intense because of faster spread rates, wider burning zones, and

greater flame lengths. Back fires are the least intense and have the slowest spread rates,

narrow burning zones, and short flame lengths. Intensities of flank fires are intermediate.
14

The following discussion represents those firing techniques most commonly used in prescribed burning programs; other methods exist and combinations of two or more firing

techniques can be used on individual projects:

A. Head firing consists of allowing the fire to burn with the wind or upslope. Such a fire can

be started along prepared control lines on the upwind or downslope portion of the burn

unit. Since these fires move with the wind, their intensity and spread rate are directly

influenced by wind speeds.

Head fires are one of the most difficult kinds of fires to control and use effectively

because they closely imitate wildfire behavior. The fire moves in the direction of maximum spread and attains maximum intensity unless barriers or fuel breaks are encountered. Though head fires have the highest rates of spread and flame lengths, they also

provide the largest burned areas per unit of time with a minimum of ignition.

Advantages of this method include lower costs due to rapid burnout of smaller size class

fuels, and greater convective lift associated with higher intensities and wind speeds

B. Back firing consists of lighting the fire so that it backs into the wind or moves

downslope. Fires are started from prepared control lines on the upslope or downwind

side of the burning unit. Variations in wind speeds have very little effect on the rate of

spread of backfires burning into the wind.

This is one of the easiest and safest techniques because it produces minimum scorch,

directs more head down than upward, and can be used effectively in heavy fuels. The

slow movement of back fires allows considerable preheating of unburned fuels to occur,

improving fuel consumption during actual burning. Other advantages include low

intensities, low spotting potential, and slow rate of spread, enabling greater control.

C. Strip head firing may be the most versatile method of prescribed burning. Strip head

firing involves lighting a line, or series of lines, progressively into the wind or

downslope. Each strip creates a head fire and a back fire. The head fire moves upslope,

or with the wind, until it burns into an area already burned out by a previous strip, or until

it meets a back fire moving downslope from a previous strip. The back fire moves

downslope or into the wind at relatively slow rates of spread until it meets a fuel break or

control line, or the head fire created by the next strip.

Strips vary in width depending upon the fuel type, weather conditions, topography, and

desired levels of intensity. The maximum intensity of strip head fires occurs when the

head fire from one strip burns together with the back fire from another strip. This maximum intensity can be controlled by varying the width between each strip; the wider the

strips, the greater the intensity attained by the head fire before it reaches the previous

strip’s back fire.

Advantages of strip head fires include quick firing, rapid smoke dispersal, lower costs,

greater control of fire intensity, and ability to burn large blocks and be used at the upper

ends of prescriptions (higher fuel moisture contents).

D. Flank firing consists of lighting lines of fire into the wind and parallel to the wind direction. The strips or lines of fire then burn fires that are intermediate in intensity between
15

head fires and back fires. This technique is not able to withstand variation in wind

direction and requires good coordination. Advantages include fairly rapid burnout;

intermediate fire intensities; fast area ignition; need for fewer control lines; and usefulness on flat ground, in securing flanks, and in combination with other firing techniques.

E. Spot (spot head) firing is an exact procedure that requires considerable experience by the

practitioner. This method is similar to strip head firing except that a series of small spot

fires are started rather than a line fire. The spots burn in all directions until they come

together, minimizing the possibility of any spot gaining sufficient momentum to start a

hot run. Timing and spacing of the individual fire spots are keys to successful application

of this method.

Spot head fires may give a wide range of results as each spot will burn with varying

intensity, ranging from low-intensity back fires, to intermediate flank fires, to highintensity head fires. As two spots begin to burn together, interaction between the two can

occur, yielding the highest intensity.

Spot head fires are advantageous because they can be used with light and variable winds

and for open burning, ignite the area quickly, allow for intensity to be adjusted by spot

distance, have a moderate cost, and need no interior firelines.

Ease of Application: A great deal of planning is required to have any success with prescribed fires. Information from fire control centers can be of great assistance.

Expected Responses: Prescribed burning, if done properly, is a very effective tool in

changing or altering plant succession (seral stage). Good response is usually seen after one

complete growing season. However, this will vary in relationship to weather conditions.

Limitations: Realize that in riparian habitats, fuel moisture conditions are likely to be higher

within the burn block than the surrounding uplands. Control conditions may be considerably

different than usually anticipated in prescribed fires. As a result, more physical barriers or

larger suppression crews may be required to ensure adequate control.

Extensive planning is necessary and large crews may be required to ensure that the burn is

properly carried out and that things remain under control. Sometimes the window (time slot)

that allows for a proper burn is small. Weather conditions can delay a project from year to

year.

Areas of special concern (sensitive species) may not be good candidates for prescribed burns.

Specific limitations for the various techniques listed above are as follows:

A. Head firing disadvantages include greater difficulty in control from higher intensities,

greater spotting potential, greater residual burning after passage of flaming front, and

lower rates of fuel consumption due to relatively high spread rates.

B. Back firing drawbacks include slow rate of burning, need for presence of strong wind

velocities to assist in smoke dissipation, and increased cost.
16

C. Limitations to strip head fires are that they require more personnel during ignition,

require personal access for igniters to move through the unit, need more fuel for ignition,

and take more time than head fires.

D. Flank firing is disadvantageous because it requires close coordination prior to ignition,

steady wind direction, and good knowledge of fire behavior. It also does not work well

in heavy fuels.

E. There are constraints to using spot head fires because of the importance of timing and

spacing of fire spots, necessary for physical access if firing is not done aerially, possibility of zones of increased fire intensity if spots are too close, and creation of higher

intensity head fires if spots are too far apart.
17

3. Name: Forestry Practices

References:

Anonymous. 1981. Factors affecting the development of woody vegetation on riparian lands.

In: The Platte River Ecology Study, An Unpublished Summary Report, USDI, FWS. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND.

Brunsfeld, S.J. and F.D. Johnson. 1985. Field guide to the willows of east central Idaho.

Forest Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Bull. 39.

Crawford, H.S., R.G. Hooper, and R.F. Harlow. 1976. Woody plants selected by beavers in

the Appalachian Ridge and Valley Province: USDA, FS Research Paper NE-346.

Crouch, G.L. 1978. Effects of protection from livestock grazing on a bottomland wildlife

habitat in northeastern Colorado. Proc. of the Lowland River and Stream Habitat in Colorado

Symposium, Greeley, CO.

_________. 1979. Long term changes in cottonwoods on a grazed and an ungrazed plains

bottomland in northeastern Colorado. Res. Note RM-370, USDA, FS Rocky Mt. For. and

Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO.

_________. 1985. Effects of clearcutting a subalpine forest in central Colorado on wildlife

habitat. USDA, FS Res. Paper RM-258.

DeByle, N.V. 1978. Our western aspen ecosystem - quest for management. Western Wildlands.

Densmore, R. and J. Zasada. 1983. Seed dispersal and dormancy patterns in northern willows: Ecological and evolutionary significance. Canadian J. of Botany, 61pp.

Everest, F.H. and R.D. Harr. 1982. Silvicultural treatments - influence of forest and rangeland

management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America. USDA, FS. Tech. Rep.

PNW-134.

Fenner, P., W.S. Brady and D.R. Patton. 1985. Effects of regulated water flows on regeneration of Fremont cottonwood. J. Range Mgt. Vol. 38(2):135-138.

Hall, J.G. 1960. Willow and aspen in the ecology of beaver on Sagehen Creek, California.

Ecology, Vol. 41(1):484-494.

Kindschy, R.R. 1985. Response of red willow to beaver use in southeastern Oregon. J. Wildl.

Mgt. Vol. 49(1):26-28.

McCashion, J.D. and R.M. Rice. 1983. Erosion on logging roads in northwestern California:

How much is avoidable? J. of Forestry, Vol. 81(1):

McKnight, S.S. 1970. Planting cottonwood cuttings for timber production in the south.

USDA/SFES, FSRP-SO-60.
18

Peterson, D.L. and G.L. Rolfe. 1982. Nutrient dynamics and decomposition of litterfall in

floodplain and upland forests of central Illinois. Forest Science, Vol. 28(4):667-681.

Peterson, D.L. and G.L. Rolfe. 1982. Seasonal variation in nutrients of floodplain and upland

forests of central Illinois. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 46:1310-1315.

Sedell, S.R. and S.L. Froggatt. 1984. Importance of streamside forests to large rivers: The

isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, USA, from its floodplain by snagging and streamside forest removal. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 22-Stuttgart.

Triska, F.S. 1984. Role of wood debris in modifying channel geomorphology and riparian

areas of a large lowland river under pristine conditions: A historical case study. Verh.

Internat. Verein. Limnol. 22-Stuttgart.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1983. Willow planting for riparian habitat improvement.

BLM Tech. Note 363, Denver, CO.

Objectives: Woody vegetation plays a significant role in the external energy dynamics and

internal biological continuum of riparian ecosystems throughout a watershed. Forestry

practices can often include riparian management objectives. Forestry treatment opportunities

can include silvicultural manipulations of all woody species to improve riparian vegetation

age class, physical structure, distribution, diversity, canopy, succession, understory composition, edge, and the ultimate creation of additional niches.

Areas of Applicability: These techniques are applicable wherever forestry resources are

managed.

Techniques: The type of forestry manipulation (e.g., patch cutting, buffer zones, thinning,

girdling, burning, and tree or slash pile barriers), season of application, and type of harvest

operation should all be evaluated and planned, relative to both their positive and negative

impacts to riparian systems. Mitigating stipulations or Best Management Practices (buffer

zones, low impact road design, runoff manipulation, and winter cutting) can be effective in

managing physical and biological forest management impacts to riparian areas.

Ease of Application: The ease of application depends on the type of treatment or mitigating

measures required. For example, mitigating measures, such as road design in the contract

specifications and contract administration for a timber sale, are more critical than for stand

improvement work, such as a thinning.

Expected Responses: Periodic manipulation of conifers, aspen, and willows can provide a

greater diversity of vegetative community strata. It can also affect long-term availability of

browse, nutrient or material cycling, and community succession. Cover or canopy manipulations in riparian coniferous stands can stimulate the growth or regeneration of aspen or

shrubs, open parks, and increase light penetration, benefitting terrestrial and aquatic food

chains. Woody debris and slash management benefit terrestrial species by increasing nutrient

recycling, nesting, perching, and feeding, and benefit aquatic systems in terms of instream

cover, streamflow, bank storage, energy dissipation, and geomorphological floodplain

stability.

Limitations: The timing of forest management needs with riparian management needs may

limit opportunities to accomplish both objectives with one treatment.
19

4. Name: Vegetation Plantings

References:

Allen, H.H. 1978. Role of wetland plants in erosion control of riparian shorelines. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources

Assoc.

Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1981. Final report: Revegetation for wildlife enhancement on the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona

State Univ., Tempe, AZ. Contract No. 7-07-30-V0009.

Benedict, N.B. 1982. Mountain meadows: Stability and change, Madrono, Vol. 29(3):148-

153.

Boto, K.G. and W.H. Patrick Jr. 1978. Role of wetlands in the removal of suspended sediments. Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. American Water

Resources Association.

Clay, D.H. 1981. High mountain meadow restoration; California Riparian Systems Conference Proceedings, Davis, CA. pp. 477-479.

Heede, B.H. 1975. Mountain watersheds and dynamic equilibrium. In: Watershed Management Symposium, ASCE Irrigation and Drainage Division. Logan, UT. pp. 407-420.

_________. 1975. Watershed indicators of landform development. In: Hydrology of Water

Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. Proc. 1975 Meeting Ariz. Sect. Hm. Water Resource Assoc. and Hydrol. Sect., Ariz. Acad. Sci. Tempe, AZ. pp. 43-46.

_________. 1977. Case study of a watershed rehabilitation project: Alkali Creek, Colorado.

USDA, FS. Res. Paper RM-189.

_________. 1984. Overland flow and sediment delivery: An experiment with a small

subdrainage in southwestern ponderosa pine forests (Colorado, USA). J. of Hydrology, Vol.

72:261-273.

Henszey, R.J., T.A. Wesche, and Q.D. Skinner. 1989. Evaluation of the state-of-the-art

streambank stabilization. Prep. for Water Quality Div., Wyoming Dept. of Envir. Quality.

Cheyenne, WY. 224pp.

Jackson, W.L. and R.L. Beschta. 1984. Influences of increased sand delivery on the morphology of sand gravel channels. Water Resources Bull. 20(4):527-533.

Kadlec, R.H. and J.A. Kadlec. 1978. Wetlands and water quality. In: Wetlands Functions and

Values: The State of Our Understanding. American Water Resources Assoc., November

1978.

Laycock, W.A. and P.W. Conrad. 1967. Effect of grazing on soil compaction as measured by

bulk density on a high elevation cattle range. J. Range Mgt., Vol. 20:136-38.
20

Logan, L.D. 1979. Native vegetation for streambank erosion control. Paper presented at 31st

Annual Meeting, Forestry Committee, Great Plains Agricultural Council, Colorado State

Univ., Ft. Collins, CO.

Miller, R.C., Q.D. Skinner, and V.R. Hasfurther. 1979. Soil moisture relationships in a

western alluvial valley floor. In: Symposium on Surface Mining Hydrology, Sedimentology

and Reclamation. University of Kentucky, KT.

Nabhan, G.P. and T.E. Sheridan. 1977. Living fence rows of the Rio San Miguel, Sonora,

Mexico: Traditional technology for floodplain management. Human Ecology, Vol. 5(2).

Ratliff, R.D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: State of knowledge. USDA,

FS Gen. Tech. Report PNW-84.

Richardson, B., Ed. 1981. Selected proceedings of the midwest conference on wetland values

and management. Radisson St. Paul Hotel, Minn: Avail. from Freshwater Soc., 2500

Shadywood Rd., Box 90, Navarre, MN, 55372.

Stabler, D.F. 1985. Increasing summer flow in small streams through management of riparian

areas and adjacent vegetation: A synthesis. In: Proc. Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management, Reconciling Conflicting Uses, First N. Am. Rip. Conf., Tucson, AZ. USDA, FS

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120.

Tinus, R.W. 1983. Salt tolerance of 10 deciduous shrub and tree species. In: Proc. Intermountain Nurseryman’s Assoc. Conference, Las Vegas, NV.

United State Department of Agriculture. 1982. A Technique for Establishing Woody Riparian

Plants from Cuttings. Forest Service, Intermountain Region Ogden, UT. Habitat Express No.

82-13. 2pp.

_________. 1982. A Tool for Planting Cuttings of Riparian Plants. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. Habitat Express No. 82-16. 2pp.

_________. 1985. Streambank Stabilization Methods. Forest Service, Intermountain Region,

Ogden, UT. Habitat Express No. 85-6. 7pp.

_________. 1988. Indexed Bibliography on Stream Habitat Improvement. Forest Service,

Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 121pp.

United States Department of the Interior. 1983. Willow planting for riparian habitat improvement. BLM Tech. Note 363, Denver, CO.

Wilen, B.O., W.P. MacConnell, and D.L. Mader. 1975. The effects of beaver activity on

water quantity and quality. In: Forestry Issues in Urban America, Proceedings 1974 Nat’l

Con. Soc. of Am. Foresters:235-241.

Williams, S.R., K.G. Renard, and P.T. Dyke. 1983. EPIC: A new method for assessing

erosion’s effect on soil productivity. J. Soil and Water Conservation. pp. 381-383.

Winegar, H.H. 1977. Camp Creek channel fencing - plant, wildlife, soil and water response.

Rangeman’s Journal, Vol. 4(1):10-12.
21

Woodward, R.A., K.T. Harper, and A.R. Tiedemann. 1984. An ecological consideration of

the significance of cation exchange capacity of roots of some Utah range plants. Plant and

Soil, 79:169-180.

Zasada, J.C., B.J. Neiland, R. Densmore, M.A. Masters, and N. Moore. 1981. Investigations

of techniques for large-scale reintroduction of willows in Arctic Alaska. Agr. Exp. Sta. Univ.

of Alaska. Fairbanks, AK. 448pp.

Objective: The purpose of these techniques is to reestablish native plant communities and

physical conditions that will stabilize and allow the system to function properly.

Areas of Applicability: There is universal application to riparian ecosystems.

Techniques: Watershed vegetation treatments are most important in the recovery of degraded and lost riparian sites. Typically, these techniques have utilized the direct planting of

shrubs, trees, poles, roots, tubers, and seedlings in an attempt to establish desired vegetation

species or communities.

Basically there are three methods to establish (reestablish) native vegetation: using cuttings,

transplanting dry root stock, and seeding. A brief description of each follows:

A. Using cuttings to establish vegetation works well for woody riparian vegetation like

willows and cottonwoods. The first step is to collect native cuttings, prior to leafing out,

from sites close to the site that will be planted. The cuttings are cut at a 45-degree angle

and can be planted directly or stored in buckets of water for a few days. When storing

them in water, survival will be augmented by adding rooting stimulants.

The length of a cutting is determined by the depth of the water table where it will be

planted. Eight to 15 inches are added to the cutting length to determine the length above

ground. To establish larger cottonwoods, 4 to 6 feet must be left above ground. When

planting the cutting, it is of extreme importance that the cut end of the plant is placed into

the water table. The terminal end of the plant is sometimes pruned to prevent flowering

and direct more activity towards root growth. If pruned, the top of the plant should be

painted to prevent excessive loss of moisture and provide optimal survival.

Successful plantings at higher elevations, usually take place after snowmelt and peak

runoff. For lower elevations, the preferred time is before greenup. A tool, developed by

the Coconino National Forest, is useful in planting riparian species. It is a modified forest

tool, the “KBC Bar” for tree planting. The handle is shortened to accommodate welding

a steel rod to the tip of the planting bar. For larger cottonwoods, a post hole digger or

auger works well.

B. Dry root stock or transplants require digging a hole that is large enough to accommodate

the existing root mass without scrunching it. A couple of inches are added to the depth of

the hole to provide room for adding a soil mixture or enhancer. A mix of 1/3 soil, 1/3

sand, and 1/3 fertilizer is often used. Prepared soil enhancers or mulches can be used as

well. Sometimes the existing soils are adequate at the site and do not require any form of

enhancers. This can be determined by a soil scientist.
22

The bottom couple of inches are filled with the soil, soil mixture and/or enhancer, and the

plant is place in the hole. The hole is then filled around the root mass or ball, stopping

every so often and adding water to remove air pockets around the roots. Depending on

the size of the tree/shrub, it may need to be staked to provide stability until the root

system has had time to establish itself, usually 1 year.

C. Successful broadcast seeding is done in the fall before snow flies and/or early spring

before moisture and greenup. Broadcasting seeds during the winter, on top of the snow,

has been fairly successful. If the seeds are being applied to a small area, a hand spreader

works fine. After application, the area should be raked or scuffed to cover the seeds to

some degree. If the seeds are being applied to a large area, a drill is more appropriate.

The drill should be set to the appropriate depth to allow for good germination.

Seeding may not be necessary if a natural seed source is close at hand. Roughing an area

with the teeth on a front-end loader provides texture that supplies microclimates sufficient for seeds to collect, be covered, and germinate.

There are other opportunities for reestablishing vegetation, like planting sod plugs, that are

not covered in this document.

Ease of Application: Some of these methods are labor intensive and can be expensive.

However, most of the labor can be supplied by volunteers and the actual techniques are quite

easy to apply.

Expected Responses: Only limited success may be experienced if site conditions are

unfavorable. Special considerations are therefore necessary to design treatments that optimize microsite factors, such as soil and organic (carbon) accumulations, cool temperature

pockets, and season-long moisture availability. Consideration of these factors should facilitate the establishment and vigorous recovery of (native) vegetation most suited for the

ecological site conditions.

If conditions are favorable and techniques are properly applied, most cutting efforts will

result in a 60 to 80 percent survival rate going into the second growing season. The survival

rates for dry root plantings vary greatly, with some results as low as 5 percent and some as

high as 60 percent after the first growing season. Success of seeding projects relates directly

to climatic events.

Limitations: Dry root stock plantings will usually require special care (watering) for survival. Dry root stock from nurseries often is not acclimated to the new site, thus limiting

survival.

In some instances, the causes for the change to the undesired plant community have not been

addressed. Without a change in other management activities (e.g., grazing) to go along with

attempts to change vegetative communities, many planting operations will fail.
23

5. Name: Opportunities from Mineral Activities

References:

Bormann, N.E. 1989. Consideration of fluvial hydraulics in creating wetlands. Gonzaga

Univ., Spokane, WA. 319pp.

Boyle, J.R. 1988. Mining and reclamation of a central Florida forested wetland: a case study.

Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC. 31pp.

_________. 1988. A program to mine and restore a forested wetland. USBM/et al. Mine

Drainage & Surface Mine Reclamation Conf., Pittsburgh, PA, Apr. 19-21, 1988, V2, P139(7).

Brooks, R.P. 1990. Wetland and waterbody restoration and creation associated with mining.

Penn. State Univ., University Park, PA. 529pp.

Brown, M.T., and H.T. Odum. 1985. Studies of a method of wetland reconstruction following

phosphate mining. Univ. of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, FL. Report No.: Fipr/

Pub-03-022-032. 81pp.

Cole, C.A. and E.A. Lefebvre. 1991. Soil and water characteristics of a young surface mine

wetland. Dept. Parks, Rec. and Tourism Mgt. Raleigh, NC. Environ. Mgt. 15 (3). pp. 403-

410.

Hanneman, K.L., R.C. Tsigonis, and L.A. Peterson. 1987. Placer mining demonstration grant

project design handbook. L.A. Peterson and Assoc., Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 46pp.

Klimstra, W.D. and J.R. Nawrot. 1985. Wetlands as a byproduct of surface mining: midwest

perspective. Southern Illinois Univ., PA State Univ/et al. Wetlands Water Mgt., Mined Lands

Conf., University Park, PA. Oct 23-24, 1985. p. 107(13).

Matter, W.J. and R.W. Mannan. 1988. Sand and gravel pits as fish and wildlife habitat in the

southwest. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Report No.: Resource Pub-171.

20pp.

Nawroot, J.R., D.B. Warburton, and W.B. Klimstra. 1988. Wetland habitat development

techniques for coal mine slurry impoundments. Illinois Univ., Carbondale, IL. 9pp.

Ruesch, K.J. 1983. Survey of wetland reclamation projects in the Florida phosphate industry.

Dames and Moore, Lakeland, FL. 112pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1989. Placer mining in Alaska: A guide to mitigation and

reclamation. BLM. Anchorage, AK. 50pp.

_________. 1988. Surface disturbing activities in Alaska: A guide to technical aspects of

mitigation and reclamation. BLM. Anchorage, AK. 160pp.

Wieder, R.K. 1989. A survey of constructed wetlands for acid coal mine drainage treatments

in the eastern United States. Dept. of Biology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA. Wetlands

1989, 9(2):299-315.
24

Willard, D.E. 1988. Evaluation of strip sites and ponds for physical manipulation to increase

wetlands and improve habitat in southwestern Indiana. Indiana Univ., Bloomington, ID.

115pp.

Wright, S.W. 1989. Advances in plant material and revegetation technology in Alaska. Dept.

Nat. Res., Div. Agr., Palmer, AK. 38pp.

Objective: The objective of these techniques is to rehabilitate the impacts (mitigation) of

mineral exploration and development.

Areas of Applicability: This technique has universal application with modification to

particular sites based on climatic factors.

Techniques: Minerals activities offer extensive opportunities for development of new

riparian vegetation and areas through the application of innovative or off-site mitigation for

surface disturbances, multiple-use runoff design considerations in surface reclamation plans,

and capitalization of incidentally developed resources, such as new artesian flows or surface

reservoirs. In addition, extensive surface disturbances such as roads or mine spoils, when

viewed as water collection and yield surfaces, often can provide opportunities for water yield

management to enhance the development of wet meadow or marsh sites, improving onsite

sediment retention and rangeland productivity. Examples of such practices could include the

following:

A. Development of “dry hole” flowing wells into riparian areas (e.g., Red Desert Wetlands -

Green River Resource Area).

B. Reclamation design to utilize mine spoil runoff or mine drainage for creating reservoirs,

marshes, and wet meadow basins (e.g., Skull Point Reservoir - Kemmerer Resource

Area).

C. Development of low-profile diked or rock-armored water spreaders, to collect and

infiltrate increased runoff resulting from road construction (e.g., Riley Ridge Oil and Gas

Field - Pinedale Resource Area).

D. Riparian habitat development in association with surge or evaporation ponds (e.g., 10-

Mile Marsh and Bridger Power Plant - Green River Resource Area).

Ease of Application: Most of these efforts are expensive and labor intensive. They usually

require the use of heavy equipment. The equipment and labor at the mine site often can be

used to rehabilitate the site or to create mitigation sites.

Expected Responses: Success will vary greatly (0 to 100 percent) and is related to the soils,

type of tailings, and water quality of the site. For places like Alaska, aufeis and permafrost

must be considered. For the most part, success will increase if native vegetation is used on

the site. However, on some sites, because of the type of spoils, nonnative vegetation is the

only vegetation that can establish itself.

Limitations: Caution must be taken in using mine wastes or spoils in reclamation projects.

Mine spoils are often materials with high concentration of salts, heavy metals, or acidic

residues. In most cases heavy equipment with experienced and/or willing operators is

necessary to achieve success. It can sometimes take years to achieve the desired plant

community.
25

6. Name: Structures

References:

Bell, M.C. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. Fisheries Engineering Research Program, North Pacific Division.

Portland, OR.

Bettis, III, E.A. and D.M. Thompson. 1985. Gully erosion. Rangelands, Vol. 7(2).

Buckhouse, J.C. and R.E. Gaither. 1982. Potential sediment production within vegetative

communities in Oregon’s Blue Mountain. J. of Soil and Water Conservation.

Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1988. The fallacy of structures and the fortitudes of vegetation.

California Riparian Systems Conference; September 22-24, 1988. University of California

Davis, Davis, CA.

Harvey, M.D., C.C. Watson, and S.A. Schumm. 1985. Gully erosion. USDI, BLM Tech Note

366, Denver, CO.

Heede, B.H. 1966. Design, construction and cost of rock check dams. USDA, FS Res. Paper

RM-20.

_________. 1974. Stages of development of gullies in western United States of America.

Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologic N.F. Band 18, Heft 3:260-271.

_________. 1976. Gully development and control: The status of our knowledge. USDA, FS

Res. Paper RM-169.

_________. 1981. Rehabilitation of disturbed watersheds through vegetation treatment and

physical structures. In: Proc. of Inter. West Watershed Mgt. Symp. pub. Washington State

University, Pullman, WA. D.M. Baumgartner ed.

Heede, B.H. and J.G. Mufich. 1973. Functional relationships and computer program for

structural gully control. J. of Environ. Mgt. pp. 321-344.

Jackson, W.L. and B.P. Van Haveren. 1984. Design for a stable channel in coarse alluvium

for riparian zone restoration. Water Resources Bull. 20(5):695-703.

Megahan, W.F. 1976. Sediment storage in channels draining small forested watersheds in the

mountains of central Idaho. Proc. 3rd Fed. Interagency Sed. Conf. Denver, CO.

Swanston, D.N. 1976. Erosion processes and control methods in North America. In: Proceedings XVI IUFRO World Congress Div. I. USDA, FS PNW-FRES, Corvallis, OR.

Objectives: Physical structures are placed in watersheds to control erosion and/or degradation of a site. They are also placed to dissipate energy, spread water, and stabilize banks, etc.

Before application to any site, determine whether the same objectives can be accomplished

through vegetation management or impact reduction management. These management

techniques are preferred over the use of structures.
26

Areas of Applicability: Structures have universal application to perennial, intermittent, and

ephemeral drainages of like sites.

Techniques: The construction of physical structures for riparian (erosion control) treatments, while widely applied, is expensive and labor intensive, requires ongoing maintenance,

and often ends up treating the symptoms of riparian problems rather than their causes. For

these reasons, an interdisciplinary team effort should be applied on a watershed scale, to

ensure the causes of riparian problems are corrected while their impacts are being treated.

Physical treatments designed with the following points in mind have high success:

A. Use of natural materials and transfer systems available at the site or easily obtainable

(e.g., rock, vegetation, deadfall logs, transported sediment, etc.)

B. Expenditure of one-time treatment costs versus numerous followup or periodic treatments

(e.g., riprap of a cutting bank to increase erosion resistance versus ongoing road maintenance, reconstruction, and continued erosion)

C. High amortization rates of capital expenditures for achieved effect. For example, if a

gully trash-catcher costs $100 for materials and labor, and it takes 5 years for it to fill in

and form an operational pocket meadow, the annual cost for the meadow is $20 for net

effect; or, if annual sediment removal in an irrigation system costs $100,000, a $500,000

(silt trap) marsh development would be amortized out in only 5 years or less, if resulting

recreational uses were also developed.

In many areas throughout the West, human developments, and changes in watershed equilibrium associated with them, may require the construction of major physical treatments to

maintain or restore the entire drainage system’s integrity.

For example, construction of major on-stream reservoirs can initiate repeated waves or runs

of headcuts up tributary drainages, due to repeated changes in pool levels of the reservoir.

These headcuts can lead to a continued undermining and accelerated erosion of former

riparian depositional sites throughout entire watersheds. These situations may require major

gradient restoration and energy-transfer structures at the mouth of such tributaries, to correct

or mitigate this type of a compounding impact and prevent a breakdown of the entire system.

The following physical treatments have been utilized to solve a variety of riparian problems

or initiate the reformation of stable conditions:

1. Gully plugs

2. Gabions

3. Drop structures

4. Check dams

5. Water spreaders

6. Spring developments

7. Reservoirs

8. Trash catchers (in perennial and ephemeral drainages)

9. Reinforcement structures for energy dissipation (riprap, channel armoring, trees,

fence posts, wire, tires)

10. Drainage reconstruction

11. Grassed waterways

12. Low water crossings (concrete, gravel, gabions)
27

No one structure or treatment can typically be prescribed for all situations. By identifying

key factors, forces, and conditions affecting each site, the most likely structural solution will

often evolve through the factor-analysis process. Key factors for consideration include the

following:

1. The full annual range of streamflow volume and its timing.

2. Gradient above and below the site, relative to flow velocities at all stages.

3. Soil type and resistance to erosion at all flow stages and velocities to be encountered throughout the year.

4. Dynamics of sediment transport, volume, and storage throughout the year or over

the expected life of the structure.

5. Expected performance life of the treatment structure and its net effect, considering

potential channel or riparian changes after installation.

6. Effects on the biota.

Accelerated erosion is often the basic problem to be solved in most riparian structural treatments. In this regard, basic strategies can be used to:

1. Intercept the accelerated erosion at its source, through stabilization, to preserve a

riparian site and correct the source of the problem.

2. Intercept and store the sediment en route to develop new riparian areas.

3. Increase channel erosion resistance factors and flow velocities, to pass the accelerated amount of sediment through the system to someone else downstream.

Ease of Application: Application and labor varies from very easy to extremely difficult.

Some of the techniques can be done by hand, while others will require all types of equipment.

Planning for structures should include engineering and hydrologic input.

Expected Responses: Response is directly related to properly classifying the site (ecological

site) and determining its potential. Understanding the site results in most projects having a

high success rate. Most failures result from trying to apply a technique that worked well for

one site without realizing that the new site is different.

Success of a project often depends on whether the management situation that allowed the

problem to occur has been corrected. Structural treatments will not replace or overcome

poor management. Management must be appropriate before any treatments are initiated.

The cause, not the symptoms, must be identified and addressed.

Limitations: Application of a particular treatment to the wrong site can be disastrous. A

good understanding (classification) of the site and how it functions (aggradation, degradation,

hydrology, etc.) is necessary. For example, if Rosgens’ (1985) stream classification system is

used, B2 channel types are areas where cross channel structures will be successful while on

C2 channel types, cross channel structures would be disastrous.

Many forms of physical treatments will require some level of maintenance. This can be

costly and time consuming, and needs to be incorporated into a cost/benefit analysis.
28

7. Name: Beaver

References:

Aleksiuk, M. 1970. The seasonal food regime of arctic beavers. Ecology 51(2):264-270.

Avery, E.L. 1983. A bibliography of beaver, trout, wildlife, and forest relationship; Tech.

Bull. No. 137, Wisc. Dept. Nat. Res., Madison, WI.

Bergerud, A.T. and D.R. Miller. 1977. Population dynamics of Newfoundland beaver; J. Can.

Zool., Vol. 55(8):1480-1492.

Blanchet, M. 1972. The beavers return to Switzerland. Animals 14(2).

Bovet, J. and E.F. Oertli. 1974. Free-running Circadian activity rhythms in free-living beaver.

J. Comp. Physiol. 92:1-10.

Call, M.W. 1986. Beaver pond ecology and beaver trout relationships in southeastern Wyoming. Ph.D. dissertation. Zoology Dept., Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Collins, T.C. 1976. Population characteristics and habitat relationships of beavers (Castor

canadensis). Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Danilov, P.I. 1972. Acclimatization and some ecological features of Canadian beaver in

Keralia. Ekologiya.

Decker, D.J. 1980. The beaver - New York’s empire builder. The Conservationist.

Dickinson, N.R. 1971. Aerial photographs as an aid in beaver management. N.Y. Fish and

Game J. 18(1):57-61.

Dudderar, G. 1977. Controlling vertebrate damage - beavers. Ext. Bull. E-871, Coop. Ext.

Serv., Michigan State University, Ann Arbor, MI.

Duncan, S.L. 1984. Leaving it to beaver. Environment 26(3):41-45.

Fiolliott, P.F. 1976. Observations of beaver activity in an extreme environment. The Southwestern Naturalist 21(1):131-133.

Gill, D. 1972. The evolution of a discrete beaver habitat in the Mackenzie River Delta,

Northwest Territories. Can. Field Naturalist, 86(3):233-239.

Harris, S.C. 1976. Influence of beaver activity on aquatic insects. Entomological Soc. of

Amer., North Cent. Branch. Proceedings.

Hodgdon, H.E. 1978. Social dynamics and behavior within an unexploited beaver (Castor

canadensis) population. Ph.D. dissertation. Dept. of Wildl. and Fish. Biol., Univ. of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

_________ and J.S. Larson. 1973. Some sexual differences in behavior within a colony of

marked beavers. Animal Behavior, 21(1):147-152.
29

_________. 1980. A bibliography of the recent literature on beaver. Mass. Ag. Exp. Sta. Res.

Bull. No. 665. University of Mass., Amherst, MA.

Hodkinson, I.D. 1975. Dry weight loss and chemical changes in vascular plant litter of

terrestrial origin, occurring in a beaver pond ecosystem; J. of Ecology, 63(1):131-142.

_________. 1975. A community analysis of the benthic insect fauna of an abandoned beaver

pond. J. An. Ecol., 44(2):533-551.

Jenkins, S.H. 1978. Food selection by beavers: Sampling behavior. Breviora. Museum of

Comparative Zoology, No. 447.

Johnson, D.R. and D.H. Chance. 1974. Presettlement overharvest of upper Columbia River

beaver populations. Can. J. Zool., 52: 1519-1521.

Johnson, R.C. et al. 1976. Evaluation of habitat manipulation for ducks in an Alabama beaver

pond complex. In: Proceedings 29th Ann. Conf. SE Assoc. of Game and Fish Commissioners, W.A. Rogers (ed):512-518.

Kirby, R.E. 1976. Mapping wetlands on beaver flowages with 35mm photography; Can. Field

Naturalist, 90(4):423-431.

Lahti, S. and M. Helaminen. 1974. The beaver (Castor fiber L.) and (Castor canadensis,

Kuhl) in Finland; Acta Theriologica. 19(3):177-189.

Lancia, R.A. 1979. Year-long activity patterns of radio-marked beaver (Castor canadensis).

Ph.D. dissertation. Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst, MA.

_________, W.E. Dodge, and J.S. Larson. 1982. Winter activity patterns of two radio marked

beaver colonies; J. Mamm., 63(4):598-606.

McKean, T. and C. Carlton. 1977. Oxygen storage in beavers. J. Appl. Physiol. 42(4):545-

547.

Novak, M. 1977. Determining the average size and composition of beaver families; J. Wildl.

Mgt. Vol. 41(4):751-754.

Parsons, G. 1975. Effect of a 4-year closure of the trapping season for beaver in eastern

Warren County, New York. N.Y. Fish & Game J. 22(1):57-61.

_________ and M. Brown. 1978. Effect of a four-year closure of the trapping season for

beaver in Fulton County, New York. N.Y. Game & Fish J. 25(1):23-30.

Parsons, G.R. and M.K. Brown. 1978. An assessment of aerial photography interpretation for

recognizing potential beaver colony sites. Pages 181-184. In: Trans. N.E. Sect. TWS, 35th

N.E. Fish & Wildl. Conf., White Sulphur Spgs., WV.

Payne, N.F. 1975. Trapline management and population biology of Newfoundland beaver.

Ph.D. dissertation. Utah State University, Logan, UT.
30

Potvin, C.L. and J. Bovet. 1975. Annual cycle of patterns of activity rhythms in beaver

colonies (Castor canadensis); J. Comp. Physiol. 98:243-256.

Ray, A.J. 1975. Some conservation schemes of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1821-1850: An

examination of the problems of resource management in the fur trade. J. Historical Geography 1(1):49-68.

Renouf, R.N. 1972. Waterfowl utilization of beaver ponds in New Brunswick. J. Wildl. Mgt.

36(3):740-744.

Slough, B.G. 1978. Beaver food cache structure and utilization. J. Wildl. Mgt. 42(3):644-

646.

_________ and R.M.F.S. Sadler. 1977. A land capability classification system for beaver

(Castor canadensis, Kuhl) Can. J. Zool. 55:1324-1335.

Taylor, D. 1970. Growth, decline, and equilibrium in a beaver population at Sagehen Creek,

California. Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.

Troszynski, W. 1977. Changes in the form of incisors as an age criterion for beaver (Castor

fiber L.); Zool. Poloniae, 26(2):167-175.

Zurowski, W. 1979. Preliminary results of European beaver reintroduction in the tributary

streams of the Vistula River. Acta Theriologica, 24(7):85-91.

_________ and Z. Jacjewski. 1974. Observations on the releasing of the European beaver.

Acta Theriologica, 19(25):370-374.

Objectives: Historically, beaver have been key agents of riparian succession and ecology

throughout North America. Beaver can be used to naturally transform pioneer woody vegetation into physical features that result in the expansion of floodplains, riparian community

structure, diversity, and productivity.

Areas of Applicability: There is universal application for habitat where beaver occur either

historically or presently.

Techniques: Basic considerations in managing beaver include watershed erosion rates and

volumes, dam and pond cycling frequencies, construction material demand rates, availability

(or potential) of suitable adjacent woody vegetation, types of adjacent woody vegetation (e.g.,

willow-based beaver complexes cycle faster than aspen, which are faster than cottonwood,

etc.). Other factors include carrying capacity, population dynamics and their management,

and site-specific factors, such as bank stability, vegetative cover, soil type, stream slope,

order, and size.

Ecosystem management, capitalizing on the beneficial effects of beaver activity, can be used

to achieve riparian maintenance or improvement objectives through adjustments in land-use

activities. For example, accelerated erosion could be mitigated by accelerating cycling rates

of beaver complexes and meadow formation in order to collect and stabilize the increased

runoff and sediment in the drainage. Special management may be required to maximize

woody and herbaceous vegetation regrowth rates in order to supply abundant building

material and provide the basis for accelerated dam-building activity and cycling frequency.
31

Other examples could include treatments such as maximizing beaver populations (and

possibly supplemental dam reinforcements) through an initial construction phase, followed by

population reductions and management for maintenance levels or desired effect.

In other cases, beaver could be used to initiate or accelerate the natural restoration of degraded or lost riparian systems. Identifying limiting factors and providing supplemental

management techniques to compensate for these factors are important. With physical site

conditions improved for initiation of natural riparian establishment, the system could develop

to a self-sustaining level within as little as 3 to 4 years. By planting beaver in degraded sites,

providing supplemental dam reinforcing material during initial construction (to reduce dam

washout prospects), and maximizing vegetative regrowth and establishment, the physical

laws and processes of nature can be used to accelerate riparian recovery and succession.

By starting lower in first-, second-, and sometimes third-order drainages, or below areas of

erosion, beaver activity and stream sediment transport can be capitalized upon to reelevate

the bed level of incised channels; reactivate floodplains; increase streambank water storage

and aquifer recharge; and increase sediment deposition and storage, creating favorable

microsite conditions for maximizing natural vegetative stabilization of the drainage.

Once viable beaver complexes become established and are self-sustaining (3 to 4 years), the

complexes themselves will begin to form natural gully plugs of a quarter- to half-mile in

length, accelerating sediment deposition and riparian recovery further upstream. By facilitating the establishment of beaver dam complexes at intervals along a drainage or throughout a

watershed, this process can create a leap frog effect, helping to accumulate or stabilize

sediment in place throughout the system.

Ease of Application: The most difficult and frustrating aspect of this technique is live

trapping of beaver. This process can be time consuming and requires dedication. However,

once they are captured, they are easy to handle and receptive to being moved to a new site.

Expected Responses: If the techniques are followed as expressed above, the success rate is

usually high, but this also depends on the site they are moved to and the time of year they are

moved. For best results, beavers should be moved in the fall, allowing for time to gather a

food cache, but limiting their time to explore before having to set up shop for the coming of

winter. Providing a food cache at a particular site may be helpful. Beavers should not be

expected to set up shop at a particular site; a general area should be planned and the beavers

will choose the site.

Limitations: Moving beavers at the wrong time of year can result in them leaving the area

and becoming a nuisance downstream. They can be destructive to habitat as well as beneficial. If homeowners are nearby, over time the beavers may be liked or disliked based on what

they are doing to the private lands. In these areas, it is important to work in cooperation with

adjacent landowners.

Beavers can be disruptive to the habitat of other wildlife species. Caution should be used in

introducing beavers into areas where they were not endemic. For example, they may alter the

migration patterns of fish.

Special consideration needs to be applied to areas where livestock use occurs.
32

8. Name: Bank Stabilization

References:

Binns, N.A. 1986. Stabilizing eroding stream banks in Wyoming, a guide to controlling bank

erosion in streams. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, WY. 42pp.

Henszey, R.J., T.A. Wesche, and Q.D. Skinner. 1989. Evaluation of the state-of-the-art

streambank stabilization. Prep. for Water Quality Div., Wyoming Dept. of Envir. Quality.

Cheyenne, WY. 224pp.

Seehorn, M.E. 1980. Proceeding of the trout stream habitat improvement workshop. Forest

Service and Trout Unlimited, Asheville, NC. 158pp.

United State Department of Agriculture. 1985. Streambank stabilization methods. Forest

Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. Habitat Express No. 85-6. 7pp.

_________. 1988. Indexed bibliography on stream habitat improvement. Forest Service,

Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 121pp.

United States Department of the Interior. 1978. Western reservoir and stream habitat improvements handbook. FWS. FWS/OBS-78/56. 224pp.

_________. 1981. Use of juniper trees to stabilize eroding streambanks on the South Fork

John Day River. BLM, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. T/N: OR-1. 4pp.

United States Department of Transportation. 1979. Restoration of fish habitat in relocated

streams. FHWA. FHWA-IP-79-3. 63pp.

Objective: The objective of bank stabilization is usually to accelerate soil and water conservation efforts. For the most part these practices are considered temporary, and are being used

to speed up natural processes. Therefore, it is important that adjustments be made in management of the area that created the problem before placement of such treatments. In some

cases, this erosion is natural and should be allowed to continue for the system to function

properly, thus establishing new point bars for vegetation establishment.

Areas of Applicability: There is universal application to perennial and intermittent streams.

Techniques: Bank treatments usually fall into one of three basic categories — juniper, log,

and rock riprap or gabion treatment:

A. Juniper treatment consists of cutting green trees or gathering discarded Christmas tress

and anchoring them into banks in areas with high erosion and sloughing. They provide

an advantage over the other methods by being more cost effective, as well as acting as

sediment traps that provide sites for vegetation to establish itself.

Tree size depends upon the size of the system and the availability of equipment. Trees

with bushy or heavy crowns are preferred. Trees are angled downstream and attached by

wire to an anchor point. Fence posts and deadmans are used to secure the anchor points.

Trees are placed generally at one tree per yard of bank.
33

B. Log structures are usually used where vegetation is not successfully holding the bank

together. Logs are placed at the base of the bank (streambed level), end to end. Preferred

tree size is 10 to 12 inches in diameter and 10 foot lengths. The type can be varied

(aspen, lodgepole pine, etc.). A source should be selected that is close by and readily

available.

The logs are anchored to the bank by driving 7 foot pieces of 1/2- or 5/8-inch rebar

through them and into the banks at a 45 degree angle. The rebar is driven into the bank

by using post pounders until only 12 inches are remaining. The remaining rebar is bent

over and angled downstream towards the bank. A backhoe is then used to fill behind the

structures. Larger materials (fist size rocks) are placed first to prevent undercutting of the

structures, and fines are placed last to provide sites for vegetation establishment.

C. The use of gabions or placement of riprap is usually reserved for sites that have extreme

erosion. Normally, when placing riprap, rock pieces of an average size of 24 inches are

ideal for this type of work, but this will vary with the size of stream. When using gabions, the size of rock only needs to exceed the size of the wire mesh.

Hand labor can be used to accomplish these tasks, if small in nature, but heavy equipment, like a backhoe, will be required to complete large projects.

There are a variety of materials that can be substituted in this technique, but the technique

remains the same for the most part.

Ease of Application: Juniper trees, 8 to 10 feet in height, can be easily handled by two

people and hauled in a pickup truck. Once at the site, they can be easily dragged by hand.

This is an excellent treatment that can be carried out by volunteers like boy scouts, YCC, etc.

Larger projects will require the use of heavy equipment and skilled operators.

Expected Responses: Placement of juniper trees will markedly reduced water velocities (73

percent reductions have been recorded) and promote the collection of sediment. The collection of fines provides a site below the vertical bank that native plant succession usually

occupies during the first growing season. Vegetation capturing sediment results in the

deepening and narrowing of the channel, increased bank (water) storage capability, and

improved water quality.

The expected results from using logs, riprap, or gabions are much the same as for junipers.

The cost to implement, though, is much higher.

Limitations: Juniper treatment works well on straight and slightly curved banks. Stabilization of outside curves will require structures such as riprap. Log treatments are better suited

for second- and some third-order streams. Gabions are rather unsightly until revegetation

takes place.

All of these techniques are temporary and efforts will be negated if management actions are

not implemented to correct the original problems.
34

9. Name: Recreation Planning

References:

Bayha, K.D. and R.A. Schmidt, Sr. 1983. Management of cottonwood-willow riparian

associations in Colorado. Colorado Chapter - The Wildlife Society. 53pp.

Benson, D.E. 1986. Managing recreation on private lands. Service in Action. Colorado State

University Cooperative Extension: No. 6.301.

Blakesley, J.A. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Avian use of campground and noncampground sites in

riparian zones. Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 52 (3):399-402.

Cole, D.N. 1989. Area of vegetation loss: a new index of campsite impact. Forest Service,

Intermountain Region. Research Note INT-389.

Gary, H.L. 1982. Stream water quality in a small commercial campground in Colorado.

Journal of Environmental Health, Vol.45 (1) 5-12.

Field, D.R., M.E. Lee, and K. Martinson. 1985. Human behavior and recreation habitats:

conceptual issues. In: Proc. Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management, Reconciling Uses,

First N. Am. Rip. Conf., Tucson, AZ. USDA, FS Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120

Hoover, S.L., D.A. King and W.J. Matter. 1985. A wilderness riparian environment: visitor

satisfaction, perceptions reality, and management. In: Proc. Riparian Ecosystems and Their

Management, Reconciling Uses, First N. Am. Rip. Conf., Tucson, AZ. USDA, FS Gen. Tech.

Rep. RM-120.

Leedy, D.L., T.M. Franklin, and R.M. Maestro. 1981. Planning for urban fishing and waterfront recreation. Urban Wildlife Research Center Inc. 108pp.

Sazaro, R.C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New

Mexico. Desert Plants: Volume 9, Numbers 3-4. 138pp.

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. 1990. Forestwide standards and guidelines

for riparian areas and soil-water-fisheries protection. May 1990. 8pp.

Waldrip, G. and M. Malespin. 1979. The importance of riparian habitats and their management to wildlife and fisheries. USDA FS Intermountain Region. March 1979. 28pp.

Objectives: The objectives of these techniques are to protect, manage, and improve riparian

habitats at existing recreation sites and during the development of future recreation sites.

Areas Of Applicability: There is universal application with modification to particular sites

based on flood potential, climate, and soil/vegetation factors.

Techniques: Concentration of recreation use within a riparian habitat can be devastating, to

the point that the very values that made the area attractive are eliminated or greatly reduced.

As leisure time increases, the recreational use of riparian areas will increase. Without proper

management of the important areas, onsite and off-site impacts can be significant. Potential

management actions for recreational activities within riparian zones include:
35

A. Conduct detailed soil, water quality, vegetation, threatened-endangered species inventory

and analysis prior to recreation site development or riparian site disturbances.

B. Evaluate adjacent uplands for potential hazards to human concentration (slides, flash

flood runoff, insect/animal concentrations,etc.).

C. Analyze flood potential for human safety and structural needs for all potential and

existing sites.

D. Retain enough vegetation in recreation development sites to maintain stable banks and

fish cover. Retain enough woody vegetation of sufficient width and height along perennial streams to ensure favorable water/terrestrial temperatures and supplies of large

organic debris for aquatic life.

E. Manage recreation use of riparian areas to prevent erosion or compaction that impairs soil

productivity, and prohibit sediment loads or damage to bank vegetation that impairs

channel stability, aquatic habitat, or other riparian values. Where such damage cannot be

prevented, relocate recreation sites outside riparian zones.

F. If at all possible, locate new recreation sites outside of riparian areas, except day use only

activities.

G. Design sites to prohibit land vehicles from getting into streams and damaging

streambanks.

H. Eliminate livestock grazing in developed recreation sites to reduce cumulative impact on

riparian ecosystems.

I. Design or redesign recreation sanitary facilities to prevent waste from affecting riparian

soils, vegetation, water, or human safety.

J. Develop recreation sites that utilize riparian habitats for quality experiences not for

quantity of human use. Disturbances to soils and vegetation should be kept to less than

15 percent of the developed site.

K. Design use areas to provide maximum noise filtering to increase human enjoyment and

reduce stress on wildlife in riparian areas.

L. Plant dense native vegetation in locations to screen and reduce human use of vulnerable

wildlife habitats and fragile soils, etc. Also use boulders and other natural looking

devices to control unwanted human activity.

M. Develop a signing program to interpret, reduce vandalism, and direct human use to and

away from given areas.

N. Keep road construction to a minimum. Develop trails to direct people to and away from

given areas.

O. Where feasible, locate new facilities outside 100-year floodplain. Sign 100-year floodplain in all recreation use areas.
36

P. Shrubs and saplings should be maintained and encouraged within the developed areas for

the benefit of wildlife and humans (screening, noise reduction, cover, and movement

corridors for birds).

Q. Concentrate camping activities in small areas of the developed recreation site to maximize low use areas.

R. Control pets, such as dogs and cats, to reduce predation on wildlife, wildlife harassment,

and disturbance of other recreationists.

S. Most importantly, maintain a presence at the recreation developments. If a presence

cannot be maintained at these sites, don’t develop them, or if already developed, close

them down until they can be managed properly.

Ease Of Application: Physical limitations to the development of recreation sites within

riparian zones are normally limited to the width of the floodplain. However, other considerations must also be evaluated before the decision to develop is made, such as benefits versus

impacts to humans as well as the environment, human safety, aesthetics, long-term site

productivity, etc.

Expected Responses: Long-term productivity and aesthetic values of riparian habitats are

expected to be maintained at a high level common for riparian areas. Human enjoyment of

these areas will also be maintained at a high level.

Limitations: Intensive planning and design will be necessary to properly prepare recreation

developments within riparian habitats. To adequately manage these recreation sites will

require a significant level of manpower to maintain, clean, and police them. Some limitations

will be required related to flood potential and human safety.
37

10. Name: Road Construction and Maintenance

References:

Brocke, R.H., J.P. O’Pezio, and K.A. Gustafson. 1988. A forest management scheme mitigating impact of road networks on sensitive wildlife species. Convention of the Society of

American Foresters at Rochester, NY. October 16-19, 1988. pp. 13-17.

Haugen, G. 1982. The best management practices for the management and protection of

western riparian stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Western Division. 45pp.

Hynson, J., P. Adamus, S. Tibbetts, and R. Darnell. 1982. Handbook for protection of fish

and wildlife from construction of farm and forest roads. USDI, Office of Biological Services,

FWS.

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1973. A method for regulating timber harvest and road

construction activity for water quality protection in northern California. Publication No. 50;

Volume 1, Procedures and Methods.

Lantz, R.L. 1971. Guidelines for stream protection in logging operations. A Report of the

Research Division Oregon State Game Commission. 29pp.

Levinski, C.L. 1982. Best management practices for road activities. Idaho of Department of

Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho. Volume I and Volume

II, BMP Catalog.

Orme, M. 1986. Coordinating forest road and off-road vehicle management with the wildlife

resources-Targhee National Forest. The Habitat Express. 5pp.

Payne, N.F. and F. Copes. 1969. Wildlife and fisheries habitat improvement handbook.

USDA, FS.

Plummer, P.A. 1970. Plants for revegetation of roadcuts and other disturbed or eroded areas.

USDA, FS, Intermountain Region Range Improvement Notes 15(1): 1-8, 1970. 9pp.

Sheridan, W.L., M.E. Nuss, R.H. Armstrong, R.D. Reed, M.S. Leach, and A.W. Pekovich.

Logging and fish habitat. FS, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game and Alaska Dept. of Natural

Resources. 22pp.

Unknown. 1983. Guide for traffic control devices on forest development roads. USDA, FS,

Equipment Development Center Missoula, MT. 17pp.

Waldrip, G. and M. Milespin. 1979. Riparian wildlife resume. USDA, FS Intermountain

Region. 28pp.

Objectives: The objectives of these techniques are to protect, manage, and improve riparian

habitats by improving road design, location, and maintenance.

Areas of Applicability: There is universal application with modification to particular sites

based on soils, flood potential, and vegetation factors.
38

Techniques: Road construction in and adjacent to riparian areas has a high potential of

altering stream channels, impacting water runoff and soil erosion, causing disturbance of

vegetation and wildlife habitats, and reducing the human enjoyment of these unique environments. Roads and road construction impacts on riparian zones can be avoided or significantly

reduced through careful planning, mitigating practices, and commitment to long-term maintenance. Potential management actions pertaining to road construction and maintenance

include:

A. Conduct detailed soil, vegetation, and threatened-endangered species inventory and

analysis prior to any surface disturbance.

B. Analyze flood potential for human safety and structural stability.

C. If at all possible, locate all new roads outside of riparian areas. Locate roads on natural/

stable benches, ridges, and flat slopes near ridges or valley bottoms.

D. Design roads and stream crossings to minimize impacts to streambanks, riparian vegetation, water quality, and downstream environments.

E. Design roads with adequate structures/devices to prohibit vehicles from leaving the roads

and off-roading in riparian zones or adjacent uplands that may adversely impact the

riparian habitats.

F. Install signs that inform the public where use is encouraged, accepted, discouraged, or

prohibited.

G. Revegetate all disturbed areas with native vegetation. This should stabilize the site,

prevent erosion, and catch sediment. It should also reduce silt entering the water system,

prevent the establishment of undesirable plants, add aesthetic viewing, and provide cover

and food for wildlife. Special thought should be given to avoid drawing animals to

heavily traveled roads.

H. Develop a road management plan for the entire watershed to minimize miles of roads

needed.

I. Roads should be located on well-drained soils.

J. Any culverts or other stream-altering developments should allow for fish passage and

free flow of instream debris.

K. Avoid large road cuts and fills and reduce road surface area to the minimum required for

the purpose of the road and expected vehicle traffic.

L. Roads should be outsloped and designed with rolling grades or water bars to reduce

surface water velocities and culvert requirements.

M. Road construction waste material should be hauled to a predesignated site and not

sidecasted.

N. Exposed soils that cannot be revegetated might need riprapping.
39

O. Road construction material should not be taken from riparian or aquatic habitats.

P. Road design should consider future potential accidental spills of harmful chemicals, etc.

Q. Schedule timely and appropriate road maintenance.

R. Keep road gradients as low as possible and keep soil disturbance to a minimum.

S. Close all roads that are no longer needed and rehabilitate.

Ease of Application: Building and maintaining roads within riparian areas may or may not

be easier than on the upland slopes adjacent to the riparian zone depending on a variety of

factors, including soils, parent material, slope, vegetation, and political/environmental

constraints.

Expected Responses: Onsite and downstream riparian values, as well as aesthetics, human

enjoyment, water quality, and wildlife/livestock habitats, will improve and be maintained.

Limitations: Slopes, soils, construction and maintenance cost, threatened-endangered

species, and other design considerations may limit road location options.
40
41

Literature Cited

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas.

EPA, Denver, CO. 45pp.

Kinch, G. 1989. Riparian area management: grazing management in riparian areas. BLM,

Service Center, Denver, CO. Tech. Ref. 1737-4. 48pp.

Rosgen, D. 1985. A stream classification system. In: Riparian ecosystems and their management—an interagency North American riparian conference. Gen. Tech. Rpt. ROM-120.

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., USDA, FS, Ft. Collins, CO:91-95.
42
43

Appendix A

Biological References

Blaylock, D.M. 1984. The then and now of Cheyenne - Arapahoe County. Rangelands

6(3):105-107.

Carter, V.G. and T. Dale. 1955 (Rev. 1974). Topsoil and civilization. Univ. of Oklahoma

Press, Norman.

Collier, E. 1959. Three against the wilderness: E.P. Dutton & Co., N.Y.

Cottam, W.P. and G. Stewart, 1940. Plant succession as a result of grazing and of meadow

desiccation by erosion since settlement in 1862. J. of For. CA.

Dobyns, H.G. 1981. From fire to flood: Historic human destruction of Sonoran Desert

riverine oases. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 20 Ed. L.5. Bean and T.C.

Blackburn.

Dregne, H.E. 1978. Desertification: Man’s Abuse of the Land. J. of Soil and Water Cons.

33(1):

Hennessey, S.T., R.P. Bibbens, J.M. Trouble, and M. Cardenas. 1983. Vegetation changes

from 1935 to 1980 in mesquite dunelands and former grasslands of southern New Mexico. J.

Range Mgt. 36(3):370-374.

Lowdermilk, W.C. 1953. Rev. 1975. Conquest of the land through 7,000 years. USDA, SCS,

Washington, DC. Ag. Info. Bull. 99, U.S. GPO.

McDonald, A. 1941. Reprinted 1971. Early American soil conservationists. USDA, SCS

Misc. Pub. No. 449.

Sandoz, M. 1964. The beaver men: Spearheads of empire. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Sheridan, D. 1981. Desertification of the United States. Council on Environmental Quality,

U.S. GPO, Washington, DC.

Vale, T.R. 1975. Presettlement vegetation in the sagebrush-grass area of the Intermountain

West. J. Range Mgt. 28(1):32-36.

Vincent, D. 1984. Range trend in the Cabeyon area. Rangeland 6(3):120-122.
44
45

Appendix B

Natural Vectors References

Arner, D.H. 1963. Production of duck food in beaver ponds. J. Wildl. Mgt. Vol. 27(1):76-81.

Cummins, K.W. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. BioScience 24:631-641.

_________. 1975. Processing of organic matter in small stream ecosystems. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State Univ., Ann Arbor, MI.

Francis, M.M., R.J. Naiman, and J.M. Melillo. 1983. Nitrogen fixation in beaver (Castor

canadensis). Influenced Subarctic Streams; Hydrobiologia (submitted 11-83).

_________. 1983. The influence of beaver (Castor canadensis) on nitrogen fixation in boreal

forest streams. In: the Metamek Research Program Annual Report for 1982 by Robert J.

Naiman, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Grotzinger, T.A. 1980. Riparian ecosystems: A wildlife perspective. USDA, FS Northern

Region.

Gunderson, D.R. 1968. Floodplain use related to stream morphology and fish populations. J.

Wildl. Mgt. 32(3):507-14.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto Press.

Likens, G.E. and F.H. Borman. 1974. Linkages between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

BioScience 24:447-456.

Minschall, G.W. et al. 1984. Developments in stream ecosystem theory. Dept. Biol. Idaho

State Univ., Pocatello, ID.

__________, G.W., R.C. Petersen, K.W. Cummins, T.L. Bott, J.R. Sedell, C.E. Cushing, and

R.L. Vannote. 1983. Interbiome comparison of stream ecosystem dynamics. Ecological

Monographs, 53(1):1-25.

Naiman, R.J. and J.M. Melillo. 1983. Nitrogen budget of a subarctic stream altered by beaver.

Ocecologia (submitted 12-83).

_________, and J.E. Hobbie. 1986. Ecosystem alteration of boreal forest streams by beaver

(Castor canadensis). Ecology 67(5):1254-1269.

Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984. An overview of major wetland functions and values.

USFWS/OBS - 84/18, WELUT, Ft. Collins, CO.

Tiner, Jr., R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends.

USFWS, Habitat Resources, 1 Gateway Center, Newton Corner, MA.

Trappe, J.M. 1981. Mycorrhizae and productivity of arid and semi-arid rangelands. In:

Advances in Food Producing Systems for Arid and Semi-Arid Lands. Acad. Press Inc.,

N.Y:581-599.
46

Trappe, J.M. and R.D. Fogel. 1977. Exosystematic functions of Mycorrhizae; in the below

ground ecosystem: A synthesis of plant-associated processes. Range Sci. Dept., Colorado

State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO. Ser. 26:205-214.

Triska, F.S. et al. 1984. Nitrogen budget for a small coniferous stream. Ecological Monographs 54(1):119-140.

Tuinstra, K.E. 1967. Vegetation of the floodplains and first terraces of Rock Creek near Red

Lodge, Montana. Ph.D. dissertation; Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT.

Vannote, R.L. et al. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian J. of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sci. 37(1):130-137.

_________. 1975. Biological structuring of stream ecosystems. Acad. of Nat. Sci. Stroud

Water Research Center, Avondale, PA.
47

Appendix C

Physical Factors References

Bronson, F.A., G.F. Gifford, and J.R. Owen. 1972. Rangeland hydrology. Soc. for Range

Mgt. Range Sci. Ser. 1, Denver, CO.

Buckhouse, J.C. and J.L. Mattison. 1980. Sediment potentials and high intensity storms on

rangelands. Research in Rangeland Management. Special Report 586, Agr. Exp. Sta. Oregon

State Univ., Corvallis, OR.

Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman and Co.,

San Francisco, CA.

Gregory, K.J. and D.E. Walling. 1973. Drainage basin form and process—A geomorphological approach. S. Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.

Grizzell, R.A. 1976. Flood effects on stream ecosystems. J. of Soil and Water Cons. Nov/

Dec:283-285.

Heede, B.H. 1980. Stream dynamics: An overview for land managers. USDA, FS Gen. Tech.

Rep. RM-72.

__________ and L.F. DeBano. 1984. Gully rehabilitation—A three stage process in a sodic

soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 48(6):

Horton, R.E. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins:

Hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. 56:275-370.

Jackson, W.L., E.B. Jones, and B.P. Van Haveren. 1985. Managing headwater areas for

control of sediment and salt production from western rangelands. In: Perspectives on

Nonpoint Source Pollution, EPA, EPA-440/5-85-001.

Jarvis, R.S. and M.S. Woldenberg, eds. 1984. Benchmark papers in geology/80. RIVER

NETWORKS, Hutchinson Ross Pub. Co., Stroudsburg, PA.

Maddock, T. 1976. A primer on floodplain dynamics. J. Soil and Water Cons.

Osterkamp, W.R., L.J. Lane, and G.R. Foster. 1983. An analytical treatment of channel

morphology relations. USGS Professional Paper 1288.

Platts, W.S., K.A. Gebhardt, and W.L. Jackson. 1985. The effects of large storm events on

basin-range riparian stream habitats. N. Amer. Riparian Conf. Proceedings, Tucson, AZ.

Schumm, S.A. and D.F. Meyer. 1979. Morphology of alluvial rivers of the Great Plains. 31st

Annual Meeting. Forestry Committee, Great Plains Agricultural Council. Colo. State Univ.,

Ft. Collins, CO.

Twidale, C.R. 1976. Analysis of landforms. S. Wiley and Sons Australasia Pty. Ltd.
48

Van Haveren, B.P. and W.L. Jackson. 1986. Concepts in stream riparian rehabilitation. In:

Proc. 51st N. Am. Wild. and Nat. Res. Conf. Reno, NV:280-289.

White, R.S. and O.M. Brynildson. 1975. Appendix A—physical processes in streams (from

Leopold and Wolman 1964, Leopold and Langbein 1966, and Leliavsky 1955). In: Guidelines for Management of Trout Stream Habitat in Wisconsin; Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res.

Tech. Bull. 39.