Science for Solutions 

NOAA COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAM 

Decision Analysis Series No. 7 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Coastal Ocean Office 
IES 

The Decision Analysis Series has been 

established by NOAA's Coastal Ocean 

Program (COP) to present documents for 

coastal resource decision makers which 

contain analytical treatments of major 

issues or topics. The issues, topics, and 

principal investigators have been selected 

through an extensive peer review 

process. To learn more about the COP or 

the Decision Analysis Series, please 

write: 

NOAA 

Coastal Ocean Office 

131 5 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 209 10 

phone: 301 -71 3-3338 

fax: 30 1 -7 1 3-4044 

Cover photo: Landscape view of private timberlands in 

southeast Alaska showing a typical mosaic of harvested 

areas interspersed with patches of uncut forest and buffer 

zones along streams. (Photo by K Koski, NMFSI. 
Science for Solutions 

NOAA COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAM 

Decision Analysis Series No. 7 

FORESTRY IMPACTS ON FRESHWATER 

HABITAT OF ANADROMOUS SALMO 

IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST AND ALASKA-- 

REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTION 

AND RESTORATION 

Michael L. Murphy 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

Auke Bay Laboratory 

October 1995 

U.S. DEPART ENT OF COMMERCE 

Ronald Fr Brown, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

D. James Baker, Under Secretary 

Coastal Ocean Office 

Donald Scavia, Director 
This ~ublication should be cited as: 

Murphy, Michael L. 1995. Forestry Impacts on Freshwater Habitat of Anadromous Salmonids in 

the Pacific Northwest and Alaska--Requirements for Protection and Restoration. NOAA Coastal 

Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 7. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 

I56 pp. 

This publication does not constitute an endorsement of any commercial product or 

intend to be an opinion beyond scientific or other results obtained by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). No reference shall be made 

to NOAA, or this publication furnished by NOAA, in any advertising or sales 

promotion which would indicate or imply that NOAA recommends or endorses any 

proprietary product mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose an interest to 

cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because 

of this publication. 
Note to Readers 

Forestry Impacts on Freshwater Habitat of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and 

Alaska--Requirements for Protection and Restoration was developed by Michael L. Murphy of 

the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Fisheries Science Center with funding 

from the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program (COP). The document presents a science overview of 

the major forest management issues involved in the recovery of anadromous salmonids affected 

by timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. The synthesis reviews salmonid habitat 

requirements and potential effects of logging, describes the technical foundation of forest 

practices and restoration, analyzes current federal and non-federal forest practices, and 

recommends required elements of comprehensive watershed management for recovery of 

anadromous salmonids. 

COP provides a focal point through which NOAA, together with other organizations with 

responsibilities for the coastal environment and its resources, can make significant strides toward 

finding solutions to critical problems. By working together toward these solutions, we can 

ensure the sustainability of these coastal resources and allow for compatible economic 

development that will enhance the well-being of the Nation now and in future generations. The 

goals of the program parallel those of the NOAA Strategic Plan. 

A specific objective of COP is to provide the highest quality scientific information to coastal 

managers in time for critical decision making and in a format useful for these decisions. To help 

achieve this, COP inaugurated a program of developing documents that would synthesize 

information on issues that were of high priority to coastal managers. A three-step process was 

used to develop such documents: 1) to compile a list of critical topics in the coastal ocean 

through a survey of coastal resource managers and to prioritize and select those suitable for the 

document series through the use of a panel of multidisciplinary technical experts; 2) to solicit 

proposals to do research on these topics and select principal investigators through a rigorous 

peer-review process; and 3) to develop peer-reviewed documents based on the winning 

proposals. Seven topics were selected in the initial round, but the series is expanding because of 

the suitability of findings from other COP-funded research to appear in this synthesis format. 

The documents already published are listed on the inside back cover. 

As with all of its products, COP is very interested in ascertaining the utility of the Decision 

Analysis Series particularly in regard to its application to the management decision process. 

Therefore, we encourage you to write, fax, call, or E-mail us with your comments. Please be 

assured that we will appreciate these comments, either positive or negative, and that they will 

help us direct our future efforts. Our address and telephone and fax numbers are on the inside 

fiont cover. My Internet address is DSCAVIA@HQ.NOAA.GOV. 

Donald Scavia 

Director 

NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 
Table of Contents 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Habitat Requirements and Effects of Logging 

Objectives of Forest Practices Regulations 

Analysis of Current Forest Practices 

Habitat Restoration 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 

CHAPTER 2: METHODS 

CHAPTER 3: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

The Decline of Anadromous Salmonids 

Legacy of Past Logging 

Present-day Timberlands 

CHAPTER 4: SALMONID HABITAT REQUIREMENTS 

Upstream Migration of Adults 

Spawning 

Incubation 

Freshwater Rearing 

Food availability 

Temperature 

Streamf low 

Dissolved oxygen and turbidity 

Channel morphology 

Cover 

Seaward Migration 

Limiting Factors 

xv 

xv 

xvii 

xviii 

XX 

XX 
iv Contents 

CHAPTER 5: THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF LOGGING 

Stream Temperature 

Sediment 

Streamflow 

Large Woody Debris 

Migration Habitat 

Food Availability 

Cumulative Effects 

Salvage Logging 

CHAPTER 6: TECHNICAL FOUNDATION OF FOREST PRACTICES 

Buffer Zones 

Buffer design 

Factors affecting buffer effectiveness 

Best Management Practices 

BMP programs 

BMP monitoring 

Cumulative Effects Management 

Watershed analysis 

Habitat conservation plans 

CHAPTER 7: CURRENT FOREST PRACTICES 

Federal Lands 

Northwest Forest Plan and PACFISH 

Tongass Land Management Plan 

State and Private Lands 

Alaska 

California 

Idaho 

Oregon 

Washington 

Other States 

CHAPTER 8: ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FOREST PRACTICES 

Buffer Designs 

Buffer Effectiveness 

Shade protection 

LWD recruitment 

Sediment control 

Best Management Practices 

Cumulative Effects Management 
Contents 

CHAPTER 9: HABITAT RESTORATION 

Restoration Procedures 

Upland restoration 

Riparian restoration 

lnstream restoration 

Restoration planning and evaluation 

Current Restoration Programs 

Restoration on national forests 

California's habitat restoration program 

Oregon's basal area credits 

The Role of Restoration in Watershed Management 

CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Buffer Zones 

Best Management Practices 

Watershed Analysis 

Restoration 

Community Outreach 

GLOSSARY 

ACRONYMS 

REFERENCES 
List of Figures and Tables 

Fiqures 

Figure ES.l. Major elements of a strategy for comprehensive, 

ecosystem-based watershed management. 

Figure 3.1. Distribution of native anadromous salmonids in North 

America. 

Figure 3.3. Diagram of a watershed's drainage network, showing 

stream orders according to the Strahler (1 957) classification 

system. 

Figure 3.4. Cross-section of a woodland stream, showing 

association with riparian vegetation and flood plain. 

Figure 3.6. Lumber production in states within the range of 

Pacific anadromous salmonids. 

Figure 3.7. Ownership of timberlands in the Pacific Northwest 

and Alaska. 

Figure 4.1 . Generalized life cycle of anadromous salmonids, 

involving several distinct freshwater life stages and a period 

of ocean residence. 

Figure 4.2. Egg-to-fry survival in relation to fine sediment 

(<2-6.4 mm) in spawning gravel. 

Figure 4.3. Lethal threshold temperature for juvenile salmonids in 

relation to acclimation temperature. 

Figure 4.4. Formation of various pool habitats by large woody 

debris. 

Figure 4.5. Winter density of coho salmon in relation to large 

woody debris in southeast Alaska. 

xvi 

5 

8 

8 

11 

12 

13 

17 

2 1 

24 

25 
Figures 

Figure 4.6. Habitat use by juvenile steelhead in winter in relation 

to embeddedness of the streambed by fine sediment. 

Figure 4.7. Illustration of "bottlenecks" restricting salmonid smolt 

production. 

Figure 5.1 . Connections between timber harvest, road 

construction, and other timber management activities in a 

watershed and effects on salmonid habitat via changes in 

watershed processes and structures. 

Figure 5.2. Typical daily stream temperature in clearcut and 

forested streams during clear weather in Oregon's Coast 

Range. 

Figure 5.3. Comparison of the rate of landsliding (A) and mass 

soil erosion (B) associated with forests, clearcuts, and roads 

as measured by six long-term studies of more than 10 

years. 

Figure 5.4. Surface runoff being intercepted by a logging road 

and flowing down the road's ditch after heavy rain in 

southeast Alaska. 

Figure 5.5. The failure probability of culverts designed for 25- 

year and 100-year flood events. 

Figure 5.6. Fine sediment produced by logging truck in southeast 

Alaska. 

Figure 5.7. Soil disturbance caused by different yarding methods. 

Each point represents findings of a separate study. 

Figure 5.8. Diagram showing storage of bedload sediment 

"wedges" behind large woody debris. 

Figure 5.9. Disturbance and loss of channel structures caused 

downcutting and export of stored sediment from a 

headwater stream in southeast Alaska. 

Figure 5.1 0. Diminishing increase in water yield after timber 

harvest in southwest Oregon. 

Figure 5.1 1. Change in August water yield from a western 

Oregon watershed after logging. 
viii Ficrures 

Figure 5.1 2. A model of the changes in large woody debris after 

clearcut logging without a riparian buffer zone in 

southeastern Alaska. 

Figure 5.1 3. Changes in pool frequency between 1935 and 1992 

in Oregon and Washington. 

Figure 5.14. Relationship between density of coho salmon fry 

and algae biomass in old-growth, buffered, and clearcut 

reaches of streams in southeast Alaska in summer. 

Figure 5.1 5. Fine sediment derived from upstream timber harvest 

being carried by a headwater stream into downstream fish 

habitat in foreground. 

Figure 5.1 6. The relationship between amount of fine sediment in 

pools and level of timber harvest and road construction in 

several northern California watersheds. 

Figure 5.1 7. The relationship between peak streamflow and the 

area of a watershed affected by roads and soil compaction 

in western Oregon. 

Figure 5.1 8. Frequency of pools associated with large woody 

debris in ten Oregon coastal streams with different levels of 

logging. 

Figure 5.1 9. A stream in southeast Alaska 1 5 years after timber 

harvest without a buffer zone, showing extreme reduction in 

pools and habitat complexity due to loss of large woody 

debris. 

Figure 5.20. Salmonid species diversity (inverse of the BergerParker index) in relation to level of timber harvest (low = 

< 25% logged; high = > 25% logged) in 14 coastal Oregon 

watersheds of different size, rock type, and geographic 

location. 

Figure 6.1. A riparian buffer zone along an anadromous fish 

stream in the Tongass National Forest, southeast Alaska. 

Figure 6.2. The cumulative effectiveness of various functions of 

riparian vegetation in relation to distance from the 

streambank in western Oregon. 
Fiaures i x 

Figure 6.3. The cumulative effectiveness of various functions of 

forest vegetation in relation to distance from the edge of 

adjacent clearcuts in western Oregon. 

Figure 6.4. The relationship between canopy density and buffer 

width (uncut buffers) in western Oregon. 

Figure 6.5. Source distance for large woody debris (LWD) in 

southeast Alaska. 

Figure 6.6. The diameter of stable large woody debris as a 

function of channel width. 

Figure 8.1 . Predicted sources of conifer LWD in buffer zones at 

mid-rotation for representative fish-bearing streams as a 

percentage of LWD sources present in mature conifer 

stands. 

Figure 9.1. Unused and unneeded roads should be "put to bed" 

by removing culverts and outsloping road surfaces to drain 

properly without maintenance. 

Figure 9.2. Increases in number of outmigrant coho salmon 

smolts after experimental addition of large woody debris to 

debris-poor streams in the Alsea River basin (A) and 

Nestucca R. basin (B) in western Oregon. 

Figure 9.3. Diagram showing variety of instream projects that 

shape and stabilize the stream channel, store sediment, 

create pools, dissipate stream energy, and provide diverse 

habitat for either spawning or rearing. 

Figure 9.5. Distribution of nearly 3,000 restoration projects 

administered by California Department of Fish and Game 

done to control erosion, improve fish passage, stabilize 

stream banks, and improve instream habitat. 
Tables 

Table 4.1. Average redd area and area per spawning pair. 16 

Table 4.2. Number of coho salmon at different lite stages in 

Sashin Creek, Alaska, for two brood years with a large 

difference in spawner escapement. 18 

Table 5.1. Influences of timber harvest on physical 

characteristics of stream environments, potential changes in 

habitat quality, and resultant consequences for salmonid 

growth and survival. 31 

Table 7.1. California's requirements for width of Watercourse 

and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZs) by slope class and 

stream class. 79 

Table 7.2. Idaho's requirements for width of Stream Protection 

Zones (SPZs) and leave trees within SPZs per 1,000 ft (304 

m) along each side of streams by diameter breast height 

(dbh). 81 

Table 7.3. Oregon's requirements for width (in ft) of riparian 

management areas by stream size. 83 

Table 7.4. Oregon's minimum requirements for conifer leave 

trees [in number per 1,000 ft (304 m) along each side of the 

stream] in riparian management areas by stream size. 84 

Table 7.5. Oregon's standard targets for conifer basal area in 

riparian management areas each side of Type F streams by 

stream size class in selected regions. 85 

Table 7.6. Washington's requirements for width and leave trees 

per 1,000 ft (304 m) in Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) 

in western Washington under the 1992 forest practices 

rules. 87 

Table 8.1. Definitions of stream classes for federal and private 

lands in five states. 90 

Table 8.2. Width requirements (in feet) for riparian buffer zones 

on federal [Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) and Tongass Land 

Management Plan (TLMP) as amended by the Tongass 
Tables xi 

Timber Reform Act] and private lands in five states for the 

three common stream classes. 9 1 

Table 8.3. Required leave trees [per 1,000 ft (304 m), each side 

of stream] within riparian buffer zones on federal and private 

lands in five states. 94 

Table 8.4. Comparison of minimum level of protection for conifer 

LWD sources for representative anadromous fish streams in 

federal (NFP) and private lands in five states. 96 
Acknowledgments 

The information in this synthesis reflects the combined input from many professionals in the 

field of forestrylfisheries interactions. Much was gained through discussions with Chip Andrus, 

Rowan Baker, Jerry Barnes, Rich Bettis, Cara Berman, Bob Bilby, Pete Bisson, Jerry Boberg, 

Buck Bryant, Lisa Burton, Pete Cafferata, Jeff Cederholm, Sam Chan, Jim Colla, Tim Curtis, 

Lowell Diller, Scott Downie, Richard Everett, Elizabeth Gaar, Lynn Hood, Sharon ' Kramer, 

Stan Gregory, Rick Harris, Brian Hoelscher, Jim Hopelain, Bob House, Hiram Li, Jeff 

Lockwood, Ken McDonald, Tom Merritt, Wayne Minshall, Tharon O'Dell, Pete Owston, 

Gordon Reeves, Tom Robison, Terry Roelofs, Jeff Schimke, Jeanette Smith, Mario Solazzi, Jim 

Steele, and Russ Strach. 

Special thanks are due to many people and companies for providing tours of forest practices and 

restoration: 

In Alaska: Thanks to Frank Rue and Lana Shea, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and to 

Rick Harris of Sealaska Corporation for inviting my participation on field inspections of forest 

practices on Sealaska lands. Thanks to Marty Wellbourn and Bruce Johnson of Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources for arranging for field discussions with Area Foresters. 

In California: Thanks to Jeff Schimke of the California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection for leading a tour of forest practices issues on private lands in California. Thanks 

to Rich Bettis and Henry Alden of The Pacific Lumber Company, and Tharon O'Dell and 

Lowell Diller of Simpson Timber Company. Thanks to Jim Hopelain and Scott Downie of 

California Department of Fish and Game and Rich Bettis for an informative tour of watershed 

restoration projects on Pacific Lumber Company lands. Thanks to Jerry Barnes, USDA Forest 

Service (FS), for explaining stream restoration projects on the Six Rivers National Forest and 

providing several photographs of restoration work. 

In Idaho: Thanks to Jim Colla for arranging a field tour of forest practices on private lands, 

which unfortunately had to be cancelled because of forest fire. 

In Oregon: Thanks to Fred Robinson, Ted Lorensen, and others of the Oregon Department of 

Forestry for arranging tours of forestry practices and restoration programs on private lands in 

western Oregon. Thanks to Sam Chan and Dan Majkowski, FS Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, for demonstrating research on riparian restoration in coastal Oregon. Thanks to Mario 

Solazzi, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, for showing research on stream restoration 
xiv Acknowledclments 

in western Oregon. Thanks to Lynn Hood and Lisa Burton, FS, for explaining ongoing stream 

restoration work. Thanks to Willamette Industries, Lone Rock Timber Company, Starker 

Forests, and Weyerhaeuser Company for providing tours of forestry practices, restoration 

projects, and monitoring activities on their lands. 

In Washington: Thanks to Pete Bisson of Weyerhaeuser Company for arranging a tour of 

logging practices and restoration projects in the Tolt River watershed. Thanks to Jeff 

Cederholm, Washington Department of Natural Resources, for showing ongoing experiments 

in stream restoration. 

Sharon Kramer, K Koski, Jeff Lockwood, and Matt Longenbaugh reviewed an early draft and 

gave helpful comments. I also appreciate thorough reviews by Rowan Baker, Pete Bisson, 

Tamra Faris, Bill Peterson, Gordon Reeves, Lawrence Six, and Laurie Sullivan. K Koski 

conceived of the idea for this project and guided it through its early development. Funds for 

this project were provided by the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program. 
Executive Summary 

This synthesis presents a science overview of the major forest management Issues involved in 

the recovery of anadromous salmonids affected by timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest and 

Alaska. The issues involve the components of ecosystem-based watershed management and how 

best to implement them, including how to: 

Design buffer zones to protect fish habitat while enabling economic timber production; 

Implement effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent nonpoint-source 

pollution; 

Develop watershed-level procedures across property boundaries to prevent cumulative 

impacts; 

Develop restoration procedures to contribute to recovery of ecosystem processes; and 

Enlist support of private landowners in watershed planning, protection, and restoration. 

Buffer zones, BMPs, cumulative impact prevention, and restoration are essential elements of 

what must be a comprehensive approach to habitat protection and restoration applied at the 

watershed level within a larger context of resource concerns in the river basin, species status 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and regional environmental and economic issues (Fig. 

ES. 1). 

This synthesis 1) reviews salmonid habitat requirements and potential effects of logging; 2) 

describes the technical foundation of forest practices and restoration; 3) analyzes current federal 

and non-federal forest practices; and 4) recommends required elements of comprehensive 

watershed management for recovery of anadromous salmonids. 

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND EFFECTS OF LOGGING 

The life cycle of anadromous salmonids has several stages, each with its own habitat needs. 

Among other things, adults returning to spawn require access to spawning gravel; their eggs 

need cool, oxygenated water; juveniles need adequate food, cover, and temperature; and smolts 
xvi Executive Summary 

Ecosystem-Based 

Watershed Management 

I Habitat I 

I Protection 1 

I 

I Restoration I 

Forest Practices Restoration Procedures 

Best Management Practices 

Buffer Zones Riparian 

Laraer Context 

River Basin Condition 

Species Status 

I 

Cumulative Effects Management 

c Conservation and Recovery 

l nst ream I 

I of Anadrornous Salmonids I 

\ / 

Figure ES.l. Major elements of a strategy for comprehensive, ecosystem-based 

watershed management. 

migrating to sea need adequate streamflow. Because of these diverse habitat requirements, 

salmonid streams must provide appropriate diverse habitat conditions from the headwaters to the 

estuary. 

Freshwater habitats for anadromous salmonids are created by physical and biological processes 

affecting the flow of water, sediment, nutrients, and organic matter through the watershed, 

modified by features such as large woody debris (LWD), and periodically "reset" by natural 

disturbances. 

Small streams are the "backbone" of salmonid habitat. Even when not used because of barriers 

or steep gradient, small, even intermittent streams are critical to downstream fish habitats 

because they transport water, sediment, and woody debris from the upper watershed. 

Intermittent stream channels account for over one-half of the total length of stream channels in 
Executive Summarv xvii 

many watersheds. Small streams are easily affected by logging and other land uses because they 

are sensitive to changes in riparian vegetation and condition of the surrounding watershed. 

Forest practices that alter erosion, runoff, or riparian vegetation can have major impacts on 

small streams and the rivers into which they flow. 

Impacts from over 100 years of logging and other land uses are still evident in streams of the 

Pacific Northwest and other regions. The most pervasive effect has been reduced habitat 

complexity due to loss of LWD, causing a widespread reduction in salmonid abundance and 

diversity. Despite improvements over the last 20 years, logging activities can still have multiple 

impacts. Effects of timber harvest, road construction, and other activities anywhere in a 

watershed can be transmitted through hydrologic and erosional processes to affect salmonid 

habitat. The most important impacts result from changes in sediment, streamflow, temperature, 

and LWD. 

OBJECTIVES OF FOREST PRACTICES REGULATIONS 

Forest practices must be designed to protect fish and wildlife habitat while enabling economic 

timber production. Agencies regulate forest practices through buffer zones, Best Management 

Practices (BMPs), and cumulative effects management. 

Buffer zones are administratively defined areas along streams or erosion hazard areas in which 

aquatic resources are given highest management priority. The function of buffer zones is to 

protect streams and riparian areas from disturbance; filter sediment from uplands; and supply 

food, cover, shade, and LWD. Regulations determine both the width of buffers and activities 

within them. Buffer zones are not necessarily "lock-out" zones; trees often can be harvested, 

but with restrictions to protect aquatic resources. Restrictions are generally tighter on public 

than on private lands. Under the federal Northwest Forest Plan, for example, buffers can be 

modified only if watershed analysis demonstrates that a modification is needed to attain 

ecosystem management objectives (USDA and USDI 1994a). 

The appropriate design for buffer zones depends on management objectives. The widest buffers 

with greatest restrictions on activities are used along fish-bearing streams to meet a full range 

of objectives for fish habitat, as well as for other wildlife (e.g., owls and amphibians) (USDA 

and USDI 1994a). Leaving large conifers in a sufficiently wide buffer (at least as wide as the 

height of a mature tree) is particularly important for providing LWD for fish-bearing streams. 

Narrower, selectively harvested buffers can be used along non-fish streams specifically to protect 

water quality and prevent downstream impacts. 

BMPs are specific rules (e.g., waterbarring skid trails) to prevent nonpoint-source pollution, 

particularly from fine sediment. The Clean Water Act gives states authority to certify their 

forest practices rules as approved BMPs, and to certify BMPs of federal agencies for streams 

under federal jurisdiction. States with regulatory BMP programs impose requirements on forest 

practices and assess penalties for noncompliance. 
xviii Executive Summarv 

Monitoring is conducted primarily by federal and state agencies. Implementation monitoring to 

determine whether BMPs are applied as specified is the most common type of monitoring. 

Effectiveness monitoring to determine whether BMPs achieve their intent is important in 

improving BMP performance. Comprehensive monitoring programs should also determine 

whether habitat problems are being recognized and appropriate prztctices specified, determine 

whether the combined system of BMPs protects water quality for particular projects, and provide 

for public review for improving BMPs. 

Recent assessments indicate that forestry BMPs can protect water quality if they are carefully 

developed and implemented (Brown and Binkley 1994). Current problems often result from 

poor BMP implementation, which is generally worse on small private parcels than on public or 

large industrial holdings. Most state BMPs, furthermore, do not carefully protect small non-fish 

streams, and BMPs for protecting unstable slopes still need to be developed. 

Cumulative effects management is a form of planning for preventing impacts from nonpointsource pollution that could be overlooked at the project level. Evaluations of potential 

cumulative effects consider watershed erosion potential, slope stability, current and past 

disturbances from timber harvest and other land uses (e.g., grazing, agriculture, mining), 

recovery rate after disturbance, and project area relative to the total watershed. The most 

comprehensive procedure for analyzing cumulative effects at the watershed scale is "watershed 

analysis" (Washington Forest Practices Board 1993), a systematic process to describe current 

watershed conditions and develop prescriptions to prevent undesirable cumulative impacts. The 

assumption is that undesirable cumulative impacts can be avoided by managing sensitive areas 

appropriately and applying standard practices in non-sensitive areas. 

Planning at the basin, regional, and even larger scales is also necessary for managing cumulative 

effects on anadromous salmonids because of their wide-ranging migrations. The NMFS 

Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon (USDC 1995) is a good example of the 

comprehensive planning required to address all potential factors that cumulatively affect salmon 

populations. In this plan, watershed uses, including timber harvest, are just one of five planning 

components that also include main-stem and estuarine habitat, fisheries harvest management, 

hatchery propagation, and changes in institutional structure to improve decision making. These 

other four components are beyond the scope of this synthesis, but forestry-fisheries issues should 

properly be considered in this context. 

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FOREST PRACTICES 

Federal land management agencies and the five western states with anadromous salmonids 

(Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) have recently revised their rules to 

increase habitat protection. On federal lands, principal direction is given by one of three 

sources: the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) within the range of the northern spotted owl (USDA 

and USDI 1994a); PACFISH, an interim strategy until Environmental Impact Statements can be 

completed for non-NFP areas (USDA and USDI 1994b); and the Tongass Land Management 

Plan (TLMP) as supplemented by the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) in Alaska. On 
Executive Summarv xix 

private lands, forest practices follow their state's administrative rules. All these programs 

provide examples of "state-of-the-art" management for protection of salmonid habitat. 

Forest management under NFP, PACFISH, TLMP, and the five states have many common 

elements, including buffer zones and regulatory BMPs. They differ mainly in how they manage 

buffer zones and cumulative effects. All classify streams by "beneficial use" (i.e., fish streams 

vs. non-fish streams) and give fish-bearing streams more protection through buffers and BMPs 

than small non-fish streams. Buffers along anadromous fish streams range in minimum width 

from 25 ft (8 m) on private lands in Washington to 300 ft (91 m) on federal NFP and PACFISH 

lands. Buffer width for perennial non-fish streams can range from 0 ft in Alaska, Oregon, and 

Washington to 150 ft (46 m) under NFP and PACFISH. Intermittent stream channels routinely 

have buffers only on NFP and PACFISH lands and in Idaho, but some states may use buffers 

when warranted by site conditions. 

For fish-bearing streams, harvest restrictions within buffers are designed to protect most riparian 

functions, particularly shade, channel stability, and LWD. Four of the five states require a 

specific number of "leave trees" in combination with other vegetation requirements for LWD 

sources. These requirements, however, do not fully provide for future LWD sources, and result 

in leaving only an estimated 23% to 58% of potential conifer LWD sources compared to the 

sources present in mature forest. 

Non-fish streams and intermittent channels are managed primarily to prevent sediment pollution 

and downstream impacts. Buffers on these stream channels on private lands are often narrow 

and heavily harvested, and stream protection relies heavily on BMPs. Three BMPs are 

particularly important in protecting small non-fish streams from disturbance. They determine 

1) whether trees may be felled into stream channels and limbed there, 2) whether cable yarding 

may cross streams with full or partial log suspension, and 3) whether tractors may operate within 

streams or their buffer zones. 

The states' BMPs for these activities carefully protect fish-bearing streams, but small non-fish 

streams are not as carefully protected. All states require that trees be felled away from fishbearing streams, but several allow felling into small non-fish streams. Cable yarding across fishbearing streams must have full suspension and prior approval in Oregon and Washington, but 

not for small non-fish streams. Tractor yarding is not allowed across fish-bearing streams except 

at constructed temporary crossings, but the states do allow tractors ir, some intermittent non-fish 

streams. 

The agencies differ in how they assess and manage potential cumulative effects. Watershed 

analysis is a major component of the strategy for preventing cumulative effects on federal lands 

under NFP and PACFISH, but not currently under TLMP. California, Idaho, and Washington 

have a formal process for evaluating cumulative effects, but Alaska and Oregon do not. 

Applying watershed analysis on private lands is hindered because of the difficulty in coordinating 

resource assessment and management across property boundaries. 
xx Executive Summarv 

HABITAT RESTORATION 

Habitat restoration has an important role in the recovery of anadromous salmonids as one 

element in a comprehensive program of watershed management emphasizing habitat protection. 

Habitat restoration is used to stabilize deteriorating conditions and speed recovery in key 

watersheds. Restoration should be regarded as an interim measure until degraded watersheds 

recover under effective management, not as an exemption from stream protection. Before 

initiating restoration, land uses that have caused the degradation must be modified to end adverse 

effects. 

Effective habitat restoration has a watershed perspective based on hydrologic principles and is 

preceded by careful analysis to assess habitat problems and evaluate restoration potential. 

Habitat restoration includes three components: 1) upland restoration to control erosion, stabilize 

roads, upgrade culverts, and manage watershed uses; 2) riparian restoration to modify riparian 

vegetation to provide shade, LWD recruitment, and other functions; and 3) instream restoration 

using boulders, LWD, or other structures to provide missing habitat features and increase habitat 

complexity. 

The need for habitat restoration is great. More than two-thirds of the riparian areas and one-half 

of all streams in the Pacific Northwest are degraded. Restoration of key watersheds, those with 

the best remaining habitat or greatest restoration potential, comprising one-third of federal lands 

in Oregon, Washington, and northern California, would cost $720 million over 10 years (Pacific 

Rivers Council 1993a). Although restoration costs are high, the investment retulrn would be 

considerable because it would generate many jobs, and the recovery of salmon and watershed 

functions would have many social and economic benefits. Considering the costs, habitat 

protection is obviously preferable to allowing habitat to degrade to the point of needing 

restoration. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

A comprehensive watershed-level approach to habitat protection and restoration is essential for 

maintaining or restoring salmonid habitat because the watershed is a fundamental unit for both 

ecological processes and land management. The main technical elements of watershed 

management are buffer zones, BMPs, watershed analysis, and restoration. 

To maintain or restore optimal habitat in fish-bearing streams, buffer zones should be at least 

as wide as the height of a mature tree, usually 30-40 m, and be managed to attain characteristics 

of mature native forest. Narrower buffers may not maintain adequate LWD over the long term, 

and selective harvest within buffers further reduces LWD sources. No-harvest buffers are most 

appropriate along fish-bearing streams with mature forest, most common in Alaska and in 

national forests. On private lands in other states, the number and size of leave trees should be 

increased where additional large conifers are available. 

Many previously logged areas have degraded vegetation consisting mostly of hardwoods and 

brush and lacking large conifers. Restricting harvest would not necessarily improve habitat 
Executive Summary xxi 

protection nor help restore riparian functions. Active management of these riparian areas is 

needed to meet habitat requirements of fish. Selective harvest within these buffers could be used 

to improve riparian vegetation (i.e., by thinning and conifer planting). Forest practices rules 

can include incentives for timber operators to actively manage degraded riparian stands to 

reestablish mature conifers or other appropriate vegetation. Reestablishing conifer forest in 

riparian areas would benefit both fisheries and timber because trees could be selectively 

harvested where shown not to harm fish habitat 

Buffer zones are also needed along small non-fish streams that affect salmonid habitat. The 

usually minimal buffers on these streams on private lands means that their protection must rely 

on BMPs which do not always protect them from disturbance. Monitoring studies have not yet 

shown that BMPs for non-fish streams are effective in preventing downstream impacts. Buffer 

width and harvest prescriptions for these areas can be developed specifically to protect headwater 

sources of temperature control, sediment, and debris for downstream fish habitat. 

The BMPs for activities near small non-fish streams need to be closely monitored to ensure they 

are effective. This is essential because small non-fish streams are particularly important for 

preventing sediment pollution and because buffer zones along them on private lands are usually 

narrow and heavily harvested. Effective BMPs may be the only practical means of protecting 

the numerous non-fish headwater streams in managed timberlands while other activities continue. 

Watershed analysis is an important tool for assessing cumulative effects. In mixed-ownership 

watersheds, agencies can organize and lead landowners in cooperative watershed management 

across property boundaries. Ultimately, basin-wide planning efforts are needed that include all 

public and private land managers. 

Habitat restoration should have a watershed-level approach and include measures to control 

erosion, reestablish riparian conifers, and improve instream structure. A priority is to stabilize 

existing roads to control erosion. Instream projects should be used only as part of a 

comprehensive watershed management program. Due to limited funds, most degraded habitat 

must rely on slow natural recovery under effective management. Because of the current 

depressed condition of many salmonid stocks, as much as possible should be done to speed 

recovery in key watersheds. The goal is to secure, expand, and link key watersheds in a system 

of refugia connected by intact migration corridors. 

Habitat restoration is not a panacea for recovery of anadromous salmonids. There must also be 

changes in land and water uses to improve habitat protection and changes in fisheries 

management to ensure sufficient escapement. Habitat restoration and protection, however, are 

critical because even with fisheries closures, depressed stocks cannot recover without habitat. 

Any conservation strategy will probably fail without community support. Comprehensive 

watershed management must also include outreach programs to recruit support from landowners 

and local communities. Tax credits and cost-sharing programs can be expanded to compensate 

landowners for measures taken to protect public aquatic resources. 
xxii Executive Sumrnarv 

The focus of this synthesis is on effects of forest management activities on anadromous fish 

habitat, but many land and water uses besides forestry have contributed to the decline of 

anadromous salmonids and therefore must also contribute to their recovery (USDC 1995). 

Improving forest practices and restoring fish habitat will not, by themselves, guarantee recovery 

of anadromous salmonids. However, these things are needed if the populations are to recover. 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Across much of their range in the Pacific Northwest, anadromous salmonids have declined to 

the point that many stocks are depleted, federally listed as threatened or endangered, or extinct. 

Once-productive fisheries have been drastically curtailed or closed. Although habitat damage 

from timber harvest is not the only cause, it is an important factor in the decline of many stocks 

(Nehlsen et al. 1991; Botkin et al. 1994). To help reverse this decline, land managers have 

come to recognize the need for increased protection of stream habitat in areas managed for 

timber production and increased efforts to restore streams degraded by past timber harvest. 

Several trends converged during the last two decades to focus concern on protecting and 

restoring fish habitats affected by timber management. The great value of fish and wildlife has 

become apparent, and the public demand has increased for recreational use of the forest (Meehan 

1991). The listing of salmonid stocks and other wildlife species under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), with its strong regulatory measures, has brought many forest managers to see the 

need for a new approach to managing land and water resources. Forest managers of today are 

moving away from maximizing timber production by high-yield forestry toward managing 

resource complexes including fish (Meehan 199 1). "Ecosystem management" is becoming the 

forest manager's paradigm for providing long-term maintenance of multi-species biological 

communities (Franklin 1992; Reeves and Sedell 1992; FEMAT 1993). 

Habitat protection and restoration are two key elements in the recovery of anadromous salmonid 

stocks. Protection of fish habitat should be among every land manager's goals because fish 

habitat is influenced by uses throughout entire watersheds. Restoration is considered a "bandaid" approach to bridge the interim until habitat recovers enough under good watershed 

management to contribute to the recovery and sustained natural reproduction of anadromous 

salmonids. Without restoration, natural recovery of many impaired fish habitats would take 

decades or centuries (Rhodes and McCullough, in press); salmonid stocks near extinction may 

not survive that long. Protection of good existing habitats should have the highest priority, but 

many streams have been damaged and need to be restored (Meehan 1991). 

Fortunately, much scientific knowledge is available to help guide resource managers. Salmonid 

habitat requirements and the effects of timber harvest on fish habitat are basically understood, 

and the fundamentals of restoration are known. Enough is known to implement land-use 

practices that prevent further habitat degradation (Chamberlin et al. 1991) and to begin restoring 

habitats previously degraded (Koski 1992). 
Introduction 

In the past, habitat restoration and forest practices were generally treated as separate activities 

and not related to the watershed as a whole. In the modern paradigm of ecosystem management, 

however, they are recognized as essential elements of what must be a comprehensive approach 

to habitat protection and restoration applied at the watershed level (FEMAT 1993; Jensen and 

Bourgeron 1994). This approach is necessary to account for the way physical and biological 

processes function and interact in watersheds. A comprehensive watershed-level approach to 

habitat protection and restoration is essential for maintaining or restoring salmonid habitat. 

Numerous publications have reviewed separate issues, such as the effects of timber harvest on 

fish habitat (e.g., Macdonald et al. 1988; Hicks et al. 1991a), buffer zones (e.g., Belt et al. 

1992; Johnson and Ryba 1992), and habitat restoration (Reeves et al. 1991; Koski 1992). 

However, there are few analyses of all the elements essential to a watershed-level program of 

forest practices and restoration. 

The purpose of this synthesis is to provide an overview of the important management issues 

involved in a watershed approach to forest practices and habitat restoration relating to protection 

and recovery of anadromous salmonids. Specific objectives are to 

1) review habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids and potential effects of logging on 

salmonid habitat; 

2) describe the function and technical foundation of forest management practices and fish habitat 

restoration; 

3) analyze current forest management practices as examples of "state-of-the-art" watershed 

management strategies; and 

4) recommend required elements of comprehensive watershed management for protection and 

recovery of anadromous salmonids. 

The geographic focus of this synthesis is on forest practices within the range of anadromous 

salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, but the principles also apply to other areas where 

timber harvest and other land uses affect aquatic habitats. 
Chapter 2 

Methods 

Information for this synthesis was gathered primarily from review of the literature (published 

and unpublished) and consultations with scientific and technical experts in the forestry and 

fisheries fields. 

Several interdisciplinary site visits were used to review current forest practices and restoration 

programs in California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Emphasis of these visits was on 

viewing activities on private lands because forest practices on private lands vary among the 

states, whereas practices on federal lands are more consistent across the region. 

In California, a 2-day tour of ongoing forestry activities was conducted by the California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). This tour visited several industrial timber 

operations, as well as smaller non-industrial landowners. Focus of the tour was on current forest 

practices regulations and their administration by the CDF. Site visits to habitat restoration 

activities on private lands were provided by the California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG). Tours of habitat restoration projects on the Six Rivers National Forest were organized 

by the USDA Forest Service (FS). 

In Oregon, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) provided a 2-day tour of forestry 

activities on private industrial timberlands. Site visits were also used to review restoration 

research programs conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon 

State University, and the FS Pacific Northwest Research Station. Ongoing research programs 

are investigating both instream and riparian restoration activities. 

In Washington, forest practices and restoration on private lands were reviewed during a site visit 

conducted by Weyerhaeuser Company. Restoration research conducted by the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) was also reviewed during a site visit. 

In Alaska, reviews of forest practices on private lands were jointly conducted by the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and the Department of Natural Resources. Other 

information on forest practices and related research was provided by the Alaska Working Group 

on Cooperative Forestry/Fisheries Research. 
Chapter 3 

Historical Background 

THE DECLINE OF ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS 

In North America, the native anadromous salmonids occur from mid-California to the Arctic 

Ocean in the west, and from Connecticut to northern Newfoundland in the east (Fig. 3.1; 

Meehan and Bjornn 1991). In the west, anadromous salmonids occur in five states: California, 

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska. Anadromous species include five species of Pacific 

salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sea-run cutthroat trout (0. 

clarki), and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). In the east, only Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) 

and to some degree brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are anadromous. Non-anadromous 

populations of salmonids occur throughout the U.S. and Canada. 

Atlantic 

Salmon 

Figure 3.1. Distribution of native anadromous salmonids in North America. (After 

Meehan and Bjornn 1991 .) 
Historical Background 

Because of their fidelity in homing to natal streams in which they were spawned and reared, 

anadromous salmonids have become reproductively isolated into hundreds of locally adapted 

populations, or stocks (Ricker 1972). Any given stream with appropriate habitat can harbor 

several coexisting species and several different stocks of each species (Fig. 3.2). 

Stories of the original abundance of anadromous salmonids in the United States (Netboy 1974) 

seem like fiction from today's perspective. With the exception of Alaska, existing populations 

of native anadromous salmonids on both coasts are mere remnants. On the East Coast, Atlantic 

salmon have been severely depleted for over 100 years. On the West Coast, at least 106 major 

stocks are extinct, and another 101 are at high risk of extinction (Nehlsen et al. 1991). In 

California, for example, coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) now occur in only one-half of 

historic natal streams (CDFG 1994). 

Salmon are still the nation's most 

valuable fisheries (U. S. Dept. 

Commerce 1 990) , with anaverage 

(1985-89) commercial ex-vessel 

value in the northeastern Pacific of 

$773 million (Talley 1990). Value 

for sport, subsistence, and other nonmarket amenities are also substantial 

(Huppert and Fight 1991). Because 

of the depleted condition of the 

stocks, most fisheries off California, 

Oregon, and Washington were closed 

in 1994. The Pacific Coast 

Federation of Fishermen's 

Associations estimates that 98 % of 

the jobs dependent on salmon 

fisheries in the Pacific Northwest 

have been lost since 1988, and the 

economic impact of lost salmon 

fishing is $1.25 billion. Considering 

the depleted condition of most native 

stocks, the potential value of the 

resource if restored would be 

enormous. 

Three principal factors caused the 

decline of anadromous salmonids: 

1) loss of habitat due to habitat 

destruction, inadequate passage at 

dams, and inadequate streamflow; 

2) overfishing of weaker stocks 

in mixed-stock fisheries; and 3) 

Figure 3.2. Salmonid habitat in a small 

forested stream in southeast Alaska, showing 

its complexity and abundance of pools, 

spawning gravels, and cover provided by large 

woody debris. (Photo by K Koski, NMFS.) 
Historical Backwround 

negative interactions with non-native fish, especially from hatcheries (Nehlsen et al. 1991). 

Belief that hatcheries could mitigate habitat loss also provided an excuse for taking habitat for 

development. Several factors usually operated in concert. For example, the now-extinct run 

of coho salmon in Oregon's Grande Ronde River was first reduced by habitat destruction from 

logging, grazing, and agriculture; then further reduced by dams on the Snake River in the 

1960s-1970s; and finally overfished when management agencies decided the stock was too weak 

to warrant protection in mixed-stock fisheries (Nehlsen et al. 1991). A new paradigm that 

advances habitat restoration and ecosystem function rather than hatchery production is needed 

for salmonid stocks to survive and prosper (Nehlsen et al. 1991). 

Habitat destruction from logging, mining, grazing, agriculture, and urban development was the 

factor most commonly associated with the decline of anadromous salmonids (Nehlsen et al. 

1991). Unregulated clearcut logging damaged numerous streams, rivers, and estuaries (Sedell 

et al. 1991). Hydraulic gold mining in California created a giant wave of sediment that 

progressed from mountain streams to San Francisco Bay (Ritter 1978). Dredge mining for gold 

in the 1800s dug up streambeds in California and Idaho, leaving tailings piles visible today 

(McIntosh et al. 1994). Overgrazing by sheep and cattle caused chronic erosion and altered 

riparian areas, and agriculture converted forests to erosion-prone croplands and withdrew water 

for irrigation (Wissmar et al. 1994). Construction of housing and highways accompanying 

explosive population growth in many areas of the West severely impacted numerous watersheds 

(Netboy 1974). 

As of August 1995, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has listed four stocks as 

threatened or endangered under ESA: Snake River springlsumrner chinook, Snake River fall 

chinook, Snake River sockeye, and Sacramento River winter chinook. NMFS has also proposed 

to list Umpqua River cutthroat trout, Klamath Mountain Province steelhead, and three distinct 

evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of coho salmon on the Oregon and California coasts. All 

other stocks of anadromous salmonids outside Alaska are undergoing status review. 

For the first stocks listed under ESA, concerns included big-river problems with fish passage 

and water management in the Columbia River and Sacramento River Basins, as well as fishing 

mortality and land management activities, especially in Idaho and eastern Oregon and 

Washington. The NMFS Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon (USDC 1995) has 

five major planning areas including tributary ecosystems, main-stem river and estuarine 

ecosystems, fisheries harvest management, hatchery propagation, and changes in institutional 

structure to improve decision making. As the status of coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat 

trout came under review, concern expanded to a broader geographic area and more emphasis on 

impacts of land uses and hydro projects on small streams (L. Sullivan, NMFS, pers. comm. ~ 

1995). 

Small streams are the "backbone" of salmonid habitat. Salmonids occupy streams ranging from 

tiny first-order tributaries to the main-stem Columbia River (ninth-order; Leopold et al. 1964), 

but most spawning and rearing, especially for coho salmon, steelhead, Dolly Varden, and 

cutthroat trout, take place in second- to fourth-order streams (Figs. 3.1 and 3.3). Large rivers 

can provide important spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for all species, but small streams 

greatly outnumber the higher-order rivers. Even when small streams are not used by salmonids 
8 Historical Backqround 

because of barriers or steep gradient, they are important to the quality of downstream habitats 

because they carry water, sediment, nutrients, and woody debris from the upper watershed to 

downstream reaches. 

Small streams are also easily affected by land uses (Meehan 1991). They are intimately 

associated with their riparian zones and flood plains (Fig. 3.4), and they are highly responsive 

to changes in riparian vegetation and the condition of the surrounding watershed. Land uses that 

increase erosion, modify runoff, or alter riparian vegetation have greater effects on small streams 

than on larger streams. 

Figure 3.3. Diagram of a watershed's drainage network, showing stream orders 

according to the Strahler (1957) classification system. First-order streams are 

headwater streams without tributaries; second-order streams are formed by the 

confluence of two first-order streams; third-order streams are formed by the 

confluence of two second-order streams; and so on. 

Figure 3.4. Cross-section of a woodland stream, showing association with riparian 

vegetation and flood plain. (From Sullivan et al. 1987; reprinted with permission from 

University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources.) 
Historical Backaround 9 

LEGACY OF PAST LOGGING 

Logging and clearing of land historically impacted vast areas of U.S. forests and their salmonid 

habitats. Over 1 million km2 of the original forest has been converted to agriculture and other 

uses (Powell et al. 1993). The greatest rate of forest clearing was between 1850 and 1910, 

when American farmers cleared 758,000 km2, averaging 35 km2 per day for 60 years. Logging 

began in New England in the 1700s, in the Great Lakes and Gulf Plain in the early 1800s, in 

the Pacific Northwest in the mid 1800s (FEMAT 1993), and in Alaska about 1950 (Gibbons et 

al. 1987). 

In the early years, streams were used to move logs downstream to accumulation sites. Every 

stream of sufficient size in western Oregon and Washington was cleared of obstructions for log 

drives during high water (Sedell et al. 1991). On streams too small for log drives, splash dams 

of log cribbing were used to raise a head of water for sluicing logs (Fig. 3.5; Sedell and 

Luchessa 1982). Repeated splash damming caused major long-term damage to fish habitat as 

torrents of water and logs severely scoured many streams, leaving barren bedrock. By about 

1900, over 300 major splash dams and numerous undocumented smaller dams operated in 

Oregon and Washington. 

Even where splash dams were not 

used, stream channels served as 

transportation corridors for logging. 

Railroads were built along the larger 

drainages, and then logs were yarded 

down the smaller tributaries to the 

railbed. In this way, impacts 

extended to the tiniest intermittent 

channels. Whole watersheds were 

logged as convenience dictated, 

beginning in the lower watershed and 

progressing upstream until all 

valuable timber was taken. Logs 

were yarded downhill, scraping 

debris and sediment into stream 

channels. 

Logging practices after this early 

period were improved but still 

affected salmonid habitat. Streams 

were protected from being used for 

yarding in the 1950s. Clearcutting 

to the streambank, however, was 

normal practice until the 1980s. 

Riparian buffer zones were not used 

much until the late 1980s, and most 

of these buffers contained only 

minimal trees (Phinney et al. 1989). 

Figure 3.5. Finishing up a log drive after 

splash damming in western Washington in 

1927. (Photo courtesy of J. Sedell, FS.) 
Historical Background 

Before regulations limited logging slash entering streams, timber harvest often completely buried 

streams in accumulated limbs and tops (Gibbons and Salo 1973). The small unstable debris 

often washed downstream within a few years, destabilizing natural debris jams (Bryant 1980). 

To address this problem, forest practices rules in the 1970s began requiring removal of logging 

slash from streams after timber harvest. Timber operators did their best to thoroughly clean 

streams after yarding, often removing every piece of debris from the channel, including 

beneficial natural debris (Bilby and Ward 1989). 

Lack of knowledge about fish habitat requirements also caused mistakes in stream management. 

In response to the days when logging slash was a major problem, fisheries managers from the 

1950s to the 1970s focused on removing large woody debris (LWD) from streams. Woody 

debris was seen as a detriment to salmon migration, and all along the Pacific coast, logjams 

were removed with the intention of opening new reaches of stream (Narver 1971; Hall and 

Baker 1982). 

Impacts from over 100 years of logging and debris removal are still evident in most streams of 

the Pacific Northwest and other areas of the nation (Koski 1992). One of the most damaging 

long-term effects has been a drastic reduction in LWD (Bisson et al. 1987), extending from the 

headwaters to the estuary (Sedell et al. 1991). Past logging practices have reduced large, stable 

LWD in streams and depleted future LWD sources in riparian zones. Depending on geology 

(Hicks 1990), a typical coastal stream in second-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest has 

greatly simplified habitat consisting of a single, cobble-bed channel lacking pools and LWD. 

In other areas, streams may have bedrock channels lacking gravel, woody debris, and other 

channel features (McIntosh et al. 1994). 

Today, forest management is evolving to provide greater protection for salmonid habitat. 

Improved knowledge of habitat requirements and increased concern for habitat quality by 

recreational and commercial fishermen, environmental organizations, and the general public have 

led to this greater emphasis in providing for fish habitat in forest management activities (Brouha 

1991). 

PRESENT-DAY TIMBERLANDS 

Forests in the U.S. now amount to 70% of the area that was forested in 1600 (Powell et al. 

1993). Today's landscape, however, generally consists of small patches of forest of mostly 

middle sera1 stages interspersed with recently harvested areas. At lower elevations, forests are 

intermingled with farms and towns, and fragmented by highways and residential developments. 

Inventories in the 1980s showed only 18% of the original old-growth forest in California, 

Oregon, and Washington still existed; 85 % was on public land and higher elevation (Bolsinger 

and Waddell 1993). Much has been cut since this last inventory. The more valuable forest 

types have been the most heavily logged. The ponderosa pine forests in national forests on the 

east slope of the Cascade Mountains, for example, have only 2-8 % climax old growth remaining 

(Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel 1993). Generally, forest land at lower elevations is 

privately owned and has been logged at least once. 
Historical Backaround 

About 20% (2 million km2) of the nation's total land area is classed as "timberland," capable 

of producing more than 20 cubic ft of industrial wood per acre (1.4 m3/ha) per year and not 

withdrawn from timber harvest in parks and other reserves (Powell et al. 1993). Most of the 

nation's highly productive forest lands, capable of producing more than 120 cubic ft per acre 

(8.4 m3/ha) per year are in the South and in the Pacific Northwest. Areas that produce both 

timber and anadromous salmonids coincide over much of western North America and mostly in 

Maine in the eastern United States. Composition of U.S. forests is diverse, ranging from pure 

stands of Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in the semiarid West to multi-species hardwoods in 

the Northeast. The most productive timberlands are the loblolly-shortleaf pine forests of the 

South and the Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forests 

of the Pacific Northwest. 

U.S. forests within the range of Pacific anadromous salmonids produce about 17 billion boardfeet of sawlogs and other wood products per year-one-quarter of the total U.S. timber 

production (Powell et al. 1993; Warren 1993; Fig. 3.6). Private lands and national forests 

account for most timber harvest, with smaller contributions from USDI Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) lands in Oregon and state lands in Washington. Most U.S. timber 

production, however, comes from the South, outside the range of anadromous salmonids. 

British Columbia, Canada, is also a major producer, about the same as the Pacific Northwest. 

These timberlands are owned primarily by the federal government and private firms and 

individuals (Fig. 3.7). Most federal timberlands are national forests; other public lands include 

mostly BLM lands in Oregon and state lands in Washington and Alaska. Private lands are about 

equally divided between the forest products industry and private non-industrial groups and 

individuals. As the amount of available timber on federal lands declines, more pressure is put 

on private lands. Conversely, as timber declines on private lands, pressure is put on public 

lands to provide timber to maintain local economies. 

7,000 1 

Private 

kSl USFS 

H BLM 

State 

W other 

" 

Oregon Washington California Idaho Alaska 

Figure 3.6. Lumber production in states within the range of Pacific anadromous 

salmonids. (Data are from Warren 1993.) 
Historical Backaround 

0 Private forest industry 

El Private non-industry 

6S1 USFS 

a BLM 

E4 State 

II Other 

1 

Oregon Washington California Idaho Alaska 

Figure 3.7. Ownership of timberlands in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. (Data are 

from Powell et al. 1993.) 
Chapter 4 

Salmonid Habitat Requirements 

The typical life cycle of anadromous salmonids consists of several stages that encompass marine, 

estuarine, and freshwater environments (Fig. 4.1; Groot and Margolis 1991). Each life stage 

has different habitat requirements. Adults returning from the sea require access to spawning 

gravel and cover from predators; eggs and alevins incubating in the streambed require stable, 

permeable gravel and cool, oxygenated water; juveniles rearing in the stream require food, 

suitable temperature, and cover; and smolts migrating to sea require adequate streamflow. 

These multiple factors operate simultaneously and vary seasonally and annually. Their role in 

salmonid population dynamics also changes with the different stages of the life cycle. 

Adult 

Spawning 

Smolt 0 4 \ 

Rearing Residence l ncubation 

0 Emergence 

Figure 4.1 . Generalized life cycle of anadromous saimonids, involving several distinct 

freshwater life stages and a period of ocean residence. 
Habitat Reauirements 

Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids have been thoroughly reviewed (Bjornn and 

Reiser 1991). This chapter presents the salient habitat requirements that pertain to effects of 

logging. It follows the life cycle of salmonids, beginning with the habitat requirements of adults 

as they return to spawn, and ending with the migration of smolts as they leave for the sea. 

Although descriptions of habitat requirements are generally species-specific, almost all aquatic 

habitats used by anadromous fish accommodate complex assemblages of stocks rather than a 

single stock. Because the various species, stocks, and life stages of salmonids have different 

habitat requirements, the streams they inhabit must provide appropriate diverse hydraulic and 

geomorphic conditions from the headwaters to the river mouth. 

UPSTREAM MIGRATION OF ADULTS 

Adult anadromous salmonids must reach the spawning grounds at the proper time and with 

enough energy left to spawn (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Native stocks have migration schedules 

that are flexible enough to accommodate delays during normal periods of unsuitable conditions. 

Stocks that migrate up long river systems often arrive in the spawning area several months 

before spawning, whereas those migrating up short coastal streams often do not move into 

streams until just before spawning. Some stocks enter streams in fall when streamflow is high 

and do not spawn until the following spring. 

Although the migration schedule is flexible, it has evolved to meet the specific flow and 

temperature regimes of the natal streams. Temperature during incubation is probably the 

primary determinant of spawning time (Heggberget 1988). Any given stock spawns mostly 

during a 3- to 4-week period determined by the temperature regime where the eggs incubate 

(Meehan and Bjornn 1991). Spawning is timed to allow for egg incubation so that fry emerge 

at the right time to feed and grow. 

For successful migration, conditions must be suitable for at least part of the migration season. 

Streamflow should be at least 30-70% of the mean annual flow, and water depth should be at 

least 18-24 cm, depending on the species (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). High turbidity can cause 

fish to delay migration, but turbidity generally does not affect homing. Fish easily negotiate 

their way up highly turbid glacial rivers (Eiler et al. 1992). Water temperature can be in a 

broad range between 3 and 20°C. If streamflow is too high, water velocity may be too fast. 

Adult salmon can swim at a sustained speed of more than 3 m/s and dart over 6 m/s, but the 

maximum negotiable water velocity is under 3 mls in critical stream reaches, usually shallow 

riffles. 

Low dissolved oxygen (DO) can impede migration and even cause fish kills in some situations. 

Swimming performance declines sharply when DO concentration drops below 7 mg/L, and fish 

may stop migrating when DO is below 4.5 mg/L (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Pre-spawn die-offs 

of adult pink (0. gorbuscha) and chum salmon (0. keta) can occur during temporary summer 

droughts when fish become crowded in pools and deplete oxygen (Murphy 1985). 
Habitat Requirements 

Large pools and abundant cover are important components of migration habitat. Adult salmon 

often hold for several weeks in large pools as they ascend a stream to spawn (Burger et al. 1985; 

Thedinga et al. 1993), and some fall-run stocks spend months in fresh water before spawning 

(Meehan and Bjornn 1991). During this time, the adults are vulnerable to predation and 

disturbance, and must conserve energy for further upstream migration and spawning. Bears can 

take a large toll in some areas, but are not significant where their number has been reduced. 

Human disturbance can be important where salmon holding areas are near recreation sites. 

Large pools and abundant LWD provide resting habitat and cover needed for successful upstream 

migration. 

Perhaps most important for adult migration is freedom from barriers. Water falls, debris jams, 

and other obstacles can block upstream passage. Many such barriers are only temporary. 

Debris jams and beaver dams may be barriers at low flow but become passable at higher flow 

(Bryant 1984). Salmon and steelhead can jump obstacles up to 3 m high if the pool below the 

falls is deep enough (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Salmonids can get past many obstacles that 

appear to be barriers, given suitable streamflow and obstacle configuration. 

SPAWNING 

The usable spawning habitat in a stream depends on the stream's size, depth, velocity, 

temperature, amount of proper-size gravel, and configuration of pools and riffles (Bjornn and 

Reiser 1991). Streamflow regulates the amount of spawning area in a stream by controlling the 

area covered by water and its depth and velocity. For each stream, there is an optimum flow 

that provides the maximum usable spawning area. Salmonids can spawn when water temperature 

is as low as 1°C and as high as 20°C, but the favorable range is between 4 and 17"C, 

depending on the stock (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Suitable gravel substrate is between 1 and 

10 cm diameter, depending on fish size, but upwelling groundwater can make substrates finer 

than 1 cm suitable for spawning (Lorenz and Eiler 1989). 

The number of possible redds in a stream depends on the area required per spawning pair and 

the area of suitable spawning habitat (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). The average redd size of 

anadromous salmonids ranges from 0.6 m2 for pink salmon to 10 m2 for chinook salmon, and 

the area needed per spawning pair is from 0.6 to 20 m2 (Table 4.1). The number of possible 

redds in a stream is roughly equal to the gravel area divided by 4 times the average redd size 

(Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Suitable spawning habitat, however, is often much less than the area 

of gravel because suitable habitat also requires proper channel configuration. 

The best channel configuration for spawning is often at transition areas between pools and 

riffles. These areas often have abundant intragravel flow which brings oxygen to the eggs and 

removes metabolic wastes (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Downwelling currents at the tails of pools 

force water into the gravel, and upwelling currents at downstream ends of riffles force water up 

from below. Structural features of the channel, such as LWD, are important for spawning 

habitat because they help create these pool-riffle transition areas. In gravel-poor streams, LWD 

also forms spawning habitat by trapping gravels (Everest and Meehan 1981) and in sediment-rich 

streams, by scouring silt out of spawning beds (Sedell and Swanson 1984). 
16 Habitat Reauirements 

Table 4.1. Average redd area and area per spawning pair. (After Bjornn and Reiser 

1991 .) 

Species Redd area (m2) Area per pair (m2) 

Chinook salmon 

Steelhead 

Coho salmon 

Chum salmon 

Sockeye salmon 

Pink salmon 

Cutthroat trout 

As in upstream migration, cover is also important during spawning, and nearness to cover often 

determines spawning sites (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Overhanging and submerged vegetation, 

undercut banks, deep water, turbulence, and LWD provide shade and protect fish from 

disturbance. 

INCUBATION 

Successful incubation depends on numerous variables, such as streamflow, channel stability, and 

temperature, but usually the most important factor is substrate permeability. Permeable substrate 

is needed so that water can move freely to bring oxygen to the embryos and carry waste away. 

Fine sediment (usually < 0.8 mm diameter) is detrimental to embryo survival because it reduces 

substrate permeability. Permeability of gravel decreases sharply as fine sediment increases from 

5 to 20% of the substrate, and embryo survival declines similarly (Fig. 4.2; Chapman 1988). 

Low DO can kill embryos or cause them to emerge in poor condition (Koski 1975). Fine 

sediment can also interfere with emergence by blocking interstices in the gravel. Coarser 

sediment (1-2 mm diameter) can cap the substrate and trap alevins within the gravel. 

The spawning activities of adult salmonids can remove fine sediment from the redd and 

surrounding area (Chapman 1988). New redds contain less fine sediment, especially fine organic 

particles which are light and easily moved. Where numerous spawners use the same area every 

year, they help keep the gravel in good condition. If the population declines, the spawning 

habitat can deteriorate. 

Shifting of spawning gravel during periods of high streamflow can cause heavy mortality during 

incubation (McNeil 1964). Losses can be especially high where stream bedload is excessive 

because of mass wasting. For example, in the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, 45- 

86% of salmon eggs were destroyed by scour in watersheds with severe mass wasting, compared 

to only 0-14% in more stable areas (Tripp and Poulin 1986). 
Habitat Requirements 

100 1 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

Percent fine sediment 

Figure 4.2. Egg-to-fry survival in relation to fine sediment (< 2-6.4 mm) in spawning 

gravel. The stippled area includes data from four separate laboratory studies. (After 

Bjornn and Reiser 1991 .) 

The time required for embryos to hatch and for alevins to emerge is sensitive to water 

temperature and varies by species (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Steelhead eggs hatch after 85 days 

at 4°C and after 26 days at 12°C; Pacific salmon eggs hatch after 115-150 days at 4"C, and 

after 35-60 days at 12°C. After hatching, alevins remain in the gravel for about twice the time 

it takes eggs to hatch. 

The favorable temperature range for incubation is between 4 and 14°C (Bjornn and Reiser 

1991). Many salmonid streams are colder than 4°C in winter, but this is generally not a 

problem if initial development occurs within the suitable range. Because spawning and egg 

development seldom occur in summer, intragravel water temperature is usually well below lethal 

or sublethal levels. Eggs of spring spawners, however, may be exposed to high water 

temperature in late spring. 

In northern and high-elevation regions, freezing can cause high mortality during incubation. 

Direct mortality from freezing is one of the three most important mortality factors (besides low 

DO and gravel shifting) for pink salmon embryos in southeast Alaska (McNeil 1964). Low 

temperature also has indirect effects due to formation of anchor ice on the substrate, which can 
Habitat Requirements 

block interchange of water into the redd. Ice dams can destabilize the stream and scour the 

spawning gravel. 

FRESHWATER REARING 

The different species and stocks of anadromous salmonids spend different periods of time in 

fresh water. Pink and chum salmon spend the least time, usually migrating to sea immediately 

after emergence. Most sockeye salmon (0. nerka) spend up to 3 years in lakes, but juveniles 

of some stocks inhabit riverine sloughs and migrate to sea their first spring or summer (Heifetz 

et al. 1986; Eiler et al. 1992). Juvenile chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) occur as two general 

types: "stream type," which inhabit streams for 1 or 2 years (e.g., spring runs), and "ocean 

type," which migrate to sea their first summer (e.g., fall runs) (Healey 1983). Juvenile coho 

salmon spend 1 to 3 years, and juvenile steelhead, Atlantic salmon, and cutthroat trout spend 

2 or more years in streams. 

Stream habitat is obviously more important for species that have extended rearing in streams. 

For these species, the stream's habitat puts an upper limit, or "carrying capacity," on the 

number of juveniles (Bjornn and Reiser 1991. At low levels of spawning and fry abundance, 

carrying capacity does not restrict abundance of juveniles. In such cases, older juvenile 

populations are directly related to spawner abundance but less than carrying capacity. At higher 

levels, biological and physical factors cause density-dependent mortality and emigration so that, 

by late summer, the juvenile population approaches equilibrium with the stream's carrying 

capacity. 

If spawning escapement is adequate, sufficient fry are usually produced to exceed carrying 

capacity (e.g., Crone and Bond 1976). In two years in Sashin Creek, Alaska, for example, coho 

spawners and potential egg deposition increased more than fivefold, but the resulting number of 

yearling juveniles was nearly identical (Table 4.2). This is probably an extreme example 

because the number of juvenile fish in a stream are unlikely to vary so little. It does, however, 

illustrate the principle of how rearing habitat can limit populations of coho salmon. Reduced 

spawning success in such populations would not necessarily reduce smolt yield, as long as 

Table 4.2. Number of coho salmon at different life stages in Sashin Creek, Alaska, for 

two brood years with a large difference in spawner escapement. (Data from Crone 

and Bond 1976.) 

Brood Spawning Potential Pre-emerged 

year adults eggsa fry Fry Yearlings 

1963 91 6 1,460,000 2 1 4,000 51,852 4,581 

1964 162 260,000 58,000 20,355 4,546 

"Potential number of eggs estimated from number of females and mean fecundity. 
Habitat Requirements 

sufficient fry continue to be produced to fully seed available habitat (Everest et al. 1987a). 

However, if spawning escapement is reduced by overfkhing or other causes so that the reservoir 

of surplus juveniles is lacking, the number of smolts is more sensitive to forestry-related impacts 

(Cederholm and Reid 1987). 

Theoretically, carrying capacity of summer habitat sets a density-dependent limit on the juvenile 

population, which then suffers mortality in proportion to the severity of winter conditions and 

quality of winter habitat. Unlike in summer, mortality of juvenile salmonids in winter results 

mainly from density-independent factors (Hunt 1969). Winter mortality in streams is substantial: 

46-94% of late-summer populations (Murphy et al. 1984; Hartman et al. 1987), and can usually 

be attributed to hazardous conditions during floods, stranding by ice dams, and physiological 

stress from low temperature, oxygen depletion, or progressive starvation (Bryant 1984; Murphy 

et al. 1984; Harding 1993). Survival factors become more important as latitude increases, 

because winters are more severe and juveniles stay longer in fresh water. South of Alaska, for 

example, coho salmon generally spend only one winter in fresh water, whereas in Alaska, most 

spend two winters (Gray et al. 1981). 

The ultimate production of salmon smolts is determined by numerous interacting environmental 

factors, including food availability, temperature, water quality, streamflow, and cover (Bjornn 

and Reiser 1991). The importance of each factor varies seasonally: food availability, 

temperature, and streamflow are most important in summer; cover is key in winter. 

Food Availability 

In many streams, summer carrying capacity is more related to food supply than to physical 

factors. Juvenile salmonids will not stay in a stream if the food level is not adequate 

(Konopacky 1984; Wilzbach 1985). The proof that wild salmon poptilations in summer are often 

food-limited is that their number can be increased by supplemental feeding (Mason 1976). 

Abundant food can increase carrying capacity because more fish can occupy a given area and 

fewer emigrate (Mason and Chapman 1965). Salmonids can adjust the size of their territories 

according to food abundance by altering their aggressive behavior (Dill et al. 1981). When food 

becomes more plentiful, aggression subsides and territories contract. 

The period of greatest mortality of juvenile anadromous salmonids is usually during spring and 

early summer, when newly emerged fry colonize habitat and establish territories, and the 

population adjusts to carrying capacity. Adults usually spawn in limited parts of a drainage, but 

the juveniles spread out and colonize most accessible and suitable areas (Leider et al. 1986). 

Where fry are numerous, their territories cover all suitable parts of the stream, and surplus fry 

are displaced and emigrate. As fish grow, they require more space, and the population must 

shrink to accommodate needs. 

Stream-rearing salmonids predominantly eat invertebrates that drift downstream (Elliott 1973). 

Because salmonids are generalist predators, all groups of invertebrates are potential prey, but 

certain types of immature aquatic insects are eaten most because of their propensity to drift. 

Common food items include the midges (Chironomidae) , mayflies (Ephemeroptera) , blackflies 

(Simuliidae), and net-spinning caddisflies (Hydropsychidae) (Murphy and Meehan 1991). These 
Habitat Requirements 

insects generally are small, and their populations turn over rapidly so that production is often 

2-10 times their standing biomass. 

Salmonids are usually territorial, and the amount of food they get depends on their territory size 

and location. Suitable territories have one or more stations with slack water yet close to fast 

water so that fish can wait for drift while saving energy (Fausch 1984). Such stations are 

usually limited, so salmonids habitually use only part (often < 15%) of the available habitat 

(Bachman 1984). 

To understand food production in streams, one must understand how stream ecosystems operate 

(Murphy and Meehan 1991). Stream ecosystems have two energy sources: in-stream primary 

production from aquatic plants (e.g., diatoms) and out-of-stream sources of organic matter (e.g., 

leaves from riparian plants). The amount of these energy sources depends mainly on riparian 

vegetation and stream size (Vannote et al. 1980). 

Riparian vegetation influences energy sources for the stream by providing shade and dropping 

organic matter into the stream and flood plain (Meehan et al. 1977). Small streams are often 

so heavily shaded that aquatic primary production is limited by dim light, and most energy 

comes from decomposition of the leaves and other organic matter that fall from streamside 

plants. Besides leaves and other litter, insects falling from riparian vegetation supplement the 

salmonid diet. 

As streams get larger, the influence of riparian vegetation diminishes (Vannote et al. 1980). In 

the headwaters, small trees and shrubs can provide effective shade, but farther downstream, even 

large trees may be insignificant. Small streams receive more of their organic matter from local 

vegetation than do larger streams, although secondary channels of rivers can function like small 

streams and receive matter directly from local vegetation (Sedell and Froggatt 1984). 

The amount of organic matter in a stream is not, by itself, a good measure of stream 

productivity; more important is food quality (Murphy and Meehan 1991). Almost all forms of 

organic matter have too high a carbon:nitrogen ratio to be utilized directly by invertebrates, and 

must first be colonized by fungi and bacteria to enhance food quality. At the low end of the 

food-quality spectrum are woody debris and the fine particulate residues of already-processed 

detritus; at the high end are periphyton and deciduous leaves. A large reservoir of decayresistant organic matter usually is stored in the stream channel throughout the year. Between 

the fresh inputs from leaf fall and algal blooms, most labile detritus is metabolized, whereas the 

refractory portions accumulate and steadily decline in nutritional quality. 

Large woody debris has a key role in the retention of organic detritus for processing by the 

stream ecosystem (Bisson et al. 1987). Debris increases the diversity of stream morphology, 

creating pools, multiple channels, sloughs, and backwaters. Debris dams trap branches that 

retain leaves and even carcasses of anadromous salmonids (Cederholm and Peterson 1985). 

Because large logs resist decay and transport, they provide stable storage sites in small streams, 

where one-half of the streambed may consist of woody debris and detritus. The role of woody 

debris changes with stream size. In small streams, debris remains where it falls and affects most 
Habitat Requirements 

of the stream. In larger streams, debris is clumped in logjams or floated onto the banks but is 

still important in creating habitat. 

Thus, stream productivity depends on complex interactions between the stream and riparian 

vegetation. Although energy flow is a key determinant of carrying capacity for juvenile 

salmonids, the energy must flow within the context of suitable physical habitat. 

Temperature 

Because salmonids are cold-blooded, water temperature directly influences their physiology and 

activity. The preferred temperature of juvenile Pacific salmon is 12-14"C, but juvenile 

salmonids in fresh water have broad tolerance for temperature extremes and readily acclimate 

to the ambient temperature (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). They seem especially tolerant of high 

temperature, many degrees higher than they are likely to encounter (Beschta et al. 1987). 

Lethal temperature determined in the laboratory depends on the temperature to which the fish 

is accustomed. Fish acclimated to 5°C survive up to about 22°C; fish acclimated to 15°C 

survive up to about 25°C (Fig. 4.3; Beschta et al. 1987). The application of such laboratory 

Figure 4.3. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

Acclimation temperature (OC) 

Lethal threshold temperature for juvenile salmonids in relation to 

acclimation temperature. (After Beschta et al. 1987.) 
Habitat Requirements 

data to natural situations, however, is tenuous because natural streams are complex temperature 

environments, and wild fish have behavioral and physiological strategies to resist temperature 

stress. They can seek out localized cool-water sources, such as deep stratified pools and areas 

with upwelling groundwater (Bilby 1984a), or they can become inactive (Beschta et al. 1987). 

The optimum temperature for growth depends on food availability. Fish will not grow until 

their metabolic requirements are met, and their requirements increase with temperature. 

Laboratory studies show that growth decreases in situations with high temperature and limited 

food (Beschta et al. 1987). Growth can be maintained at higher temperature if the food supply 

increases enough to compensate for increased metabolic needs. Except when fish are starving, 

growth and activity increase with temperature up to some optimum and then decrease as the 

optimum is exceeded. 

Cold temperature in fall and winter causes juvenile salmonids to become less active, feed less, 

and hide in the substrate, woody debris, and other cover (Bjornn and Rieser 1991). Hiding 

behavior begins when temperature drops below about 5°C. If cover is not available as 

temperature drops, fish may move long distances before finding suitable winter habitat. 

Streamf low 

Streamfiow is a basic habitat determinant for salmonids. The flow regime varies regionally, 

depending on climate, topography, and vegetation (Swanston 1991). Coastal streams have high 

flow in fall and winter because of heavy rain and snow, and the largest floods happen during 

rain-on-snow events. In the interior, flow is high in spring during snowmelt, but rain-on-snow 

floods can happen in winter. Minimum flow generally occurs in late summer, and in northern 

and interior regions, a second minimum occurs during winter freeze-up. 

The relationship between streamflow and carrying capacity depends on surrounding land forms. 

It differs, for example, between streams in V-shaped canyons, where flood flows are contained, 

and streams on broad valleys, where floods can spread out over a wide flood plain. In general, 

carrying capacity increases as streamflow increases up to a point, and then levels off or declines 

if water velocity becomes excessive (Bjorm and Reiser 1991). Minimum streamflow in summer 

can limit carrying capacity on a broad scale. Total commercial catch of coho salmon off 

Washington and Oregon is directly related to the amount of summer streamflow when the 

juveniles were in streams 2 years before (Smoker 1955; Mathews and Olson 1980). 

Dissolved Oxygen and Turbidity 

Dissolved oxygen is normally adequate in most natural streams because turbulence keeps DO 

near saturation (about 10 mg/L at 10°C). Oxygen can be depleted, however, when streamflow 

is low and temperature high, and where fine sediment blocks interchange with interstitial water. 

Local DO depletion to as low as 2 mg/L can occur where upwelling subsurface water enters the 

stream (Beschta et al. 1987). Juvenile salmonids can survive to as low as 2 mg/L, but growth 

is reduced at less than 5 mg/L, and swimming performance declines below 8 mg/L (Bjorm and 

Rieser 1991). 
Habitat Requirements 

Streams periodically become turbid with suspended sediment during storms and intense 

snowmelt. Turbidity is an optical property of water wherein suspended materials, such as clay, 

silt, fine organic matter, and plankton, scatter light. Nephelometric techniques measure this 

"cloudiness" of water in terms of nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). At about 20 NTU, 

water first appears cloudy; at 40 NTU, turbidity is highly noticeable; and at 100 NTU, visibility 

is reduced to a few centimeters. Juvenile salmonids can tolerate moderate, short-term turbidity, 

and may even benefit from the added cover from predators (Gregory 1993a). High turbidity that 

occurs in watersheds with excessive erosion, however, can disrupt fish behavior and reduce 

growth. Juvenile coho salmon stop feeding when turbidity exceeds 60 NTU (Berg and Northcote 

1985) and avoid water with 70 NTU (Bisson and Bilby 1982). The turbidity response depends 

on the species. Juvenile coho salmon avoid glacial rivers with high turbidity, whereas chinook 

and sockeye salmon feed and grow in glacial rivers with turbidity as high as 200 NTU (Murphy 

et al. 1989; Brownlee 1990). 

Channel Morphology 

Natural streams contain a diverse mixture of habitats differing in depth, velocity, and cover, 

arranged in repeating habitat units of pools, riffles, and glides (Bisson et al. 1987). 

Classification of stream area according to habitat units (Bisson et al. 1982) forms the basis for 

today's quantitative analysis of salmonid habitat (McCain et al. 1990; Dolloff et al. 1993). 

A stream's channel morphology is determined mainly by associated hill slopes and riparian 

vegetation (Sullivan et al. 1987). The principal factors controlling channel morphology are 

water discharge, sediment load, bank characteristics, and solid structures, such as LWD, 

bedrock, and boulders. Stream channels are shaped primarily during storms, when flow is high 

enough to move sediment lining the channel bed. Stable channels are in dynamic equilibrium 

where the influx of sediment is balanced by the stream's capacity to carry sediment away. Pools 

and riffles may change location, but their average balance is maintained. 

The physical consequences of LWD are particularly important to salmonids (Sullivan et al. 

1987). Debris creates pools and undercut banks, deflects streamflow, retains sediment, and 

stabilizes the stream channel. Debris not only provides cover directly, but also forms 80-90% 

of pools in typical valley-bottom streams (Fig. 4.4; Heifetz et al. 1986). By forming pools and 

retaining sediment, LWD also helps maintain water levels in small streams during periods of low 

streamflow (Lisle 1986). Debris increases the hydraulic complexity of streams, and the slack 

water around debris offers good opportunities for feeding close to the faster water carrying insect 

drift. 

Water velocity is an important factor determining habitat use for juvenile salmonids (Bjornn and 

Reiser 1991). The velocity range used by salmonids differs among species and generally 

increases with fish size. Coho generally use slower water than steelhead and chinook. 

Complexity of natural stream habitat helps accommodate the diverse needs of the various 

salmonid species and age groups. 

Most stream-dwelling salmonids inhabit pools because of low current velocity. Drifting food, 

however, is usually more abundant where velocity is high. Although the flow carries drift, the 
Habitat Requirements 

Plunge pool 

Dammed pool 

Lateral-scour pool 

Figure 4.4. Formation of various pool habitats by large woody debris. (From Bisson 

et al. 1987; reproduced with permission from University of Washington, Institute of 

Forest Resources.) 

metabolic cost of maintaining position in riffles is too high. Riffles have few suitable feeding 

stations, usually located behind boulders and debris, and these provide limited vision of passing 

food (Bisson et al. 1987). Coho salmon avoid riffles almost entirely, preferring pools with 

ample cover where they can feed on drift as it enters the pool from upstream riffles (Nickelson 

et al. 1992a). 

Cover 

Abundant cover can increase a stream's carrying capacity for juvenile salmonids by providing 

security from predation and floods. Abundant cover also visually isolates fish, reducing 

aggression and territory size (Dolloff 1986). Cover can include woody debris, overhanging 

vegetation, undercut banks, cobble and boulder substrate, water depth and turbulence, and 

aquatic vegetation. The need for cover varies diurnally, seasonally, by species, and by fish size 

(Bjornn and Reiser 1991). 

In winter, the need for cover overrides all other habitat needs. As winter approaches, salmonids 

feed less and seek cover, particularly in ponds and stream reaches with abundant woody debris 
Habitat Requirements 

or cobble substrate (Peterson 1982; Murphy et al. 1984; Johnson et al. 1986). Pools with LWD 

and coarse substrate are critical winter habitats of juvenile salmonids (Fig. 4.5). Fine sediment 

can reduce amount of cover available in the streambed by filling interstitial spaces (Fig. 4.6). 

Cubic meters of large woody debris per 100-m reach 

Figure 4.5. Winter density of coho salmon in relation to large woody debris in 

southeast Alaska. (After Murphy et al. 1984.) 

Percent embedded by fine sediment 

Figure 4.6. Habitat use by juvenile steelhead in winter in relation to embeddedness 

of the streambed by fine sediment. (After Bjornn and Reiser 1991 .) 
Habitat Reauirements 

SEAWARD MIGRATION 

The timing of seaward migration of salmonids that spend extended periods in streams is 

regulated primarily by photoperiod, and is modified by temperature, streamflow, and fish growth 

(Groot and Margolis 1991). The timing of outmigration is often nearly the same each year and 

usually peaks during a spring freshet. Migrations of native stocks are timed so that the smolts 

arrive in the estuary when food is plentiful. Rapid growth during the early period in the estuary 

is critical to survival because of high size-dependent mortality from predation (Murphy et al. 

1988). 

The parr-smolt transition is often incomplete when fish begin migration, especially in larger 

watersheds (Rodgers et al. 1987). "Presmolts" may spend several weeks in the lower parts of 

rivers until the transition is complete. Stocks of ocean-type chinook exhibit slow "rearing 

migrations," in which the fish feed and grow while migrating toward lower parts of the drainage 

system in summer (Johnson et al. 1992). In short coastal streams, migrations tend to be quick, 

and the pan-smolt transition is nearly complete before migration starts (e.g., Thedinga et al. 

1994). 

Habitat requirements during seaward migration are similar to those of rearing juveniles, except 

that smolts tend to be more fragile (Thedinga et al. 1994). They easily lose scales if handled, 

and are less tolerant of low DO and high temperature. Because most smolt migrations occur 

during freshets in spring, low oxygen and high temperature are not usually a problem. High 

streamflow aids their migration by flushing them downstream and reducing their vulnerability 

to predators. 

Migrating smolts are particularly vulnerable to predation because they are concentrated and 

moving through areas of reduced cover where predators congregate (Larsson 1985). Most 

predation occurs in certain areas that are predation "hot spots" (Fast et al. 1991). Mortality 

during seaward migration can exceed 50% and represent a major loss in salmon production 

(Larsson 1985; Thedinga et al. 1994). In small streams, numerous predators, such as 

mergansers, otters, and mink, may be drawn to streams during the smolt migration and can take 

a heavy toll on migrating fish. Woody debris, undercut banks, and moderate turbidity provide 

important cover for migrating smolts. 

Fish can also be serious predators in larger rivers and reservoirs. In the Columbia River, for 

example, northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), and 

smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) took 14% of all migrating salmonids that entered the 

John Day Reservoir (nearly 3 million fish); 21 % of this loss was in a small area at the head of 

the reservoir (Rieman et al. 1991). The NMFS Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River 

Salmon (USDC 1995) proposes actions to control predation by squawfish, birds, marine 

mammals, and non-native fishes to increase survival during downriver migration. 
Habitat Reauirements 

LIMITING FACTORS 

Most analyses of habitat requirements examine the role of specific habitat components in 

isolation. To assess overall effects of habitat change on salmonids, specific factors that may 

limit their abundance must be considered in the context of all other factors over the entire 

freshwater period. This is the province of the analysis of limiting factors. 

The objective of limiting factor analysis is to identify the "bottleneck" that restricts overall smolt 

yield (Fig. 4.7). In this analysis, the salmonid life cycle is divided into different life stages, 

each dominated by different habitat components (Reeves et al. 1989). The factor that limits 

overall smolt production from a stream can affect the population at any life stage. For example, 

the stream may be underseeded and in need of greater escapement of adults. Spawning may be 

adequate, but summer carrying capacity may be restricted by high temperature or low food 

production. In many streams damaged by past logging, lack of winter cover is the main 

"bottleneck" that restricts smolt production. 

For anadromous salmonids, river systems should be viewed as interconnected networks which 

contain habitat for spawning, rearing, and migration in different areas within the network. To 

provide for long-term maintenance of habitat for all life stages, drainage networks need to be 

managed on a landscape scale (Naiman 1992; Reeves et al. in press). 

Figure 4.7. Illustration of "bottlenecks" restricting salmonid smolt production. 

Bottlenecks in winter (A) may be caused by poor cover from flooding and icing; 

bottlenecks in summer (B) may be caused by poor food production. Panel C illustrates 

how poor winter cover nullifies increased food availability in summer. (From Reeves 

et al. 1991; reproduced with permission from the American Fisheries Society.) 
Chapter 5 

The Potential Effects of Logging 

Logging and associated activities can have multiple effects on salmonid habitat. Salmonid 

habitat is a product of interactions among the stream, floodplain, riparian area, and uplands-in 

short, the entire watershed. Effects of timber harvest, road construction, and other activities 

anywhere in the watershed can be transmitted through changes in hydrologic and erosional 

processes to modify habitat for salmonids (Fig. 5.1; Chamberlin et al. 1991). 

Effects of logging on anadromous salmonids have been studied intersively since the 1950s, and 

have been reviewed comprehensively (Gibbons and Salo 1973; Salo and Cundy 1987; Meehan 

1991). Although many details about logging impacts are still unknown, their causes and 

mechanisms are understood. Impacts on a specific site are usually not predictable quantitatively 

because of the many interacting factors involved, including random weather events (Sullivan et 

al. 1987; Chamberlin et al. 1991). However, given information on the logging activity, 

watershed characteristics, riparian vegetation, stream, and fish populations, one can specify the 

probable direction and magnitude of habitat changes and effects on salmonid populations. 

Studies of effects of logging typically have examined specific habitat components and 

consequences for different parts of the salmonid life cycle. Most studies attempt to isolate 

effects of one variable from others that also change after logging. Fewer studies have examined 

overall cumulative effects of logging and the integrated population response of salmonids in 

whole basins. Thus, much is known about the potential effects of timber harvest on various 

habitat components and the response of various salmonid life stages (Table 5.1). Integrating 

these separate components into an ecosystem model of habitat effects and population response 

is more theoretical (Hicks et al. 1991a). 

In addition to these effects of actual timber harvest and roads, other timber management 

activities also can affect salmonids adversely. Use of forest chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, 

and fire retardants) can affect salmonids directly and indirectly (Norris et al. 1991). The risk 

of direct toxic effects can be reduced when buffer zones along streams are left untreated and 

applicators are careful to prevent drift and avoid direct application to surface water. 

Recreational use of streams and riparian areas usually will have minor negative effects on fish 

habitats, but recreational activities are highly variable and must be evaluated locally (Clark and 

Gibbons 1991). Intensive recreational use can damage riparian vegetation and streambanks or 

disturb spawning adults. 
Effects of Loclcrinq 

Forest Management Activities 

Process Water balance 

changes Energy balance 

I Sediments 

Nutrients 

I I Channel shape 

t 

I Water velocityldepth 

Structural 

changes 

Soil structurelstability 

Vegetation and debris 

Drainage network 

I I Number I 

Habitat 

elements 

Water quality 

Banks 

Bed composition 

Cover 

Riparian vegetation 

Migration barriers 

1 Species I 

Fish 

Figure 5.1. Connections between timber harvest, road construction, and other timber 

management activities in a watershed and effects on salmonid habitat via changes in 

watershed processes and structures. (After Chamberlin et al. 1991 .) 

Growth 

Survival 

Distribution 
Effects of Lominq 

Table 5.1. Influences of timber harvest on physical characteristics of stream 

environments, potential changes in habitat quality, and resultant consequences for 

salmonid growth and survival. (After Hicks et al. 1991 a.) 

Forest Potential Potential change in Potential effects on 

practice change salmonid habitat salmonid populations 

Timber Decreased 

harvest in shade 

riparian zones 

Timber 

harvest on 

hillslopes; 

forest roads 

Decreased 

supply of 

large woody 

debris 

Addition of 

slash (bark, 

branches) 

Streambank 

erosion 

Altered 

streamflow 

lncreased summer 

temperature; more 

light, more algae, more 

food production 

Reduced cover, pool 

habitat, gravel and 

organic matter storage, 

hydraulic complexity, 

and food production 

lncreased oxygen 

demand, organic 

matter, food, and 

cover; decreased 

channel stability 

Reduced cover, stream 

depth 

lncreased fine sediment 

in streambed; reduced 

food supply 

Temporarily increased 

summer base flow 

Changes in growth, 

age at smoking; early 

emergence; increased 

summer carrying 

capacity 

Decreased winter 

survival, spawning 

success, and species 

diversity; increased 

predation 

Reduced spawning 

success; short-term 

increase in growth 

lncreased carrying 

capacity for fry, 

reduced for older fish; 

increased predation 

Reduced spawning 

success; slower 

growth 

Temporarily increased 

survival 

Increased peak flows Increased embryo 

and bedload shift mortality 
Effects of LoTable 5.1. Continued. 

Forest Potential Potential change in Potential effects on 

practice change salmonid habitat salmonid populations 

Increased Increased fine sediment Reduced spawning 

erosion in stream gravels; success, growth, and 

reduced food carrying capacity; 

production and cover increased winter 

mortality 

Increased supply of Increased or 

coarse sediment decreased rearing 

capacity 

Increased debris Migration blockages; 

torrents; less cover in poor survival in 

torrent track; more torrent track; better in 

debris jams debris jams 

Increased Increased food 

nutrients production 

lncreased summer 

carrying capacity 

Stream Obstructions in stream Restricted upstream 

crossings channel; sediment movement; reduced 

inputs spawning success 

Scarification Increased Short-term increase in Temporarily increased 

and slash nutrients nutrients and food growth and summer 

burning production carrying capacity 

Inputs of fine Increased fine Reduced spawning 

organic and sediment; temporarily success 

inorganic increased oxygen 

sediment demand 
Effects of Loqw 33 

STREAM TEMPERATURE 

The detrimental increase in summer temperature was one of the first issues identified as 

environmental awareness about the effects of logging developed in the 1960s (Beschta et al. 

1987). These concerns led to changes in FS and BLM national policy and development of state 

forest practices acts intended to prevent temperature changes in fish-bearing streams. 

The principal source of energy for heating streams is direct solar radiation hitting the water 

surface, whereas heat from convection and conduction are insignificant (Beschta et al. 1987). 

Streams are heated by reductions in shade, not by warm air, nor do they quickly cool after 

entering shaded sections. Streams exposed over long reaches do not heat up indefinitely, but 

reach equilibrium as evaporation, convection, conduction, and inflow of groundwater balance 

the radiation load. 

Canopy removal can increase stream temperature as much as 10°C (Fig. 5.2; Beschta et al. 

1987). The increase is directly proportional to the area opened to sunlight and inversely 

proportional to stream discharge (Beschta et al. 1987). Thus, the increase is greatest on small 

streams and diminishes as streams get wider because of the lessening influence of tree canopy. 

Specific stream and watershed conditions cause wide variation in temperature response. Stream 

gradient, morphology, orientation, latitude, and bed materials are some factors that affect how 

much temperature will increase after canopy removal. 

22 1 I -- Clearcut 

-___ 1 ------ --- 

Forested 1 

Hours 

Figure 5.2. Typical daily stream temperature in clearcut and forested streams during 

clear weather in Oregon's Coast Range. (From Beschta et al. 1987; reprinted with 

permission from University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources.) 
Effects of Loacrinq 

Changes in stream temperature are considered harmful to salmonids because stocks are adapted 

to their stream's natural regime, and any change can alter development, growth, survival, and 

timing of life-history events (Beschta et al. 1987). Increased temperature beyond the preferred 

range can cause juveniles to leave or grow slower. High temperature can inhibit upstream 

migrations of adults and increase disease. Increased temperature can exacerbate die-offs of adult 

pink and chum salmon during temporary summer droughts in small coastal streams (Murphy 

1985). 

Although increased temperature is a major concern, field studies have generally failed to 

demonstrate significant temperature impacts on salmonids after clearcut logging (Beschta et al. 

1987). On the contrary, streams in clearcuts can have large populations of juvenile salmonids 

(Murphy and Meehan 1991). The reason for this may be that tolerance limits determined in the 

laboratory may not apply to the complex thermal environments in streams. Local cool-water 

sources (e.g., upwelling groundwater) can provide refuge from periodic high temperature (Bilby 

1984a). Daily stream temperature in clearcuts fluctuates widely and can briefly exceed the 

reported lethal threshold. Salmonids apparently can withstand these short-term exposures 

without detrimental impact (Beschta et al. 1987). These field studies, however, have generally 

examined streams in small clearcuts where the temperature increase was moderated by upstream 

forest. Cumulative increases in temperature from numerous small clearcuts could have major 

impacts on downstream habitat. 

Another reason for lack of reported temperature impacts is that most studies have been 

conducted in regions with moderate temperature regimes in the center of the salmonid 

distribution (e.g., coastal Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska; Hicks et al. 

1991a). In other regions with higher ambient temperature, on the margins of their distribution, 

streams may become too warm for salmonids because of excessive exposure to sunlight (Bjornn 

and Reiser 1991). In these regions, larger streams, which are naturally more open to sunlight, 

often become uninhabitable for salmonids in summer. Canopy reductions along these streams 

or in their headwaters can extend the time and area that temperature is unsuitable. 

Long-term warming of streams can cause increased competition and predation. Salmonids may 

be replaced because of competition from warmwater species (Reeves et al. 1987). Elevated 

water temperature in the Columbia River Basin allowed introduced smallmouth bass, major 

predators on juvenile chinook salmon, to expand their range into salmon rearing areas where 

cold water might have excluded them in the past (Li et al. 1987). 

Although timber harvest can change stream temperature in summer, it does not greatly affect 

stream temperature in winter. Canopy removal can raise winter temperature in low-elevation, 

coastal drainages; but it can lower it in northern areas and higher elevations because of lost 

insulating cover and increased radiative cooling (Beschta et al. 1987). Where winter temperature 

decreases, ice forms more readily and salmonids may die from freezing and icing hazards. 

Although effects on winter temperature may be slight, caution is warranted because even a small 

change can affect fish when water temperature is low. 

Increased winter temperature can have mixed effects on salmonids. Elevated temperature during 

egg incubation can speed development and cause fry to emerge early. Early emergence can be 
Effects of Logbeneficial by prolonging the growing season, leading to larger size in fall and winter, which 

helps overwinter survival (Holtby 1988; Thedinga et al. 1989). Early emergence, however, also 

exposes fry to late-winter freshets, and fry and smolts may migrate to sea before the spring 

plankton bloom in the estuary, leading to poor ocean survival (Holtby et al. 1989). 

Because of the extensive geographic range of salmonids, potential temperature impacts should 

be viewed with a regional perspective. In some regions of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, 

concern over increased summer temperature may be unwarranted (Beschta et al. 1987). In 

southeast Alaska, for example, stream temperature in clearcuts rarely exceeds 26"C, except in 

exposed, intermittent pools (Sheridan and Bloom 1975). Even in southeast Alaska, however, 

high temperature may be a problem for salmonids in some "temperature-sensitive" streams that 

are wide, shallow, low gradient, and have lake or muskeg sources (Gibbons et al. 1987). In 

other regions with comparatively high ambient temperature, such as southern Oregon, California, 

and the interior Columbia River Basin, increased temperature may have profound negative 

effects on salmonid populations. 

SEDIMENT 

The term "sediment" commonly refers to fine particles the size of clay and silt, but in the strict 

sense, sediment includes all particles from colloids to boulders. Generally, however, it is the 

fine sediments that are of concern because of possible detrimental effects on salmonid habitat, 

whereas the coarser gravels, cobbles, and boulders help shape channel morphology and provide 

substrate for cover and spawning. Logging activities can have major effects on the amount of 

sediments delivered to streams and their subsequent routing downstream. 

In mountainous terrain, sediments of all sizes are delivered to streams primarily by landslides 

(Swanston 1991). These occur as slow-moving slumps and earthflows or as episodic debris 

torrents and avalanches which happen during heavy rainfall when saturated soils trigger slope 

failures. Undisturbed forest soils normally resist surface erosion because their coarse texture 

and thick surface layer of duff and moss prevent overland flow. 

Surface erosion in forested sites usually occurs only after the soil is bared by landslides, fire, 

overgrazing, or logging (Swanston 1991). Compaction of soils by logging equipment increases 

surface erosion by reducing soil infiltration and causing overland flow. Surface erosion is 

greatly increased where disturbed or compacted soils are exposed to rainfall. Road surfaces, 

landings, skid trails, ditches, and disturbed clearcut areas can contribute large quantities of fine 

sediments to streams (Chamberlin et al. 1991). Nearly all forest operations disturb soil to some 

degree. Road construction and maintenance, log hauling, tree felling, yarding, slash disposal, 

and site preparation for replanting are all potential nonpoint sources of fine sediment pollution. 

Construction of roads in steep terrain can substantially increase all types of soil erosion (Furniss 

et al. 1991). Landsliding associated with roads can be more than 300 times more frequent than 

in undisturbed forest, and because the landslides are relatively large, the amount of sediment 

produced from roads greatly exceeds the sediment from forests and clearcuts (Fig. 5.3; Furniss 

et al. 1991). The increase in landslides caused by roads depends on soil and bedrock type, 
Forest Clearcut Roads 

Effects of Low 

OH. J. Andrews 

DAlder Creek 

ElBlue River 

BMapleton 1 

BlMapleton 2 

lCoastal B.C. 

- 

Forest Clearcut Roads 

Figure 5.3. Comparison of the rate of landsliding (A) and mass soil erosion (9) 

associated with forests, clearcuts, and roads as measured by six long-term studies of 

more than 10 years. (Data are from Furniss et al. 1991 : H.J. Andrews, Alder Creek, 

and Blue River are in western Cascade Range, Oregon; Mapleton 1 and 2 are in the 

Oregon Coast Range.) 

steepness, and especially road location. Landsliding can continue for decades after the roads are 

built. 

Road failure is a concomitant risk of building roads in mountainous terrain (Furniss et al. 1991). 

Landslides and severe gullying can result where roads intercept runoff and route it onto 

hillslopes. The most common causes of landslides are improper placement of road fills, 

inadequate maintenance, inadequate culverts, overly steep hillslopes, improper sidecasting, poor 

road location, undercutting of slope support, and interception of surface and subsurface water. 

Water intercepted by ditches can carry eroded sediment directly to streams (Fig. 5.4). 

Culverts and bridges pose the greatest risk to fish of any road feature (Furniss et al. 1991). 

When a culvert becomes plugged by debris or overtopped by high streamflow, the stream can 

be diverted, causing severe sedimentation. The risk of failure of a crossing structure depends 

on its size compared to flood events (Fig. 5.9, and culverts should be sized to accommodate 
Effects of Loaqinq 37 

Figure 5.4. Surface runoff being intercepted by a logging road and flowing down the 

road's ditch after heavy rain in southeast Alaska. (Photo by B. Baker.) 

1001 

Design life 

25-year 

100-year 

5 10 15 20 30 50 

Years 

Figure 5.5. The failure probability of culverts designed for 25-year and 100-year flood 

events. (Data are from FEMAT 1993.) 
Effects of Loqainq 

at least a 50-year flood (Furniss et al. 1991). Whatever the design life, any crossing structure 

is virtually certain to fail if not maintained or removed when the road is abandoned. 

Regular road use can cause chronic sediment inputs to streams nearly as great as during road 

construction. The road surface can break down with repeated heavy wheel loads of hauling 

trucks, particularly under wet conditions, resulting in a continual source of fine sediment (Fig. 

5.6). In the Clearwater River, Washington, for example, the amount of sediment that washed 

off roads equaled the amount from landslides (Reid and Dume 1984). 

Although most large landslides are associated with roads, many small landslides originate on 

clearcut slopes as the root strength which holds soils together is lost within 2-10 years after trees 

are cut (Burroughs and Thomas 1977; Ziemer and Swanston 1977). The increase in landslides 

in clearcuts varies widely, depending on slope stability (Fig. 5.3). Because landslides tend to 

be small, the amount of soil erosion is much lower than the erosion associated with roads, but 

the greater total area of clearcuts makes this a substantial source of sediment (Swanston 1991). 

Yarding operations can disturb ground over large areas (Everest et al. 1987a). Cable yarding 

and helicopter systems that suspend logs generally cause minimal soil disturbance, but tractor 

yarding can disturb and compact soils considerably (Fig. 5.7; Chamberlin et al. 1991). The bare 

and compacted soil associated with tractor yarding can cause landsliding and surface erosion. 

Effects of compaction and overturn of topsoil are also important because of potential long-term 

reduction in soil permeability and productivity (Froehlich and McNabb 1984). 

Figure 5.6. Fine sediment produced by logging truck in southeast Alaska. 

by T. R. Merrell, Jr.) 

(Photo 
Effects of Losclinq 39 

Helicopter Skyline High lead Ground skid 

cable cable tractor 

Figure 5.7. Soil disturbance caused by different yarding methods. Each point 

represents findings of a separate study. (After Chamberlin et al. 1991 .) 

For almost all forestry activities, as hillslope gradient increases, so does the potential for 

delivering sediment into streams. Hence, forest practices need to be tailored to site conditions 

to minimize effects on slope stability. Unstable areas in watersheds should be identified, and 

special precautions should be used to avoid impacts in these areas. 

Once delivered to streams, fine and coarse sediments move downstream by different routes. 

Fine sediment moves suspended in the water column, and coarse sediment moves as "bedload," 

rolling and bouncing along the stream bottom. Suspended sediment generally consists of clay 

and silt which move rapidly downstream and deposit in slack-water areas and on flood plains, 

or infiltrate coarser substrate of the streambed (Beschta and Jackson 1979). Bedload sediment 

consists of coarse sand, cobble, and larger particles which move sporadically during floods and 

are deposited as "wedges" behind structural features such as LWD (Fig. 5.8) and at channel 

bends (Swanston 1991). Coarse sediment is sorted and arranged by streamflow to form an 

"armor" layer on the streambed, preventing bedload transport except for only a few days each 

year during "flushing" streamflows (Swanston 1991). Overturn of the upper layers of the 

streambed at these times flushes fine sediments, redistributes bedload to form new pools and 

riffles, and causes local accumulation of sediment deposits behind obstructions and at points of 

reduced gradient. 
Effects of Low 

Cross section 

Figure 5.8. Diagram showing storage of bedload sediment "wedges" behind large 

woody debris. (After Swanston 1991 .) 

Undisturbed streams maintain a dynamic equilibrium between sediment delivery and routing, and 

have abundant sediment stored in their channels (Everest et al. 1987a). Most streams, however, 

do not remain undisturbed, even without human influence, but operate in context of natural longterm disturbance cycles. Streams periodically receive large pulses of sediment and woody debris 

during large storms, wildfire, and other watershed disturbances (Reeves et al. in press). Thus, 

sediment delivery, routing, and storage are not static, and streams pass through natural long-term 

cycles of excessive as well as depauperate amounts of sediment. 

Past forest practices have changed the sediment equilibrium and storzge in streams by increasing 

hillslope erosion and causing a loss of structural channel features (Everest et al. 1987a). The 

loss of structural features reduces storage and accelerates routing of bedload sediment 

downstream (Fig. 5.9). Aggraded downstream reaches become wider, shallower, and more 

prone to lateral migration and bank erosion (Sullivan et al. 1987). 

The response of salmonid populations to increased sediment from logging is often difficult to 

assess because of natural variability and the multiple effects of logging on stream ecosystems. 

Much of the knowledge about sediment impacts is extrapolated from controlled laboratory 

experiments (Everest et al. 1987a) and from field studies examining egg-to-fry survival under 

natural conditions (e.g., Koski 1966; Tagart 1976). 

Several field studies, however, have demonstrated significant adverse effects of sediment from 

logging. In Carnation Creek, British Columbia, increased fine sediment after timber harvest 
Effects of Log~inq 

Figure 5.9. Disturbance and loss of channel structures caused downcutting and 

export of stored sediment from a headwater stream in southeast Alaska. (Photo by 

T. R. Merrell, Jr.) 

reduced chum salmon escapement by 25% (Holtby and Scrivener 1989), and logging sediment 

probably contributed to the general decline in chum salmon in the last 40 years in west 

Vancouver Island (Scrivener 1991). Sediment from extensive logging in the South Fork Salmon 

River basin in Idaho buried spawning and rearing habitats. A logging moratorium was begun 

in 1966 which allowed conditions to begin to improve (Platts and Megahan 1975). By 1979, 

the percentage of fine sediment in spawning areas had decreased from 30% to 8% and gravel 

increased from 32% to 68% (Sullivan et al. 1987). In the Queen Charlotte Islands, British 

Columbia, 45-86% of salmon eggs were destroyed by scour in watersheds with severe mass 

wasting, compared to only 0-14% in more stable areas (Tripp and Poulin 1986). In a tributary 

of the Clearwater River, Washington, sediment from a debris torrent and streamside salvage 

logging aggraded the stream channel to the point that the stream dried up in summer because the 

water level dropped below the level of deposited sediment; coho smolt yield decreased 60-86% 

(Cederholm and Reid 1987). 

These examples indicate the range of direct adverse effects that increased fine sediment can have 

on salmonid populations. Fine sediment can directly reduce egg-to-fry survival, food 

production, suIfimer rearing area, and winter survival (see Chapter 4). Less-direct effects 

include changes in stream channel morphology and stability, causing long-term reductions in 

carrying capacity and survival. 
Effects of Loqaing 

STREAMFLOW 

Cutting trees and building roads can alter the watershed's water balance and accelerate 

movement of water from hillsides to stream channels (Chamberlin et al. 1991). Of greatest 

concern are the changes in low flow (base flow) in summer and peak flow during rainstorms and 

snowmelt. 

Base flow increases after timber harvest because removing trees increases soil moisture and 

groundwater as less vegetation results in less transpiration and interception on foliage. Base 

flow usually increases most in summer when transpiration has the greatest effect on soil 

moisture. In fall and winter, the soil is usually saturated, and runoff is similar in both clearcuts 

and forests. Increases in base flow are short lived, decreasing as vegetation recovers (Fig. 

5.10). After 10-30 years, base flow may return to normal or decrease below pre-harvest levels 

because rapidly growing second-growth hardwoods transpire more water than mature trees (Fig. 

5.11; Hicks et al. 1991b). Increased base flow can benefit salmonids by maintaining higher 

water levels (Hetherington 1988), but decreased base flow can shrink available habitat, especially 

at critical low-flow periods in late summer. 

Peak flows increase after logging because water is routed more quickly to stream channels 

(McIntosh et al. 1994). Activities that disturb and compact the soil increase surface runoff 

which reaches streams faster than subsurface flow. Ditches along roads collect runoff and 

intercept subsurface flow and route it quickly to streams (Fig. 5.4). Roads act as first-order 

streams and channel more water directly into larger streams (Wemple 1994). More snow 

accumulates in clearcuts and melts earlier and faster, causing more severe rain-on-snow events 

and higher and,earlier peaks during spring snowmelt (Harr 1986; Golding 1987). Increased peak 

u 

0 5 10 15 

Years after clearcut logging and burning 

Figure 5.10. Diminishing increase in water yield after timber harvest in southwest 

Oregon. (After Harr 1983.) 
Effects of Loclqing 

" Decreased 

I 1- I I 

Pre-logging Clearcut Hardwoods established 

& burned 

Figure 5.1 1. Change in August water yield from a western Oregon watershed after 

logging. Water yield initially increased after the watershed was clearcut and burned, 

but decreased after dense second-growth hardwoods became established. (After 

Hicks et al. 1991 b.) 

flow is detrimental for fish habitat because the resulting bedload overturn can scour stream 

channels, kill incubating eggs (McNeil 1964), and displace juvenile salmonids from winter cover 

(Tschaplinski and Hartman 1983). 

LARGE WOODY DEBRIS 

Large woody debris is an integral part of streams in forested watersheds, providing structure to 

the stream ecosystem and important habitat for salmonids (Bisson et al. 1987). It plays 

important roles in controlling stream morphology, regulating storage of sediment and particulate 

organic matter, and creating and maintaining fish habitat. Removal of LWD results in 

immediate loss of important habitat features and a decline in salmonid abundance (Hicks et al. 

1991a). Debris removal destabilizes the stream channel and eliminates pools and cover. The 

increased riffles may favor underyearling steelhead and cutthroat trout, which prefer riffle 

habitat, but the loss of pools harms coho salmon and older steelhead and cutthroat trout (Bisson 

and Sedell 1984; Murphy et al. 1986). 
Effects of Loaging 

Logging activities can reduce LWD in several ways (Bisson et al. 1987). Existing LWD can 

be destabilized during tree felling and yarding, and later exported downstream or onto the 

floodplain. Salvage of downed merchantable logs from the stream channel and floodplain 

removes LWD and destabilizes what is left. Cleaning of stream channels after yarding also 

removes LWD and destabilizes channels (Bilby and Ward 1989). Even if left undisturbed, LWD 

declines over time if riparian trees are cut because second-growth vegetation provides insufficient 

new conifer debris to replace the key pieces as they decay or wash downstream (Andrus et al. 

1988; Murphy and Koski 1989). The "key pieces" of debris that create stable habitat in streams 

have been hard hit by past logging. Many streams in second-growth forest become progressively 

debris-poor as total LWD declines and changes to mostly small pieces of alder (Alnus spp.). 

Woody debris in streams is depleted by decay, fragmentation, and export to downstream reaches 

and floodplains (Bisson et al. 1987). The depletion rate depends mostly on size and species of 

wood and type of stream. Woody debris from Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and western 

hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) in southeast Alaska is naturally depleted by about 1-3 % per year 

in valley-bottom streams (Murphy and Koski 1989). Some species, such as redwood and 

western red cedar (Thuja plicata), last much longer. 

Removal of trees from the riparian area during logging causes a long-term reduction in the 

recruitment of new LWD (Bisson et al. 1987). After clearcutting in riparian areas, secondgrowth trees are the principal source of new woody debris. In young forest stands, inputs of 

debris large enough to provide stable habitat is low for the first 50-75 years (Grette 1985; 

Andrus et al. 1988; Murphy and Koski 1989), and could remain low much longer if riparian 

areas are converted to non-conifer species (Chan 1993). Accumulations of LWD continue to 

decrease (Bryant 1985) as large key pieces are depleted. 

Effects of timber harvest in riparian areas can last hundreds of years. If all sources of new 

LWD are removed by clearcutting, the key pieces of large LWD in the stream will disappear 

over a period of about 250 years (Murphy and Koski 1989). Because new key pieces from 

second growth do not begin to enter the stream for 60-80 years after logging, LWD begins a 

long-term decline that may not bottom for nearly 100 years and not recover for more than 250 

years. Timber harvest rotations of less than 100 years will permanently eliminate large LWD 

unless streams are protected by adequate buffer zones. 

A model of LWD input and depletion was used to demonstrate long-term effects of clearcutting 

without buffer zones in southeast Alaska (Murphy and Koski 1989). The model showed that if 

trees were not left along streams during timber harvest, the LWD in a stream would be reduced 

by 70% after 90 years, and would take more than 250 years to recover (Fig. 5.12). An uncut 

30-m buffer zone would maintain LWD over the long term, whereas narrower buffers or 

partially harvested buffers would cause LWD to decline. This model needs to be adjusted to 

apply to regions outside southeast Alaska, but the principle applies elsewhere. 
Effects of Lo- 

,..'--... - 120- Second-Growth Trees , ...... - .o '. 9 - -----+; *...*... 

Q) 

'.... 

- %---. 

/ -.-.-..--~5.........-.-*. 

0 IIIIIIII,III,IIII~IIIIJ 

Z" , @ 

I ,..'--... I LV ,,,,, ,d-Growth Trees I 

Pre-logging LWD 

0 5-0 100 150 200 250 

Years after clear-cutting with no buffer strip 

Figure 5.1 2. A model of the changes in large woody debris after clearcut logging 

without a riparian buffer zone in southeastern Alaska. (After Murphy and Koski 1989.) 

MIGRATION HABITAT 

Changes in stream channels after road construction and timber harvest can interfere with fish 

migration by blocking passage through culverts at stream crossings, causing logjams, decreasing 

cover from predators, decreasing the frequency of large pools used for resting, and adversely 

affecting temperature and DO. 

Decreases in large pools and cover because of the loss of LWD can expose migrating adults to 

predation and deprive them of resting habitat. Suitable large pools are usually in limited supply 

along a stream, so that each is important and often will hold large numbers of migrating adults. 

Logging activities can decrease the frequency of large pools by decreasing the frequency of 

"key" pieces of LWD. In Oregon and Washington, frequency of large pools decreased by 

nearly two-thirds between the 1930s and the late 1980s (Fig. 5.13). 

Culverts can be a barrier to upstream fish migration, especially if installed above the grade of 

a stream (Furniss et al. 1991). Poorly installed culverts not only block migrations of adult 

salmon returning to spawn but also impede seasonal movements of juvenile fish between summer 

and winter rearing areas within a watershed. Culvert conditions that block fish passage include 

too high a water velocity, too shallow a water depth, lack of a resting pool below the culvert, 

and too high a jump to the culvert (Furniss et al. 1991). A single poorly installed culvert can 

eliminate the fish population of an entire stream system. 
Effects of Logcrinq 

Cascades Coast Eastern Coast Blue Mtns 

Washington Oregon 

5.1 3. Changes in pool frequency between 1935 and 1992 in Oregon and 11 

Washington. (Data are from FEMAT 1993 and Mclntosh et al. 1994.) 

FOOD AVAILABILITY 

A potential benefit of timber harvest results from the increased light when forest canopy over 

the stream is opened up. This can stimulate aquatic primary production and increase food for 

fish (Murphy and Meehan 1991). Forest streams are often light limited, and studies from 

California to Alaska have shown increased algal production after canopy removal. The increased 

algal production results in more abundant benthic invertebrates which juvenile salmonids eat. 

Although energy sources change after timber harvest, the dominant macroinvertebrates and 

functional feeding groups usually remain unchanged (Hawkins et al. 1982; Duncan and Brusven 

1985). Insects that feed by collecting fine detritus particles dominate in both shaded and open 

stream reaches. This is because the increased algal production in open reaches is used mostly 

as organic detritus after the algae sloughs from rocks (Murphy et al. 1981). The algae-derived 

detritus is more nutritious than detritus from forest litter. Thus, canopy removal can increase 

the abundance of invertebrates by enhancing the food quality of detritus. 
Effects of Loaaing 47 

Summer density of fry of some salmonid species often increases during the first 10-15 years 

after timber harvest because of increased production of invertebrates (Murphy and Meehan 

1991). Where food is limiting and other habitat factors are suitable, density of coho salmon fry 

in summer is directly related to the abundance of algae (Fig. 5.14) because increased algal 

production increases energy flow through the food web. The higher density of coho salmon fry 

probably results from smaller feeding territories (Dill et al. 1981). Other habitat features, 

however, must also be suitable for fry density to respond favorably to increased food. Other 

salmonids, furthermore, may not respond the same way as coho. In Carnation Creek, B.C., for 

example, juvenile coho increased after logging, but steelhead, cutthroat trout, and chum salmon 

decreased (Hartman 1988; Holtby 1988; Scrivener and Brownlee 1989). 

35 

Old Growth 

30 

Clearcut 

25 - 

- 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

Algae biomass (mg/m2) 

Figure 5.14. Relationship between density of coho salmon fry and algae biomass in 

old-growth, buffered, and clearcut reaches of streams in southeast Alaska in summer. 

(After Murphy et al. 1994.) 
Effects of Loaainq 

Timber harvest can affect availability of leaf detritus by altering riparian vegetation and physical 

conditions in the stream (Gregory et al. 1987). Effects vary as the riparian plant community 

passes through stages of recovery. Litterfall from streamside vegetation decreases by 75% 

immediately after riparian timber harvest, but recovers quickly with the growth of deciduous 

shrubs. Loss of debris dams because of decreased LWD reduces the channel's storage capacity 

for organic matter, resulting in reduced food resources and habitat for aquatic invertebrates. 

Increased temperature accelerates microbial decomposition of organic matter, which can promote 

increased invertebrate production and lead to more fish food (Warren et al. 1964). 

An important long-term effect of clearcut logging is potential overshading from second-growth 

canopy (Murphy and Hall 1981 ; Sedell and Swanson 1984). Second-growth vegetation produces 

a denser shade and lacks the canopy gaps that are common in old-growth forest (Bjornn et al. 

1992). Thus, increased stream production in the first 20 years after timber harvest may be 

followed by a much longer period of depressed production. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects result from the combined effects of separate management activities through 

time and space (Bums 1991). Although individual management activities by themselves may not 

cause significant harm, incrementally and collectively they may degrade habitat and cause longterm declines in fish abundance (Bisson et al. 1992). Effects of individual actions, such as 

dispersed, separate harvest units and road building, should be considered in the context of all 

other previous and ongoing activities in the watershed. 

Changes in sediment dynamics, streamflow, and water temperature are not just local problems 

restricted to a particular reach of stream, but problems that can have adverse cumulative effects 

throughout the entire downstream basin (Sedell and Swanson 1984; Grant 1988). For example, 

increased erosion in headwaters combined with reduced sediment storage capacity in small 

streams can overwhelm larger streams with sediment (Bisson et al. 1992; Fig. 5.15). Likewise, 

increased water temperature in headwater streams may not harm salmonids there but can make 

water too warm downstream (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). 

Cumulative effects on sediment and hydrology worsen as the area affected by timber harvest 

increases (Rhodes and McCullough, in press). The amount of sediment delivered to streams and 

fine sediment in pools increase with increasing timber harvest and road construction (Chen 1992; 

Lisle and Hilton 1992; Fig. 5.16). Water yield increases in proportion to the area devegetated 

(Harr 1983), and peak flows increase in proportion to roads and soil compaction (Harr et al. 

1979; Fig. 5.17). Pool depth and frequency, LWD, and channel complexity decrease with 

increased logging (Fig. 5.18; Bisson et al. 1992; Reeves et al. 1993). 
Effects of Loaaing 

Figure 5.1 5. Fine sediment derived from upstream timber harvest being carried by a 

headwater stream into downstream fish habitat in foreground. (Photo by T. R. 

Merrell, Jr.) 

Percent of watershed logged 

Figure 5.1 6. The relationship between amount of fine sediment in pools and level of 

timber harvest and road construction in several northern California watersheds. 

Vertical bars are + one standard error. (After Lisle and Hilton 1992.) 
Effects of Lowginq 

Percent of watershed compacted 

Figure 5.17. The relationship between peak streamflow and the area of a watershed 

affected by roads and soil compaction in western Oregon. (After Harr et al. 1979.) 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of watershed logged 

Figure 5.18. Frequency of pools associated with large woody debris in ten Oregon 

coastal streams with different levels of logging. (After Bisson et al. 1992.) 
Effects of Lo- 51 

The most pervasive cumulative effect of past forest practices has been an overall reduction in 

habitat complexity (Bisson et al. 1992). Habitat complexity has declined principally because of 

reduced size and frequency of pools due to filling with sediment and loss of LWD (Fig. 5.19; 

Reeves et al. 1993; Ralph et al. 1994). This cumulative habitat simplification has caused a 

widespread reduction in salmonid diversity (Fig. 5.20). A few fish species were favored by the 

changes in habitat, whereas others declined or disappeared (Reeves et al. 1993). A similar 

pattern of decreased diversity of fish communities has been observed in streams altered by other 

human activities, such as agriculture (Schlosser 1982; Berkrnan and Rabini 1987) and 

urbanization (Leidy 1984; Scott et al. 1986). 

Figure 5.1 9. A stream in 

southeast Alaska 15 years 

after timber harvest 

without a buffer zone, 

showing extreme reduction 

in pools and habitat 

complexity due to loss of 

large woody debris. (Photo 

by M. Murphy, NMFS.) 
Effects of Logainq 

~500 ha SO0 ha 

Sandstone Basalt Basalt South Coast 

Figure 5.20. Salmonid species diversity (inverse of the Berger-Parker index) in relation 

to level of timber harvest (low = < 25% logged; high = > 25% logged) in 14 coastal 

Oregon watersheds of different size, rock type, and geographic location. (After 

Reeves et al. 1993.) 

SALVAGE LOGGING 

Salvage logging after catastrophic events, such as wildfire, windthrow, flooding, or insect 

damage, is often detrimental for salmonid habitat because of the importance of large woody 

debris for fish habitat and the possible harmful effects of disturbing riparian areas. Catastrophic 

events are part of the natural disturbance regime which helps maintain ecosystem diversity 

(Everett et al. 1994). Research on effects of fire, for example, shows that riparian areas are the 

first to recover from catastrophic events (A. Youngblood, FS, Bend, OR, pers. comm. 1994) 

and may actually benefit from being burned (W. Minshall, Idaho State University, Pocatello, 

ID, pers. comm. 1994). 

Salvage logging in riparian areas after fire should usually be avoided because the areas are then 

extremely fragile and can not withstand roading, yarding, and other salvage activities (Minshall 

et al. 1989; Minshall et al. 1990; Minshall and Brock 1991). Wildfire dramatically increases 

runoff and fine sediment while decreasing shading and cover from undercut banks and woody 

vegetation. Salvage logging can exacerbate these impacts. Under postfire salvage conditions 

on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains, traditional logging systems, such as tractor skidding 

over bare ground and cable skidding, cause more severe soil disturbance and erosion than 

advanced systems, such as skyline, helicopter, and tractor skidding over snow (Klock 1975). 
Effects of Logginq 53 

A likely impact of timber salvage after wildfire is an increase in water runoff, erosion, and 

landslides because of increased snow accumulation and faster snowmelt where trees (even dead 

ones) have been removed (Megahan 1983). Factors influencing snow accumulation and melt, 

rather than evapotranspiration, dominate the spring hydrologic regime in interior areas 

(Swanston 1991). This is because the moisture deficit from evapotranspiration is satisfied by 

rain in fall and early winter. Salvaging dead trees increases snow accumulation because of 

changes in winter snowmelt, reduced interception in standing trees, and especially, aerodynamic 

factors affecting snow deposition (Megahan 1983). The increased snow pack results in increased 

soil saturation which can trigger landslides, increase runoff intercepted by roads, and exacerbate 

the scour of stream channels and downstream sediment transport common after wildfires 

(Minshall et al. 1989, 1990). 

A study of the effects of helicopter logging (Megahan 1983) shows the potential effects of timber 

salvage after wildfire. Megahan (1983) compared two headwater drainages in the Idaho 

Batholith: one was clearcut and yarded by helicopter; one was an unharvested control; and both 

were burned by a hot wildfire. In the logged-and-burned watershed, snow accumulation 

increased 41 %, spring melt rate increased 30%, the subsurface flow intercepted by roadcuts 

increased 96%, and peak flows increased 27%. None of these effects were detectable in the 

burned-only watershed. 

The implication of Megahan's (1983) study is that even helicopter salvage of standing dead trees 

after wildfire can increase the risk of landslides. Landslide hazard is directly proportional to 

the depth of the saturated zone relative to soil depth, and most landslides begin after intense rain 

or rapid snowmelt creates a temporary water table and high pore-water pressure in the soil 

(Swanston 1991). In Megahan's (1983) study, soil moisture and subsurface flow increased much 

more in the logged-and-burned watershed than in the burned-only watershed. Coupled with the 

declining cohesive strength of decaying tree roots, increased soil saturation after timber salvage 

can seriously increase landsliding (Megahan 1983). 

Besides potential problems with sediment production, salvage logging can also retard attainment 

of riparian management objectives by removing trees that are sources of LWD for the stream. 

In fire-climax ecosystems on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains, new debris principally 

enters the stream in pulses after fire, rather than by slow continuous recruitment (Minshall et 

al. 1990). Cutting and removing trees from the riparian area would leave fewer trees to replace 

the stream's debris as it is depleted by decay, fragmentation, and transport. 

New sources of large woody debris are critical to the stream's post-fire recovery (Minshall et 

al. 1989, 1990). After fire, existing woody debris in the stream channel is often removed by 

high stream discharge and exported downstream or deposited along the floodplain. The export 

of woody debris reduces storage capacity of the stream channel for sediment. As a result, stored 

sediment is exported and the stream channel becomes deeper and streambed becomes coarser. 

The sediment exported downstream comes from both increased hillslope erosion and erosion of 

stream channels. Beginning after about 2 years, new woody debris gradually begins to 

accumulate in stream channels from the undercutting and blowdown of fire-killed trees. This 

large debris serves as accumulation points for sticks and fine detritus, forms pool habitat, and 
Effects of Loscreates new storage sites for sediment, helping to slow the downstream transport of fine 

sediment. 

Large woody debris from fire-killed trees has important roles in sediment routing, not only in 

streams, but also on hillslopes (Wilford 1984). As the fire-killed trees fall or blow down across 

the slope, they form cross-slope obstructions. Sediments and small debris from upslope mass 

movements are deposited behind these obstructions, forming a series of terraces which delay the 

delivery of sediments to stream channels. Salvage of fire-killed trees could reduce the formation 

of these beneficial sediment-storage elements on hillslopes, resulting in gully erosion and 

transport of previously stored sediments into stream channels. 

Although salvage logging can have adverse effects on stream ecosystems, it might be warranted 

in some situations. Effects of wildfire and insect outbreaks under current forest conditions can 

be more severe than in natural landscapes because of years of fire suppression (Amo and Ottmar 

1994; Mason and Wickrnan 1994). Therefore, some management activities, including salvage 

logging, might help to ease the transition to a more natural disturbance regime (S. Chan, FS. 

Corvallis, OR, pers. corn. 1994). 

Salvage of insect-killed trees in riparian areas can be justified in some situations to protect 

integrity of riparian vegetation from further insect damage (Daterman 1994). Removal of 

infested trees from riparian areas, however, would probably be unsuccessful in stopping insect 

damage because 1) not all infested trees can be found and removed; 2) infested trees are usually 

removed after the beetles have emerged in spring; and 3) pest management on a "stand level" 

is ineffective because of the beetle's strong flight capability. To improve success in controlling 

insect epidemics, a watershed-scale pest management plan for the ecosystem must be 

implemented on a landscape scale (Daterman 1994). 

Salvage to reduce fuel loads might also be justified in some situations. Fish may be killed when 

riparian areas along small streams bum in high-intensity fires (Minshall and Brock 1991). 

Salvage of a proportion of insect-killed trees may be beneficial in reducing risk of high-intensity 

fires in some riparian areas. 
Chapter 6 

Technical Foundation of Forest Practices 

The challenge for watershed management is to sustain all forest resources, processes, and 

ecosystem linkages while enabling economic timber production. Forest practices rules for 

protecting fish habitat fall into three basic categories (Belt et al. 1992): 1) buffer zones; 2) Best 

Management Practices (BMPs); and 3) cumulative effects management. This chapter examines 

these rules and their technical foundation. 

BUFFER ZONES 

Buffer zones (also called riparian management areas, stream protection zones, etc.) are lands 

immediately adjacent to streams or lakes designated to protect aquatic resources (Fig. 6.1). 

Figure 6.1. A riparian buffer zone along an anadromous fish stream in the Tongass 

National Forest, southeast Alaska. (Photo by K Koski, NMFS.) 
Technical Foundation 

These areas receive special management consideration, but are not necessarily "lock-out" zones; 

timber harvest and road crossings are often permitted but with restrictions to protect aquatic 

resources. Restrictions are generally tighter on public than on private lands. Under the federal 

Northwest Forest Plan, for example, buffers can only be modified if watershed analysis 

demonstrates that a modification is needed to attain ecosystem management objectives (USDA 

and USDI 1994a). 

Buffer zones are administratively defined as the area within some distance from the stream 

channel in which protection of water quality and fish habitat is given highest management 

priority. The emphasis in defining riparian buffers for fish habitat is on ecological functions 

from the perspective of the stream, not on botanically defined riparian plant communities. Thus, 

a riparian buffer zone usually includes both upland forest and distinct riparian vegetation. 

Buffers may also be designed to benefit wildlife and other non-fish aquatic species in addition 

to anadromous fish. 

\ 

An understanding of the influence of riparian vegetation on streams is fundamental to 

understanding the function and effectiveness of riparian buffer zones. Small streams are 

intricately connected physically, chemically, and biologically to their riparian zones (Meehan et 

al. 1977; Murphy and Meehan 1991). Roots of streamside vegetation stabilize stream banks, 

retard erosion, affect nutrients in groundwater, and create overhanging cover. Vegetation and 

downed woody debris dissipate stream energy during floods and obstruct movement of sediment 

and organic matter. The canopy provides leaves and other organic matter that are part of the 

energy base for the stream ecosystem, and its shade limits algal production and moderates stream 

temperature. The trees and other LWD that fall into the stream channel provide the principal 

structural features that shape the stream's morphology, linkages to the flood plain, habitat 

complexity, streambed materials, and other characteristics (Sullivan et al. 1987; Beschta 1991). 

Small perennial and intermittent non-fish streams are especially important in routing water, 

sediment, and nutrients to downstream fish habitats (Reid and Ziemer 1994a). Intermittent 

streams account for more than one-half of the total channel length in many watersheds in the 

Pacific Northwest and Alaska, so they strongly influence the input of materials to the rest of the 

channel system. These small channels store large volumes of hillslope materials and release 

them over long periods. Much of the sediment eroded from hillslopes during a major storm may 

be stored in the smallest channels and released gradually, thereby lessening the harm on 

downstream habitats. These sites can be particularly important as potential sediment sources 

because they are often susceptible to gullying and debris flows. Intermittent channels and 

unchanneled swales associated with them often are areas of considerable potential instability. 

Many functions of riparian vegetation decrease with increasing distance from the streambank 

(FEMAT 1993). The point where the graph of cumulative effectiveness reaches 100% indicates 

the distance over which a function operates (Fig. 6.2). A standard way of measuring functional 

distance is by considering the height of mature trees growing along the stream. For example, 

the contribution of root strength to maintaining streambanks operates within a distance of 0.5 

tree height. Inputs of leaves and particulate organic matter come mainly from the area within 

0.6 tree height. Shading and large woody debris are derived from a distance of about 1 tree 

height. 
Technical Foundation 

Root 

strength\. # / / 

0 

,,;ge woody 

debris input 

I 

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 .O 

Distance from channel (tree height) 

Figure 6.2. The cumulative effectiveness of various functions of riparian vegetation 

in relation to distance from the streambank in western Oregon. (After FEMAT 1993.) 

The same types of relationship also determine the buffer width needed to attenuate changes in 

microclimate from the adjacent logging unit (Fig. 6.3). The width needed to buffer changes in 

solar radiation, for example, is less than 1 tree height, whereas the width needed to attenuate 

changes in wind speed and relative humidity is about 3 tree heights. Such changes in 

microclimate may be important in determining the long-term viability of the buffer and in 

determining the suitability of the buffer for riparian-dependent plants and wildlife (Hibbs et al. 

1991; FEMAT 1993). 

The concept of "site-potential tree height" (the average maximum height possible given site 

conditions) can be used to adjust buffer width for differences in site productivity (FEMAT 

1993). Tree height depends on local growing conditions, and tree height largely determines the 

distance over which ecological functions operate (FEMAT 1993). This height can be determined 

from the location's site index and silvicultural data on mature forests that develop on that type 

of site. The site-potential tree height provides a standard measure of the way many riparian 

functions, such as providing woody debris, decrease away from the stream bank in different 

areas. 

The area of influence of riparian vegetation also depends on channel constraint and floodplain 

development (Sparks et al. 1990). Streams constrained within bedrock channels with minor 

flood plains have a restricted zone of interaction with riparian vegetation (Gregory and Ashkenas 

1990). In contrast, unconstrained, valley-bottom streams with extensive flood plains interact 

with riparian vegetation over a much broader area. 
Technical Foundation 

Distance from stand edge into forest (tree heights) 

Figure 6.3. The cumulative effectiveness of various functions of forest vegetation in 

relation to distance from the edge of adjacent clearcuts in western Oregon. (After 

FEMAT 1993.) 

Buffer Design 

Forest practices rules regulate two features of buffer zones: their width and timber harvest within 

them. In general, there is little controversy about using buffers to maintain aquatic resources, 

but there is some controversy about how wide buffers should be and how they should be 

managed (Johnson and Ryba 1992). 

The recommended width for buffer zones depends on management objectives (Johnson and Ryba 

1992). If a specific function is targeted for protection, the width can be determined by that 

requirement. If several functions are targeted, the function with the widest requirement can 

decide buffer width. In practice, the narrowest buffers are used along non-fish streams where 

management objectives are primarily to maintain water quality. The widest buffers are used 

along fish-bearing streams to not only protect the stream, but also to maintain integrity of the 

riparian vegetation (i.e. ,"to put a buffer on the buffer;" Cederholm 1994). 

Buffer width can be fixed or variable (Belt et al. 1992). Fixed-width buffers are more easily 

enforced and require fewer specialized staff, whereas variable-width buffers allow tailoring of 

forest practices to site-specific conditions (Bisson et al. 1987; Bradley 1988). Fixed 

prescriptions may be less effective than management techniques adapted to local topography and 

natural disturbance regimes (Naiman et al. 1991). In practice, agencies use a hybrid system of 

fixed-width buffers where the required width varies across a small number of categories, based 
Technical Foundation 59 

on beneficial use, stream width, or hillslope gradient. Some rules (e.g., Oregon's) also allow 

buffer width to vary along a given stream, as long as it averages above the required minimum 

(ODF 1994). 

Prescriptions for timber harvest within buffer zones range from complete no-harvest to complete 

harvest. As with buffer width, the amount of timber harvest allowed within buffer zones 

depends on management objectives. More harvest is allowed along small, non-fish streams 

managed for water quality than along streams managed for fish habitat. Buffers can be managed 

to achieve objectives or left as unmanaged, no-harvest zones. Managed buffers are more flexible 

to account for local conditions and better able to implement restoration in degraded areas. Noharvest unmanaged buffers are more easily administered and less costly in time and personnel. 

Factors Affecting Buffer Effectiveness 

Effectiveness of buffer zones has been evaluated primarily for four basic functions: 1) filtering 

sediment, 2) providing shade, 3) providing LWD, and 4) overall protection of fish habitat. 

SEDIMENT FILTERING 

Effectiveness of vegetation in filtering sediment has mainly been evaluated for filter strips below 

roads, which are generally the largest source of sediment (Belt et al. 1992). These evaluations 

are particularly relevant because roads are often located next to streams with intervening buffer 

strips. For example, a survey of Idaho forest practices (Idaho 'Water Quality Bureau 1988) 

found that existing roads near stream channels were the most important factor contributing to 

degradation of water quality. 

The key factors controlling sediment filtering are slope and density of obstructions (i.e., woody 

debris and ground vegetation). The steeper the side slope, the wider the buffer should be to 

filter sediment. Belt et al. (1992) and Johnson and Ryba (1992) reviewed numerous studies 

whose recommendations ranged from 25 ft (7.6 m) for 0% slopes to 200 ft (61 m) for steep 

(>50%) slopes. Johnson and Ryba (1992) recommended a 100-ft (30-m) buffer to filter 

sediment. Regardless of width, buffers are ineffective at stopping sediment that moves through 

them in gullies and small stream channels (Duncan et al. 1987). 

SHADING 

The shade-producing canopy is a key function of riparian vegetation in moderating stream 

temperature (Beschta et al. 1987). Other factors that affect shading include stream size, 

orientation, local topography, tree species, stand age, and stand density. The relationship 

between canopy density and buffer width is variable (Fig. 6.4), but buffers that are 30 m wide 

provide about the same shade as in old-growth forest. 

Shade for the stream can be provided by unmerchantable trees and, along small streams, even 

streamside shrubs. Thus, buffers can be selectively harvested and still function effectively as 

shade. This may be adequate for non-fish streams managed only for water quality, but it would 

be inadequate for fish-bearing streams. Early riparian buffers used in the 1970s and 1980s were 
Technical Foundation 

"0 10 20 30 40 50 

Buffer width (m) 

Figure 6.4. The relationship between canopy density and buffer width (uncut buffers) 

in western Oregon. Square symbols and solid line represent data from (A) Brazier and 

Brown (1 973); diamond symbols and dotted line represent data from Steinblums et al. 

(1 984). (After Beschta et al. 1987.) 

mainly designed to prevent adverse increases in temperature (Beschta et al. 1987). Little 

consideration was given to other important features of fish habitat; consequently, these buffers 

failed to adequately protect fish habitat (Phimey et al. 1989). 

PROVIDING LARGE WOODY DEBRIS 

After the importance of LWD was recognized in the 1980s, efforts were made to design buffers 

to provide for long-term maintenance of LWD in streams. Studies focused on determining 

where LWD comes from (i.e., LWD recruitment) and how long it lasts in streams. 

The basis for determining width of buffer zones for maintaining LWD was the "source distance" 

measured from the streambank to the spot where the tree once stood. The probability of a tree's 

falling into a stream decreases rapidly with increasing distance from the stream (Robison and 

Beschta 1990). In southeast Alaska, 99% of LWD is recruited from up to 30 m (100 ft) away 

from the stream (Fig. 6.5; Murphy and Koski 1989). The NMFS Alaska Region issued a policy 

statement in 1988 calling for 30-m, no-harvest buffer zones along streams in Alaska to protect 

LWD sources (USDC 1988). In western Oregon and Washington, LWD can be recruited from 

up to 55 m (180 ft) away (McDade et al. 1990). Thus, a wider buffer is needed in western 

Oregon and Washington than in Alaska to provide the same protection for LWD sources. 
Technical Foundation 

1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 >30 

Distance from stream to LWD sources (m) 

Figure 6.5. Source distance for large woody debris (LWD) in southeast Alaska. (After 

Murphy and Koski 1989.) 

Source distance of LWD also depends on the type of stream (Lienkaemper and Swanson 1987; 

Murphy et al. 1987). Valley-bottom streams in unconstrained channels receive much of their 

LWD from the immediate streambank because the stream can undercut trees lining its banks. 

Over the long term, an unconstrained stream can wander across its flood plain and undercut trees 

growing far from its present channel. A constrained stream's channel consists of bedrock and 

is therefore more stable, and trees along the banks are safer from undercutting. Constrained 

streams, however, often have steep adjacent slopes, and LWD can slide into the stream from far 

away. 

Selective harvest possibly could be used to harvest valuable trees within buffer zones without 

decreasing LWD sources if selected trees are unlikely to fall into the stream (Robison and 

Beschta 1990). Such harvest, however, must be done carefully to avoid damaging remaining 

trees. Further, too much harvest can open up buffers to wind damage and exacerbate potential 

succession to shrub vegetation (Hibbs et al. 1990). The most stable buffers have a dense stand 

of trees rather than individual trees protruding above an understory (Johnson and Ryba 1992). 

Selective harvest needs to leave trees that are large enough to provide stable LWD. The size 

of LWD needed to form stable habitat depends on stream size (Fig. 6.6; Bisson et al. 1987). 

Small streams less than 5 m wide need LWD that is at least 30 cm in diameter and 5 m long; 

large streams more than 20 m wide need LWD that is at least 60 cm diameter and 12 m long. 

These "key pieces" of LWD serve as "anchors" to trap and stabilize other smaller pieces. Loss 

of such large "key pieces" of LWD reduces stability of LWD accumulations and diminishes the 
Technical Foundation 

20 I I I 

0 5 10 15 

Channel width (m) 

Figure 6.6. The diameter of stable large woody debris as a function of channel width. 

(After Bisson et al. 1987.) -. 

beneficial functions of LWD in the stream (Heimann 1988). Once the key pieces are gone, the 

smaller LWD will not remain in place for long. 

Selective harvest within buffers offers an opportunity to restore degraded riparian vegetation in 

second-growth areas (Bilby and Bisson 1991). Degraded riparian areas can be improved by 

appropriate silviculture if rules allow entry into buffer zones during timber harvest (T. O'Dell, 

Simpson Timber Company, Korbel, CA, pers. comrn. 1994). By using silvicultural treatments, 

such as patch cutting, thinning, and conifer planting, alder-dominated riparian areas can be 

treated to restore vegetative diversity and provide LWD for recovery of productive stream 

habitat (Bilby and Bisson 1991). Active management of riparian areas may be necessary to meet 

the long-term needs of fish habitat (Sedell et al. 1989). Reestablishing conifers in riparian areas 

offers potential long-term benefits for both fisheries and timber managers. 

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OF BUFFER ZONES 

Evaluating the overall effectiveness of riparian buffer zones is difficult because of the long time 

periods involved for impacts to occur and for ecosystems to recover. Full impacts on LWD, 

for example, may take 100 years to occur, and habitat may take centuries to recover (Murphy 

and Koski 1989). Evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of riparian buffers relies heavily on 

modeling and extrapolation of data into the future. 
Technical Foundation 63 

Although one of the major functions of riparian buffer zones is to provide LWD for the stream, 

blowdown of trees in buffers sometimes results in a more abrupt loading of debris than intended. 

Blowdown is more likely in areas of poorly drained soil, where buffers are perpendicular to 

prevailing wind, and where the trees are conifers (C. Andrus, ODF, Salem, OR, unpublished 

manuscript; DeWalle 1983; Steinblums et al. 1984). Blowdown is not highly correlated with 

buffer width; however, wider buffers may still provide greater protection for the stream because 

blowdown is often concentrated at the buffer edge. Blanket prescriptions for buffer width and 

feathering edges may be ineffective in reducing blowdown (Boughton 1993). The risk of 

blowdown, however, can be reduced by adjusting the buffer layout so that boundaries take 

advantage of local windbreaks, such as mature forest, ridge lines, and rock outcrops (Gregory 

and Ashkenas 1990; Boughton 1993). 

Blowdown in buffer zones is not considered a management failure nor a major problem for the 

stream (Murphy et al. 1986; C. Andrus, ODF, Salem, OR, unpublished). Blowdown accelerates 

LWD recruitment faster than in natural stands, but it is not an ecological disaster (Gregory et 

al. 1990). In southeast Alaska, where wind is a major ecological factor, only 10-15 % of trees 

in buffers blow down (S. Paustian, FS, Sitka, AK, pers. comm. 1995). Upturning of roots can 

contribute sediment, but this not usually a problem (C. Andrus, ODF, Salem, OR, unpublished 

manuscript). Blowdown can also eliminate undercut banks, but this loss is offset by added cover 

from LWD (Heifetz et al. 1986). In specific cases where blowdown creates a problem, such as 

a barrier to fish migration, debris accumulations can be modified, but as little as possible to 

achieve desired results. 

Physical exposure of the riparian community to increased light and wind could cause the buffer 

to deteriorate. When timber is harvested to the outer limit of the riparian zone, an edge is 

created that affects the interior microclimate of the riparian forest (Fig. 6.3). Relative humidity 

within the buffer declines, air temperature varies more, and windthrow and tree breakage 

increase. Increased side light accelerates shrub development which reduces herbaceous cover 

and tree regeneration (Hibbs et al. 1991). These factors may accelerate senescence of overstory 

trees and succession to shrub-dominated communities. Thus, wider riparian buffer zones may 

be needed to not only protect the stream but to ensure the long-term viability of riparian 

functions (Cederholm 1994). 

Natural disturbance regimes that operate over long cycles could be important in the long-term 

effectiveness of buffer zones for maintaining habitat quality and diversity. The size of buffer 

zones generally does not account for natural disturbances that involve larger landscape scales 

(Everett et al. 1993). Attempts to maintain stable buffer zones against the natural tendency for 

disturbances in dynamic forest ecosystems may be ineffective or even counterproductive because 

stream productivity, unique habitats, or sensitive species often require disturbance events for 

long-term sustainability (Everett et al. 19%). 

Over the long term, habitat formation in streams may depend on infrequent catastrophic 

disturbance events, such as major floods and landslides occurring after wildfire (Reeves et al., 

in press). The most significant outcome of natural disturbances was the episodic delivery of 

large quantities of mixed sediment and LWD into fish-bearing streams from hillslope failures 

and debris torrents triggered along headwater stream channels (Swanson et al. 1987; Hogan and 
Technical Foundation 

Schwab 1991). This material provided complex and productive fish habitat during subsequent 

decades as the stream reworked and exported the material downstream. During later stages of 

the disturbance cycle, fish habitat becomes less productive after most of this LWD and sediment 

has been exported or decayed. 

Disturbances from timber harvest differ from natural disturbances in frequency, severity, and 

legacy of changes in the watershed (Reeves et al., in press). On the natural landscape, wildfires 

and major hillslope failures were less frequent, covered less area, and left large amounts of 

standing and downed wood in upslope areas. Modern timber harvest leaves much less large 

wood, except in riparian areas along fish-bearing streams. Hillslope failures after timber harvest 

deliver mostly sediment without the large quantities of LWD that accompanied natural 

disturbances. Because of the reduced LWD, stream channels that develop in watersheds 

managed for timber will be simpler than the complex channels that developed after natural 

disturbances. 

Thus, disturbance is not necessarily negative, but is needed to provide productive fish habitat 

over the long term (Marcot et al. 1994; Everett et al. 1993; Reeves et al., in press). The 

challenge is to develop management regimes that put timber harvest in the context of disturbance 

regimes so that human patterns of land use do not substantially exacerbate natural disturbance 

mechanisms and leave the necessary legacy for the development of required habitat conditions. 

For the long-term development of productive fish habitat, the legacy of timber harvest needs to 

include more large wood in upslope areas, particularly in buffer zones along headwater streams 

and channels with the greatest potential for delivering this material to fish-bearing streams 

(Reeves et al., in press). In critical watershed areas, such as riparian zones and unstable soils, 

natural disturbance regimes allowed to predominate can provide the necessary habitat-forming 

amounts of sediment and LWD. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

Best Management Practices are specific rules designed to prevent nonpoint-source pollution, 

particularly from fine sediment (Lynch and Corbett 1990). They are measures used by agencies 

to meet pollution control needs under the Clean Water Act (MacDonald et al. 1991). Best 

Management Practices can also refer to forest practices in general (Bisson et al. 1992). In this 

synthesis, BMPs are used in the stricter sense related to the Clean Water Act. 

Most BMPs address activities within buffer zones, harvest activities on hillslopes, road 

construction and maintenance, and silvicultural practices (Boyette 1993). The Pacific Northwest 

states generally have several categories of BMPs that pertain directly to streams: 1) directional 

felling of trees and bucking and limbing of logs within streams and buffer zones; 2) yarding of 

logs across streams and buffers by either cable or tractor methods; 3) treatment of soil and slash 

deposited in stream channels; 4) prevention of erosion during tractor logging on hillslopes, 

including construction and maintenance of skid trails; 5) mechanical site preparation in buffer 

zones for replanting; and 7) road design, construction, maintenance, and obliteration. Usually, 

BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. 
Technical Foundation 

BMP Programs 

The Clean Water Act gives state water-quality agencies authority to certify their state forest 

practices rules as approved BMPs for controlling pollution. Nationwide, 12 states had or were 

developing a forest practices act as of 1992, and in 10 of these states, the act required 

implementation of water quality BMPs (Boyette 1993). A state agency may certify BMPs of 

federal agencies and delegate responsibility for streams under federal jurisdiction. Sixteen states 

have a formal arrangement with the FS, and 5 states have an arrangement with the BLM 

(Boyette 1993). 

The most frequent barriers to implementation of the forestry nonpoint-source management 

program under the Clean Water Act are lack of adequate funding, staffing constraints, and lack 

of technical personnel (Boyette 1993). As of 1992, 42 states had revised or developed BMPs 

for forestry, and five states used federal cost-share programs to develop their BMPs (Boyette 

1993). Complexity of the concept itself adds to the problem. 

State approaches to controlling nonpoint-source pollution from forestry activities can be 

regulatory or voluntary (Brown and Binkley 1994). States with regulatory programs impose 

requirements on forest practices and assess penalties for noncompliance. They usually require 

approval of harvest and road construction plans, inspection of projects in progress to improve 

compliance, and final inspections to determine the need to assess penalties. States with 

voluntary programs emphasize education, training, and on-site inspections if requested. 

Nationwide in 1992, 23 states had voluntary programs, 13 had regulatory programs, 5 had a 

combination of regulatory and voluntary measures, and 9 still lacked any formal program 

(Brown and Binkley 1994). All the Pacific Northwest states and Alaska have a regulatory 

program and monitor implementation and effectiveness to a limited degree. 

BMP Monitoring 

Monitoring is an important and required component of BMP programs. Monitoring for 

implementation and effectiveness are most common, but a comprehensive BMP monitoring 

program should include seven objectives (California Board of Forestry 1993): 

1. Determine whether critical problem areas are recognized and appropriate practices are 

specified; 

2. Determine whether BMPs are adequately applied (implementation monitoring); 

3. Determine whether BMPS are effective in meeting their intent (effectiveness monitoring); 

4. Determine whether properly implemented BMPs meet water quality standards (compliance 

monitoring); 

5. Determine whether BMPs for given projects protect the stream's beneficial uses (project 

monitoring) ; 
Technical Foundation 

6. Provide results to the regulatory agency and public for review; and 

7. Provide means for improving monitoring procedures and BMPs. 

Nationwide, at least 40 states have some program for monitoring BMP implementation (Brown 

and Binkley 1994). Eleven states have a monitoring program for BMP effectiveness, and most 

of these states have published reports (Boyette 1993). As of 1992, 22 states had monitoring 

programs for BMP compliance, and 15 states have published results of compliance monitoring 

(Boyette 1993). Nine states used results of BMP effectiveness monitoring to modify BMPs 

(Boyette 1993). 

Implementation monitoring should be the first priority because BMP effectiveness can not be 

evaluated unless the BMPs are actually implemented as specified. The most important aspect 

of implementation monitoring is sample design [e.g., which timber harvest units or roads should 

be included in the sample (Ferguson 1995)l. Ideally, all units would be measured, but 

constraints on time, personnel, and funds usually necessitate visiting only a representative sample 

of ongoing activities. A numerical rating system is also needed in determining whether or to 

what extent practices have been implemented (Ferguson 1995). 

Effectiveness of BMPs can be monitored individually or collectively (MacDonald et al. 1991). 

Monitoring individual BMPs, such as the spacing of water bars on skid trails, is important in 

controlling nonpoint-source pollution, but this is different from monitoring to determine whether 

the BMPs protect water quality (Dissmeyer, in press). Individual BMPs are often best evaluated 

at the site of the practice, such as a skid trail, which may be far away from the stream and 

riparian zone. Legally, however, sediment generated from roads may not be a concern until it 

enters a stream. Thus, there should be a clear linkage between the upslope measurements and 

water quality (MacDonald and Smart 1994). In contrast, overall effectiveness of combined 

BMPs for a project is usually evaluated by directly measuring water or other stream 

characteristics. Such instream measurements may be difficult to relate to individual BMPs. The 

states evaluate BMP effectiveness from a variety of perspectives. Parameters monitored most 

often include turbidity, suspended solids, bioassessments, macroinvertebrates, and cobble 

embeddedness (Boyette 1993). 

Monitoring of BMP implementation and effectiveness is conducted by numerous entities, 

including federal and state agencies, tribes, and private landowners (e.g., TFW 1992; California 

Board of Forestry 1993; Hoelscher et al. 1993; Simpson Timber Company 1994). Such a 

decentralized approach allows monitoring to be tailored to individual land-use activities, but 

disadvantages are that monitoring methods vary and data are not easily aggregated and compared 

(Boyette 1993; Brown and Binkley 1994). 

One example of a recent BMP monitoring project is Hoelscher et al.'s (1993) audit of Idaho's 

BMPs. As with many projects of this type, objectives were to inspect the level of compliance 

with forest practices rules and judge whether BMPs were effective in preventing sediment 

pollution in streams. Over 1,000 activities were evaluated, and methods included assessment 

of upland erosion, sediment pathways, and instream sedimentation. In this audit, BMPs were 

implemented 92 % of the time. Where BMPs were not implemented, sediment pollution occurred 
Technical Foundation 

in 75 % of the cases, which emphasized the importance of enforcement. More than one-half of 

the projects, however, were judged to have an adverse cumulative effect by causing sediment 

pollution. Recommendations were made to the Idaho Land Board to modify the forest practices 

rules to improve BMP effectiveness, and new rules were approved in 1995 (J. Colla, IDL, 

Coeur d'Alene, ID, pers. comm. 1995). 

In general, recent assessments of BMPs indicate that forest practices can protect water quality 

if BMPs are carefully developed and implemented (Brown and Binkley 1994). Most state BMPs, 

however, do not carefully protect small perennial and intermittent streams from disturbance, and 

BMPs for minimizing erosion on unstable slopes are still being developed. 

The BMPs for protecting small perennial and intermittent streams must be effective because such 

BMPs are the only practical means for protecting these headwater streams while other resource 

activities continue. These BMPs prescribe whether trees can be felled into stream channels, 

whether felled trees can be bucked and limbed there, and whether logging slash must be 

removed from the channels after yarding. Certain BMPs also determine whether logs can be 

dragged or yarded across stream channels, and whether tractors and other logging equipment can 

enter and cross them. Present state BMPs often allow trees to be felled, bucked, and limbed in 

small perennial and intermittent streams, with few restrictions on yarding. These activities can 

destabilize small stream channels, causing the release of large amounts of sediment to 

downstream fish habitats (Toews and Moore 1982; Bilby 1984b). 

Many current problems with water quality also result from poor BMP implementation (Brown 

and Binkley 1994). Compliance is generally lower for small private holdings than for public or 

industrial lands (Brown and Binkley 1994). Having qualified field personnel available to provide 

site-specific BMP recommendations is probably the most efficient way to improve 

implementation (Brown and Binkley 1994). 

Ongoing changes in forest practices regulations should consider effects on profitability of timber 

companies because decreased profitability could cause large land holdings to be subdivided or 

converted to other land uses (R. Bettis, Pacific Lumber Company, Scotia, CA, pers. comm. 

1994). This change would make implementing watershed management more difficult and lessen 

habitat protection because the larger holdings are generally better at implementing BMPs and 

often have experienced technical personnel. Watershed management is easier to implement on 

watersheds with single owners than in watersheds with many small parcels with different owners. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS MANAGEMENT 

The analysis and management of cumulative effects are means of controlling non-point source 

pollution that might be missed by planning at the project level (Cobourn 1989). Forest managers 

can reduce or prevent undesirable cumulative effects on fish habitat by effective planning at the 

watershed level (Klock 1985). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water 

Act, and laws of several states require that effects of past, present, and future management 

activities be considered to prevent undesirable cumulative impacts. 
68 Technical Foundation 

Evaluations of potential cumulative effects of a given project should consider watershed erosion 

potential; slope stability; current disturbances from roads, timber harvest, and other land uses; 

rate of recovery after disturbance; and project area compared to the total watershed (Bach 1993). 

More comprehensive methods for assessing cumulative watershed effects rely on interpreting 

watershed condition and stream dynamics. Patterns of disturbance v~sible on aerial photographs 

can be used to evaluate changes in channel conditions and to link such changes to upstream 

causes (Grant 1988). 

In evaluating cumulative effects, land managers need to account for land uses other than 

forestry. Grazing, mining, agriculture, water development projects, recreation usage, and 

urbanization can all cause incremental cumulative impacts on a watershed and its fish populations 

(Clark and Gibbons 1991; Nelson et al. 1991; Platts 1991). Forest management must be 

considered in the context of these other activities and may need to be more conservative because 

of their cumulative impacts. An example would be watersheds where livestock grazing has 

damaged riparian vegetation and streambanks (Platts 1991), warranting greater protection of 

riparian areas along streams during timber harvest to compensate for grazing impacts. 

Watershed Analysis 

Watershed analysis is the newest tool for assessing watershed features and providing the 

information needed by planning bodies charged with managing cumulative effects. Watershed 

analysis is a systematic procedure for describing current conditions and hazard areas in a 

watershed to provide a basis for prescribing appropriate precautionary measures (FEMAT 19%). 

It assumes that managers can protect the overall condition of the watershed by managing 

sensitive areas appropriately and applying standard practices in less-sensitive areas (Washington 

Forest Practices Board 1993). Watershed analysis, in itself, does not result in decisions 

regarding management of cumulative effects, although the overall watershed analysis process can 

include both resource assessment and decision-making modules (e.g., Washington Forest 

Practices Board 1993). Usually, however, watershed analysis is merely a management tool that 

provides part of the basis for management decisions. Watershed analysis is currently being 

developed, and several approaches are being tried on both public and private lands (Grant et al. 

1994). 

With information from watershed analysis, managers should be better able to avoid cumulative 

impacts. Because watershed analysis is a new methodology, its efficacy in promoting better 

habitat protection has not been widely tested. One evaluation on the Tongass National Forest, 

Alaska, found that several impacts resulting from logging activities could have been avoided if 

watershed analysis had been conducted (USDA 1995). 

A comprehensive cumulative effects assessment process should be 1) systematic, the same steps 

used to assess each watershed; 2) structured, each step supported by a written guide with 

decision criteria; 3) reproducible, different observers obtaining the same conclusions; 

4) defensible, supported by established scientific principles of watershed management; and 5) 

adaptive, periodically revised to reflect new science and technology (IDL 1994). 
Technical Foundation 

Besides watershed analysis, other approaches to analyzing cumulative effects rely on stream 

surveys to identify possible problems in a watershed, but these methods are less able to identify 

management-sensitive landforms. Problems with roads and erosion-hazards would be more 

readily identified by watershed analysis than by stream surveys. 

The concept of Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) provides a method for setting threshold levels 

of concern for cumulative effects (Belt 1980; King 1989). This method monitors areas in young 

sera1 stages resulting from clearcutting, fire, or other disturbances, and establishes ECA levels 

at which cumulative effects begin to show. Exceeding these levels indicates a need for caution 

before additional activities. For example, an ECA level of 15% of forest stands < 30 years old 

confers a low risk of impacts, whereas risks increase above the 15% ECA level (McCammon 

1993). 

The ECA approach has potential drawbacks that can limit its application (Rhodes and 

McCullough, in press). It does not represent factors that modify impacts from disturbance, such 

as proximity to streams and soil hazard. Timber harvest in riparian areas, for example, has 

greater impacts than in uplands. The recovery time (15-30 years) for hydrologic processes does 

not reflect recovery time for other habitat functions (200 years to recover LWD; Minshall et al. 

1989). The ECA approach also omits other causes of degradation, particularly grazing. 

Despite its drawbacks, the ECA approach is useful in establishing thresholds of concern for the 

level of timber harvest in watersheds where harvest in riparian areas is closely controlled. In 

determining ECA level, coefficients based on amount of tree crown cover can be used to relate 

harvest prescriptions other than clearcutting (e.g., shelterwood cuts) to equivalent clearcut area 

(L. Bailey, Payette National Forest, pers. comm. 1994; N. Gerhardt, Nez Perce National Forest, 

pers. comm. 1994). Such conversion coefficients may need to be adjusted to fit local watershed 

conditions. 

Habitat Conservation Plans 

Management cooperation across property boundaries is essential for effective watershed 

management (Trout Unlimited 1994). Habitat protection and restoration on a watershed basis 

will require integrating federal land management with other regulatory programs that affect 

aquatic habitats, particularly through the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act (Williams 

1993). Habitat Conservation Plans developed under the ESA have an important role in 

watershed planning on private lands. 

Under Section 10 of the ESA, non-federal landowners can voluntarily develop Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs) in consultation with NMFS and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS). The HCPs outline long-term (>50 years) plans for land management and show how 

critical habitat of a listed species will be managed to mitigate or prevent its "taking" through 

adverse modifications to habitat falling under the "harass and harm" definitions of the ESA. 

The plans can include various measures, such as extended rotation cycles for timber harvest in 

critical habitat, watershed analysis to prevent cumulative effects, habitat restoration, and 

monitoring. Landowners can also address biotic communities rather than individual species 
Technical Foundation 

through "multi-species" HCPs that cover listed or non-listed species other than fish and foster 

conservation of biodiversity. 

Once HCPs are approved by NMFSIFWS, the landowners are assured that management of their 

lands will not be disrupted by new regulations or restrictions for those species. In issuing an 

incidental take permit, NMFSIFWS accept the applicant's proposed package of conservation 

measures and agree that the number of fish that would be taken during an otherwise lawful 

activity (e.g., land management) would not jeopardize the species' existence. 

General provisions considered in an HCP include 1) streamside buffers that provide the full 

range of riparian functions (LWD, shade, nutrients, sediment filtering, and bank stability); 2) 

planning for road systems to minimize road density; 3) road maintenance to reduce sediment 

delivery; 4) avoidance of erosion-prone areas; 5) restoration projects for riparian or fish habitats 

that are integrated with comprehensive watershed management; 6) consideration of natural 

disturbance regimes; 7) removal of artificial barriers to restore fish passage to natural habitats; 

8) measures to provide optimum quantity and quality of water for fish resources; 9) monitoring 

programs; and 10) planning for adaptive management (R. Baker, NMFS, Portland, OR, pers. 

comm. 1995). 

Because of the wide-ranging migrations of anadromous salmonids, planning at the basin, 

regional, and even larger scales is also necessary for managing cumulative effects from activities 

in addition to timber management. The NMFS Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon 

(USDC 1995) is a good example of the comprehensive planning needed to address all factors that 

can cumulatively affect salmon stocks. In this comprehensive plan, timber management and 

other watershed uses are just one of five major planning areas that also include main-stem river 

and estuarine habitat, fisheries harvest management, hatchery propagation, and changes in 

institutional structure to improve decision making. These other four components are beyond the 

scope of this synthesis, but forestry-fisheries issues should properly be considered in this larger 

context. 

Comprehensive watershed management must involve more than improved scientific 

understanding; it also must encompass economic, social, and political concerns (Shepard 1994). 

Watershed management needs to involve all stakeholders, including landowners, industries, 

environmental groups, and local citizens, in formulating and implementing watershed 

management. The challenge is to develop a broad base of support and participation representing 

a wide spectrum of interests (Brouha 1991; Daniels et al. 1994). 

Working groups consisting of government agencies, industry, and citizen groups can be 

instrumental in obtaining consensus on forest practices issues (AWGCFFR 1991) and watershed 

management for entire river basins (Doppelt et al. 1993). Working groups provide forums for 

complete discussion of alternative viewpoints and their supporting rationale as they strive for 

consensus on scientific, technical, and management recommendations. The NMFS Proposed 

Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon (USDC 1995) recognizes that such working groups must 

be integrated into decision making processes. 
Technical Foundation 

Economic incentives can be provided for local communities and landowners to support and 

participate in habitat protection and restoration. On public lands, contracts awarded by 

competitive bidding can provide effective habitat protection and restoration while offsetting some 

employment losses in timber-dependent communities (Lippke and Oliver 1994). Using 

restoration funds to create local jobs encourages support for habitat restoration (Pacific Rivers 

Council 1993b; Weigand 1994). Tax credits and cost-sharing programs can be expanded to 

compensate private landowners for measures taken to protect public aquatic resources (Henly 

and Ellefson 1987). On private lands, the desire to conserve public fish and wildlife competes 

with the landowner's rights of private property. Thus, economic impacts on landowners from 

new regulations requiring expanded buffer zones or retention of additional leave trees along 

streams should be offset through public funds. Compensation would help to ease resistance to 

new regulations. 
Chapter 7 

Current Forest Practices 

Forest practices are constantly being revised in light of new scientific information, political 

compromises, and changing public awareness and demands for forest and water resources. On 

federal timberlands, forest practices are generally consistent across the Pacific Northwest, with 

management direction from the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) and PACFISH aquatic conservation 

strategies (USDA and USDI 1994a, 1994b). Management direction for federal timberlands in 

Alaska comes from the Tongass Land Management Plan as amended to include the 1990 Tongass 

Timber Reform Act. Forest practices on private and state lands are governed by their respective 

laws, and forest practices vary from state to state. 

Regulations governing forest practices are developed through a public process with comments 

sought from the public on proposed regulations (Brouha 1991). Federal rules are developed and 

implemented with public review according to NEPA. State rules are written by the responsible 

resource agency, usually the forestry agency with input from the water quality agency and fish 

and wildlife agency, to implement intent of forest practices acts passed by state legislatures and 

rulings by state boards of forestry. 

This chapter describes current forest practices on both federal and private lands in the Pacific 

Northwest and Alaska. These areas have recently revised their forest practices toward ecosystem 

management aimed at protecting and restoring habitat for anadromous salmonids. 

FEDERAL LANDS 

Northwest Forest Plan and PACFISH 

Considering that aquatic and riparian habitats on federal lands are critical for anadromous 

salmonids and other species, the President's Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

(FEMAT) proposed an Aquatic Conservation Strategy to maintain and restore aquatic ecosystems 

in the range of the northern spotted owl (FEMAT 1993). The FEMAT (1993) report provided 

the scientific basis for adopting the strategy in the Northwest Forest Plan. A similar strategy 

has since been adopted to include areas not covered by the NFP over the entire range of Pacific 

anadromous salmonids from California to Alaska, and has been termed PACFISH (for Pacific 

Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Strategy). 
74 Current Forest Practices 

Both the NFP and PACFISH strategies are new and not yet wholly implemented, and application 

of PACFISH in Alaska is on hold pending further study (USDA 1995). The NFP has been 

adopted through the NEPA process and a Record of Decision (USDA and USDI 1994a). The 

PACFISH strategy is interim until the FS and BLM complete formal NEPA Environmental 

Impact Statements (EISs) for the non-NFP areas. In 1994, the FS and BLM initiated EISs to 

develop and adopt coordinated ecosystem management strategies for the interior Columbia River 

Basin. This effort is supported by a biological, social, and economic assessment known as the 

Eastside Ecosystem Management Project (USDA and USDI 1994~). The PACFISH interim 

direction for the region will be replaced by new management direction when the EISs are 

completed and the selected alternatives result in revision of national forest and BLM management 

plans. 

The NFP and PACFISH strategies have four principal components: 

1. Riparian Reserves (in NFP) and Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (in PACFISH): 

Lands along streams and unstable areas where special rules govern land use; 

2. Key watersheds: A system of priority watersheds critical to at-risk fish stocks; 

3. Watershed Analysis: An evaluation of watershed processes, functions, conditions, and 

capabilities to enable planning and informed decision making; and 

4. Restoration: Programs to restore watershed conditions, riparian functions, and fish 

habitats. 

The NFP and PACFISH strategies, however, are not identical. In the region covered by NFP, 

riparian reserve boundaries can be modified and management activities can continue in key 

watersheds only afer watershed analysis, and no new roads can be built in roadless areas of key 

watersheds. For PACFISH, watershed analysis is required before authorization to build roads 

in or across RHCAs can be granted, but it is not required before other management activities. 

The PACFISH strategy also does not address the construction of new roads in roadless areas. 

Key watersheds have been identified for NFP areas, and in the Snake River Basin, all 

watersheds are designated as key watersheds. For other areas outside the Snake River Basin, 

but within the PACFISH range, key watersheds have not yet been identified (R. Baker, NMFS, 

Portland, OR, pers. cornrn. 1995). 

Riparian Reserves and Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) are similar to riparian 

buffer zones but are more comprehensive. They generally follow the stream network but also 

include unstable hillslopes and other areas necessary to maintain stream ecosystem processes. 

They are also designed to maintain wildlife habitat in addition to fish habitat. 

The NFP and PACFISH strategies prescribe buffer widths for three categories of streams: 

1. Fish-bearing streams: Riparian reserves or RHCAs include either the stream's inner 

gorge, the 100-year floodplain, the extent of riparian vegetation, the area within two site- 
Current Forest Practices 

potential tree heights (the average maximum height given site conditions), or within 300 

ft (91 m), whichever is greatest. 

2. Perennial non-fish streams: Riparian reserves or RHCAs include either the stream's 

inner gorge, the 100-year floodplain, the extent of riparian vegetation, the area within 

one site-potential tree height, or within 150 ft (46 m), whichever is greatest. 

3. Intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre. and unstable areas: Riparian reserves 

under NFP include the stream's inner gorge, unstable areas and riparian vegetation, the 

area within one site-potential tree heights, or within 100 ft (30 m), whichever is greatest. 

Width of RHCAs under PACFISH in key watersheds is similar to NFP's riparian 

reserves, but may be narrower (50 ft or 15 m) in non-key watersheds. 

Key watersheds are a system of watersheds where habitat for anadromous fish and other at-risk 

fish species, particularly bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), receive special attention and 

treatment. Key watersheds can include those with ESA-listed stocks, excellent habitat for mixed 

salmonid assemblages, and degraded watersheds with good restoration potential. Watersheds 

in good condition serve as "anchors" for the potential recovery of depressed stocks and provide 

colonists for adjacent degraded areas. Those in poor condition can provide good habitat after 

restoration. Key watersheds should not be in isolated blocks, but should be linked by connective 

corridors (Payne and Bryant 1994) to allow recolonization and expansion of populations during 

recovery. 

Watershed analysis provides information for use in planning and other decision-making 

processes. It describes conditions and ecosystem processes in a watershed so that project 

planning can focus on site-specific environmental issues (Reid et al. 1994). Watershed analysis, 

however, is not a decision-making process, and it does not develop alternatives or limit 

management options. 

Principal aquatic objectives of watershed analysis are to 1) determine ecosystem processes 

affecting the flow of water, sediment, and organic matter through a watershed; 2) identify areas 

that are sensitive or critical to beneficial uses; and 3) determine the distribution, abundance, 

habitat requirements, and limiting factors of critical species. The size of watersheds analyzed 

is from 20 to 200 square miles (50-500 km2), which is smaller than regional and basin 

assessments, but larger than project analyses (Reid and Ziemer 1994b). 

Information from watershed analysis provides a basis for general land use planning (Benda 

1993), including transportation planning, cumulative effects assessments, and monitoring. 

Watershed analysis also identifies beneficial uses, environmental issues, and societal concerns, 

and it may develop recommendations for management options based on physical and biological 

conditions. It is an iterative process. As activities are conducted, as new data become available, 

and as habitat recovers, analyses can be kept current for the next planning cycle. 
76 Current Forest Practices 

Tongass Land Management Plan 

The Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) was adopted in 1979 following the 1976 National 

Forest Management Act to provide guidelines for managing natural resources on the Tongass 

National Forest of southeast Alaska (USDA 1989). As with forest plans for other national 

forests, TLMP addresses fish and wildlife, recreation, timber, soil and water, and other 

multiple-use values. The TLMP is currently undergoing revision and NEPA review, which 

began in 1989. In 1990, congress passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), reforming 

forest practices on federal lands in the Tongass National Forest. The Act amended the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act "to protect certain lands in the Tongass National 

Forest in perpetuity, to modify certain long-term contracts, to provide for protection of riparian 

habitat, and for other purposes. " Management under TLMP was changed to reflect requirements 

in TTRA. 

The TTRA requires buffer zones at least 100 ft (30 m) wide on each side of all Class I streams 

(i.e., those with anadromous fish) and on those Class I1 streams (i.e., those with resident fish 

only) that flow directly into a Class I stream. Timber harvest is prohibited within these buffer 

zones. No buffer zones are required along Class I11 streams (i.e., those without fish), but BMPs 

must be followed to protect water quality and prevent downstream sedimentation and excessive 

increases in temperature. The TTRA does not specifically classify or address intermittent 

channels. 

The NFP concepts of riparian reserves, watershed analysis, and key watersheds were developed 

after TTRA was passed. Hence, they were not considered under TTRA. The TLMP, however, 

does have aquatic habitat management units analogous to riparian reserves and many other 

similarities with NFP concepts. The PACFISH strategy was intended to include Alaska to bring 

habitat protection on the Tongass National Forest up to the same level employed on other federal 

lands with anadromous salmonids. Because of the generally healthy status of anadromous 

salmonids in Alaska and other reasons, application of PACFISH to Alaska was postponed until 

further study of the need for the additional protection (USDA 1995). 

STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS 

Alaska 

The Alaska Legislature amended the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act in 1990 to 

reform forest practices on state and private lands (ADNR 1993). On state lands, timber harvest 

is prohibited within 100 ft (30 m) of anadromous fish streams, and timber harvest must be 

consistent with the maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat between 100 and 300 ft (30-100 m). 

On private lands, streams have a lower level of protection, and riparian buffer zones depend on 

stream type and size. 
Current Forest Practices 

Streams on private lands in coastal forests of southern Alaska are classified into three types: 

Type A. Streams with anadromous fish; unconstrained channels; banks held in place 

by vegetation. 

Type B. Streams also with anadromous fish; channels constrained by bedrock not 

vegetation. 

Type C. Streams without anadromous fish; perennial streams or intermittent channels 

incised more than 28 degrees. 

Other streams and less-incised intermittent channels are not specifically classified. 

Standards for management within 

buffer zones on private lands differ 

according to stream type. Along 

Type A streams, no timber can be 

harvested within 66 ft (22 m) of the 

streambank (Fig. 7.1). Along Type 

B streams, all trees may be 

harvested, but timber harvest within 

100 ft (30 m) of the stream or to the 

slope break (whichever is smaller) 

must comply with BMPs. Along 

Type C streams, timber harvest 

within 50 ft (15 m) of the stream or 

to the slope break must comply with 

BMPs. 

The BMPs used within buffer zones 

are designed to protect stream 

channels from disturbance and 

prevent sediment and small debris 

from entering streams during felling 

and yarding. Trees must be felled 

away from streams in "V-notches," 

and operators must achieve at least 

partial suspension of logs while 

yarding within buffer zones. Trees 

felled into fish-bearing streams must 

be removed immediately, and trees 

felled into non-fish streams must be 

removed as soon as feasible to Figure 7.1. A 66-ft no-harvest buffer on both 

prevent destabilizing the channel and sides of a Type A anadromous fish stream on 

downstream impacts. Alaska's private land in southeast Alaska. (Photo by 

BMPs also cover other forestry R. Harris, Sealaska Corporation.) 
Current Forest Practices 

activities including slash disposal, harvest unit layout, rehabilitation of mass wasting, road 

construction and maintenance, and reforestation. 

The Alaska rules also grant "variations" from requirements in some cases, such as selective 

harvest of specific trees within the buffer zone. A landowner may propose a variation to the 

State Forester, and the Department of Fish and Game has due deference in such requests 

concerning fish and wildlife habitat. The variation is approved if the State Forester determines 

that the activity is not likely to cause significant harm to fish habitat because of site-specific 

circumstances. An automatic variation is granted for small streams [<5 ft (1.5 m) wide], 

allowing harvest of 25% of the trees between 25 ft (7.6 m) and 66 ft (20 m) from the stream. 

The only opportunity for evaluating possible cumulative effects is during review of a "detailed 

plan of operations" which timber operators must file before beginning work. The plan showing 

locations of water bodies, stream crossings, road layout, unstable slopes, and other information 

can be reviewed by affected agencies, coastal districts, and the public. The review results in 

either allowing forest practices to proceed with standard BMPs or designing new management 

prescriptions to prevent impacts. 

California 

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) enforces the state's forest 

practices rules which are promulgated through the Board of Forestry. Rules relating to 

protection of water quality and other resources were revised in 1994 (CDF 1994). 

California's waters are grouped into four classes: 

Class I. Fish always or seasonally present or a supply of domestic water. 

Class 11. Fish always or seasonally present within 1,000 ft (304 m) downstream or 

habitat for non-fish aquatic species. 

Class 111. No aquatic life present; channel has definite bed and banks and is capable of 

transporting sediment to Class I or I1 streams. 

Class IV. Artificial watercourses with established beneficial uses. 

The width of riparian buffer zones (called Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones; WLPZs) 

depends on stream class, side slope, and yarding method (Table 7.1). For Class I (fish-bearing) 

streams, the WLPZ width ranges from 75 ft (23 m) where side slopes are less than 30% to 150 

ft (46 m) where side slopes exceed 50%. For Class I1 (non-fish) streams, the WLPZ width 

ranges from 50 ft (15 m) where side slopes are less than 30% to 100 ft (30 m) where side slopes 

exceed 50%. The WLPZ along Class I and I1 streams in areas of steep side slopes can be 

reduced if cable yarding is used instead of tractor yarding. The need for and width of WLPZs 

along Class I11 (no aquatic life) and IV (artificial) watercourses are determined by on-site 

inspection. 
Current Forest Practices 

Table 7.1. California's requirements for width of Watercourse and Lake Protection 

Zones (WLPZs) bv slope class and stream class. 

Class I Class II Class Ill 

Slope (fish-bearing) (non-fish) (no aquatic life) 

< 30% 75 50 Site specific1 

30-50% 100 75 Site specific1 

> 50% 1 502 1 003 Site specific1 

'The need for and width of WLPZ is determined by on-site inspection. 

2Subtract 50 ft for cable yarding. 

3Subtract 25 ft for cable yarding. 

Within the WLPZ, harvest prescriptions depend on stream class and side slope. For Class I 

streams, at least 50% of the overstory and 50% of the understory canopy must be left 

representative of the preharvest stand, and the residual overstory canopy must be composed of 

at least 25 % of the preharvest conifers. For Class I1 streams, at least 50% of the total canopy 

must be left representative of the preharvest stand and composed of at least 25% of the 

preharvest overstory conifers. Where less than 50% canopy exists along Class I and I1 streams 

before harvest, only salvage that protects riparian functions is allowed. To provide LWD, at 

least two living conifers [216 inch (241 cm) dbh and 50 ft (15 m) tall] must be retained per 

acre within 50 ft of all Class I and I1 streams. When WLPZs are required along Class I11 

channels, at least 50% of the preharvest understory vegetation must be left living and well 

distributed. 

Activities within the WLPZ and adjacent slopes are regulated by BMPs designed to protect 

channel stability and prevent sediment and small debris from entering the stream channel. These 

BMPs direct the operator to fell trees away from streams and to avoid damaging residual 

vegetation. Yarding operations are also regulated by BMPs that prohibit use of tractors on 

unstable soils, during winter wet periods, on slopes greater than 65 % , and on slopes greater than 

50% that do not flatten to Class I or I1 streams. A prepared structure (e.g., temporary log 

culvert) must be used when crossing any watercourse that may carry water during the life of the 

crossing structure. When necessary to protect beneficial uses, a WLPZ or equipment limitation 

zone may be required for Class I11 watercourses. Regulations require that, when needed, the 

width and protection of WLPZs on Class I11 and IV watercourses prevent degradation of 

downstream beneficial uses. 

Soil and debris that accidentally enter Class I, 11, and IV watercourses must be removed 

immediately to prevent destabilizing the channel. Soil and debris deposited in Class I11 

watercourses must be removed before ending operations or before October 15, and constructed 
80 Current Forest Practices 

temporary stream crossings there must be removed before winter. Continuous areas of disturbed 

soil > 800 square ft ( > 74 square m) along Class I and I1 streams must be treated to reduce soil 

loss. Within the WLPZ, at least 75 % of the ground cover must remain undisturbed for sediment 

filtering. Where necessary, WLPZs are seeded and mulched to maintain or improve ground 

cover for sediment filtering. Other BMPs regulate road construction and maintenance, landings, 

and silvicultural operations. 

The required review process begins with filing of timber harvest plans prepared by registered 

professional foresters and submitted to CDF for approval. As part of a field examination, the 

forester evaluates riparian areas for erodible streambanks, debris jam potential, overflow 

channels, flood-prone areas, and other sensitive areas. The forester proposes WLPZ widths and 

protection measures. The CDF conducts on-site inspections as part of the plan review. 

Cumulative impacts must be assessed in the timber harvest plan, based on the Board of 

Forestry's Cumulative Impacts Assessment Process. The forester preparing the plan must 

consult sources that are reasonably available, but the forester's duties are limited to closely 

related past, present, and probable future projects. State agencies can supplement this 

information. Factors considered in the Cumulative Impacts Assessment include sediment, water 

temperature, organic debris, peak flows, and watercourse condition (gravel embeddedness, pool 

filling, channel aggradation, bank cutting). The CDF makes the final determination regarding 

sufficiency of the assessment and presence of cumulative impacts. 

California's rules also include provisions for a form of watershed planning in which the 

landowner may submit an optional "Sustained Yield Plan." This plan is intended to provide a 

means for addressing long-term issues of sustained timber production and cumulative effects on 

fish and wildlife on a landscape basis. This plan analyzes potential cumulative impacts on water 

quality and fish habitat, includes maps of unstable soils and planned roads, and discusses feasible 

measures to avoid impacts. The rules encourage landowners in watersheds with multiple owners 

to cooperate in these watershed assessments. 

Certain watersheds that are particularly sensitive to impacts from further timber harvest can be 

classified as "sensitive" after public hearings and given additional protection. Justification for 

sensitive status can include ongoing impacts on fish habitat from erosion problems related to past 

or ongoing land-use activities and potential impacts from accelerated proposed road construction 

and timber harvest. For all such watersheds, the Board of Forestry identifies specific mitigation 

measures that will protect sensitive resources. 

Idaho 

The Idaho Legislature enacted a forest practices act in 1974 and amended it seven times since 

1980 (IDL 1992). Forest practices rules are developed by the Idaho Land Board, enacted by 

the legislature, and enforced by the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL). The Idaho Land Board 

has recently approved new changes in the forest practices rules which will likely become 

effective in 1996 (J. Colla, IDL, Coeur dYAlene, ID, pers. comrn. 1995). The rules 

incorporating these changes are described here. 
Current Forest Practices 

Idaho recognizes only two stream classes: 

Class I. Streams important for fish or domestic water supply. 

Class 11. Minor drainages with perceptible streambed and banks, used by few if any 

fish; principal value is influence on water quality or quantity downstream. 

Buffer zones (called Stream Protection Zones; SPZs) depend on stream class. For Class I 

streams, the minimum SPZ is 75 ft (23 m) on both sides of the stream. For Class I1 streams, 

the minimum SPZ is 30 ft (9 m) on both sides of the stream if it contributes surface flow into 

a Class I stream; other Class I1 streams have a 5-ft (1.5-m) SPZ. The number of leave trees 

required differs by stream class and stream width (Table 7.2). More leave trees are required 

for large streams [ > 20 ft (6 m) wide] than for smaller streams. In addition, 75 % of the existing 

shade canopy over Class I streams must be left intact. 

Idaho's BMPs establish enforceable standards for all forestry activities, including felling, 

yarding, slash disposal, road construction and maintenance, and silvicultural treatments (Almas 

et al. 1993). Trees must be felled, bucked, and limbed away from Class I streams (but not 

Class I1 streams) wherever possible. Slash deposited in Class I streams must be removed during 

operations; slash in Class I1 streams must be removed after yarding if accumulations could block 

the stream or be transported downstream. Removing felled timber from the SPZ must be done 

carefully to avoid damaging shade and sediment filtering functions. Cable yarding across or 

Table 7.2. Idaho's requirements for width of Stream Protection Zones (SPZs) and 

leave trees within SPZs per 1,000 ft (304 m) along each side of streams by diameter 

breast height (dbh). 

Class I stream width 

<loft 10-20 ft > 20 ft Class II 

SPZ width (ft) 

Tree diameter 

(inches dbh) 

3-7.9 200 200 200 1 40' 

'SPZ width is 5 ft and no standing trees are required for Class I1 streams that do not contribute 

surface flow into Class I streams. 
Current Forest Practices 

within SPZs must minimize disturbance to vegetation and the stream channel. Log skidding 

across streams is prohibited, and tractors and other ground-based equipment are prohibited 

within SPZs or in streams except at constructed temporary crossings. Log skidding next to SPZs 

on slopes > 45 % needs an approved variance. Operators also must avoid conducting operations 

along non-classified waters (i.e., without definite bed and bank), such as "wet draws" where the 

presence of water is indicated. 

Cumulative effects are managed with an approach analogous to federal watershed analysis (IDL 

1994). Its purpose is to give trained evaluators an understanding of current watershed condition, 

hydrologic processes, and disturbance history. The process assesses streambed sediment, 

channel stability, sediment delivery, water temperature, shade, nutrients, and hydrology. It 

provides a key to determine whether cumulative effects exist, and guidance for landowners to 

design practices to correct adverse conditions and prevent future cumulative effects. 

The cumulative effects assessments are conducted by a committee of forest landowners in the 

watershed. This committee selects certified evaluators who prepare an assessment report 

identifying problem conditions and guidelines for forest practices. The committee develops 

management prescriptions based on the assessment report. The IDL reviews the assessment and 

prescriptions for consistency, completeness, and compliance with the Forest Practices Act. The 

process results in either allowing forest practices to proceed with standard BMPs, or designing 

new management prescriptions to prevent problems. 

Monitoring is conducted by the IDL to evaluate implementation and effectiveness. Audits of 

forest practices determine compliance with approved prescriptions, and effectiveness monitoring 

is conducted through standard assessment techniques by the landowner committee every 5 years 

and filed with the IDL. More detailed monitoring is done in some cases by other state agencies. 

Oregon 

Oregon recently revised its forest practices rules, taking an innovative approach to provide for 

long-term productivity of stream and riparian habitats (ODF 1994). Innovative aspects include 

incentives for timber operators to actively manage riparian stands to develop desired future 

conditions characteristic of mature streamside forests. 

Oregon classifies streams according to beneficial use and stream size into three types: 

Type F. Fish-bearing streams. 

Type D. Domestic water supply. 

Type N. Non-fish streams, including intermittent streams with well-defined 

channels. 

Each type is subdivided according to mean annual streamflow (in cubic ft per second [cfs]) into 

three size categories: large [ 1 10 cfs ( 10.28 m3/s)]; medium [2-10 cfs (0.06-0.028 m3/s)]; and 

small [S2 cfs (10.06 m3/s)]. Timber operators are required to submit written plans for 
Current Forest Practices 

approval by the Department of Forestry (ODF) if operations are within 100 ft (30 m) of a 'Qpe 

F or D stream. 

Riparian buffer zones (called Riparian Management Areas; RMAs) depend on stream class and 

size (Table 7.3). Width of RMAs ranges from 50 to 100 ft (15-30 m) for Type F streams; 20 

to 70 ft (6-21 m) for Type D streams, and 0 to 70 ft (0-21 m) for Type N streams. Small 

perennial Type N streams have RMAs in some regions (eastern Cascades, Blue Mountains) but 

not in others (Coast Range and Western Cascades). Intermittent Qpe N streams do not have 

RMAs. Non-classified areas without defined channels, such as ephemeral overland flow and 

seeps, also do not have RMAs, but operators must protect soil and vegetation from disturbances 

that could affect beneficial uses, and operators are encouraged to leave green trees and snags in 

these areas. 

The rules are designed to move RMAs toward desired future conditions. For Type F streams, 

the desired future condition for RMAs is to grow and retain riparian vegetation so that, over 

time, average conditions across the landscape become similar to those of mature streamside 

stands. Requirements for leave trees are based on objectives for tree basal area that would 

emulate an average mature streamside stand 120 years old halfway through a 50-year timber 

rotation. For Type N streams, the desired future condition is to have sufficient streamside 

vegetation to support functions that are important to downstream fish use and supplement wildlife 

habitat. 

Management goals distinguish between areas with different native forests. Where the native 

forest would be conifers, the rules aim to retain a sufficient number of conifers to attain a 

mature conifer stand along large and medium streams by halfway through the next timber 

Table 7.3. Oregon's requirements for width (in ft) of riparian management areas by 

stream size. 

Stream 

size1 

Type F Type D Type N 

(fish-bearing) (domestic water) (non-fish) 

Large 

2 10 cfs 

Medium 

2-10 cfs 

Small 

12 cfs 

'size based on mean annual streamflow in cubic ft per second (cfs). 

'10 ft in some regions if stream is perennial; 0 ft in other regions and if stream is 

intermittent. 
Current Forest Practices 

rotation. Where the native community is hardwood dominated, site-specific prescriptions are 

used so that regrowth replaces older trees. Where the riparian forest was historically conifers 

but currently dominated by hardwoods, the desired action is to manipulate the RMA during 

timber harvest to create conditions for reestablishing conifers. 

Vegetation retention for Type F streams includes all trees within 20 ft (6 m) of the stream, all 

downed wood and snags not safety or fire hazards, and at least 40 live conifers [> 11 inches 

( > 28 cm) dbh] per 1,000 ft (304 m) along large streams and 30 live conifers ( > 8 in dbh) along 

medium streams (Table 7.4). Requirements for Type D and large and medium Qpe N streams 

are similar to Type F streams, except that the number of live conifers to be retained is lower 

(Table 7.4). For small perennial Type N streams, only understory and unmerchantable trees 

within 10 ft (3 m) of the stream are required in some regions of the state. No retention is 

required along small perennial Type N streams in western Oregon or any small intermittent Type 

N stream, but operations are subject to BMPs. 

Enough conifers must also be left to meet standard basal area targets (Table 7.5). These targets 

are designed to produce a mature conifer stand halfway through a timber rotation. They are 

calculated based on normal yield of a Douglas-fir forest at 120 years of age after adjusting for 

incomplete stocking of riparian areas, tree mortality, and tree growth during the rotation. The 

target is also reduced because of the 20-ft no-harvest zone next to the stream, which is not 

managed. The basal area target of 230 square ft for large Type F streams equals about 350 11- 

inch-diameter trees. If the preharvest basal area is less than standard targets, no harvest is 

allowed and the operator must retain additional conifers or other trees. 

An innovative aspect of Oregon's rules is that they provide incentives for private landowners to 

take advantage of restoration opportunities during timber harvest. Timber owners can earn a 

basal area credit for trees that they place into Type F streams during operations. The basal area 

Table 7.4. Oregon's minimum requirements for conifer leave trees [in number per 

1,000 ft (304 m) along each side of the stream1 in riparian management areas by 

stream size. 

Stream 

size' 

Type F Type D Type N 

(fish-bearing) (domestic water) (non-fish) 

Small 0 0 0 

'Size based on mean annual streamflow in cubic ft per second (cfs; see Table 7.3). 

'Retained conifers must be at least 11 inches (28 cm) diameter breast height (dbh). 

3~etained conifers must be at least 8 inches (20 cm) dbh. 
Current Forest Practices 

Table 7.5. Oregon's standard targets for conifer basal area in riparian management 

areas each side of Type F streams by stream size class in selected regions. 

Standard basal area target (square ft per 1,000 ft) 

Normal basal Large Medium Small 

Region area vield' (RMA = 100 ft) (RMA = 70 ft) (RMA = 50 ft) 

Coast Range 457 230 120 40 

Western Cascades 473 270 1 40 40 

Siskiyou 41 1 220 110 40 

'Theoretical normal basal area (square ft per 1,000 ft of stream) in a 100-ft RMA with 

120-year-old Douglas-fir forest after adjusting for incomplete stocking and tree 

mortality (T. Lorensen, ODF, Salem, OR, pers. comm. 1994). 

credit is twice the basal area of each conifer log or tree placed in a large or medium Type F 

stream, or equal to the basal area of logs and trees placed in small Type F streams. These 

credits can be used to reduce the basal area requirement of live conifers in RMAs. The conifer 

basal area, however, must not be reduced below "active management" targets, which range from 

about 50 to 80% of the standard targets. Specific guidelines and requirements for placing logs 

in streams for basal area credit are given by ODF and ODFW (1995). 

Activities near streams or within RMAs are regulated by BMPs to protect water quality. 

Operators must fell trees away from streams (including small intermittent Type N streams), 

except for approved restoration projects. Logging slash must be removed from Type F and D 

streams during harvest operations and must not accumulate in Type N streams in amounts that 

threaten water quality. Except for small Type N streams, cable yarding across streams must 

have prior ODF approval and must achieve full suspension. Cable yarding across small Type 

N streams must minimize disturbance to the stream. Tractors and other ground-based yarders 

may not enter flowing streams except at constructed temporary crossings. Such crossing 

structures are not required for crossing dry streambeds if the disturbance is no greater than 

would be caused by construction of the crossing. Mechanical site preparation for tree planting 

is not allowed in RMAs on slopes > 35 %, except for certain equipment during dry periods, and 

not where soil compaction and erosion are likely. Other BMPs cover all other forestry activities 

including road construction and maintenance, landings, skid trails, and silvicultural practices. 

Oregon's rules do not provide for analysis of cumulative effects. There is no watershed 

analysis, but instead, Oregon takes a "bottom up" approach based on stream surveys. The 

ODFW has surveyed most of the streams in Oregon to support forest practices regulation (M. 

Solazzi, ODFW, Corvallis, OR, pers. cornrn. 1994). This approach relies on the ability to 
Current Forest Practices 

identify potential problems with cumulative effects by looking at conditions in stream channels 

and riparian areas. 

Washington 

The Washington State Forest Practices Act of 1974 created a Forest Practices Board composed 

of state agencies, county governments, industry, and the public. The Board promulgates the 

forest practices rules. The first rules did not adequately address fish habitat (Phinney et al. 

1989) because no consideration was given to habitat except for temperature. All riparian trees 

could be cut, sparing only the understory on certain temperature-sensitive streams. In 1987, a 

group of concerned parties including state agencies, corporations, tribes, citizens, and technical 

experts undertook negotiations and reached an agreement on new forest practices rules (the 

Timber Fish Wildlife Agreement, or TFW). The rules were again revised to further address 

environmental concerns in 1992. 

Washington's rules recognize five types of waters: 

Type 1. 

Type 2. 

Type 3. 

5pe 4. 

Type 5. 

Special "Inventoried Shorelines. " 

High value for fish, wildlife, and human use. 

Moderate-to-slight fish use. 

No fish but are important for water quality and have channels > 2 ft (0.6 m) 

wide. 

Other waters including perennial and intermittent streams with or without 

defined channels. 

Riparian management zones (RMZs) are required on Type 1, 2, and 3 streams but not on Type 

4 and 5 streams unless warranted by site conditions (Table 7.6). In western Washington, the 

minimum RMZ width is 25 ft (8 m), and the maximum width depends on stream type and width, 

ranging from 100 ft (30 m) on Type 1 and 2 streams over 75 ft (23 m) wide, down to 25 ft (8 

m) on small (< 5 ft wide) Type 3 streams. For each type, buffer width can vary between the 

minimum and maximum values, depending on extent of wetland vegetation or the width needed 

for shade. 

Prescriptions for the number of leave trees in RMZs in western Washington depends on stream 

type and streambed substrate (Table 7.6). Fewer leave trees are required for streams with 

boulder-bedrock channels than streams with gravel-cobble channels. The number of leave trees 

is greatest [I00 trees per 1,000 ft (304 m) of stream on each side] for Type 2 streams with 

gravel-cobble channels. Leave trees for Type 1 and 2 streams must represent the preharvest 

stand. For large Type 3 streams, leave trees must be larger than 12 inches (>30 cm) dbh and 

consist of two conifers per deciduous tree. For small Type 3 streams, leave trees must be larger 

than 6 inches (> 15 cm) dbh and equally conifer and deciduous. Leave trees can be required 

for Type 4 and 5 streams for site-specific reasons. 
Current Forest Practices 

Table 7.6. Washington's requirements for width and leave trees per 1,000 ft (304 m) 

in Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) in western Washington under the 1992 forest 

practices rules. 

Treest1,OOO ft, each side 

Stream RMZ width Typetsize Gravel- BoulderClass (ft) of leave trees cobble bedrock 

1 and 2 25-1 00' Representative 50 25 

( 275 ft wide) of stand 

1 and 2 25-75? Representative 100 50 

(< 75 ft wide) of stand 

3 25-50' Two 12-inch conifers 75 25 

( 25 ft wide) per deciduous tree 

3 25 One 6-inch conifer 25 25 

( < 5 ft wide) per deciduous tree 

4&5 0-252 Site specific 0-25 0-25 

'width can vary within the range shown, depending on extent of wetland vegetation. 

2An RMZ is used only if deemed needed due to site-specific conditions. 

Rules for eastern Washington are generally similar to those for western Washington. The RMZ 

width for Type 1, 2, and 3 streams is 30 to 50 ft (9-15 m) on each side of the stream for areas 

of partial harvest, and must average 50 ft (15 m) for clearcutting. The minimum leave tree 

requirements [trees 24 inches (2 10 cm) dbh] are 75 trees per acre (185 treesthectare) for 

boulder-bedrock streams, and 135 trees per acre (334 treesthectare) for gravel-cobble streams. 

Washington's BMPs comprehensively cover all forestry activities including activities within 

RMZs, road construction, skid trails, slash disposal, landings, and silvicultural practices. Within 

RMZs, trees must be felled away from Type 1, 2, and 3 waters except where impractical or 

unsafe. If felled trees get into streams, they must be removed promptly, and bucking is allowed 

only as needed to remove the tree from the water. Trees may be felled into Type 4 waters and 

bucked and limbed within the stream channel provided it is done carefully to minimize 

accumulation of slash. Downed logs imbedded in channels (except Type 5) must be left 

undisturbed. 

The BMPs also regulate yarding activities. Cable yarding across Type 1, 2, and 3 waters is 

prohibited, except where the logs will not damage the stream channel or the RMZ. Reasonable 

care must be taken to avoid damaging residual vegetation. Tractors and wheeled skidders are 
Current Forest Practices 

not permitted in Type 1, 2, and 3 waters without Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 

approval and approval by the Departments of Fisheries or Wildlife. Log skidding is not 

permitted within RMZs without WDNR approval, and skid trails are not permitted within the 

50-year flood plain. Tractors are not allowed on slopes where, in WDNR's opinion, they would 

cause unnecessary damage to public resources. Log skidding across flowing Type 4 waters must 

be minimized or employ constructed temporary stream crossings. No such restrictions apply for 

Type 5 waters without RMZs. 

Washington's forest practices rules address cumulative effects through watershed analysis. The 

process is meant to assess watershed problems and sensitivities and be a basis for developing 

appropriate prescriptions (Washington Forest Practices Board 1993). Watershed analysis is 

divided into seven modules that separately address mass wasting, surface erosion, hydrology, 

riparian function, fish habitat, water quality, and public capital improvements (e.g., roads and 

bridges). The process is collaborative, involving scientists and managers representing 

landowners, agencies, tribes, and interested public. The desired outcome is a management plan 

for the watershed that responds to the resource concerns identified by scientific assessment. 

Watershed analysis has four phases: startup, resource assessment, prescription writing, and 

wrap-up. The startup phase forms teams, collects data, defines responsibilities, distributes 

notifications, and develops a plan for watershed evaluations. During resource assessment, an 

interdisciplinary team locates sensitive areas and assesses existing and potential impacts by 

implementing the seven inventory modules. During prescription writing, a team of managers 

and analysts identifies forest practices to prevent or minimize impacts. During wrap-up, the 

team develops a monitoring plan to measure effectiveness of the prescriptions. 

Other States 

Forest practices rules of other states are generally not as comprehensive or restrictive as those 

of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. In most states, compliance with streamside protection 

requirements is voluntary, and no monitoring is done (Brown and Binkley 1994). 
Chapter 8 

Analysis of Current Forest Practices 

The rules for federal lands and for the five states described above have many elements in 

common. They all have stream classification, regulatory BMPs, and riparian buffer zones. 

They differ mainly in the size and management of buffer zones and in the assessment of 

cumulative effects. 

All agencies classify streams according to beneficial use (Table 8.1). They fall into three 

classes: 

1. Fish-bearing and domestic water supplies; 

2. Non-fish perennial streams; and 

3. Non-fish intermittent stream channels. 

Non-fish intermittent streams generally include streams that show signs of flowing water and 

have definite bed and banks. Areas without defined channels (e.g., ephemeral overland flow, 

seeps, wet draws) are not classified, except in NFPIPACFISH and Washington. Agencies 

primarily use stream classes to modify their requirements for buffer zones and BMPs. Greatest 

protection is given to fish-bearing streams and least protection is given to non-fish intermittent 

streams. 

BUFFER DESIGNS 

Forest practices rules affect two parameters of buffer zone design: buffer width and management 

prescriptions within them. These parameters together determine how effective a buffer will be 

in protecting fish habitat. A wide unharvested buffer obviously provides more protection than 

a narrow, heavily harvested buffer. Most buffer zone designs, however, are between these 

extremes. 

Streams with anadromous fish have the widest buffer zones (Table 8.2). Minimum width ranges 

from 25 ft (7.6 m) in Washington to 300 ft (91 m) on federal lands managed under the NFP or 

PACFISH. Streams with lesser fish values (i.e., non-anadromous species) receive narrower 

buffers in Alaska and Washington, but the others have similar buffers for all fish streams. Nonfish perennial streams have narrower buffers than the fish-bearing streams or no buffers in some 

cases. Non-fish intermittent streams, except on federal lands managed under NFP and 

PACFISH or in Idaho, usually do not have buffers. 
90 Analvsis of Forest Practices 

Table 8.1. Definitions of stream classes for federal and private lands in five states. 

Regulator Stream Class Characteristics 

Federal 

(NFP & 

PACFISH) 

Federal 

(TLMP in 

Alaska) 

Alaska 

(southern 

coastal) 

California 

Idaho 

Oregon 

Washington 

1. 

2. 

3. 

I. 

II. 

111. 

A. 

B. 

C. 

I. 

II. 

111. 

I v. 

I. 

II. 

F. 

D. 

N. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Fish-bearing 

Perennial non-fish 

lntermittent non-fish 

Anadromous fish stream 

Non-anadromous fish stream 

Non-fish stream 

Anadromous fish stream, unconstrained channel 

Anadromous fish stream, constrained channel 

Tributary to anadromous fish stream 

Fish-bearing or domestic water supply 

Non-fish stream; fish present within 1,000 ft downstream 

No aquatic life; capable of sediment transport 

Artificial watercourse 

Fish-bearing or domestic water supply 

Headwater stream with few if any fish 

Fish-bearing 

Domestic water supply 

Non-fish stream 

"Inventoried Shorelines" 

High fish, wildlife, or human use 

Low-moderate fish, wildlifer or human use 

Non-fish perennial or intermittent streams 

lntermittent stream having periods of spring or storm runoff 

All agencies use additional site-specific factors to refine buffer requirements to fit local 

conditions. On federal lands, riparian reserves and RHCAs can be adjusted for site-specific 

conditions after watershed analysis. On private lands, four of the five states adjust buffer width 

depending on hillslope gradient, yarding method, stream size, extent of wetland vegetation, or 

streambed materials (Table 8.2). Idaho's buffer widths are set without regard to such sitespecific factors. 
Analvsis of Forest Practices 

Table 8.2. Width requirements (in feet) for riparian buffer zones on federal [Northwest 

Forest Plan (NFP) and Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) as amended by the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act] and private lands in five states for the three common 

stream classes. Buffer width on private lands is measured as horizontal distance in 

Washington and as slope distance in the other states; therefore, buffers of the same 

nominal width can be wider in Washington than in the other states, depending on the 

slope. Reasons for ranges are in footnotes. 

Stream Federal Private Lands 

Class NFP1 TTRA AK CA ID OR WA 

Non-f ish 150 0 506 50-1 003 30 0-704 0-257 

perennial 

Non-fish 100 0 0 Site7 30 0 0-257 

Intermittent8 Specific 

'~iparian reserve width can be increased to include 100-year flood plain or other 

factors. 

*Anadromous fish streams: 66-ft no-cut buffer for non-bedrock streams; 100-ft 

harvested zone for bedrock-constrained streams. 

3Depends on adjacent hill slope and yarding method: wider buffers on steeper slopes 

and for tractor yarding. 

4Depends on stream size and region; no buffers for small perennial non-fish streams 

in western Oregon. 

5Depends on extent of wetland vegetation and stream width. 

650 ft or to the slope break, whichever is smaller. 

'Buffer zone used only if deemed necessary by site-specific conditions determined 

during preharvest planning. 

'Nan-fish stream channels with definite bed and banks that carry water part of the 

year. 

California requires a wider buffer in areas with steep slopes and further increases buffer width 

up to a total of 150 ft (46 m) for tractor yarding. These adjustments respond to two concerns 

about erosion and sediment production: buffers need to be wider to effectively filter sediment 
Analysis of Forest Practices 

in areas of steep slopes (Johnson and Ryba 1992) and tractor yarding causes more erosion than 

cable yarding (Chamberlin et al. 1991). 

Oregon and Washington adjust buffer width depending on stream size, giving larger streams 

wider buffers. The assumption is that small streams do not need as wide a buffer as larger 

streams. Compared to small streams, large streams are usually associated with a wider 

floodplain (Sullivan et al. 1987) and, therefore, require a wider buffer for floodplain protection. 

Large streams also have greater total energy for bank cutting and transporting sediment and 

debris. Although this appears justified, the specific widths needed to protect different stream 

sizes have not been identified by research; hence, the adjustments in buffer width are based only 

on professional judgement. 

Alaska and Washington adjust buffer width depending on streambed materials. The rationale 

is that stream channels that are constrained by bedrock are less dependent on LWD and 

vegetation for providing fish habitat than are unconstrained channels with gravellcobble 

substrate. Alaska increases the width of the buffer from 66 ft (20 m) for gravellcobble channels 

to 100 ft (30 m) for bedrock-constrained channels but allows complete harvest within the wider 

zone. 

Washington adjusts buffer widths for fish-bearing streams according to wetland vegetation. This 

approach, however, may not provide long-term protection even to those wetlands. If adequate 

sources of LWD are not provided by a streamside buffer, the stream can downcut, which would 

lower the local water table and cause wet areas to dry up (Beschta 1991). A more appropriate 

approach in defining buffer zones is from an analysis of functions provided by streamside areas 

to the streamlriparian ecosystem (Belt et al. 1992). 

The different prescriptions for minimum amounts of vegetation to be retained in buffers are 

difficult to compare. Each state has a different approach. These include requiring no-harvest 

zones (Alaska), retaining a percentage of overstory canopy (California), retaining a specified 

number and size of trees (Idaho), setting targets for tree basal area (Oregon), and retaining a 

percentage of preharvest trees (Washington). Usually, a combination of approaches is used. 

Oregon, for example, has a no-harvest zone and specifies a number of conifers in addition to 

its targets for basal area. 

BUFFER EFFECTIVENESS 

Based on review of 38 separate investigations, Johnson and Ryba (1992) concluded that, for 

most riparian functions, buffers greater than 30 m (100 ft) are adequate, buffers 15-30 m (50- 

100 ft) are minimal, and buffers less than 10 m (30 ft) are inadequate. With these 

recommendations as a general guide, buffers on federal lands under NFP and PACFISH are 

adequate for all riparian functions plus a safety margin to offset risks to habitat from unknown 

or uncontrollable factors (Table 8.2). Buffer widths on private lands are barely adequate for 

fish-bearing streams but minimal or inadequate for non-fish streams. This reduced protection 

for non-fish streams is understandable and appropriate given that management objectives for non- 
Analvsis of Forest Practices 

fish streams on private lands do not include most riparian functions, but specifically target 

sediment control for protection of downstream beneficial uses. 

Shade Protection 

States usually require a minimum level of shade-producing vegetation to be left along fishbearing streams. Washington, for example, determines minimum requirements for shade by 

modeling predicted temperature increases based on expected changes in forest canopy. Idaho 

requires retention of 75% of shading vegetation, California requires retention of 50% of the 

canopy, and Oregon retains all trees within 20 ft of the stream. 

Adequate shade usually can be provided by leaving a strip of trees next to the stream in a width 

of about 25 m (80 ft) (Johnson and Ryba 1992). Trees for shade can consist of unmerchantable 

hardwoods and conifers. Buffer widths for fish-bearing streams on private lands average near 

the recommended width (Table 8.2) and should be adequate for shade if not harvested too 

heavily. Idaho's 75% shade requirement, for example, is close to the 80-90% canopy of oldgrowth forest (Beschta et al. 1987). California's requirement of only 50% canopy retention, 

however, appears too low, especially because California is on the southern margin of the range 

of several species, including coho salmon, and increased temperature could make some streams 

uninhabitable. These prescriptions for shade retention on fish-bearing streams need to be closely 

monitored to ensure adequate control of stream temperature. 

Shade requirements for non-fish perennial streams may be inadequate in some states, particularly 

Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. In these states, buffers on non-fish streams can be less than 

one-half the 80-ft recommended buffer width for shade protection (Table 8.2; Johnson and Ryba 

1992) and substantial harvest is allowed within the buffers. In Alaska, both federal and private 

lands have minimal buffers on non-fish streams, but a cooler climate probably helps mitigate 

potential increases in temperature. Because of their usual small size, non-fish streams may be 

adequately shaded by shrubs and other understory vegetation, and narrow, harvested buffers may 

suffice for shade protection. Effectiveness monitoring is required to determine whether these 

narrow buffers prevent cumulative increases in temperature in downstream fish habitats. 

LWD Recruitment 

Providing for LWD is more expensive than providing shade because it requires leaving 

merchantable conifers. Four of the five states have specific requirements for the number of 

leave trees in riparian buffer zones, whereas federal rules and Alaska use no-harvest 

prescriptions (Table 8.3). For high-value fish-bearing streams, the number of leave trees per 

1,000 ft (304 m) of stream varies widely by state. For example, Idaho requires about 250 trees 

ranging down to 3 inch (8 cm) dbh. Oregon's prescriptions are the most comprehensive. For 

large fish streams, Oregon requires 40 trees > 11 inch (> 28 cm) dbh per 1,000 ft of stream, 

a 20-ft no-harvest streamside zone, and a standard target for tree basal area of 230 square ft per 

1,000 ft of stream. This basal area is equivalent to nearly 350 11-inch-diameter trees. 

The approximate level of protection for LWD recruitment can be estimated based on buffer 

width and prescriptions for leave trees within the buffer. Buffer width determines the area from 
94 Analvsis of Forest Practices 

Table 8.3. Required leave trees [per 1,000 ft (304 m), each side of stream] within 

riparian buffer zones on federal and private lands in five states. NH = no harvest. 

Stream Private Lands 

Class Federal AK CA ID OR WA 

Non-fish 0-NH7 0 2 3 1 408 0-309 0-25" 

perennial 

Non-fish 0-NH7 0 0 1 408 0 0-25" 

intermittent 

'No harvest until after watershed analysis under NFP and PACFISH. 

2~o harvest for unconstrained channels; complete harvest for constrained channels 

and streams with non-anadromous fish. Within no-harvest buffers, selective harvest 

permitted through variations. 

3Retain 50% overstory canopy, including 25% of preharvest overstory conifers and 

two conifers > 16 inch (41 cm) dbh per acre within 50 ft of stream (2.3 trees per 

1,000 ft). 

4Number of leave trees depends on stream width, includes both hardwoods and 

conifers, and ranges down to 3 inch (8 cm) dbh. 

5All trees within 20 ft (6 m) of the stream are retained; buffer must meet basal area 

targets and include from 0 to 40 conifers (minimum 8-1 1 inches dbh) per 1,000 ft of 

stream, depending on stream size. 

'Depends on stream size and streambed materials; hardwood/conifers representatiave 

of stand. 

7No-harvest buffers under NFP and PACFISH; complete harvest allowed under TLMP. 

8Size of retained trees: 3-8 inches (8-20 cm) dbh; includes both hardwoods and 

conifers. 

'Leave trees not required on small Type N streams. 

"Leave trees (conifers and hardwoods) required only for site-specific conditions. 

which potential source trees can contribute LWD (Murphy and Koski 1989; McDade et al. 

1990), and prescriptions determine how much of this potential material remains after timber 

harvest. 

Considering buffer width for fish-bearing streams, federal NFP and PACFISH buffers provide 

full protection of LWD sources because the buffers are at least two site-potential tree heights in 

width. Buffers on private lands, however, are generally not wide enough to fully provide for 

long-term LWD recruitment. Most prescribed buffers on private lands are narrower than a 

single site-potential tree height [usually 100-120 ft (30-40 m)]. The exceptions are streams in 
Analysis of Forest Practices 

California where side slopes exceed 30% (100-150-ft buffers); large streams (mean discharge 

> 10 cfs) in Oregon (100-ft buffers); and certain large streams in Washington where buffer 

zones are extended to include the wetland plant community (up to 100-ft buffers). All other 

fish-bearing streams have narrower buffers with reduced potential sources of LWD, and all 

buffers on private lands have some allowable timber harvest. 

Based on buffer width, the buffers for representative fish-bearing streams on private lands in the 

five states could provide approximately 90% of LWD sources present in mature conifer stands 

if the buffers were unharvested and if they contained mature conifer forest or were restored to 

that condition (Table 8.4). Timber harvest within the buffers, however, reduces LWD sources 

to the minimum requirements for leave trees and other vegetation. These requirements are 

lowest in California, where only 25% of the conifer overstory including two large conifers per 

acre must be left, and is highest in Alaska, where a variance must be approved to remove 

individual trees. The resulting overall protection of conifer LWD sources on private lands 

ranges from only 23 % in California to 82% in Alaska (Table 8.4). 

Growth of trees during the timber rotation increases the trees for potential LWD. In Oregon, 

for example, targets for conifer basal area for leave trees are set so that trees will achieve 

desired future conditions halfway through a 50-year rotation. Oregon's rules are based on the 

expectation that basal area will grow 59% within 25 years, thereby achieving the level of LWD 

sources in a mature Douglas-fir streamside forest (T. Lorensen, ODF, Salem, OR, pers. cornm. 

1994). Assuming a similar growth rate (59% per 0.5 rotation period) in the other states, the 

resulting LWD sources at mid-rotation would exceed 90% of the level in mature forest in Alaska 

and Oregon, but would still be far below that level in California and Washington (Fig. 8.1). 

These comparisons of LWD recruitment depend on estimates of average or normal mature 

forest. The value for Washington, in particular, depends on how many trees occur in an average 

mature streamside stand. Basal area and density of trees varies widely, and a single value for 

the percentage leave trees in Table 8.4 fails to portray the large variation that occurs in the field. 

Nevertheless, the values give a perspective of the relative level of protection for LWD sources 

under similar hypothetical conditions. 

For comparison purposes, this evaluation of buffer effectiveness for LWD recruitment assumed 

that streamside areas contained mature forest. Many riparian areas in the Pacific Northwest, 

however, have second-growth vegetation consisting of hardwoods and brush (Gregory et al. 

1990). In such cases, leaving a higher percentage of existing trees may not increase conifer 

LWD for the stream nor help reestablish conifers in the riparian area (Bilby and Bisson 1991). 

In these cases, regulations should encourage activities that modify riparian vegetation leading 

to desired future conditions of appropriate mature native forest species. 

Oregon's approach provides a prototype model for managing second-growth riparian areas to 

achieve desired future conditions for both fish and timber. If the buffer lacks enough conifers 

to meet targets, no harvest is allowed. Monitoring data in Oregon indicate that because of the 

current condition of riparian forests, minimal tree harvest occurs in buffers on private lands (T. 

Lorensen, ODF, Salem, OR, pers. cornrn. 1995). To reestablish conifer stands along streams, 
96 Analvsis of Forest Practices 

Table 8.4. Comparison of minimum level of protection for conifer LWD sources for 

representative anadromous fish streams in federal (NFP) and private lands in five 

states. For comparisons, preharvest buffers are assumed to have mature conifer 

forest. 

Federal AK CA ID OR WA 

NFP Type A Class I Class I Type F Type 2 

Class 1 40% slopes 15 ft wide > 10 cfs' < 75 ft wide 

Buffer width (ft) 300 66 100 75 100 25-75 

% LWD source trees 

in unharvested buffer2 100% 96% 92% 85% 92% 40-85% 

% Prescribed leave trees 100% 85%3 25%4 58%5 63%' 38%7 

% LWD sources after 

timber harvest8 100% 82% 23% 49% 58% 32% 

"~ean annual streamflow in cubic ft per second. 

2Values obtained from graphs in Murphy and Koski (1 989) for Alaska and in McDade 

et a1.(1990; model for mature conifers) for the other states. Buffers are assumed to 

have mature conifer forest. 

3Value based on 15% harvest rate (R. Harris, Sealaska Corp., Juneau, AK, pers. 

comm. 1993). 

4Value based on 25% retention of overstory conifers. 

5Value obtained by comparing estimated basal area of prescribed leave trees (87 sq. 

ft per 1,000 ft) to estimated basal area in mature streamside stands on private lands 

in eastern 0rkgon (1 50 sq. ft/1,000 ft; T. Lorensen, ODF, pers. comm. 1994). 

'Example for Coast Range. Value obtained by comparing standard basal area target 

to the normal yield of mature Douglas-fir forest adjusted for incomplete stocking and 

tree mortality (T. Lorensen, ODF, Salem, OR, pers. comm. 1994). 

7Example for western Washington. Value obtained by comparing the 100-leave-tree 

requirement to the mean number of trees in mature streamside forest in the Western 

Cascades, corresponding to the maximum 75-ft buffer (263 trees/1,000 ft; T. 

Lorensen, ODF, Salem, OR, pers. comm. 1994). 

'Value calculated by multiplying the % source trees in an unharvested, mature-conifer 

buffer times the % prescribed leave trees. 

Oregon allows alternative prescriptions, such as increased harvest followed by conifer planting 

in "conversion blocks" alternating with "retention blocks" with lesser harvest (Newton et al. 

1995). Oregon further ensures some immediate LWD recruitment by providing basal area 

credits when operators add trees to streams. 
Analvsis of Forest Practices 

" 

Federal Alaska California Idaho Oregon Washington 

Figure 8.1. Predicted sources of conifer LWD in buffer zones at mid-rotation for 

representative fish-bearing streams as a percentage of LWD sources present in mature 

conifer stands. Values are based on federal and state requirements for buffer width 

and leave trees and assumes mature conifer forest in preharvest buffers and a 59% 

increase in LWD sources during the first one-half of a timber rotation (see text for 

explanation). 

Prescriptions for buffers in other states, such as Washington's requirement for leave trees that 

are representative of the existing stand, do not encourage the desired result of improving riparian 

stands. Oregon's and California's rules also directly address the need for conifer LWD by 

specifying that leave trees consist of conifers, whereas Idaho and Washington allow both conifers 

and hardwoods to qualify as leave trees. 

A no-harvest buffer zone is most appropriate along fish-bearing streams where streamside areas 

consist of mature native forest. Where riparian forests are degraded by past logging, a noharvest prescription limits options for silvicultural treatments for restoring riparian functions for 

fish habitat (Bilby and Bisson 1991). A no-harvest prescription, unless it provides for 

"variations," also does not allow landowners to harvest valuable timber from the stand in sitespecific cases as long as habitat is protected. 

Alaska's approach illustrates the use of no-harvest buffers in mature forest, with "variations" 

allowing selective harvest. A 664, no-harvest buffer zone is used along unconstrained 

anadromous fish streams to leave over 90% of LWD source trees present before harvest. 

Variations can be granted to landowners to harvest additional specific trees whose removal is 
Analvsis of Forest Practices 

unlikely to adversely affect fish habitat. State habitat biologists and landowners debate the 

harvest of individual trees, and about 80% of variation requests are approved. The variation 

process results in about 15% of trees > 12 inch (> 30 cm) dbh within the buffer zone being 

harvested (R. Harris, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau, AK, pers. comm. 1993; Resource 

Development Council 1994). The state resource commissioners have found that the process 

generally works satisfactorily (ADFG 1994 Memorandum), but effectiveness of resulting buffers 

has not been evaluated. 

Specifying a number of leave trees in buffers is a common way to set a minimum level of 

protection for LWD recruitment. Four of the five states require leave trees for fish-bearing 

streams, and three states require leave trees for perennial non-fish streams. Usually leave trees 

include many small trees [e.g., down to 3 inch (8 cm) dbh in Idaho] and only a few large trees. 

The size of these largest trees [> 11 inch (28-50 cm) dbh] is generally appropriate to provide 

stable LWD in streams, but the smaller trees are probably ineffective for LWD (Bilby and 

Wasserman 1989). Current requirements in the four states are to leave only an estimated 23% 

to 58% of potential LWD compared to the sources present in mature conifer forest (Table 8.4). 

To provide optimal fish habitat, the number and size of leave trees need to be increased where 

additional large conifers are available. 

Buffers on small non-fish streams, except for federal lands managed under NFP and PACFISH, 

are generally not adequate to provide LWD for the stream. All states except Alaska require 

leave trees along some non-fish perennial streams, but not enough to fully maintain LWD. Only 

Idaho routinely requires leave trees along intermittent channels (Table 8.3). 

Longer term, the lack of LWD sources along small headwater streams can adversely affect 

downstream habitat in several ways. Reduced sources of LWD can reduce sediment storage in 

small headwater streams, resulting in more rapid sediment delivery to downstream reaches 

(Sullivan et al. 1987). Headwalls of small headwater streams can be important sources of LWD 

to downstream reaches via debris torrents (Swanson et al. 1987); lack of a buffer zone in these 

areas eliminates this function. 

Sediment Control 

Controlling sediment delivery is most important along small non-fish streams and intermittent 

channels because of their dense distribution [accounting for more than 50% of the total length 

of stream channels in a watershed (Reid and Ziemer 1994a)l and their capacity to transport 

sediment to downstream reaches. These streams, however, except on federal lands managed 

under NFP and PACFISH, generally have minimal buffers (Table 8.2). Perennial non-fish 

streams do have buffers in Idaho and California, and they sometimes have buffers in Washington 

if deemed needed by site-specific conditions. Perennial non-fish streams do not have buffers on 

federal lands managed under TLMP, nor along small Type N streams in western Oregon. 

Where buffers are left on perennial non-fish streams, they are usually heavily harvested (Table 

8.3). Intermittent non-fish streams (with definite bed and banks) consistently have a buffer zone 

only on NFPIPACFISH lands and in Idaho; California and Washington sometimes provide a 

buffer for site-specific conditions. 
Analvsis of Forest Practices 

The buffers for small non-fish streams appear to be minimal or inadequate for sediment control. 

The recommended buffer width for sediment filtering ranges from about 26 to 150 ft (8-46 m), 

depending on hillslope (Johnson and Ryba 1992), whereas the average buffer width on private 

lands is 40 ft (12 m) for perennial non-fish streams and usually 0 ft for intermittent non-fish 

streams (Table 8.2). California is closest to the recommended width by requiring 50-100-ft 

buffers on perennial non-fish streams. A high level of timber harvest within the buffers, 

however, probably compromises their effectiveness as sediment filters. Because of the narrow 

buffers and high level of harvest allowed along small non-fish streams, preventing sediment 

pollution relies heavily on BMPs that restrict felling and yarding practices along streambanks. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

The BMPs used in the five states are generally similar in that their principal objective is to 

prevent sediment pollution. Each state has a suite of BMPs for felling, yarding, slash disposal, 

site preparation, road construction and maintenance, and other activities designed to prevent 

disturbances to stream channels, riparian areas, and unstable soils, and minimize sediment runoff 

from roads and skid trails. Each state monitors effectiveness of its BMPs, but monitoring 

programs are only recently being developed, and current BMPs have not yet been fully 

evaluated. 

Three BMPs pertaining to buffer zones are particularly important in protecting streams from 

disturbance and preventing downstream sediment impacts from timber harvest along small nonfish streams. These BMPs determine 1) whether trees can be felled into and limbed within 

stream channels, 2) whether cable yarding can cross streams with full or partial log suspension, 

and 3) whether tractors and other ground-based yarders can operate within streams or their 

buffer zones. 

The states' BMPs for these activities carefully protect fish-bearing streams, but small non-fish 

streams are not as carefully protected. All states require that trees be felled away from and not 

bucked and limbed in fish-bearing streams; however, several states allow felling, bucking, and 

limbing in small non-fish streams. Washington and Idaho, for example, allow felling, bucking, 

and limbing in perennial non-fish streams as long as care is taken to minimize accumulation of 

slash. Cable yarding across fish-bearing streams must have full suspension and prior approval 

in Oregon and Washington, except for small non-fish streams. Tractor yarding is generally not 

allowed across fish-bearing streams and not allowed in most perennial non-fish streams except 

at constructed temporary crossings; however, all the states allow some log skidding across 

intermittent non-fish channels. For example, Oregon allows log skidding across dry streambeds 

where the disturbance is less than it would be to construct temporary crossings. Washington and 

California allow log skidding across intermittent non-fish stream channels unless a buffer zone 

is deemed necessary by on-site inspection. 

Because small non-fish streams are particularly important for controlling sediment delivery and 

because buffer zones along them are usually narrow and heavily harvested, BMPs for felling and 

yarding must be closely monitored to ensure that they are effective. Effective BMPs are 
Analvsis of Forest Practices 

essential because they may be the only practical means of protecting the numerous non-fish 

headwater streams in managed timberlands while other resource activities continue. 

Differences in BMPs among the five states and among regions within the states are due to 

different emphasis in addressing different logging practices, forest types, and watershed 

conditions. For example, tractor yarding is probably the most widely used method in California, 

but it is used much less in the other states. Selective tree harvest is also used extensively in 

drier regions, such as in eastern Oregon, whereas clearcutting predominates in coastal regions. 

The BMPs in the different states must also contend with very different potential for soil erosion. 

Watersheds in different geologic provinces in the five states produce vastly different amounts 

of sediment. Streams in Oregon's Coast Range, for example, annually export 53-102 metric 

tonnes per km2 compared to 2,600 tonnes per km2 in northern California's Coast Range 

(Hawkins et al. 1983). 

The BMPs in regions with high erosion potential need to be more restrictive to prevent sediment 

pollution, yet tractor yarding, the most disruptive yarding method, is allowed on steeper slopes 

in California (up to 65 % slope) than in the other states (e.g., up to 45 % in Idaho and 35 % in 

Oregon). Preventing sediment pollution in northern California presents a major challenge to 

watershed managers because of the combination of extensive tractor yarding on steep slopes in 

one of the most erosive landscapes in the world. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS MANAGEMENT 

Both federal and state programs consider cumulative effects. The FS and BLM are devoting 

effort to watershed analysis in the Pacific Northwest, but the FS has tried watershed analysis on 

only three watersheds in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Washington has a watershed 

analysis program, and California and Idaho have analogous systems for analyzing watershed 

condition and prescribing precautionary BMPs to help avoid cumulative effects. The states of 

Oregon and Alaska do not conduct watershed analysis nor have a process for evaluating 

cumulative effects. 

Applying watershed analysis on private land is difficult for several reasons. The cost of 

watershed analysis adds a burden to landowners. Most landowners do not have the personnel 

to do the analysis and must look outside their companies for certified analysts. Getting 

cooperation and coordination among different landowners in a watershed is often difficult. 

Current programs address these difficulties in different ways. In Washington, watershed analysis 

is conducted by the State Department of Natural Resources in cooperation with landowners. In 

California and Idaho, the cumulative effects analysis is done by private certified foresters and 

evaluators. Idaho coordinates its cumulative effects analysis by forming committees of 

landowners. In watersheds with mixed federal and private ownerships, the FS and BLM can 

reach out to form cooperative arrangements with private landowners. 

Watershed analysis is probably most effective if it provides managers with information necessary 

to write management prescriptions that address site-specific concerns identified in the analysis. 
Analvsis of Forest Practices 

Federal watershed analysis does not provide prescriptions or alternatives, but is only a process 

to gather and analyze data for input into decision processes. The Washington or Idaho methods 

of doing watershed analyses may be the best prototype models to use for prescriptive watershed 

analysis on private lands with mixed ownerships. Watershed analysis, however, is in its infancy, 

and more experience is needed to develop its potential for increasing the effectiveness of habitat 

protection on private timberlands. 
Chapter 9 

Habitat Restoration 

Habitat restoration is one element in a comprehensive program of watershed management that 

emphasizes habitat protection. The FS and BLM, for example, recognize watershed restoration 

as one of four components in their Aquatic Conservation Strategy which also includes key 

watersheds, riparian reserves, and watershed analysis (FEMAT 1993). Habitat restoration is an 

interim measure until watersheds recover under good management, not a mitigation or an 

exemption from stream protection. 

Stream restoration science is founded on hydrologic principles, stream ecosystem theory, fishhabitat relationships, the concept of limiting factors, and a growing awareness of human impacts 

on stream ecosystems (Koski 1992). Although the term "restoration" infers returning to an 

original state, restoration of heavily impacted streams to original condition is generally not 

practical (Herricks and Osborne 1985). Habitat restoration is really a pragmatic mix of 

protection and rehabilitation to some improved level consistent with multiple use of the 

watershed. 

The approach to habitat restoration described here applies principally to forest lands affected by 

past timber harvest practices. The approach and techniques may need to be modified to apply 

to lands affected by mining, grazing, agriculture, urban development, and other uses where 

considerations in restoring fish habitat may be different than for streams in altered forests (e.g., 

Ferguson 199 1). Numerous reports, workshops, and training sessions have covered the topic of 

stream restoration (e.g., Gore 1985; Hunter 1991; Reeves et al. 1991; Koski 1992). This 

chapter briefly reviews the procedures for restoration, presents examples of ongoing restoration 

programs, and discusses the role of restoration in an overall watershed management program. 

RESTORATION PROCEDURES 

To be successful, stream habitat restoration requires a holistic approach directed at the entire 

watershed to ensure that it addresses all major environmental factors affecting the stream 

ecosystem (Koski 1992). Resource analysis at the scale of the river basin should precede 

restoration of individual watersheds composing the basin to provide a broad context. Watershed 

analysis should be used to determine how the watershed functions, which parameters are outside 

the range of natural variability, and what the restoration potential is (Kershner 1993). Any 

restoration project should be nested within a larger program of landscape management that 

protects, maintains, and restores ecosystem structure and function (Gregory 1993b). 
Restoration 

Sound restoration requires a solid foundation on ecological principles and a clear recognition of 

the dynamic nature of streams and adjacent forests (Gregory 1993b). The goal is to reestablish 

the ability of the watershed to maintain its functions and organization without continued human 

intervention. Most importantly, practices that caused degradation need to be changed before 

attempting restoration. 

The most important technical elements of a holistic restoration program are 1) upland restoration 

to control erosion, 2) riparian restoration to restore functions of streamside vegetation, and 3) 

instream restoration to improve habitat structure by physically modifying stream channels or 

their flood plains. 

Upland Restoration 

A first step in restoration is to initiate "upland restoration" to begin recovery of watershed 

hydrologic and erosional processes. This is a broad-based program to control erosion from 

roads and bare soils, restore natural streamflow regimes, and manage all uses of the stream and 

watershed. 

A high priority in upland restoration is to address problems with roads (Pacific Rivers Council 

1993a). Existing needed roads should be stabilized, and abandoned and unneeded roads should 

be closed and shaped to stable contours and to drain properly without maintenance (Furniss et 

al. 1991). Dirt roads should be surfaced with gravel or asphalt to reduce sediment production 

from road usage (J. Anderson, FS, Baker City, OR, pers. comm. 1994). Road obliteration can 

prevent most future erosion if road surfaces are backfilled, stream crossings are removed, stream 

channels are reconstructed to stable configurations, and all bare surfaces are revegetated (Fig. 

9.1). 

Another first step in restoration is to provide access for fish to suitable habitat where blocked 

by road crossings. Culverts should be improved or replaced with bridges when necessary to 

allow upstream fish passage. Restoration work should also address migration blockages caused 

by other watershed impacts. Fishways can be constructed to provide access where sediment 

from landslides or excessive erosion deposited in the stream blocks upstream migration (Flosi 

and Reynolds 1991). Where the sediment forms thick alluvial fans at tributary mouths, boulder 

fishways can take advantage of scour from the main stem during high streamflow to maintain 

the fishway (S. Downey, CDFG, Redway, CA, pers. comm. 1994). 

Riparian Restoration 

Restoration of riparian areas promotes long-term recovery of numerous important riparian 

functions that strongly influence fish habitat in streams (Beschta 1991; Chan 1993; Everett et 

al. 1994). Past riparian harvest combined with other watershed impacts have left many riparian 

areas in degraded condition with poor prospects for recovery (Chan 1993). Impacts from 

homesteading, grazing, and logging along streams in western Oregon and Washington resulted 

in development of homogeneous alder and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) communities in nearly 

all riparian areas (Gregory et al. 1990; FEMAT 1993). In this region, riparian areas have few 
Restoration 

Figure 9.1. Unused and unneeded roads should be "put to bed" by removing culverts 

and outsloping road surfaces to drain properly without maintenance. (After Furniss 

et al. 1991 .) 

trees larger than 10 inches (>25 cm) diameter growing within 103-200 ft (30-60 m) of the 

stream, and recruitment of large wood may be deficient for decades (FEMAT 1993). 

Loss of large conifers from riparian areas worsens the effects of floods on fish habitat. Alderdominated flood plains do not have the structural integrity to resist damage from excessive scour 

during high water and debris torrents, whereas large conifers naturally could withstand high 

flows, hold debris jams, and reduce scouring of the flood plain (Chan 1993). Once large 

conifers are removed, continual floodplain scouring may prevent their natural reestablishment 

without restoration to stabilize the stream channel (J. Barnes, FS, Arcata CA, pers. corn. 

1994). 

In other situation, absence of LWD derived from large conifers can result in channel erosion and 

downcutting during high streamflow because LWD from alder and other hardwoods is inadequate 

for structuring the stream channel (Andrus et al. 1988; Heimann 1988). This downcutting 

lowers local water tables and breaks the linkages between the stream and its flood plain because 

the lower channel prevents the stream from overflowing its banks (Beschta 1991). Off-channel 

moisture recharge and storage are reduced and base streamflow declines, which is particularly 

troublesome in regions with summer droughts. A prime objective of adding LWD, boulders, 

and other "roughness elements" in bedrock channels is to rebuild the stream's aquifer (L. Hood 

and L. Burton, FS, Mapleton, OR, pers. comm. 1994). Downcutting also reduces the natural 

disturbance of the flood plain during peak streamflows. This natural disturbance is needed for 
Restoration 

the establishment of conifers, and lack of floodplain disturbance encourages the succession of 

riparian areas to shrub vegetation (S. Chan, FS, Corvallis, OR, pers. comm. 1994). 

Silvicultural treatments have potential long-term benefits in restoring habitat functions of riparian 

areas. A treatment being used and tested extensively in western Oregon is underplanting and 

thinning to reestablish native conifers (Emmingham et al. 1989; Chan 1993). Because the 

streams have been downcut, boulders and LWD structures are also added to the stream in 

conjunction with this riparian restoration to reestablish stream-floodplain linkages (L. Burton, 

FS, Mapleton, OR, pers. comm. 1994). Thinning of overdense stands also helps reduce fire 

risks. Caution is warranted, however, because few studies have been completed from which to 

judge effectiveness. 

Under suitable conditions, conifers can naturally become dominant over alder (J. Henderson, FS, 

Seattle, WA, pers. comm. 1995). If Douglas-fir begins to grow at the same time that alder 

becomes established, it may compete successfully and develop a dominant canopy well before 

alder becomes senescent. Western hemlock and western red cedar are shade tolerant and can 

grow slowly under alder and become dominant as the alders begin maturing and dying. On 

cool, wet sites, Sitka spruce grows steadily in either openings or beneath alder canopy, and may 

dominate over alder after 60-90 years (Henderson et al. 1989). 

In many cases, however, degraded riparian vegetation may not recover without active 

management intervention (Sedell et al. 1989). Alder-dominated riparian areas are especially 

susceptible to poor conifer regeneration due to low light, lack of a conifer seed source, and lack 

of downed wood or mineral soil needed for a suitable seedbed. The relatively short life of alder, 

scarcity of conifer seedlings, dense shrub understories, and lack of natural floodplain disturbance 

because of stream downcutting indicate that many areas would eventually succeed to shrubs 

without management intervention (Hibbs et al. 1991). 

Although some floodplain disturbance is desirable for the establishment of conifers, excessive 

flooding and severe scouring of the floodplain may prevent conifer establishment (Henderson 

1978). Excessive scouring could result from upland disturbances in the watershed and a lack 

of large conifers in the riparian area. Large conifers help protect the floodplain from scour 

because they can withstand flood damage better than alder and can trap flood-entrained debris. 

Until large conifers can become established, floodplain biological communities are more 

susceptible to flood damage and may be kept in an early successional stage dominated by alder 

and salmonberry. 

Successful restoration of riparian areas must involve active management for a long time (Chan 

1993). Because of strong competition, simply planting trees in alder and salmonberry without 

at least partially removing the overstory and understory is unlikely to succeed. Managers will 

have to monitor tree growth and survival, and periodically remove understory shrubs to ensure 

the reestablishment of conifers. Enlightened management policies and practices are needed that 

will provide the maximum beneficial effects of riparian vegetation on stream hydrology and 

channel morphology (Beschta 1991). Managers should move toward policies that protect, reestablish, and encourage the functional attributes of riparian vegetation. 
Restoration 

lnstream Restoration 

After upland and riparian problems have been addressed, the third restoration step is to improve 

instream habitats to increase carrying capacity and fish survival. This is an interim "fix" until 

the natural long-term recovery of the watershed has begun (Koski 1992). In this step, the 

primary focus is on using instream structures to alleviate limiting factors, such as to retain 

spawning gravel or create additional rearing pools. Success of instream structures depends on 

condition of upslope areas and the continuing hydrologic response to past and ongoing watershed 

disturbance. Thus, instream structures are recommended only as part of a comprehensive 

watershed program (Koski 1992). 

Though an interim measure, instream restoration may be crucial as part of a program to recover 

anadromous salmonids while long-term restoration measures have time to become effective 

(Koski 1992). Attaining desired levels of channel complexity and other habitat conditions may 

best be achieved in the short term with instream structures until the recovery of watershed 

hydrologic processes and riparian forests provide for long-term maintenance of the stream 

channel. 

Instream restoration has been criticized as ineffective (Frissell and Nawa 1992). In the past, 

many instream restoration projects proceeded without adequate planning and evaluation, and 

commonly prescribed structures were often inappropriate or counterproductive (J. Anderson, FS, 

Baker City, OR, pers. cornm. 1994). Many projects failed or did not demonstrate their 

effectiveness. Conversely, instream restoration projects that were accompanied by careful 

planning, monitoring and evaluation, and constructed by experienced biologists have been 

successful in improving fish habitat (House et al. 1991 ; Crispin et al. 1993). 

Instream projects have mainly targeted one species (coho salmon) although associated species 

may also have benefitted. Generally, however, restoration efforts should take a "community 

approach" which emphasizes recovery of native biological communities with their full diversity 

of aquatic and riparian-dependent species (Sedell and Beschta 1991). Care must be taken to 

avoid negative effects on other species when altering instream habitat for salmonids. Species 

like the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana baylii), which has declined alarmingly in California 

(Welsh et al. 1991), can be adversely affected by instream structures (Fuller and Lind 1994). 

Similarly, altering habitat to favor one salmonid species may negatively affect another. Adding 

LWD for coho rearing, for example, may decrease spawning habitat for pink salmon. The goal 

of the community approach is to restore ecosystem structures and functions that support diverse 

biological communities including healthy salmonid populations. This approach provides for 

continued viability of coexisting salmonid stocks, as well as other fish and wildlife species. 

Not taking a watershed perspective has been one of the main reasons for failure of instream 

structures. Frissell and Nawa (1992) evaluated instream structures in 15 streams in western 

Oregon and Washington after a flood. Damage to structures was widespread in streams with 

recent watershed disturbance, high sediment loads, and unstable channels. Many structures 

failed because of altered flow regimes, increased sedimentation, or debris torrents from upslope 

activities. 
Restoration 

Instream structures are most appropriate where upslope portions of the watershed have stabilized 

and the major habitat problem is lack of physical structure in the stream channel. In such cases, 

instream structures can provide great benefits. For example, after 8 years, 86% of 812 

structures on 10 streams were fully successful in restructuring stream reaches by increasing 

gravel substrate, instream cover, pool habitat, and total usable habitat (House et al. 1989). In 

another evaluation, 98% of 200 instream structures were still functioning after 1-4 years, and 

they had increased pool area and off-channel habitat for coho salmon nearly five fold (Crispin 

et al. 1993). Addition of conifer logs to debris-poor streams and construction of off-channel 

alcove habitats can increase salmonid smolt production several fold (Fig. 9.2; Solazzi and 

Johnson 1994). 

An important benefit of instream structures is that they can help reestablish linkages between the 

stream and its flood plain (House et al. 1991). By trapping sediments and increasing channel 

complexity, instream structures can raise the water table and expand the stream's flood plain, 

thus reversing the downcutting that occurred historically from the loss of LWD (J. Cederholm, 

WDNR, Olympia, WAY pers. comm. 1994). The expanded floodplain also helps reduce adverse 

effects of peak streamflows because flood waters can spread out over a broader area. This also 

increases water storage capacity, which helps augment streamflow during droughts (Beschta 

1991). 

Most instream restoration projects have been directed at improving migration, spawning, or 

rearing habitat. Instream projects usually attempt to mimic factors that shape and stabilize the 

stream channel, store sediment, create pools, dissipate stream energy, and provide diverse 

habitat for either spawning or rearing (Fig. 9.3; Koski 1992). Barriers have been removed and 

fishways constructed to provide access to habitat. Stream gravel has been cleaned or trapped 

to improve spawning, and spawning channels have been constructed to increase spawning area. 

Diverse structures have been added to stream channels to provide summer and winter rearing 

habitat, and streambanks have been protected to deepen streams and reduce floodplain scour and 

channel erosion. 

Many types of instream structures have been used in stream restoration projects (Koski 1992). 

In the Pacific Northwest, most structures have been installed in streams of fourth to fifth order 

with normal peak flows about 6-60 m3 s-' and with channel gradients of 1 to 3%. In large 

streams, boulders, whole trees, or cabled logs are used for main-channel structures, instream 

cover, and bank protection. 

Restoration practitioners use a variety of techniques and structures, including: 

Dams formed by cross-stream structures simulate natural debris jams or boulder dams in natural 

streams. Dams are used to create plunge pools downstream and dammed pools upstream, to 

collect gravel, or sort sediments. 

Deflectors, also called wing dams or jetties, have been one of the most commonly used 

structures to improve fish habitat. Deflectors simulate obstructions that divert streamflow and 

are used to create pools and cover by narrowing and deepening the stream. 
Restoration 

"1 988 1990 1992 1994 

Pre- Posttreatment treatment 

Tre ted '" ' 7 

P retreatment 

1992 1994 

Posttreatment 

Figure 9.2. Increases in number of outmigrant coho salmon smolts after experimental 

addition of large woody debris to debris-poor streams in the Alsea River basin (A) and 

Nestucca R. basin (B) in western Oregon. Treatment occurred in summer 1990. (Data 

are from Solazzi and Johnson 1994.) 

Cover consists of overhead or instream features, such as overhanging vegetation, woody debris, 

brush bundles, root wads, boulders, substrate interstices, turbulence, and depth. Adding cover 

combined with other instream structures makes structures more usable by fish. The objective 

in adding cover is usually to reduce predation and increase fish survival during peak flows. 

Stream banks are sometimes protected from scour with revetments or riprap of boulders, woody 

debris, or brush bundles. Planting shrubs and trees also helps establish root systems that 

stabilize the bank and provide overhanging cover for fish. Riprap combined with other instream 

structures stabilizes the created habitat. Riprapping can be used to armor streambanks to protect 

the toe of unstable hillslopes (Flosi and Reynolds 1991). Excessive riprapping, however, can 

be detrimental by eliminating side channels, pools, and other complex features (Andrus 1991). 

08-channel habitat, such as pools and alcoves, are constructed or blasted into flood plains along 

low-gradient streams to provide cover for rearing juvenile salmonids. Protected from peak 

streamflows, these areas can provide important overwinter habitat (Cederholm et al. 1988; 

Nickelson et al. 1992b). 

Beavers can be introduced or encouraged to colonize an area by planting aspen and other food 

trees (Andrus 1991). Beaver ponds provide important winter habitat for juvenile coho salmon 

(Nickelson et al. 1992a), as well as provide other beneficial hydrologic functions for stream 

ecosystems (Beschta 199 1). 
Flow 

Restoration 

- scours pool 

- dlrect meanders 

rearlng, adult holdlng 

- TREE 

- provides cover 

- bank protectlon 

rearing 

BOULDER GROUPS 

- scours pool 

- cover 

rearlng ROOTWADS 

DOUBLE LOG DIAGONAL WlER 

- scours pool 

- collects gravel CHANNEL MARGIN 

- drsslpales veloclty LOG-BOULDER COMPLEX 

adult holdlng/spawnlng - complex of pools, 

rearlng velocltles and cover 

- collects, stablllzes grav 

BOULDER DEFLECTORS 

- wler water away 

- coliecLr bedload 

- scours pool 

- bank protectlon 

rearing LOG UPSTREAM V WlER 

- scours pool 

- collects gravel 

rearlng 

adult holding/spawning 

Figure 9.3. Diagram showing variety of instream projects that shape and stabilize the 

stream channel, store sediment, create pools, dissipate stream energy, and provide 

diverse habitat for either spawning or rearing. (From Koski 1992; reprinted with 

permission from Maryland Sea Grant College.) 
Restoration 

Restoration Planning and Evaluation 

Planning for habitat restoration has two levels: program planning and project planning (Everest 

et al. 1991). At the program level, managers should consider coordination of financial and 

personnel resources and priorities for watersheds and species. The target species and the 

proposed methodology should be carefully considered so that one species is not emphasized at 

the expense of others. An ecosystem approach to restoration targets habitat complexity to 

benefit a diversity of species and life stages (Sedell and Beschta 1991). Interdisciplinary 

consultations are needed to ensure success, and projects should be designed by professionals 

from as many relevant disciplines as possible (Gregory 1993b). 

Project-level planning considers specific details of proposed projects, including the size of the 

area and the time allotted for inventory of fish and habitat. The project watershed should be 

larger than 50 km2 to account for seasonal changes in fish distribution (Everest et al. 1991). 

Ideally, data on fish distribution and habitat should be available for at least 1 year for analysis 

of limiting factors (Koski 1992). Project planning is closely coordinated with program planning 

and follows a stepwise sequence: 1) pre-improvement inventory, 2) limiting factor analysis, 3) 

site selection, 4) techniques and materials selection, 5) implementation plan, and 6) project 

evaluation. 

The pre-improvement inventory is a crucial step in which watershed attributes are inventoried 

to identify habitat problems. Surveys of hillslope erosion, riparian vegetation, stream channels, 

and fish populations provide a basis for analyzing limiting factors and baselines for later 

evaluations (M. Solazzi, ODFW, Corvallis, OR, pers. comm. 1994). 

An analysis of limiting factors must be completed before any habitat enhancement is begun 

(Reeves et al. 1989). Although the limiting factor concept is useful in identifying limitations to 

salmonid production, it can oversimplify complex ecological processes (Hall and Baker 1982). 

As many as 73 factors could potentially limit fish production in a hypothetical stream with three 

or more salmonid species, each with different age classes and habitat requirements (Everest and 

Sedell 1984). Historical logging affected multiple habitat factors in streams, and one or more 

of the factors could be limiting to fish production. A thorough knowledge of habitat 

requirements and life histories of the endemic stocks in a stream can help in identifying limiting 

factors and indicating approaches for restoration. 

The emphasis in choosing materials and techniques should be to simulate natural habitat. If 

woody debris is the dominant feature, log structures are used; if bedrock or boulders dominate, 

boulder structures are used. Particularly in areas of heavy use by sport angling, the project 

should appear natural. Conifer logs are more effective and persist longer than alder logs. 

Adding alder logs to a stream is inexpensive, but has only limited value, as effects diminish after 

several years (C. J. Cederholm, WDNR, pers. comrn. 1995). Experienced practitioners use 

observations of stable materials in the stream to guide them in choosing appropriate size and type 

of materials to use (S. Downie, CDFG, Redway, CA, pers. comm. 1994). 

Evaluating effectiveness of habitat restoration has been neglected but is important in improving 

restoration technology and demonstrating the benefits of restoration (Hall 1984; Koski 1992). 
112 Restoration 

The most meaningful evaluations simultaneously examine habitat, fish production, and cost 

effectiveness (Everest et al. 1991). Habitat indicates whether the p-oject attained the desired 

changes; fish production indicates whether the habitat changes produced the desired effect on the 

target species. Cost effectiveness shows whether the increased benefits were worth the expense. 

Effectiveness monitoring can be conducted for both specific restoration practices and for the 

cumulative effects of the set of practices applied in the watershed (MacDonald et al. 1991). 

Monitoring of a specific practice, such as planting vegetation to prevent erosion, indicates 

whether that practice was successful in a specific situation. Monitoring the entire set of practices 

determines whether the cumulative effect of all the individual practices was successful in 

attaining objectives. Effectiveness evaluations are not needed for every individual project, and 

they are actually outlawed by some appropriation legislation (e.g., California's restoration 

program), but evaluations should be done for a representative sample of projects across a range 

of stream types, and for the overall program. Many worthwhile evaluations can be based on 

professional judgement and unpublished observations of experienced professional practitioners. 

However, formal scientific studies that fully evaluate projects are needed for at least 

representative restoration projects. 

Cost effectiveness should include the costs of planning, implementation, and maintenance, and 

the benefits derived from the increased fish production and other attributes in the basin over the 

longevity of the project. The benefit-cost ratio and present net worth of habitat improvement 

projects can be assessed (Everest and Talhelm 1982; Everest and Sedell 1984; Everest et al. 

1987b). However, this is rarely done because of the time required to thoroughly evaluate 

changes in habitat and fish production. Almost no literature exists that treats appropriate 

economic monitoring for ecosystem restoration (Weigand 1994). Evaluating benefits is also 

difficult because the widespread depressed level of fish populations causes underutilization of 

improved habitats (J. Barnes, FS, Arcata, CAY pers. comm. 1994). 

Evaluations of over 1,200 stream improvement projects in Oregon (Andrus 1991) resulted in 

nine recommendations for increasing effectiveness: 1) allocate more funds for examining limiting 

factors and for monitoring results; 2) consolidate smaller projects and treat long channel 

segments in a few watersheds rather than dispersing projects among many watersheds; 3) exploit 

the potential of beaver in enhancing channel structure; 4) explore less costly methods for 

improving channel structure; 5) prioritize funding for areas with important fisheries resources; 

6) increase funding for demonstration projects on urban streams to promote public awareness; 

7) reevaluate the practice of riprapping streambanks (consider the loss of fish habitat that occurs 

when riprapping results in a channelized stream); 8) identify streams where high temperature 

limits production and restore riparian vegetation before using instream structures; and 9) 

continue to archive information on completed projects so that results can be evaluated. 

RESTORATION PLANNING ON PRIVATE LANDS 

Restoration opportunities on private lands depend on providing incentives and obtaining access. 

Some of the best potential fish habitat is located in the low-elevation watersheds that have been 

intensively managed for timber. To effect restoration on private lands, landowners must be 

given incentives to conduct restoration or cooperate with federal and state efforts. 
Restoration 

Although restoration projects should generally undergo extensive planning and evaluation, these 

types of reviews are most appropriate for programs on public lands or large projects. For 

smaller projects on private lands, such rigorous reviews are not easily accomplished nor always 

necessary. Addition of LWD during timber harvest to restore stream habitat complexity is an 

example of a small project not requiring extensive planning and evaluation (C. Andrus, ODF, 

Salem, OR, pers. comm. 1994). A representative sample of such projects, however, must be 

evaluated for effectiveness, and the projects must address known limiting factors. 

A streamlined permitting and design process is needed to take better advantage of restoration 

opportunities on private lands (T. OYDell and L. Diller, Simpson Timber Company, Korbel, CA, 

pers. comm. 1994). Opportunities for adding LWD or boulders to debris-poor streams on 

private lands often arise during timber harvest when equipment, materials, and labor are on site. 

To help willing landowners to contribute and to ensure proper design of instream structures, 

trained agency personnel should be available to help companies obtain permits and advise them 

on placing instream structures so that the work can be done cost-effectively without delay. 

CURRENT RESTORATION PROGRAMS 

Many federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, and private interests are actively involved in 

habitat restoration. On federal lands, the FS and BLM have large programs aimed at all aspects 

of habitat restoration, including watershed, riparian, and instream restoration. 

Restoration on National Forests 

The restoration program on the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California provides an 

example of ongoing restoration on federal lands (J. Barnes, FS, Arcata, CAY pers. comm. 1994). 

Streams in this region were heavily impacted by landslides during a 100-year flood in 1964. 

The stream channels have aggraded and become wide and shallow, lacking pools and habitat 

complexity. Changed logging practices and road improvements have stabilized watershed 

processes, allowing instream restoration to be effective. Funds for restoration come mainly from 

the State of California restoration program through its Wildlife Conservation Board. 

The primary restoration objective for streams on the Six Rivers National Forest is to provide 

rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead by the addition of instream structures to narrow and deepen 

stream channels, create pools and winter cover, and stabilize channels to allow reestablishment 

of riparian vegetation (Fig. 9.4). Although steelhead are the target species, fall chinook and 

cutthroat trout are also of concern (Fuller 1990; McCain 1992), as well as other aquatic non-fish 

species (Fuller and Lind 1994). Although some early mistakes were made in boulder placement, 

updated techniques effectively increase salmonid carrying capacity in treated reaches (J. Barnes, 

FS, Arcata, CA, pers. cornrn. 1994). 

Other funds for restoration on national forests can come from the Knutson-Vandenberg Act 

(1930, amended 1976) which provides money out of timber sale receipts for improving 

productivity of renewable resources on Forest lands. Use of these "K-V" funds for restoration, 

however, is hampered because they must be spent within the boundaries of the specific timber 
Restoration 

sale, which frequently does not 

coincide with restoration needs. 

California's Habitat 

Restoration Program 

California has an active program of 

habitat restoration for private lands 

administered by the CDFG. The 

total budget for the restoration 

program is about $5 million per year 

(J. Steele, CDFG, Sacramento, CA, 

pers. comm. 1994). Funding can 

come from sales of commercial 

fishing stamps, angling licenses, 

permit fees, statewide initiatives, and 

other sources. Private-sector 

cooperation, involving matching 

funds, in-kind contributions, and 

volunteer efforts, is growing 

strongly. 

A cottage industry of restoration 

companies has developed in 

California to conduct restoration 

activities in cooperation with CDFG. 

Proposals are submitted by the 

companies and evaluated by CDFG, 

and a restoration manual (Flosi and 

Reynolds 1991) gives specific 

direction for preliminary watershed 

assessments, habitat inventories, 

project planning, and 

implementation. Research on 

effectiveness evaluations, however, 

are prohibited by the legislation 

establishing the program. Since 

1981, nearly 3,000 restoration 

projects administered by CDFG have 

been completed to control erosion, 

improve fish passage, stabilize stream 

Figure 9.4. Boulders and logs used to form 

pools and provide complex cover in Redcap 

Creek, Six Rivers National Forest, California. 

The stream was heavily impacted by 

landslides and resulting sedimentation and 

scour. Before instream structures were 

added, the channel was stabiiized by 

riprapping to allow establishment of the dense 

riparian vegetation shown in the photo. 

(Photo courtesy of J. Barnes, FS.) 

banks, and improve instream habitat (Fig. 9.5). 

~alifornia's restoration program also supports supplemental hatchery and educational 
Restoration 

Figure 9.5. Distribution of nearly 3,000 restoration projects administered by California 

Department of Fish and Game done to control erosion, improve fish passage, stabilize 

stream banks, and improve instream habitat. (Figure courtesy of J. Hopelain, 

California Department of Fish and Game.) 

Oregon's Basal Area Credits 

Oregon incorporated incentives for habitat restoration into its new forest practices rules that 

provide credits for instream or other restoration projects conducted by landowners during timber 

harvest (ODF 1994; ODF and ODFW 1995). Other aspects of Oregon's rules encourage active 

silvicultural management of riparian areas to reestablish mature conifers, an important objective 

of riparian restoration. The principal objective of the credit for instream restoration is to 
Restoration 

improve fish habitat in streams that lack LWD. The credits provide incentives for operators to 

place logs in streams or take other actions to immediately improve fish habitat. 

Subject to prior approval of the State Forester, operators may place conifer logs or downed trees 

in fish-bearing streams and receive "basal area credit" toward meeting the requirement for 

retaining live trees in a stream's riparian management area. Basal area is determined by 

measuring cross-sectional area of the large end of the log or at the spot on a downed tree that 

would be equivalent to breast height. For large and medium 'Qpe F streams, the credit is twice 

the basal area of the placed log (i.e., for every log placed in a stream, approximately two trees 

can be harvested from the RMA). For small Type F streams, the credit is equal to the basal 

area of the placed log. The basal area credit, however, can not reduce the standing tree 

retention below "active management" targets specified in the rules. These active-management 

targets are usually about 75% of the standard targets. 

In placing logs, operators must follow prescriptions from the State Forester (ODF and ODFW 

1995). Operators may also propose other enhancement projects for basal area credit, such as 

creation of off-channel alcoves and fencing to exclude cattle. Such enhancement projects are 

reviewed-by ODFW, and the basal area credit is negotiated among the operator, ODF, and 

ODFW. 

The advantages of this program are that it costs much less than other instream restoration 

practices, and it encourages landowners to participate in restoration on private lands. Possible 

disadvantages include the lack of careful pre-project evaluations and the current lack of research 

on the program's effectiveness and possible unintentional adverse effects. "Credit trees" usually 

do not include the rootwad, which makes them potentially less stable and less effective than 

natural LWD. "Credit trees" are placed without anchoring or cabling to stabilize the logs in 

place, which could cause problems with channel instability. In addition, Oregon does not use 

watershed analysis in evaluating timber harvest plans. Thus, the projects may not address the 

actual factors limiting fish production. They target mainly coho salmon, and other species may 

be adversely affected. The "credit-tree" projects are being monitored (C. Andrus, ODF, Salem, 

OR, pers. comm. 1994), but results are not yet available. Another potential problem is that 

future LWD recruitment could be reduced because an operator can take two trees from the RMA 

for each one placed in the stream. Maintaining "active-management" targets for standing trees 

in the RMA establishes a minimum level for basal area, which should prevent excessive harvest. 

The benefits may outweigh the potential disadvantages. The "credit-tree" projects directly 

address the lack of LWD in streams, which is widespread, well documented (e.g., Beschta 

1991), and recognized as the most common limiting factor for coho salmon (Nickelson et al. 

1992a). Although the logs are not anchored or cabled, movement alone should not be 

considered a failure. In many respects, effective redistribution of wood by the stream may be 

ecologically more desirable than if it remained in an original fixed position (Gregory and 

Wildman 1994,). 
Restoration 

THE ROLE OF RESTORATION IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 

Watershed restoration is an integral part of a comprehensive program to recover anadromous fish 

habitat that emphasizes habitat protection and uses restoration to stabilize deteriorating conditions 

and accelerate recovery in key watersheds. Before initiating restoration, land uses that have 

caused the degradation need to be modified to end adverse effects. 

Considering the cost of restoration, habitat protection is obviously preferable to allowing habitat 

to degrade to the point of needing restoration. Costs of restoration vary depending on limiting 

factors, stream size, restoration methods, project objectives, and other factors. Projects that 

used mostly instream structures cost an average $24,000 per stream km and ranged up to $1.2 

million per stream km (House et al. 1989; Hunter 1991). Costs of stabilizing watershed slopes 

and existing roads, obliterating abandoned roads, and replanting riparian areas are also high 

(Koski 1992). Restoration practitioners are attempting to find less expensive ways to improve 

habitat (Cederholm et al. 1988; Cederholm and Scarlett 1991; Flosi and Reynolds 1991), but 

costs remain high. 

The need for restoration is great. For example, more than two-thirds of the riparian areas in 

the Pacific Northwest are substantially degraded and need reforestation (Pacific Rivers Council 

1993a), and 50-85% of all streams in the region need restoration (McMahon 1989). Cost of 

upland, riparian, and instream restoration in key watersheds comprising about one-third of 

federal lands in Oregon, Washington, and northern California would exceed $700 million 

(Pacific Rivers Council 1993a). Political will and commitment will be indispensable to 

formulating and implementing restoration that would be significant in light of this great need 

(Wiegand 1994). 

Restoration costs money, but its return on investment can be considerable. The return of salmon 

and recovery of watershed functions have many social and economic benefits, and the direct 

restoration work would generate many jobs (Pacific Rivers Council 1993a). Due to limited 

funds and the large amount of degraded habitat, most habitat will have to rely on slow recovery 

under effective watershed management. Much can be done, however, to speed recovery in 

priority areas of heavy human use or severely depressed stocks. Major goals should be to 

maintain existing wild stocks and promote recovery of stocks listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Priorities for restoration should be key watersheds that remain healthy, rather than the most 

degraded areas (FEMAT 1993). The most urgent restoration task is protection of key 

watersheds and riparian areas and immediate prevention of imminent road-related sedimentation 

(Pacific Rivers Council 1993a). The goal should be to secure, expand, and link the healthier 

areas in a system of refugia watersheds connected by intact migration corridors (Frissell et al. 

1993). This approach would yield a quicker, more widespread, and more cost-effective 

response. 

Along with habitat restoration, small supplemental rearing programs may help to speed recovery 

of wild stocks (e.g., Pacific Lumber Company 1993). Supplemental rearing programs operate 

small hatcheries and utilize stocks native to the watershed being restored. Their purpose is to 
Restoration 

speed recovery of the native stock to take full advantage of the restored habitat. Such hatchery 

programs can be discontinued once recovery is achieved, to minimize potential genetic effects 

on the wild stock. 

Restoration programs should also include an educational component to inform the public about 

the value of watershed resources and the importance of habitat protection (Koski 1992). 

Education offers the best possibility of increasing public awareness of environmental issues and 

instilling a conservation ethic needed to ensure long-term sustainability of salmonid habitats. 

Restoring habitat alone can not guarantee recovery of anadromous salmonids. Fisheries 

management and hydropower also need to contribute (Palmisano et al. 1993; Botkin et al. 1994; 

USDC 1995). Concurrent with habitat restoration, fisheries management needs to ensure 

adequate spawner escapements to fully seed the restored habitat. Many depressed wild stocks 

can not recover without coordinated fisheries management to curtail harvest (C. J. Cederholm, 

WDNR, Olympia, WA, pers. cornrn. 1994). Operation of hydropower facilities on river main 

stems needs to provide upstream passage for adult salmonids and adequate survival of 

downstream migrant juveniles. 

Habitat restoration is not a panacea for habitat recovery (Koski 1992). Habitat restoration and 

protection, however, are critical because even with fisheries closures, depressed stocks can not 

recover without habitat. 
Chapter 10 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

A comprehensive watershed-level approach is essential for maintaining and restoring salmonid 

habitat because the watershed is a fundamental unit for both ecological processes and land 

management. The failure of past piecework forest management to prevent habitat degradation 

or to accomplish restoration of stream reaches shows the need for an ecosystem-based, 

watershed-level management strategy. 

The main technical elements of the watershed approach are buffer zones, BMPs, watershed 

analysis, and restoration. Because any conservation strategy will probably fail without 

community support, watershed management also includes outreach programs to recruit support 

from local citizens and enlist cooperation from private landowners. 

BUFFER ZONES 

Buffer zones are probably the most important tool for protecting critical riparian and aquatic 

processes. Buffer zones along streams, however, can not maintain fish habitat unless sensitive 

watershed areas and hydrologic processes are also protected by effective watershed management. 

Buffer zones do not need to be "lock-out" zones if management activities within them maintain 

or restore critical riparian processes. The appropriate design for buffer zones depends on 

management objectives. The widest buffers with greatest restrictions on activities are used along 

fish-bearing streams to meet the full range of objectives for fish habitat, as well as for other 

wildlife (e.g., owls and amphibians). Narrower buffers with fewer restrictions can be used 

along non-fish streams to protect water quality and downstream fish habitat. 

To fully protect fish-bearing streams, buffers need to provide all processes that create and 

maintain fish habitat, particularly shade, streambank integrity, and recruitment of large woody 

debris. Buffer zones need to be wide enough to fully protect the stream and floodplain and to 

ensure the long-term viability of the buffer itself. Buffers wider than one site-potential tree 

height (average maximum height given site conditions) may be needed to protect the floodplain 

and riparian vegetation where exposure to light and wind could cause succession to shrub 

communities. Blowdown in buffer zones, however, is usually not a problem for fish habitat, 

and where it does cause a problem, such as a stream blockage, it can be minimally altered to 

restore fish passage while leaving most fallen trees in place. 
120 Conclusions and Recommendations 

Current requirements for buffer width and leave trees on private lands do not fully protect LWD 

sources for fish-bearing streams. Four of the five states require leaving only an estimated 23% 

to 58% of potential LWD sources compared to the sources present in mature conifer forest. 

More and larger leave trees are needed to provide optimal fish habitat over the long term. 

Many areas in the Pacific Northwest, however, have degraded riparian vegetation dominated by 

hardwood and shrubs, and lack additional large conifers for leave trees. In these degraded 

areas, buffer zones can be actively managed to improve degraded riparian functions. 

Reestablishing conifers offers potential long-term benefits for both fisheries and timber 

managers. In riparian areas restored to mature conifers, buffers could be selectively harvested 

if monitoring shows it would not harm fish habitat. 

Buffer zones are also needed along non-fish streams to protect water quality and provide LWD 

for downstream fish habitat. Except for federal lands under NFP and PACFISH, buffers on 

small non-fish streams (both perennial and intermittent) are often inadequate or lacking. 

Reliance on BMPs alone may be inadequate to protect these headwater areas, and monitoring 

studies have not yet shown that BMPs are effective in preventing downstream impacts. The 

width and harvest activities within these buffers can be designed specifically to protect headwater 

sources of temperature control, sediment, and woody debris. 

Management regimes are needed that will put timber harvest in the context of natural disturbance 

regimes. Disturbance to streams and flood plains is not necessarily negative, and may be needed 

for productive fish habitat over the long term. Unnatural disturbances, however, should be 

minimized, and patterns of land use should mimic the natural disturbance process and leave the 

necessary legacy for the long-term development of required habitat. Specifically, more large 

wood is needed in buffers along headwater channels with the greatest potential for delivery to 

fish-bearing streams. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

Generally, BMPs can be effective at controlling nonpoint source pollution but need to be closely 

monitored for implementation and effectiveness to identify needed improvements. All the Pacific 

Northwest states and Alaska have a regulatory BMP program and monitor for implementation 

and effectiveness. Monitoring programs are mostly new, however, and BMPs have not been 

fully evaluated. 

Many current forestry-related problems with water quality result from inadequate BMP 

implementation, which is generally worse on small private parcels than on public or large 

industrial holdings. On-site inspections are needed to identify sensitive areas and to design 

harvest and transportation plans to suit local conditions. Having well-qualified field personnel 

available to provide site-specific BMP recommendations, particularly for small private 

landowners, is probably the best way to improve BMP implementation. 

Because small non-fish streams are particularly important for preventing sediment pollution and 

because buffer zones along them are usually narrow and heavily harvested, BMPs for activities 
Conclusions and Recommendations 121 

near them need to be closely monitored to ensure that they are effective. State BMPs do not 

fully protect small non-fish streams, intermittent channels, and unstable slopes from logging 

disturbance. The BMPs pertaining to felling and yarding that apply to fish-bearing streams 

generally do not apply to small non-fish streams (particularly intermittent channels) and unstable 

slopes. Monitoring with feedback for adaptive management is needed to develop, evaluate, and 

improve BMPs for these areas. 

WATERSHED ANALYSIS 

A watershed program must have some process for analysis and planning at the watershed level. 

Watershed analysis is the most thorough method for understanding potential effects of land uses 

at the watershed scale. Watershed analysis can be used to describe current conditions, identify 

sensitive areas and risks, determine factors limiting salmonid production, and develop 

prescriptions to prevent cumulative effects. 

Watershed analysis should be instituted wherever possible to provide information for watershed 

planning. State agencies can organize and lead working groups of concerned landowners in 

cooperative watershed analysis in watersheds with mixed ownerships. The watershed analysis 

efforts in Washington and Idaho provide good prototype models for developing prescriptive 

watershed analysis for private lands. 

RESTORATION 

Restoration is an integral part of comprehensive watershed management and is used to stabilize 

deteriorating conditions and speed recovery in key watersheds. Effective restoration has a 

watershed-level approach and includes upland, riparian, and instream components. The upland 

component is used to control erosion, stabilize roads, upgrade culverts for fish passage, and 

manage watershed uses. The riparian component restores functions of riparian vegetation by 

reestablishing mature conifers or other appropriate vegetation. The instream component, using 

woody debris and other structures to retain spawning gravel and create pools or other features, 

should be conducted only after watershed problems have been addressed and limiting factors 

identified. 

Effectiveness evaluations are a critical part of restoration because they help improve technology 

and demonstrate the benefits of restoration. A representative sample of projects needs to be 

evaluated over a range of watershed and stream classes for each type of restoration technique. 

Although restoration projects should undergo rigorous planning and evaluation, a streamlined 

process is needed to take advantage of opportunities arising during timber harvest on private 

lands when equipment, materials, and labor are on site. Trained agency personnel are needed 

to advise willing companies on obtaining permits and designing projects so that the work can be 

done without delay. Monitoring can be used to develop and evaluate standard techniques for 

such cases, and incentives can be incorporated in forest practices rules to encourage such 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

projects. Prototype models for this are the Oregon incentives for riparian and instream 

restoration. 

Priorities for restoration are key watersheds with the best remaining habitat, rather than the most 

degraded areas. The goal is to secure, expand, and link key watersheds in a system of refugia 

connected by intact migration corridors. Restoration activities for the best watersheds should 

focus on reducing risks to these habitats by obliterating unneeded roads and revegetating upland 

and riparian areas. The expectation is that all watersheds, not just key watersheds, will improve 

over time, but key watersheds will recover fastest because of their high level of habitat 

protection and priority for restoration. Other watersheds are expected to recover as a result of 

improved land management. 

The best form of restoration is habitat protection. There is no guarantee that restoration efforts 

will succeed, and the cost of restoration is much greater than the cost of habitat protection. The 

most prudent approach is to minimize the risk to habitat by ensuring adequate habitat protection. 

COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

Comprehensive watershed management involves more than improved scientific understanding; 

it also encompasses economic, social, and political concerns. In the ideal situation, all 

stakeholders, including landowners, industries, and citizen groups, are partners in planning and 

implementing watershed management. Working groups of government agencies, industry, and 

citizen groups can provide the necessary consensus on forest practices and watershed 

management issues. 

Habitat protection and restoration on a watershed basis will require integrating federal land 

management with other regulatory programs that affect aquatic habitats, particularly the Clean 

Water Act and Endangered Species Act. Habitat Conservation Plans developed under the ESA 

have an important role in watershed planning on private lands. Ultimately, basin-wide planning 

efforts are needed that include all public and private land managers. 

Economic incentives can be provided for local communities and landowners to support habitat 

protection and restoration. On public lands, contracts awarded by competitive bidding can 

provide effective habitat protection and restoration while providing local employment. Tax 

credits and cost-sharing programs can be expanded to compensate private landowners for 

measures taken to protect public aquatic resources, such as expanded buffer zones or retention 

of additional leave trees along streams. 

Although scientific information will always be incomplete and possibly wrong, current 

knowledge is adequate to design comprehensive watershed management to reduce risks to 

salmonid habitat and to restore degraded habitat. Scientific information can provide the basis 

for evaluating trade-offs between timber harvest and habitat protection, but whether society 

should take actions needed to recover anadromous salmonids is a political decision. 
Glossary 

Alevin: Larval salmonid that has hatched but has not fully absorbed its yolk sac, and generally 

has not yet emerged from the spawning gravel. 

Anadromous salmonids: Members of the family Salmonidae (especially salmon, trout, and char) 

that move from the sea to fresh water for reproduction. 

Basal area: The cross-sectional area of a log or tree measured at breast height. 

Bedload sediment: That part of a stream's total sediment load moved along the bottom by 

running water, in contrast to suspended sediment which is carried in the water column. 

Beneficial use: The designated resource value of a stream, such as domestic water supply or 

anadromous fish habitat. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Methods, measures, or practices designed to prevent or 

reduce water pollution. 

Blowdown (also windthrow): The uprooting and felling of trees by strong gusts of wind. 

Buffer zone: An administratively defined area established along a stream, lake, wetland, or 

erosion hazard to provide protection for aquatic resources during land-use activities. 

Carrying capacity: Maximum average number of organisms that can be sustained in a habitat. 

Clearcutting: Removal of the entire standing crop of trees from an area; in practice, much 

unsalable material may be left standing. 

Coarse sediment: Sediment with particle sizes generally greater than 2 rnrn, including gravel, 

cobbles, and boulders. 

Compliance monitoring: Sampling of stream water to determine whether properly implemented 

Best Management Practices meet applicable water quality standards. 

Culvert: Buried pipe structure that allows strearnilow or road drainage to pass under a road. 
Glossarv 

Cut and fill: Construction of a road on hilly terrain that is partly excavated and partly filled. 

Cumulative effects: Effects that result incrementally and collectively from the combined effects 

of separate management activities through time and space. 

Debris torrent: Deluge of water charged with soil, rock, and woody debris down a steep stream 

channel. 

Density: Number of organisms per unit area or volume. 

Dewatering: Lowering of the water table in stream channel deposits caused by a channel shift, 

flow reduction, or channel downcutting. 

Diversity index: Numerical value derived from the number of individuals per taxon and the 

number of tam present. 

Ecosystem management: Management of watershed land and aquatic resources based on 

perspective of forest and stream ecosystem structure, function, and dynamics aimed at long-term 

sustainability of watershed productivity. Ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge 

of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the 

general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term. Although managing 

an entire ecosystem can positively affect a listed species, incorporating an ecosystem approach 

into recovery efforts means protecting the processes and functions of ecosystems important for 

the conservation of listed, proposed, or candidate species (Grumbine 1994). 

Embeddedness: Degree to which coarse sediment (boulders, rubble, gravel) are surrounded or 

covered by fine sediment, usually measured in classes according to percent coverage. 

Effectiveness monitoring: Sampling of soil erosion, streams, and other features to determine 

whether properly implemented Best Management Practices are effective in meeting their intent. 

Emergence: Departure of fry from the incubation gravel into the water column. 

Escapement: That portion of an anadromous fish population that escapes fisheries and reaches 

the freshwater spawning grounds. 

Evapotranspiration: Loss of water by evaporation from the soil and transpiration from plants. 

Fine sediment: Sediment with particle size of 2 rnm or less, including sand, silt, and clay. 

Flood plain: Level lowland bordering a stream onto which the stream spreads at flood stage. 

Forest practices: The full range of forest management activities employed in silviculture and 

harvest of timber. 
Glossary 

Freshet: Rapid temporary rise in stream discharge caused by heavy rains or rapid melting of 

snow or ice. 

Fry: Life stage of a salmonid between full absorption of the yolk sac and the fingerling or parr 

stage, which generally is reached by the end of the first summer. 

Gradient (topographic slope): Average change in vertical elevation per unit of horizontal 

distance. 

Groundwater: That part of the subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation, including 

underground streams. 

Gullying: Formation or extension of gullies by surface runoff water. 

High-lead yarding: Method of powered cable logging in which the mainline blocks are fastened 

high on a spar so logs can be skidded with one end off the ground. 

Landing: Place where felled trees are accumulated for further transport. 

Large woody debris (LWD): Any piece of woody material that intrudes into a stream channel, 

whose smallest diameter is greater than 10 cm, and whose length is greater than 1 m. 

Limiting factor: Environmental factor that limits the growth or activities of an organism or that 

restricts the size of a population or its geographical range. 

Implementation monitoring: Sampling of management activities to determine whether practices 

are adequately applied as specified. 

Instream restoration: Activities conducted to improve physical structure of stream channels, such 

as to provide spawning habitat or create pools. 

Intermittent channel: A stream channel that carries water only part of the year during snowmelt 

or after rain storms. 

Main stem: Principal stream or channel of a drainage system. 

Mass movement: Downslope transport of soil and rocks due to gravitational stress. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to evaluate whether anticipated or assumed 

results of a management plan are being realized or whether implementation is proceeding as 

planned. 

Nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU): Measure of the concentration or size of suspended particles 

(cloudiness) based on the scattering of light transmitted or reflected by the medium. 
Glossarv 

Nonpoint-source pollution: Pollution from sources that cannot be defined as discrete points, such 

as areas of timber harvesting, surface mining, and construction. 

Old growth: Forest stand dominated by large old trees reaching natural senescence; the last stage 

in forest succession. Characters of old-growth forest include 1) storied canopy including 

different tree species in the lower levels; 2) openings that allow light into the forest floor where 

dense vegetation thrives; 3) presence of snags and downed logs; and absence of major standaltering disturbance by humans (Bolsinger and Waddell 1993). 

Pan: Young salmonid in the stage between alevin and smolt, which has developed distinctive 

dark marks on its sides and is actively feeding in fresh water. 

Perennial stream: A stream with flowing water all year long. 

Permeability: A measure of the rate at which a substrate can pass water, the rate depending on 

substrate composition and compaction. 

Pool: Portion of a stream with reduced current velocity, often with deeper water than 

surrounding areas and with a smooth surface. 

Presmolt: Juvenile salmonid during the pan-smolt transformation, with intermediate coloration 

and body form. 

Primary production: Production of organic substances by photosynthesis. 

Redd: Nest made in gravel, consisting of a depression dug by a fish for egg deposition and then 

filled. 

Riffle: Shallow section of a stream or river with rapid current and a surface broken by gravel, 

rubble, or boulders. 

Riparian restoration: Management activities aimed at changing the size, density, species 

composition, or other characteristics of riparian vegetation to improve ecosystem functions. 

Riparian area: Area between a stream or other body of water and the adjacent uplands. 

Riprap: Layer of large, durable materials (usually boulders), used to protect a stream bank or 

lake shore from erosion. 

Runoff: The part of precipitation and snowmelt that reaches streams by flowing over the ground. 

Second growth: Forest stand that has come up after some drastic interference such as logging, 

fire, or insect attack. 

Sediment: Fragments of rock, soil, and organic material transported and deposited in beds by 

wind, water, or other natural phenomena. 
Glossarv 

Sera1 stage: One in a series of ecological communities that succeed one another in the biotic 

development of an area (also see succession). Forests pass through four recognized stages: 1) 

early seral stage, the period from disturbance to crown closure; 2) mid-sera1 stage, from crown 

closure to first merchantability (usually age 15-40 years); 3) late-sera1 stage, from first 

merchantability to culmination of mean annual increment (100 years); and 4) mature seral stage, 

from culmination of mean annual increment to old-growth stage (200 years). 

Sheltenvood cutting: Selective cutting of regenerating plants so as to establish a new tree crop 

under the protective remnants of a former stand. 

Skid trail: A constructed trail or established path used by tractors or other vehicles for skidding 

logs in going to and from landings. 

Site-potential tree: A tree that has attained the average maximum height possible given site 

conditions where it occurs. 

Site class: A measure of an area's relative capacity for producing timber or other vegetation. 

Site index: A measure of forest productivity expressed as the height of the tallest trees in a stand 

at an index age. 

Skidding: Yarding logs by sliding or dragging with tractors or other ground-based equipment. 

Skid trails: Trails on which logs are moved to landings by sliding or dragging. 

Skyline yarding: Method of powered cable logging in which a heavy cable (the skyline) is 

stretched between two spars and used as an overhead track for a load-carrying trolley. 

Slash: Woody residue left after trees are felled, limbed, and yarded. 

Smolt: The seaward-migrant stage of an anadromous salmonid that has undergone physiological 

changes to cope with the marine environment. 

Splash dam: Dam built to create a head of water for driving logs. 

Stock: Group of fish that is genetically self-sustaining and isolated geographically or temporally 

during reproduction. 

Stream order: A number ranked from headwaters to river mouth that designates the relative 

position of a stream in a drainage basin. First-order streams have no discrete tributaries; the 

junction of two first-order streams forms a second-order stream; the junction of two secondorder streams forms a third-order stream; etc. 

Succession: A series of dynamic changes by which one group of organisms succeeds another 

through stages leading to potential natural community or climax. An example is the 

development of series of plant communities (called seral stages) following a major disturbance. 
Glossarv 

Tributary: Stream flowing into a lake or larger stream. 

Upwelling: The movement of groundwater through stream substrate into the stream water 

column. 

Waterbar: Shallow channel (cross drain) or raised barrier of packed earth laid diagonally across 

the surface of a road to guide water off the road. Also called "waterbreaks." 

Watershed: Total land area draining to any point in a stream. 

Watershed analysis: A systematic process to describe current watershed conditions and develop 

prescriptions to prevent cumulative impacts. 

Watershed restoration: A broad-based program to control erosion from roads and bare soils, 

upgrade or remove culverts to restore fish access, restore natural streamflow regimes, and 

manage all uses of the stream and watershed. 

Yarding: hauling of timber from the point of felling to a yard or landing. 
Acronyms 

ADFG 

ADNR 

AWCFFR 

BLM 

BMPs 

CDF 

CDFG 

cfs 

dbh 

DO 

ECA 

EIS 

ESA 

ESU 

FEMAT 

FS 

HCP 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

Alaska Working Group on Cooperative Forestry Fisheries Research 

Bureau of Land Management 

Best Management Practices 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

California Department of Fish and Game 

Cubic feet per second (a measure of stream discharge) 

Diameter at breast height of trees 

Dissolved oxygen 

Equivalent Clearcut Area 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Endangered Species Act 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

U.S. Forest Service 

Habitat Conservation Plan 
130 

IDL 

LWD 

NEPA 

NFP 

NMFS 

ODF 

ODFW 

PACFISH 

RHCA 

RMAS 

RMzs 

SPZs 

TFW 

TLMP 

TTRA 

USDI 

USDA 

USDC 

WDNR 

WLPZs 

Acronyms 

Idaho Department of Lands 

Large woody debris 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Northwest Forest Plan 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Oregon Department of Forestry 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Pacific Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Strategy 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area 

Riparian Management Areas: buffer zones in Oregon 

Riparian Management Zones: buffer zones in Washington 

Stream Protection Zones; buffer zones in Idaho 

Washington State's Timber Fish Wildlife Agreement 

Tongass Land Management Plan 

Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 

U.S. Department of Interior 

U. S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Washington Department of Natural Resources 

Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones: buffer zones in California 
References 

ADNR. 1993. State of Alaska forest resources and practices regulations. Alaska Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Juneau, AK. 

Almas, D., J. Colla, K. David, and C. Schnepf. 1993. Forestry BMP's for Idaho. Idaho 

Department of Lands, Coeur dYAlene, ID. 

Andrus, C. W. 1991. Improving streams and watersheds in Oregon: Inventory and evaluation 

of efforts to improve the condition of Oregon's stream and watersheds from 1985 to 1990. 

Oregon Water Resources Department, Salem, OR. 

Andrus, C. W., B. A. Long, and H. A. Froehlich. 1988. Woody debris and its contribution 

to pool formation in a coastal stream 50 years after logging. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 45:2080-2086. 

Arno, S. F., and R. D. Ottmar. 1994. Reducing hazard for catastrophic fire. Pages 18-19 in 

Everett, R. L. (compiler) Restoration of stressed sites and processes. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-330. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

AWGCFFR. 1991. Alaska Working Group on Cooperative Forestry Fisheries Research: 

mission and organization. Informational document 91-01. USDA Forest Service, Juneau, AK. 

Bach, L. B. 1993. Risk assessment procedure. In M. D. Purser (editor) Proceedings, 

Watershed and stream restoration workshop: shared responsibilities for shared watershed 

resources, conducted August 26-27, 1993, Portland OR, not paginated. American Fisheries 

Society, Oregon Chapter, Portland. 

Bachrnan, R. A. 1984. Foraging behavior of free-ranging wild and hatchery brown trout in a 

stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113: 1-32. 

Belt, G. H. 1980. Predicting streamflow changes caused by forest practices using the 

equivalent clearcut area model. College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences. Bulletin 

32. University of Idaho; Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station; Moscow, ID. 
References 

Belt, G. H., J. O'Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for 

the protection of water quality: analysis of scientific literature. Report No. 8. University of 

Idaho, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, Moscow, ID. 

Benda, L. 1993. Watershed analysis in the context of fish habitat management. In M. D. 

Purser (editor) Proceedings, Watershed and stream restoration workshop: shared responsibilities 

for shared watershed resources, conducted August 26-27, 1993, Portland OR, not paginated. 

American Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter, Portland. 

Berg, L., and T. G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in territorial, gill-flaring, and feeding behavior 

in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-term pulses of suspended 

sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 14 10-1417. 

Berkman, H. E., and C. F. Rabini. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 18:285-294. 

Beschta, R. L. 1991. Stream habitat management for fish in the northwestern United States: 

The role of riparian vegetation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10:53-58. 

Beschta, R. L., and W. L. Jackson. 1979. The intrusion of fine sediments into a stable gravel 

bed. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:204-210. 

Beschta, R. L., R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T. D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream 

temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. Pages 191-232 in E. 0. Salo 

and T. W. Cundy (editors) Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. 

Contribution No. 57, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Bilby, R. E. 1984a. Characteristics and frequency of cool water areas in a western Washington 

stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 2:593-602. 

--- . 1984b. Removal of woody debris may affect stream channel stability. Journal of 

Forestry 82: 609-6 13. 

Bilby, R. E., and P. A. Bisson. 1991. Enhancing fisheries resources through active 

management of riparian areas. Pages 201-209 in B. White and I. Guthrie (editors) Proceedings 

of the 15th Northeast Pacific pink and chum salmon workshop. Pacific Salmon Commission, 

Vancouver, B.C. 

Bilby, R. E., and J. W. Ward. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris 

with increasing size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 118: 368-379. 

Bilby, R. E., and L. J. Wasserman. 1989. Forest practices and riparian management in 

Washington State: data based regulation development. Pages 87-94 in R. E. Gresswell (editor) 

Riparian Resource Management. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Billings, MT. 
References 

Bisson, P. A., and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho 

salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:371-374. 

Bisson, P. A., and J. R. Sedell. 1984. Salmonid populations in streams in clearcut vs. oldgrowth forests of western Washington. Pages 121-129 in W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr., 

and T. A. Hanley (editors) Proceedings, fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests 

symposium. American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, Asheville, NC. 

Bisson, P. A., R. E. Bilby, M. D. Bryant, C. A. Dolloff, G. B. Grette, R. A. House, M. L. 

Murphy, K V. Koski, and J. R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the 

Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. Pages 143-191 in E. 0. Salo and T. W. Cundy 

(editors) Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution No. 57, 

University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle. 

Bisson, P. A., T. P. Quinn, G. H. Reeves, and S. V. Gregory. 1992. Best management 

practices, cumulative effects, and long-term trends in fish abundance in Pacific Northwest river 

systems. Pages 189-232 in R. J. Naiman (editor) Watershed management: balancing 

sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 

83-138 in W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid 

fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

' Bjornn, T. C., M. A. Brusven, N. J. Hetrick, R. M. Keith, and W. R. Meehan. 1992. Effects 

of canopy alterations in second-growth forest riparian zones on bioenergetic processes and 

responses of juvenile salmonids to cover in small southeast Alaska streams. Technical Report 

92-7. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Moscow, ID. 

Bolsinger, C. L., and K. L. Waddell. 1993. Area of old-growth forests in California, Oregon, 

and Washington. General Technical Report PNW-RB-197. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Botkin, D., K. Cummins, T. Dume, H. Regier, M. Sobel, and L. Talbot. 1994. Status and 

future of salmon of western Oregon and northern California: findings and options. Report #8. 

The Center for the Study of the Environment, Santa Barbara, CA. 

Boughton, J. 1993. How to accomplish soil and watershed stewardship objectives through 

integrated prescriptions. Pages 8-12 In: Brock, T. (editor) Proceedings of Watershed '91: A 

conference on the stewardship of soil, air, and water resources. Juneau, Alaska, April 16-17, 

1991. USDA Forest Service, Juneau, AK. 

Boyette, W. G. 1993. Composite of reports on implementation of silvicultural nonpoint source 

programs. North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, Raleigh, NC. 
134 References 

Bradley, W. P. 1988. Riparian management practices on Indian lands. Pages 201-206 in K. 

J. Raedeke (editor) Streamside management: Riparian wildlife and forestry interactions. 

Contribution No. 59. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. 

Brazier, J. R., and G. W. Brown. 1973. Buffer strips for stream temperature control. 

Research Paper 15. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Brown, T. C., and D. Binkley. 1994. Effect of management on water quality in North 

American forests. General Technical Report RM-248. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Brownlee, K. 1990. Food habits of juvenile salmonids in nursery areas on the lower Taku 

River, Southeast Alaska. MS Thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 

Brouha, P. 1991. Fish habitat planning. Pages 587-598 in W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences 

of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 

19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Bryant, M. D. 1980. Evolution of large, organic debris after timber harvest: Maybeso Creek, 

1949 to 1978. General Technical Report PNW-101. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 

--- . 1984. The role of beaver dams as coho salmon habitat in southeast Alaska streams. 

Pages 183-192 in J. M. Walton and D. B. Houston (editors) Proceedings, Olympic wild fish 

conference. Peninsula College, Fisheries Technology Program, Port Angeles, WA. 

--- . 1985. Changes 30 years after logging in large woody debris, and its use by salmonids. 

Pages 329-334 in R. R. Johnson, C. D. Ziebell, D. R. Patton, P. F. Folliott, and R. H. Hamre 

(editors) Riparian ecosystems and their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. First North 

American Riparian Conference, Tucson, Arizona. General Technical Report RM-120. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Burger, C. V., R. L. Wilmot, and D. B. Wangaard. 1985. Comparison of spawning areas and 

times for two runs of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Kenai River, Alaska. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:693-700. 

Bums, D. C. 1991. Cumulative effects of small modifications to habitat. Fisheries 16: 12-17. 

Burroughs, E. R., Jr., and B. R. Thomas. 1977. Declining root strength in Douglas-fir after 

felling as a factor in slope stability. Research Paper INT-190. USDA-Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 

California Board of Forestry. 1993. Assessing the effectiveness of California's forest practice 

rules in protecting water quality. California State Board of Forestry, Sacramento, CA. 
References 

CDF. 1994. California Forest Practice Rules, Title 14, California Code of Regulations. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 

CDFG. 1994. Petition to the Board of Forestry to list coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) as 

a sensitive species. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Cederholm, C. J. 1994. A suggested landscape approach for salmon and wildlife habitat 

protection in western Washington riparian ecosystems. Pages 78-90 in A. B. Carey and C. 

Elliott (compilers) Washington Forest Landscape Management Project-Progress Report Number 

1. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Cederholm, C. J., and N. P. Peterson. 1985. The retention of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) carcasses by organic debris in small streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 42: 1222-1225. 

Cederholm, C. J., and L. M. Reid. 1987. Impacts of forest management on coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations of the Clearwater River, Washington: a project summary. 

Pages 373-398 in E. 0. Salo and T. W. Cundy (editors) Streamside management: forestry and 

fishery interactions. Contribution No. 57, University of Washington Institute of Forest 

Resources, Seattle. 

Cederholm, C. J., and W. J. Scarlett. 1991. The beaded channel: a low-cost technique for 

enhancing winter habitat of coho salmon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10: 104-108. 

Cederholm, C. J., W. J. Scarlett, and N. P. Peterson. 1988. Low-cost enhancement technique 

for winter habitat of juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

8:438-441. 

Chamberlin, T. W., R. D. Harr, and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, 

and watershed processes. Pages 181-205 in W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and 

rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Chan, S. 1993. Regeneration of coastal riparian areas: second year tree performance. Coastal 

Oregon Productivity Enhancement Program 6:4-6. 

Chapman, D. W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of 

large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 1-21. 

Chen, G. K. 1992. Use of basin survey data in habitat modeling and cumulative watershed 

effects analysis. FHR Currents, Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin No. 8. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Eureka, CA. 

Clark, R. N., and D. R. Gibbons. 1991. Recreation. Pages 459-482 in W. R. Meehan (editor) 

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special 

Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 
References 

Cobourn, J. 1989. An application of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis on the 

Eldorado National Forest in California. Pages 449-460 in W. W. Woessner and D. F. Potts 

(editors) Proceedings of the symposium on headwaters hydrology. American Water Resources 

Association, Bethesda, MD. 

Crispin, V., R. House, and D. Roberts. 1993. Changes in instream habitat, large woody 

debris, and salmon habitat after the restructuring of a coastal Oregon stream. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 13 : 96- 102. 

Crone, R. A., and C. E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, in 

Sashin Creek, southeastern Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 74: 897-923. 

Daniels, S. E., G. B. Walker, J. R. Boeder, and J. E. Means. 1994. Managing ecosystems 

and social conflict. Pages 327-339 in M. E. Jensen and P. S. Bourgeron (editors) Eastside 

forest ecosystem health assessment. Volume 11: Ecosystem management: principles and 

applications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-3 18. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Daterman, G. E. 1994. Protecting unique habitats and riparian areas from insect attack. Pages 

43-46 in Everett, R. L. (compiler) Restoration of stressed sites and processes. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-330. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR. 

DeWalle, D. R. 1983. Wind damage around clearcuts in the ridge and valley province of 

Pennsylvania. Journal of Forestry 8 1 : 158- 172. 

Dill, L. M., R. C. Ydenberg, and A. H. G. Fraser. 1981. Food abundance and territory size 

in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) . Canadian Journal of Zoology 59: 1801-1 809. 

Dissmeyer, G. E. In press. Evaluating the effectiveness of forestry best management practices 

in meeting water quality goals or standards. USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA. 

Dolloff, C. A. 1986. Effects of stream cleaning on juvenile coho salmon and Dolly Varden 

in Southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:743-755. 

Dolloff, C. A., D. G. Hankin, and G. H. Reeves. 1993. Basinwide estimation of habitat and 

fish populations in streams. General Technical Report SE-83. USDA Forest Service, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 

Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, J. Karr, and Pacific Rivers Council. 1993. Entering the 

watershed: a new approach to save America's river ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Duncan, S. H., R. E. Bilby, J. W. Ward, and J. T. Heffner. 1987. Transport of road surface 

sediment through ephemeral stream channels. Water Resources Bulletin 23: 113-1 19. 
References 

Duncan, W. F. A., and M. A. Brusven. 1985. Energy dynamics of three low-order southeast 

Alaska streams: Allochthonous processes. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 3:233-248. 

Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel. 1993. Interim protection for late-successional forests, 

fisheries, and watersheds, national forests east of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington. 

A Report to the United States Congress and the President. Available from the American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Eiler, J. H., B. D. Nelson, and R. F. Bradshaw. 1992. Riverine spawning by sockeye salmon 

in the Taku River, Alaska and British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

121:701-708. 

Elliott, J. M. 1973. The food of brown and rainbow trout (Salmo trutta and S. gairdneri) in 

relation to the abundance of drifting invertebrates in a mountain stream. Oecologia 12:329-347. 

Emmingham, W. H., M. Bondi, and D. E. Hibbs. 1989. Underplanting western hemlock in 

an alder thinning: early survival, growth, and damage. New Forests 3 :3 1-43. 

Everest, F. H., and W. R. Meehan. 1981. Forest management and anadromous fish habitat 

productivity. Pages 521-530 in Transactions of the 46th North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington DC. 

Everest, F. H., R. L. Beschta, J. C. Scrivener, K V. Koski, J. R. Sedell, and C. J. Cederholm. 

1987a. Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. Pages 98-142 in E. 0. Salo and T. 

W. Cundy (editors) Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution 

No. 57, University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle. 

Everest, F. H., G. H. Reeves, J. R. Sedell, D. B. Hohler, and T. Cain. 1987b. The effects 

of habitat enhancement on steelhead trout and coho salmon smolt production, habitat utilization, 

and habitat availability in Fish Creek, Oregon, 1983-86. 1986 Annual Report, Project 84-11. 

Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 

Everest, F. H., and J. R. Sedell. 1984. Evaluating effectiveness of stream enhancement 

projects. Pages 246-256 in T. J. Hassler (editor) Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest stream 

habitat management workshop. California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Humboldt State 

University. Western Division, American Fisheries Society, Arcata, CA. 

Everest, F. H., J. R. Sedell, G. H. Reeves, and M. D. Bryant. 1991. Planning and evaluating 

habitat projects for anadromous salmonids. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10:68-77. 

Everest, F. H., and D. R. Talhelm. 1982. Evaluating projects for improving fish and wildlife 

habitat on national forests. General Technical Report PNW-146. USDA Forest Service, 

Portland, OR. 
References 

Everett, R. L. 1994. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment. Volume IV: Restoration of 

stressed sites and processes. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Everett, R. L., P. F. Hessburg, and T. R. Lillybridge. 1993. Emphasis areas as an alternative 

to buffer zones and reserved areas in the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem processes. 

Pages 1-16 in American forests scientific workshop, Assessing forest health in the inland West. 

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR. 

Fast, D., J. Hubble, M. Kohn, and B. Watson. 1991. Yakima River spring chinook 

enhancement study. Final Report Project 82- 16. U. S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Division of Wildlife, Portland, OR. 

Fausch, K. D. 1984. Profitable stream positions for salmonids: relating specific growth rate 

to net energy gain. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62 : 44 1-45 1. 

FEMAT. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social 

assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. USDA Forest 

Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDC National Marine Fisheries Service, USDI 

National Park Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. U. S. Government Printing Office: 1993-793-071. 

Ferguson, B. K. 1991. Urban stream reclamation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 

September-October: 324-328. 

Ferguson, J. M. 1995. Handbook of criteria for forest practices implementation monitoring. 

Alaska Working Group on Cooperative ForestryIFisheries Research. Technical Report Number 

95-02. USDA Forest Service, Wildlife and Fisheries, Juneau, AK. 

Flosi, G., and F. L. Reynolds. 1991. California salmonid stream habitat restoration manual. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Franklin, J. F. 1992. Scientific basis for new perspectives in forests and streams. Pages 25-72 

in R. J. Naiman (editor) Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental 

change. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, and D. Bayles. 1993. An integrated, biophysical strategy for 

ecological restoration of large watersheds. Pages 449-456 in D. E. Potts (editor) Changing roles 

in water resources management and policy, June 1993. Technical Publication Series TPS-93-2. 

American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD. 

Frissell, C. A., and R. K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence and causes of physical failure of artificial 

habitat structures in streams of western Oregon and Washington. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 12: 182- 197. 
References 

Froehlich, H. A., and D. H. McNabb. 1984. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest 

forests. Pages 159- 192 in E. L. Stone (editor) Forest soils and treatment impacts. Proceedings, 

Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 

Fuller, D. D. 1990. Seasonal utilization of instream boulder structures by anadromous 

salmonids in Hurdygurdy Creek, California. FHR Currents, Fish Habitat Relationships 

Technical Bulletin No. 3. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Eureka, CA. 

Fuller, D. D., and A. J. Lind. 1994. Reducing negative impacts to foothill yellow-legged frogs 

when implementing fish habitat improvement projects. Page 11 in Fish Habitat Relationships 

Program, Fiscal Year 1993. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Eureka, CA. 

Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. 

Pages 297-323 in W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland management on 

salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

MD. 

Gibbons, D. R., and E. 0. Salo. 1973. An annotated bibliography of the effects of logging on 

fish of the western United States and Canada. General Technical Report PNW-10. USDA Forest 

Service, Portland, OR. 

Gibbons, D. R., W. R. Meehan, K V. Koski, and T. R. Merrell, Jr. 1987. History of fisheries 

and forestry interactions in southeastern Alaska. Pages 297-329 in E. 0. Salo and T. W. Cundy 

(editors) Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Institute of Forest Resources, 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Golding, D. L. 1987. Changes in streamflow peaks following timber harvest of a coastal 

British Columbia watershed. International Association of Hydrological Sciences 167:509-517. 

Gore, J. A. (editor). 1985. The restoration of rivers and streams: theories and experience. 

Butterworth. Stoneham, Massachusetts. 

Grant, G. 1988. The RAPID technique: a new method for evaluating downstream effects of 

forest practices on riparian zones. General Technical Report PNW-220. USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Grant, G., C. McCain, and J. Cissel. 1994. Summary of the watershed-landscape analysis 

workshop: H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-338. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Gray, P. L., J. F. Koerner, and R. A. Marriott. 1981. The age structure and length-weight 

relationship of southeastern Alaska coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) , 1969- 1970. 

Informational Leaflet 195. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. 
References 

Gregory, R. S. 1993a. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behavior of juvenile 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 50:241-246. 

Gregory, S. V. 1993b. The basis for integrated watershed and stream restoration. In M. D. 

Purser (editor) Proceedings, Watershed and stream restoration workshop: shared responsibilities 

for shared watershed resources, August 26-27, 1993, Portland OR, not paginated. American 

Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter, Portland. 

Gregory, S. V., and L. Ashkenas. 1990. Riparian management guide, Willamette National 

Forest. USDA Forest Service. Portland, OR. 

Gregory, S. V., and R. Wildman. 1994. Aquatic ecosystem restoration project, Quartz Creek, 

Willamette National Forest. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR. 

Gregory, S. V., G. A. Lamberti, D. C. Erman, K V. Koski, M. L. Murphy, and J. R. Sedell. 

1987. Influence of forest practices on aquatic production. Pages 233-255 in E. 0. Salo and T. 

W. Cundy (editors) Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution No. 

57. Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Gregory, S. V., R. L. Beschta, F. J. Swanson, J. R. Sedell, G. H. Reeves, and F. H. Everest. 

1990. Abundance of conifers in Oregon's riparian forests. Coastal Oregon Productivity 

Enhancement Program 3 :4-6. 

Grette, G. B. 1985. The role of large organic debris in juvenile salmonid rearing habitat in 

small streams. MS Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. 

Groot, C., and L. Margolis (editors). 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. Canada Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, B.C. 

Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8:27-38. 

Hall, J. D. 1984. Evaluating fish response to artificial stream structures: problems and 

progress. Pages 214-221 in T. J. Hassler (editor) Proceedings, Pacific Northwest stream habitat 

management workshop. California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Humboldt State 

University, Arcata, CA. 

Hall, J. D., and C. 0. Baker. 1982. Influence of forest and rangeland management on 

anadromous fish habitat in western North America. General Technical Report PNW-138. USDA 

Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Harding, R. D. 1993. Abundance, size, habitat utilization, and instream movement of juvenile 

coho salmon in a small southeast Alaska stream. MS Thesis. Juneau, M. 
References 

Harr, R. D. 1983. Potential for augmenting water yield through forest practices in western 

Washington and western Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 19:383-393. 

--- . 1986. Effects of clearcutting on rain-on-snow runoff in western Oregon: a new look 

at old studies. Water Resources Research 22: 1095-1 100. 

Harr, R. D., R. L. Fredriksen, and J. S. Rothacher. 1979. Changes in stream flow following 

timber harvest in southwestern Oregon. Research Paper PNW-249. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 

Hartman, G. H. 1988. Some preliminary comments on results of studies of trout biology and 

logging impacts in Carnation Creek. Pages 175-180 in T. W. Chamberlin (editor) Proceedings 

of the workshop: applying 15 years of Carnation Creek results. Pacific Biological Station, 

Carnation Creek Steering Committee, Nanaimo, British Columbia. 

Hartman, G., J. C. Scrivener, and L. Powell. 1987. Some effects of different streamside 

treatments on physical conditions and fish population processes in Carnation Creek, a coastal 

rainforest stream in British Columbia. Pages 330-372 in E. 0. Salo and T. W. Cundy (editors) 

Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution No. 57. University of 

Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle. 

Hawkins, C. P., M. L. Murphy, and N. H. Anderson. 1982. Effects of canopy, substrate 

composition, and gradient on the structure of macroinvertebrate communities in Cascade Range 

streams of Oregon. Ecology 63: 1840- 1856. 

Hawkins, C. P., M. L. Murphy, N. H. Anderson, and M. A. Wilzbach. 1983. Density of fish 

and salamanders in relation to riparian canopy and physical habitat in streams of the 

northwestern United States. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40: 1173-1 185. 

Healey, M. C. 1983. Coastwide distribution and ocean migration patterns of stream- and 

ocean-type chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Canadian Field-Naturalist 97:427-433. 

Heggberget, T. G. 1988. Timing of spawning in Norwegian Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:845-849. 

Heifetz, J., M. L. Murphy, and K V. Koski. 1986. Effects of logging on winter habitat of 

juvenile salmonids in Alaska streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 652- 

58. 

Heifetz, J., S. W. Johnson, K V. Koski, and M. L. Murphy. 1989. Migration timing, size, 

and salinity tolerance of sea-type sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in an Alaska estuary. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:633-637. 

Heimam, D. C. 1988. Recruitment trends and physical characteristics of coarse woody debris 

in Oregon Coast Range streams. MS Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 
References 

Henderson, J. A. 1978. Plant succession on the Alnus rubralRubus spectablis habitat type in 

western Oregon. Northwest Science 52: 156-167. 

Henderson, J. A., D. H. Peter, R. D. Lesher, and D. C. Shaw. 1989. Forested plant 

associations of the Olympic National Forest. Region Six Ecological Technical Paper 001-88. 

USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR. 

Henly, R. K., and P. V. Ellefson. 1987. State-administered forestry programs: Current status 

and prospects for expansion. Renewable Resources Journal Autumn 1987: 19-23. 

Herricks, E. E., and L. L. Osborne. 1985. Water quality restoration and protection in streams 

and rivers. Pages 1-20 in J. A. Gore (editor) The restoration of rivers and streams. 

Butterworth, Boston. 

Hetherington, E. D. 1988. Hydrology and logging in the Carnation Creek watershed-What 

have we learned? Pages 11-15 in T. W. Chamberlin (editor) Proceedings of the workshop: 

applying 15 years of Carnation Creek results. Pacific Biological Station, Carnation Creek 

Steering Committee, Nanaimo, British Columbia. 

Hibbs, D. E., P. Giordano, and S. Chan. 1990. Managing riparian vegetation. Coastal Oregon 

Productivity Enhancement Program 3:7-8. 

--- . 1991. Vegetation dynamics in managed coastal riparian areas. Coastal Oregon 

Productivity Enhancement Program 4: 3-5. 

Hicks, B. J. 1990. The influence of geology and timber harvest on channel geomorphology and 

salmonid populations in Oregon Coast Range streams. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon State 

University, Corvallis. 

Hicks, B. J., J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Sedell. 1991a. Responses of salmonids to 

habitat changes. Pages 483-518 in W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland 

management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Hicks, B. J., R. L. Beschta, and R. D. Harr. 1991b. Long-term changes in streamflow 

following logging in western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resources 

Bulletin 27:2 17-226. 

Hoelscher, B., J. Colla, M. Hanson, J. Heimer, D. McGreer, S. Poirier, and J. Rice. 1993. 

Forest practices water quality audit 1992. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division 

of Environmental Quality, Boise, ID. 

Hogan, D. L., and J. W. Schwab. 1991. Stream channel response to landslides in the Queen 

Charlotte Islands, B.C.: Changes affecting pink and chum salmon habitat. Pages 222-236 in B. 

White and I. Guthrie (editors) Proceedings of the 15th Northeast Pacific pink and chum salmon 
References 

workshop, Parksville, B.C., February 27-March 1, 1991. Pacific Salmon Commission, 

Vancouver, B. C. 

Holtby, L. B. 1988. Effects of logging on stream temperatures in Carnation Creek, British 

Columbia, and associated impacts on the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45 502-5 15. 

Holtby, L. B., and J. C. Scrivener. 1989. Observed and simulated effects of climatic 

variability, clear-cut logging and fishing on the numbers of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) 

and coho salmon (0. kisutch) returning to Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Special 

Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 105 : 62-8 1. 

Holtby, L. B., T. E. McMahon, and J. C. Scrivener. 1989. Stream temperatures and interannual variability in the emigration timing of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolts and 

fry and chum salmon (0. keta) fry from Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1396-1405. 

House, R. A., V. Crispin, and R. Monthey. 1989. Evaluation of stream rehabilitation projects: 

Salem District (1981- 1988). BLM-OR-PT-90-10-6600.9. USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Salem, OR. 

House, R. A., V. A. Crispin, and J. M. Suther. 1991. Habitat and channel changes after 

rehabilitation of two coastal streams in Oregon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10: 150- 

159. 

Hunt, R. L. 1969. Effects of habitat alteration on production, standing crops and yield of 

brook trout in Lawrence Creek, Wisconsin. Pages 281-312 in T. G. Northcote (editor) 

Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. University 

of British Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver, B.C. 

Hunter, C. J. 1991. Better trout habitat-a guide to stream restoration and management. 

Montana Land Reliance, Island Press. Washington, D.C. 

Huppert, D. D., and R. D. Fight. 1991. Economic considerations in managing salmonid 

habitats. Pages 559-585 in W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland 

management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, MD. 

IDL. 1992. Rules and regulations pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act, Title 38, 

Chapter 13, Idaho Code. Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners, Department of Lands, 

Boise, ID. 

--- . 1994. A draft cumulativ6 watershed effects process for Idaho. Idaho Department of 

Lands, Boise, ID. 
References 

Idaho Water Quality Bureau. 1988. Final report: Forest Practices Act water quality audit. 

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, ID. 

Jensen, M. E., and P. S. Bourgeron (editors). 1994. Ecosystem Management: Principles and 

Applications. Volume 11. Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Johnson, A. W., and D. M. Ryba. 1992. A literature review of recommended buffer widths 

to maintain various functions of stream riparian areas. King County Surface Water Management 

Division, Seattle, WA. 

Johnson, S. W., J. Heifetz, and K V. Koski. 1986. Effects of logging on the abundance and 

seasonal distribution of juvenile steelhead in some southeastern Alaska streams. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 6:532-537. 

Johnson, S. W., J. F. Thedinga, and K V. Koski. 1992. Life history of juvenile ocean-type 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Situk River, Alaska. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 262 1-2629. 

Kershner, J. L. 1993. Concepts of integrated restoration planning In M. D. Purser (editor) 

Proceedings, Watershed and stream restoration workshop: shared responsibilities for shared 

watershed resources, conducted August 26-27, 1993, Portland OR, not paginated. American 

Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter, Portland. 

King, J. G. 1989. Streamflow responses to road building and harvesting: A comparison with 

the equivalent clearcut area procedure. Research Paper INT-401. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Klock, G. 0. 1975. Impact of five postfire salvage logging systems on soils and vegetation. 

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 30:78-81. 

Klock, G. 0. 1985. Modeling the cumulative effects of forest practices on downstream aquatic 

ecosystems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40:237-241. 

Konopacky, R. C. 1984. Sedimentation and productivity in a salmonid stream. Ph.D. 

Dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Koski, K V. 1966. The survival of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) from egg deposition 

to emergence in three Oregon coastal streams. MS Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Koski, K V. 1975. The survival and fitness of two stocks of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) 

from egg deposition to emergence in a controlled-stream environment at Big Beef Creek. Ph.D. 

Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle. 
References 

--- . 1992. Restoring stream habitats affected by logging activities. Pages 343-404 in G. 

W. Thayer (editor) Restoring the nation's marine environment. Publication UM-SG-TS-92-06. 

Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD. 

Larsson, P. 0. 1985. Predation on migrating smolt as a regulating factor in Baltic salmon, 

Salrno salar L., populations. Journal of Fish Biology 26:391-397. 

Leider, S. A., M. W. Chilcote, and J. J. Loch. 1986. Movement and survival of presmolt 

steelhead in a tributary and main stem of a Washington river. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 6:526-53 1. 

Leidy, R. A. 1984. Distribution and ecology of stream fishes in the San Francisco Bay 

drainage. Hilgardia 52. 

Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. 

W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 

Li, H. W., C. B. Schreck, C. E. Bond, and E. Rexstad. 1987. Factors influencing changes 

in fish assemblages of Pacific Northwest streams. Pages 193-2.2 in W. J. Matthews and D. C. 

Heins (editors) Community and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. 

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 

Lienkaemper, G. W., and F. J. Swanson. 1987. Dynamics of large woody debris in streams 

in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17: 150-156. 

Lippke, B., and C. Oliver. 1994. An economic tradeoff system for ecosystem management. 

Pages 318-326 in M. E. Jensen and P. S. Bourgeron (editors) Eastside forest ecosystem health 

assessment. Volume 11: Ecosystem management: Principles and applications. PNW-GTR-314. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Lisle, T. E. 1986. Effects of woody debris on anadromous salmonid habitat, Prince of Wales 

Island, southeast Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:538-550. 

Lisle, T. E., and S. Hilton. 1992. The volume of fine sediment in pools: an index of sediment 

supply in gravel-bed streams. Water Resources Bulletin 28:371-383. 

Lorenz, J. M., and J. H. Eiler. 1989. Spawning habitat and redd characteristics of sockeye 

salmon in the glacial Taku River, British Columbia and Alaska. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 118:495-502. 

Lynch, J. A., and E. S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of best management practices for 

controlling nonpoint pollution from silvicultural operations. Water Resources Bulletin 26:41-52. 

Macdonald, J. S., G. Miller, and R. A. Stewart. 1988. The effects of logging, other forest 

industries and forest management practices on fish: an initial bibliography. Canadian Technical 

Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1622. 
References 

MacDonald, L. H., and A. Smart. 1993. Beyond the Guidelines: practical lessons for 

monitoring. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26:203-218. 

MacDonald, L. H., A. W. Smart, and R. C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate 

effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPAl91019-91-001. 

USEPA Region 10 in Cooperation with the University of Washington Center for Streamside 

Studies, Seattle, WA. 

Marcot, B. G., M. J. Wisdom, H. W. Li, and G. C. Castillo. 1994. Managing for featured, 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and unique habitats for ecosystem sustainability. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-329. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 

Mason, J. C. 1976. Response of underyearling coho salmon to supplemental feeding in a 

natural stream. Journal of Wildlife Management 40:775-788. 

Mason, J. C., and D. W. Chapman. 1965. Significance of early emergence, environmental 

rearing capacity, and behavioral ecology of juvenile coho salmon in stream channels. Journal 

of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 22: 173-190. 

Mason, R. R., and B. E. Wickman. 1994. Procedures to reduce landscape hazard from insect 

outbreaks. Pages 20-21 in Everett, R. L. (compiler) Restoration of stressed sites and processes. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 

Mathews, S. B., and F. W. Olson. 1980. Factors affecting Puget Sound coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) runs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 1373-1378. 

McCain, M. E. 1992. Comparison of habitat use and availability for juvenile fall chinook 

salmon in a tributary of the Smith River, CA. FHR Currents, Fish Habitat Relationships 

Technical Bulletin No. 7. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Eureka, CA. 

McCain, M., D. D. Fuller, L. Decker, and K. Overton. 1990. Stream habitat classification 

and inventory procedures for northern California. FHR Currents, Fish Habitat Relationships 

Technical Bulletin No. 1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Eureka, CA. 

McCammon, B. 1993. Determining the risk of cumulative watershed effects resulting from 

multiple activities-Endangered Species Act, Section 7. USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR. 

McDade, M. H., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, J. F. Franklin, and J. Van Sickle. 1990. 

Source distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and 

Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 20:326-330. 

McIntosh, B. A., J. R. Sedell, J. E. Smith, R. C. Wissmar, S. E. Clarke, G. H. Reeves, and 

L. A. Brown. 1994. Management history of eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 
References 

50 years, 1935 to 1992. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-321. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

McMahon, T. 1989. Large woody debris and fish. In Silvicultural management of riparian 

areas for multiple resources, not paginated. A COPE Workshop. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, and Oregon State University Forestry College, Corvallis, OR. 

McNeil, W. J. 1964. Effect of the spawning bed environment on reproduction of pink and 

chum salmon. Fishery Bulletin 65:495-523. 

Meehan, W. R. (editor) 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid 

fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Meehan, W. R., and T. C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid distributions and life histories. Pages 47- 

82 in W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes 

and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Meehan, W. R., F. J. Swanson, and J. R. Sedell. 1977. Influences of riparian vegetation on 

aquatic ecosystems with particular reference to salmonid fishes and their food supply. Pages 

137-145 in Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat: a symposium. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Corvallis, OR. 

Megahan, W. F. 1983. Hydrologic effects of clearcutting and wildfire on steep granitic slopes 

in Idaho. Water Resources Research 19: 81 1-8 19. 

Minshall, G. W., J. T. Brock, and J. D. Varley. 1989. Wildfires and Yellowstone's stream 

ecosystems. BioScience 39: 707-7 15. 

Minshall, G. W., D. A. Andrews, J. T. Brock, C. T. Robinson, and D. E. Lawrence. 1990. 

Changes in wild trout habitat following forest fire. Pages 11 1-1 19 in Proceedings of Wild Trout 

IV Symposium. Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Sept. 18-19, 1989. 

Minshall, G. W., and J. T. Brock. 1991. Observed and anticipated effects of forest fire on 

Yellowstone stream ecosystems. Pages 123-135 in R. B. Keiter and M. S. Boyce (editors) The 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America's wilderness heritage. Yale University 

Press. 

Minshall, G. W., J. T. Brock, and J. D. Varley. 1989. wildfires and Yellowstone's stream 

ecosystems. BioScience 39: 707-7 15. 

Murphy, M. L. 1985. Die-offs of pre-spawn adult pink salmon and chum salmon in 

southeastern Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5 : 302-308. 

Murphy, M. L., and J. D. Hall. 1981. Varied effects of clearcut logging on predators and their 

habitat in small streams on the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 38: 137- 145. 
References 

Murphy, M. L., and K V. Koski. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams 

and implications for streamside management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

9:427-436. 

Murphy, M. L., and W. R. Meehan. 1991. Stream ecosystems. Pages 17-46 in W. R. 

Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Murphy, M. L., C. P. Hawkins, and N. H. Anderson. 1981. Effects of canopy modification 

and accumulated sediment on stream communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 1 10:469-478. 

Murphy, M. L., K V. Koski, J. Heifetz, S. W. Johnson, D. Kirchoffer, and J. F. Thedinga. 

1984a. Role of large organic debris as winter habitat for juvenile salmonids in Alaska streams. 

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

64:251-262. 

Murphy, M. L., J. F. Thedinga, K V. Koski, and G. B. Grette. 1984b. A stream ecosystem 

in an old-growth forest in southeast Alaska. Part 5: seasonal changes in habitat utilization by 

juvenile salmonids. Pages 89-98 in W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr., and T. A. Hanley 

(editors) Proceedings, fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests symposium. 

American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, Asheville, NC. 

Murphy, M. L., J. Heifetz, S. W. Johnson, K V. Koski, and J. F. Thedinga. 1986. Effects 

of clear-cut logging with and without buffer strips on juvenile salmonids in Alaskan streams. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43 : 152 1 - 1533. 

Murphy, M. L., J. M. Lorenz, J. Heifetz, J. F. Thedinga, K V. Koski, and S. W. Johnson. 

1987. The relationship between stream classification, fish, and habitat in Southeast Alaska. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Notes, R10-MB-10. USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest, Juneau, AK. 

Murphy, M. L., J. F. Thedinga, and K V. Koski. 1988. Size and diet of juvenile Pacific 

salmon during seaward migration through a small estuary in southeastern Alaska. Fishery 

Bulletin 86:213-222. 

Murphy, M. L., J. Heifetz, S. W. Johnson, K V. Koski, and J. F. Thedinga. 1989. Habitat 

utilization by juvenile Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) in the glacial Taku River, southeast 

Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1677-1685. 

Naiman, R. J. (editor). 1992. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and 

environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Naiman, R. J., D. G. Lonzarich, T. J. Beechie, and S. C. Ralph. 1991. General principles of 

classification and the assessment of conservation potential in rivers. Pages 93-123 in P. J. 
References 

Boon, P. Calow and G. E. Petts (editors) River conservation and management. John Wiley and 

.Sons, New York. 

Narver, D. W. 1971. Effects of logging debris on fish production. Pages 100-1 11 in J. T. 

Krygier and J. D. Hall (editors) Proceedings of a symposium on forest land uses and stream 

environment. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: 

Stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4-21. 

Nelson, R. L., M. L. McHenry, and W. S. Platts. 1991. Mining. Pages 425-458 in W. R. 

Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Netboy, A. 1974. The salmon: their fight for survival. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 

Newton, M., R. Willis, J. Walsh, E. Cole, and S. Chan. 1995. Enhancing riparian habitat for 

fish, wildlife and timber in managed forests. Biological conservation symposium. Annual 

meeting of the Weed Science Society of America, February 1995, Seattle, WA. 

Nickelson, T. E., J. D. Rodgers, S. L. Johnson, and M. F. Solazzi. 1992a. Seasonal changes 

in habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:783-789. 

Nickelson, T. E., M. F. Solazzi, S. L. Johnson, and J. D. Rodgers. 1992b. Effectiveness of 

selected stream improvement techniques to create suitable summer and winter rearing habitat 

for juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:790-794. 

Norris, L. A., H. W. Lorz, and S. V. Gregory. 1991. Forest Chemicals. Pages 207-296 in 

W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and 

their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

ODF. 1994. Water classification and protection rules. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, 

OR. 

ODF and ODFW. 1995. A guide to placing large wood in streams. Oregon Department of 

Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR. 

Pacific Lumber Company. 1993. Cooperative fisheries program. Annual report. Pacific 

Lumber Company, Scotia, CA. 

Pacific Rivers Council. 1993a. The protection and restoration of watersheds and salmon habitat 

on federal lands throughout the Pacific Northwest: technical, legal, and economic requirements. 

Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR. 
References 

Pacific Rivers Council. 1993b. The new watershed imperative: A new approach to restore 

America's river ecosystems and biodiversity. Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR. 

Palmisano, J. F., R. H. Ellis, and V. W. Kaczynski. 1993. The impact of environmental and 

management factors on Washington's wild anadromous salmon and trout: summary and 

recommendations. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Payne, N. F., and F. Bryant. 1994. Techniques for wildlife management of uplands. 

Biological Resource Management Series, McGraw Hill, New York. 

Peterson, N. P. 1982. Immigration of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) into 

riverine ponds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39: 1308-1310. 

Phinney, D. E., M. S. Deusen, S. M. Keller, and P. A. Knudsen. 1989. A new approach to 

riparian management in Washington State. Pages 11-15 in Practical approaches to riparian 

resource management, proceedings of an educational workshop, May 8-1 1, 1989, Billings, 

Montana. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. Pages 389-424 in W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of 

forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Platts, W. S., and W. F. Megahan. 1975. Time trends in riverbed sediment composition in 

salmon and steelhead spawning areas: South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Transactions of the 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 40:229-239. 

Powell, D. S., J. L. Faulkner, D. R. Dan, Z. Shu, and D. W. MacCleery. 1993. Forest 

resources of the United States, 1992. General Technical Report RM-234. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Ralph, S. C., G. C. Poole, L. L. Conquest, and R. J. Naiman. 1994. Stream channel 

morphology and woody debris in logged and unlogged basins of western Washington. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 5 1 : 37-5 1. 

Resource Development Council. 1994. Harvesting trees in the buffer zones. Resource Review: 

October 1994. Resource Development Council, Inc., Anchorage, AK. 

Reeves, G. H., L. E. Benda, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Sedell. In press. A disturbance-based 

ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant 

units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In Proceedings of a symposium on 

significance of evolutionary concepts in salmonid habitat management, July 1994, Monterey, 

CA. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Reeves, G. H., F. H. Everest, and T. E. Nickelson. 1989. Identification of physical habitats 

limiting the production of coho salmon in western Oregon and Washington. General Technical 
References 151 

Report PNW-GTR-245. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR. 

Reeves, G. H., F. H. Everest, and J. D. Hall. 1987. Interactions between the redside shiner 

(Richardsonius balteatus) and the steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in western Oregon: the 

influence of water temperature. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44: 1603- 

1613. 

Reeves, G. H., F. H. Everest, and J. R. Sedell. 1993. Diversity of juvenile anadromous 

salmonid assemblages in coastal Oregon basins with different levels of timber harvest. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122: 309-3 17. 

Reeves, G. H., J. D. Hall, T. D. Roelofs, T. L. Hickrnan, and C. 0. Baker. 1991. 

Rehabilitating and modifying stream habitats. Pages 519-557 in W. R. Meehan (editor) 

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special 

Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Reeves, G. H., and J. R. Sedell. 1992. An ecosystem approach to the conservation and 

management of freshwater habitat for anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. North 

American Wildlife Natural Resource Conference 57: 408-4 15. 

Reid, L. M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water 

Resources Research 20: 1753-1761. 

Reid, L. M., and R. R. Ziemer. 1994a. Evaluating the biological significance of intermittent 

streams. Pages 17-28 in Notes from seminars held at Humboldt Interagency Watershed Analysis 

Center. USDA Forest Service, McKinleyville, CA. 

Reid, L. M., and R. R. Ziemer. 1994b. Basin assessment and watershed analysis. Pages 63- 

78 in Notes from seminars held at Humboldt Interagency Watershed Analysis Center. USDA 

Forest Service, McKinleyville, CA. 

Reid, L. M., R. R. Ziemer, and M. J. Furniss. 1994. Watershed analysis in the federal arena. 

Pages 1-16 in M. J. Furniss (editor) Notes from seminars held at the Humboldt Interagency 

Watershed Analysis Center. USDA Forest Service, McKinleyville, CA. 

Rhodes, J., and D. A. McCullough. In press. Coarse screening process. Columbia River 

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, OR. 

Ricker, W. E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid 

populations. Pages 19-160 in R. C. Simon and P. A. Larkin (editors) The stock concept in 

Pacific salmon. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 

Rieman, B. E., R. C. Beamesderfer, S. Vigg, and T. P. Poe. 1991. Estimated loss of juvenile 

salmonids to predation by northern squawfish, walleyes, and smallmouth bass in John Day 

Reservoir, Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:448-458. 
152 References 

Ritter, D. F. 1978. Process geomorphology. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, 

IA. 

Robison, E. G., and R. L. Beschta. 1990. Identifying trees in riparian areas that can provide 

coarse woody debris to streams. Forest Science 36:790-801. 

Rodgers, J. D., R. D. Ewing, and J. D. Hall. 1987. Physiological changes during seaward 

migration of wild juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 44:452-457. 

Salo, E. O., and T. W. Cundy. (editors) 1987. Streamside management: Forestry and fishery 

interactions: Proceedings of a symposium; 12-14 February 1986, Seattle, WA. Contribution No. 

57, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington. Seattle. 

Schlosser, I. J. 1982. Trophic structure, reproductive success, and growth rate of fish in a 

natural and modified headwater stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

39: 968-978. 

Scott, J. B., C. R. Steward, and Q. J. Stober. 1986. Effects of urban development on fish 

population dynamics in Kelsey Creek, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 115:555-567. 

Scrivener, J. C. 1991. An update and application of the production model for Carnation Creek 

chum salmon. Pages 210-219 in B. White and I. Guthrie (editors) Proceedings of the 15th 

Northeast Pacific pink and chum salmon workshop. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, 

B. C. 

Scrivener, J. C., and M. J. Brownlee. 1989. Effects of forest harvesting on gravel quality and 

incubation survival of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) and coho salmon (0. kisutch) in 

Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:681- 

696. 

Sedell, J. R., and R. L. Beschta. 1991. Bringing back the "bio" in bioengineering. American 

Fisheries Symposium 10: 160- 175. 

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

isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A., from its floodplain by snagging and 

streamside forest removal. Internationale Vereinigung fiir Theoretische und Angewandte 

Limnologie Verhandlungen 22: 1828- 1834. 

Sedell, J. R., and K. J. Luchessa. 1982. Using the historical record as an aid to salmonid 

habitat enhancement. Pages 210-223 in N. B. Armantrout (editor) Acquisition and utilization 

of aquatic habitat inventory information symposium. American Fisheries Society, Western 

Division, Bethesda, MD. 
References 

Sedell, J. R., and F. J. Swanson. 1984. Ecological characteristics of streams in old-growth 

forests of the Pacific Northwest. Pages 9-16 in W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr., and T. A. 

Hanley (editors) Proceedings, fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests symposium. 

American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, Asheville, NC. 

Sedell, J. R., P. A. Bison, F. J. Swanson, and S. V. Gregory. 1988. What we know about 

large trees that fall into streams and rivers. Pages 47-81 in C. Maser (editor) From the forest 

to the sea: a story of fallen trees. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-229. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Sedell, J. R., F. H. Everest, and D. R. Gibbons. 1989. Streamside vegetation management for 

aquatic habitat. Pages 1 15- 125 in Proceedings, national silvicultural workshop-silviculture for 

all resources. USDA Forest Service, Timber Management, Washington, D.C. 

Sedell, J. R., F. N. Leone, and W. S. Duval. 1991. Water transportation and storage of logs. 

Pages 325-368 in W. R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland management on 

salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special publication 19. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, MD. 

Shepard, W. B. 1994. Modern forest management: It's about opening up, not locking up. 

Pages 218-227 in W. W. Covington and L. F. DeBano (editors) Sustainable ecological systems: 

Implementing an ecological approach to land management. Report RM-247. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Sheridan, W. L., and A. M. Bloom. 1975. Effects of canopy removal on temperatures of some 

small streams in southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, June 1975. 

Sidle, R. C., A. J. Pearce, and C. O'Loughlin. 1985. Hillslope stability and land use. 

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 

Simpson Timber Company. 1994. Monitoring impacts of timber harvest on streams within 

Simpson Timber Company lands in northern California. Simpson Timber Company, Korbel, 

CA. 

Smoker, W. A. 1955. Effects of streamflow on silver salmon production in western 

Washington. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle. 

Solazzi, M. F., and S. L. Johnson. 1994. Development and evaluation of techniques to 

rehabilitate Oregon's wild coho salmon. Fish Research Project F-125-R. Annual Progress 

Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 

Sparks, R. E., P. B. Bayley, S. L. Kohler, and L. L. Osborne. 1990. Disturbance and 

recovery of large floodplain rivers. Environmental Management 14:711-724. 

Steinblums, I. J., H. A. Froehlich, and J. K. Lyons. 1984. Designing stable buffer strips for 

stream protection. Journal of Forestry 82:49-52. 
References 

Strahler, A. N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of the 

American Geophysical Union 38: 9 13-920. 

Sullivan, K., T. E. Lisle, C. A. Dolloff, G. E. Grant, and L. M. Reid. 1987. Stream 

channels: the link between forests and fishes. Pages 39-97 in E. 0. Salo and T. W. Cundy 

(editors) Streamside management: forestry and fisheries interactions. Contribution No. 57, 

University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle. 

Swanson, F. J., L. E. Benda, S. H. Duncan, G. E. Grant, W. F. Megahan, L. M. Reid, and 

R. R. Ziemer. 1987. Mass failures and other processes of sediment production in Pacific 

Northwest forest landscapes. Pages 9-38 in E. 0. Salo and T. W. Cundy (editors) Streamside 

management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution No. 57, Institute of Forest 

Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Swanston, D. N. 1991. Natural processes. Pages 139-179 in W. R. Meehan (editor) 

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special 

Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Tagart, J. V. 1976. The survival from egg deposition to emergence of coho salmon in the 

Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. MS Thesis. University of Washington, 

Seattle. 

Talley, K. 1990. Stats Pack-everything you wanted to know about landings, prices, and 

predictions for the major Pacific Coast fisheries. Pacific Fishing 11: 126. 

Thedinga, J. F., M. L. Murphy, J. Heifetz, K V. Koski, and S. W. Johnson. 1989. Effects 

of logging on size and age composition of juvenile coho salmon and density of presmolts in 

southeast Alaska streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1383-1391. 

Thedinga, J. F., S. W. Johnson, K V. Koski, J. M. Lorenz, and M. L. Murphy. 1993. 

Potential effects of flooding from Russell Fiord on salmonids and habitat in the Situk River, 

Alaska. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS FINWC-221. 

Thedinga, J. F., M. L. Murphy, S. W. Johnson, J. M. Lorenz, and K V. Koski. 1994. 

Determinatiqn of salmonid smolt yield with rotary-screw traps in the Situk River, Alaska, to 

predict effects of glacial flooding. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:837- 

851. 

Timber Fish Wildlife. 1992. Effectiveness of Washington's forest practice riparian management 

zones; regulations for protection of stream temperature. Report No. TFW-WQ6-92-001. 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

Toews, D. A. A., and M. K. Moore. 1982. The effects of streamside logging on large organic 

debris in Carnation Creek. Report 11. British Columbia Ministry of Forest Land Management, 

Victoria, B.C. 
References 

Tripp, D. B., and V. A. Poulin. 1986. The effects of logging and mass wasting on salmonid 

spawning habitat in streams on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Land Management Report No. 50, 

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Lands, Victoria, B.C. 

Trout Unlimited. 1994. Conserving salmonid biodiversity on federal lands: Trout Unlimited's 

policy on mining, grazing, and timber harvest. Trout Unlimited, Arlington, VA. 

Tschaplinski, P. J., and G. F. Hartman. 1983. Winter distribution of juvenile coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) before and after logging in Carnation Creek, British Columbia, and some 

implications for overwinter survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

40:452-461. 

USDA. 1989. Understanding the past, designing the future. Publication R10-MB-85. USDA 

Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK. 

--- . 1995. Report to Congress: Anadromous Fish Habitat Asszssment. Report R10-MB279. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Alaska Region, Juneau, 

AK. 

USDA and USDI. 1994a. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl: standards 

and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

. species within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau 

of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

--- . 1994b. Environmental assessment for the implementation of interim strategies 

(PACFISH) for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D. C. 

--- . 1994c. Interior Columbia River Basin ecosystem management framework and scientific 

assessment and Eastside Oregon and Washington Environmental Impact Statement. Eastside 

Ecosystem Management Project Charter. Eastside Ecosystem Management Project, Walla 

Walla, WA. 

USDC. 1988. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region, policy for riparian habitat 

protection in Alaska. NOAA, NMFS, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK. 

--- . 1990. Fisheries of the United States, 1989. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, 

NMFS, Fisheries Statistics Division. Silver Spring, MD. 

--- . 1995. Proposed recovery plan for Snake River salmon. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Northwest Region, Seattle, WA. 

Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. 

The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130-137. 
References 

Warren, C. E., J. H. Wales, G. E. Davis, and P. Doudoroff. 1964. Trout production in an 

experimental stream enriched with sucrose. Journal of Wildlife Management 28:617-660. 

Washington Forest Practices Board. 1993. Board manual: Standard methodology for conducting 

watershed analysis under Chapter 222-22 WAC. Washington Forest Practices Board, Olympia, 

WA. 

Weigand, J. F. 1994. Economic issues in ecosystem restoration. Pages 6-12 in R. L. Everett 

(editor) Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment. Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, 

and processes. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Wemple, B. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two basins, 

western Cascades, Oregon. MS Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Wilford, D. J. 1984. The sediment-storage function of large organic debris at the base of 

unstable slopes. Pages 115-119 in W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr., and T. A. Hanley 

(editors) Proceedings: fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests. American Institute 

of Fisheries Research Biologists, Asheville, NC. 

Williams, J. E. 1993. Developing support and participation for watershed restoration. In M. 

D. Purser (editor) Proceedings, Watershed and stream restoration workshop: shared 

responsibilities for shared watershed resources, August 26-27, 1993, Portland OR, not paginated. 

American Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter, Portland. 

Wilzbach, M. A. 1985. Relative roles of food abundance and cover in determining the habitat 

distribution of stream-dwelling cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 42: 1668- 1672. 

Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. A. McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves, and J. R. Sedell. 

1994. Ecological health of river basins in forested regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-326. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 

Ziemer, R. R., and D. N. Swanston. 1977. Root strength changes after logging in southeast 

Alaska. Research Note PNW-306. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR. 

'U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1998/432-031 
OTHER TITLES IN THE 

DECISION ANALYSIS SERIES 

No. 1. Able, Kenneth W. and Susan C. Kaiser. 1994. Synthesis of Summer Flounder Habitat 

Parameters. 

No. 2. Matthews, Geoffrey A. and Thomas J. Minello. 1994. Technology and Success in 

Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement of Spartina alternzjlora Marshes in the United States. 2 

vols. 

No. 3. Collins, Elaine V., Maureen Woods, Isobel C. Sheifer and Janice Beattie. 1994. 

Bibliography of Synthesis Documents on Selected Coastal Ocean Topics. 

No. 4. Hinga, Kenneth R., Heeseon Jeon and Noelle F. Lewis. 1995. Marine Eutrophication 

Review. 

No. 5. Lipton, Douglas W., Katherine Wellman, Isobel C. Sheifer and Rodney F. Weiher. 1995. 

Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: A Handbook for Coastal Resource Policy Makers. 

No. 6. Vestal, Barbara, Alison Rieser et al. 1995. Methodologies and Mechanisms for 

Management of Cumulative Coastal Environmental Impacts. Part I -- Synthesis, with Annotated 

Bibliography; Part I1 -- Development and Application of a Cumulative Impacts Assessment 

Protocol.