sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aquatic ecosystem, Aquatic science

Sustainable Watershed Planning in Ohio

Fundamentals of Aquatic Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology

OHIO FACTS ToledoToledo Population (1990): 10,887,325 ClevelandCleveland Land Area: 106,800 km2 YoungsYoungs Major Watersheds: 23 towntown Akron-Akron- & : 46,956 km CantonCanton Number of : 447 Lakes Surface Area: 48,078 ha Scenic Rivers: 1015 km ColumbusColumbus Acrage: Unknown

Original Lost: 90% DaytonDayton Current Forest Cover: 30% Original Forest Cover: 90-95%

CincinnatiCincinnati

Watersheds and Their Streams Are Living Systems Quality is Evident in Symptoms of Health • A system for converting organic matter and nutrients into . • Multiple steps and transfers in the process. • Healthy Systems support numerous and complex processes - produce desirable biomass and other attributes (e.g., high divesrsity, intolerant ). • Unhealthy Systems exhibit fewer steps and simple processes - produce undesirable biomass and attributes (e.g., tolerant organisms, nuisance populations).

Aquatic : Structure and Function Structure: • Biological components (species, numbers, biomass) • Physical components (water, attributes) • Energy & Materials (organic and inorganic chemicals) Function: • The product of the interaction of the structural components and the processes therein Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology Major Factors Which Determine the Integrity of Resources

Alkalinity Velocity Solubilities High/Low D.O. Land Use Extremes Adsorption pH Chemical Flow Nutrients Turbidity Regime Variables Ground Precipitation & Organics Water Hardness Runoff

INTEGRITY OF THE Disease WATER Reproduction Biotic Factors Feeding

Predation “Principal Goal of the CleanWater Act” Nutrients Riparian Sunlight Energy Width/Depth Source Seasonal Vegetation Cycles Bank Stability Channel Organic Matter Habitat o o Morphology Inputs 1 and 2 Structure Sinuosity Production Gradient Current Canopy Instream Substrate Cover

Water Resource Integrity Attributes Environmental Goods and Services Provided By Watersheds • Ecological resources • Recreational activities • Waste assimilation • Water supplies • Aesthetics Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology

Attributes of Ecosystems With High Ecological Integrity

• Inherent potential is realized. • Condition is stable. • Capacity for self-repair is intact. • Minimal external support or management is required.

(after Karr et al. 1986)

Aquatic Life is Limited by Habitat Quality Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology

Root- wads LONGITUDINAL POOL Woody SEQUENCE OF Debris HABITAT Shallows Deep TYPES & FUNCTIONS: POOL Pools Pool Functions: Fine Substrates (sand, gravel, • Critical niche habitat & cover FPOM) • Low flow refugia Boulders • Resting area GLIDE Intermediate • Feeding area for top Substrates • Nursery area (gravels, CPOM) • Depositional area (FPOM1) GLIDE Slow/ Run Functions: Moderate • Critical niche habitat Current • Spawning area Coarsest Substrates • Feeding area for RUN (gravel, cobble, & boulder) • Macroinvertebrate production • habitat Moderate/Fast (filamentous , ) Current Riffle Functions: CoarseSubstrates (gravel, cobbles) • Critical niche habitat Fast Current • Spawning area RIFFLE • Reaeration • production • Primary production habitat RUN CYCLE REPEATS (filamentous algae, diatoms) Flow Glide Functions: Direction HERE • Transition habitat (pool to run) • Does not predominate in high ONE CYCLE OF STREAM HABITAT quality streams

PRIMARY CHANNEL HABITAT TYPES AND ASSOCIATED FUNCTIONS OF EACH

Flow Direction

RUN RIFFLE GLIDE RUN GLIDE POOLPOOL RIFFLE Glide Function: • Transitional area (pool to run) Pool Functions: Run Functions: Riffle Functions: • Rare to un- common in high • Critical niche habitatRun & Functions:• Critical niche habitatRiffle• Critical Functions: niche habitatGlidequality Functions: streams Pool Functions:cover • • Spawning Spawning Area area • Spawning • Spawning area Area • Transitional Habitat • Cover • Low flow refugia • • Feeding Oxygenation area for • Reaeration • Oxygenation • Does Not Pre- • Low Flow Refugia • Feeding Area • Feeding Area Dominate in • Resting • Resting Areaarea insectivores & • Macroinvertebrate • Feeding area for top •herbivores Macroinvertebrate production • Macroinvertebrate High Quality • Nursery Area Production Production Streams carnivores • Macroinvertebrate • Primary • Critical production Non-Game • Nursery area production habitat (filamentous Habitat • Depositional area • Primary production algae, diatoms) (FPOM1) habitat (filamentous algae, diatoms) Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology

IMPORTANCE OF WOODY DEBRIS TO STREAM HABITAT FORMATION AND MAINTENANCE

Channel Boundary Side Channel

Channel Boundary

Active Channel, Main Flow

Depositional Area

Functions 1 of Woody Debris 3 2 4

7 1.Plunge Pools, Scour 5 2.Eddy Formation 3.Current Constrictor, Riffle Formation 6 4.Trap/Retain Organic Debris 5. 6.Rootwad, Undercut 8 Banks 7.Erosion Control 8.Island, Channel Formation Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology

Sinuosity

• Ratio of Channel Length to Downvalley Distance

Bend Poorly 1 Defined 1 2

3 2 4 5 3 6

No Low Moderate High Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity

Function: Creates depth and habitat heterogeneity, more habitat per unit distance

False Banks • Sequence of development of false banks Normal stream habitat

Dashed lines indicate areas Low flow trampled by channel widens livestock herds and depth decreases

False banks caused by Wider, shallower unrestricted access of channel more livestock herds to susceptible to stream banks intermittent flows Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology

Channel Modifications • Channel modification affects how and where fine sediment is deposited

Ordinary High Water Mark

Sediment deposition occurs OUTSIDE main Little sediment channel deposition in main Normal channel Summer Flow Sediment STAYS in main channel

Ordinary High Water Mark Normal Summer Flow (intermittent flows)

Substrate Embeddedness

Substrate Interstices are open and provide Fine materials benthic surface area DO NOT Large substrates easy to predominate dislodge from bottom

Normal (Non embedded)

Large substrates difficult to Substrate may be Interstices Filled With dislodge from bottom "armour-plated" Sand or Fine Gravel Embedded Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology

RIPARIAN WIDTH AND ADJACENT LAND USES

Wooded K Forested C Riparian K Buffer Strip Zone K

Row L Row Crops Crops C

C

10-15 m 100 m

Riparian Buffer Zones: Beneficial Functions "More Than Filters for Excess Nutrients and Sediment" • Habitat forming function - rootwads & large woody debris form different & provide cover. • Bank stabilization - large tree root systems. • Retention and uptake of excess water - large trees. • Assimilation of excess nutrients and sediment. • recharge and maintenance of flows. • Temperature moderation in summer - shading. • Primary source of organic matter - leaves & .

Riparian Buffer Zones: Management Guidelines Many negative effects of encroachment are cumulative and occur off-site. • Encroachment, modification, and outright elimination debilitates and eventually eliminates the delivery of beneficial and essential functions. • 50' to 120' on both sides of the bank full channel is a "rule of thumb" minimum necessary to maintain a high quality (likely wider for larger rivers). • not a "hands-off" zone, but must be managed to meet the needs of the aquatic ecosystem (i.e., to maintain a designated use). Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology

Primary Energy Sources for Aquatic Ecosystems Outside ("Allochthonous"): • Organic matter (primarily leaves, plant matter, and woody debris) • Ground and surface waters carry solutes and particles (e.g., attached and dissolved N and P) Inside ("Autochthonous"): • Primary production by algae and plants () Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology

Relationship of Stream Habitat to Total Phosphorus: Headwater Streams

1

Headwater Streams 0.8

0.6 Good/Excellent Quality Habitat 0.4

0.2 Total Phosphorus (mg/l) 0 15-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85 >85 QUALITATIVE HABITAT EVALUATION INDEX (QHEI) DSW//MAS 1999-1-1 Aquatic Biota, Nutrients & Habitat in Ohio Rivers & Streams January 7, 1999

Association Between Nutrients, Habitat, and the Aquatic Biota in Ohio Rivers and Streams

Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1999-1-1

NO3-N

NO3-N PO4

NH3-N

PO4

NH3-N NH3-N

NO3-N

PO4

CPOM

PO4

CPOM PO4, NO3

FPOM

Robert A. Taft, Govenor Christopher Jones, Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049, Lazarus Government Center 122 S. Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Appendix B. 305(b) Fact Sheet

The purpose of this Benefits of Stream & Riparian fact sheet is to explain Ohio EPA’s rationale Habitat Protection in Ohio for developing a plan to protection stream terrestrial fauna”. One remaining species are bance of instream and riparian habitat in of every three fish rare or imperiled.1 habitat, sedimentation, Ohio. This document species and two of flow regime, water summarizes some of every three crayfish Even where most of quality, and riparian the evidence support- species are rare or the orgininal stream destruction. The five ing the protection and imperiled. In addition species are still major factors that restoration of instream one in ten freshwater present, the ecological control and influence and riparian habitat on mussel species have integrity of many the ecological integrity the basis of observed become extinct this streams is often seri- of streams are illus- trends of degradation century and 73% of the ously impaired be- trated in Figure 1. in Ohio, basic research cause of the distur- Traditionally, water on the function of stream ecosystems, Flow Regime and an increased effort Chemical Variables Velocity, Land Use, to protect and restore High/Low Extremes, Solubilities, Adsorption, Ground Water, stream and riparian Nutrients, Organics, Precipitation & Runoff habitats across the Alkalinity, Temperature, United States. D.O., pH, Turbidit y, Hardne ss, Status of Instream and Riparian Habitat in the United States Instream and riparian Biotic Factors habitat has been Parasitis m, Disease, WATER subjected to varying Reproduction, Feeding, RESOURCE degrees of degradation , Competition and modification over INTEGRITY the past 150 years. Recent moves to protect stream ecosys- tems is nationwide in Energy Source scope with the goal of Nutrients, Sunlig ht, Organic Matter Inputs, preserving and restor- o o 1 and 2 Production, ing aquatic habitats in Seasonal Cycles Habitat Structure streams and rivers that Riparian Vegetation, Siltati on, are becoming biologi- Sinuosity, Current, Substrate, cally imperiled. Na- Instream Cover, Width/Depth, Gradient, Channel Morphology, tionally, aquatic biota Bank Stability, Canopy are “disproportionately imperiled compared to Figure 1. Five Major Factors that Influence Water Resource Integrity in Streams resource management control, where fea- This committee also tion as outlined above, efforts have focused sible, should favor set a goal of restoring are the same concerns largely on chemical “soft” (e.g., restoring 400,000 miles of pertinent to Ohio? The water quality param- wooded riparian riparian- ecosys- answer to this question eters. It is now con- vegetation) engineer- tems (12% of total is an unqualified yes. ceded, however, that ing over “hard” engi- U.S. rivers and Statewide monitoring habitat loss and other neering (e.g., streams) within the of streams and rivers non-chemical impacts channelization) ap- next 20 years. Obvi- since 1980 indicates are likely responsible proaches, (4) unneces- ously, habitat protec- that habitat degrada- for more extensive sary dikes and levees tion and restoration is tion and sedimentation losses of , should be openned to a growing national are the second and and hence, ecological re-establish hydrologi- concern. third leading cause of integrity.2 Based on a cal connections be- biological impairment U. S. Fish and Wildlife tween riparian habitats to streams (Figure 2).4 Service “Nationwide and streams, and (5) Status of Instream This data was largely Rivers Inventory” riparian areas should and Riparian Stream collected to assess completed in 1992 be classified as wet- Habitat and Biota in point sources of only 2% of the streams land systems, on the Ohio (e.g., munici- and rivers in the lower basis of their structural Given the national pal or industrial dis- 48 states had sufficient and functional connec- concerns with instream chargers) and likely existing high-quality tions to rivers. and riparian habitat underestimates the features to warrant protection and restora- relative extent of special federal protec- tion.3 Organic Enrichment, _ Because of the mar- Siltation ginal, poor, or declin- + ing condition of Habitat Modification streams and their + Ammonia riparian areas, the _ National Academy of Metals _ Sciences’ National 1992 Research Council Flow Alteration committee on aquatic + pH 1988 habitat restoration + recommends that: (1) Unknown Toxicity erosion control pro- _ grams should be Priority Organics _ accelerated for both soil conservation and Other + environmental restora- tion purposes, (2) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 grazing practices should be altered to Miles minimize damage to Figure 2. Causes of impairment to aquatic life in Ohio streams and rivers river-riparian ecosys- on data from 1979-1987 and data from 197-1991. Sign on graph tems, (3) erosion indicates trend in extent of each cause.

B - 2 chub (Figure 3). Prior has to 1930 this species, not been slowed and in which requires pools some cases is increas- free of clayey-silts and ing. This will result in a continuous supply of not only a net loss of cool, clean water, was ecological resource widely distributed value but will blunt the across Ohio; over the benefits of the more last ten years extensive than 5 billion that has sampling has docu- been spent in control- mented a serious ling chemical water decline to a series of quality. small, widely sepa- rated portions of its Functions of Stream former range. The Habitats and Ripar- 1992 Ohio Water ian Areas

Before 1938: Trautman (1981) Resource Inventory A short summary of

1939—1980: Trautman (1981) identifies similar the important functions = Strong Populations 1979-1991: OEPA, OSUMZ, declines for an addi- of riparian areas and ODNR, ODOT tional 16 species which stream habitat to are not presently listed ecosystems is impor- Figure 3. Decline in thedistribution of the bigeye chub in as endangered, threat- tant to an understand- Ohio during the past 90 years. ened, or special con- ing of the importance cern status by Ohio of these resources, the nonpoint pollution. and siltation in Ohio, DNR. While it might present threats to these This does not mean declines in individual be argued that these areas, and the rationale that point sources are species populations species individually of Ohio EPA’s Stream not a serious area of and distribution in may be of little direct Protection Policy. concern in Ohio. The Ohio mirrors national economic or social While most people basic physical struc- trends. Species such significance, thier role recognize the benefits ture and functioning of as the blue pike (ex- as “mine canaries” of shading of streams stream ecosystems tinct) and crystal darter must be taken seri- by riparian forests, the needs to be main- (extirpated) are no ously. The fact that function of these tained, however, if we longer found in Ohio, more than 40% of the habitats goes substan- are to expect a reason- likely as a result of the native Ohiofauna is tially beyond the able full recovery and siltation of critical declining also has moderation of of impaired habitats and changes in serious implications : waters as a result of stream flows. More for the continued the past investments of alarmingly, species provision of aquatic ✓ Woody riparian vegeta- $4 billion in point once common across ecosystem services in tion naturally filters source pollution Ohio have now been the future. While our sediments, nutrients, fertilizers, and other control. greatly reduced in monitoring data has nonpoint source , range, particularly in documented a substan- from overland runoff, and In addition to data on the last half of this tial recovery of aquatic mimimizes stream tempera- impairment of streams century. One example life from wastewater ture fluctuations, and rivers caused by of such a decline is in treatment impacts in ✓ Woody riparian vegeta- habitat degradation the range of the bigeye rivers across Ohio, tion stabilizes stream

B - 3 banks; vegetated streams mainstem ecosystems may respond well to stream banks are up to 20,000 In order to understand integrity (i.e., “River protection and restoration 5 times more resistant to the threats to streams Continuum Concept”). that return this dynamism erosion than bare stream to stream ecosystems. banks, and riparian areas and, ✓ Stream flow varies therefore, the basis of greatly through time, and ✓ As natural areas become ✓ The input of large woody Ohio EPA's Stream floods of moderate fre- fewer and fragmented by debris (i.e., trees) into Protection Policy, it is quency are responsible for development, streams and streams has been shown to important to under- most rehabilitation of wide riparian areas can be critically important to stream channels; these are become refugia and vital stream habitat diversity; stand the many func- flows that continually flush corridors for migration of 99% of woody debris in tions of riparian and fine sediments downstream. animals and plants and the streams originates within stream habitats. Some Protection of streams flow of genetic material 100 feet of the stream bank, of these functions are includes maintenance of between populations.6 summarized below: flows that rehabilitate ✓ Greater than 50% of the stream beds, stream ✓ Extensive modifications breeding bird species in channels, and floodplains. to streams generally require Ohio use riparian wooded ✓ Streams are characterized As described by the extensive amounts of areas to nest. Riparian by a one-way flow of water National Research Council: maintenance which, if areas are also critical which transports nutrients, “If the observer could view properly accounted for, migration habitats; during sediments, pollutants and several hundred years of would discourage most the and fall, migra- organisms downstream. changes in a few minutes, projects in streams or tory birds are 10 to 14 Natural streams have many using time-lapse aerial riparian areas on the basis times more abundant in ways to slow such move- photography, the river of economic costs alone. riparian habitats than in ments (fallen trees, wide channel would appear to Downstream affects of surrounding upland floodplains) and species are writhe like a snake, with activities in streams and habitats, adapted to assimilating the meander loops moving floodplains often includes material trapped by trees downstream, throwing off increase flooding, bank ✓ Leaves and woody and living in the habitats oxbows as they go. The erosion, and degraded debris are important food they create. dynamic equilibrium in the ecosystem health. Channel sources for stream inverte- physical system creates a projects often follow a brates, which in turn, are ✓ Streams are open systems corresponding dynamic downstream progression, or essential for fish growth and have important equilibrium in the biologi- domino effect, with and survival. Healthy exchanges of energy and cal system.”1 upstream activities sending riparian zones also reduce materials with adjacent flow downstream more sedimentation which would terrestrial systems. The ✓ Streams are characterized quickly resulting in the otherwise inhibit inverte- bordering terrestrial by habitat patchiness” with need for channel work and brate populations. environment (the riparian alternating and maintenance there, which area) has the greatest effect pools, eddies, vegetated and in turn exacerbates prob- on a stream ecosystem and ✓ unvegetated channel lems downstream of these Riparian systems are the effect diminishes with widely recognized as being borders, permanent activities, ad infinitum. distance from the streams. backwaters, and seasonal The overall accumulative essential to the hydrological This means that protection cycle by maintaining and floodplain habitats. effect of such activities is of riparian areas will Modifications to streams, costly “stream mainte- mediating flow in streams. usually be the most cost- Riparian wetlands store such as flow regulation and nance” activities and effective method of channelization, usually degraded ecosystem surplus water and dampen assimilating upland inputs stream discharge fluctua- results in the loss of this integrity. compared to management “patchiness” and more tions; they can also be targeted on uplands. important groundwater uniform, monotonous Fortunately, most Because of the openness habitat that has greatlyu recharge and discharge and directional movement solutions to the degra- areas. Groundwater reduced assimilative of materials in streams the capacity. dation of instream and discharge can be critical to cumulative effects of streams during low flow riparian habitats are conditions in headwater ✓ periods and degradation of Because stream commu- simple and streams have major nities are a product of a riparian forests often influences on downstream, straightfoward. By reduces this benefit, dynamic physical environ- ment, in most cases they increasing the width of B - 4 riparian buffers environmental protec- through land use tion with the need for setback, most instream economic develop- and riparian habitats ment, which contrary will recover naturally to some notions, are over time. Some not mutually exclusive. aspects of aquatic High quality streams, habitat restoration will riparian habitats, and be much more difficult other natural area are a to deal with (e.g., benefit of living in deforestation, water- Ohio that people shed scale flow alter- rightly expect and that ations) and will need is essential to Ohio’s more integrated water- long-term economic References shed planning ap- health. 1 proaches to mesh U. S. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. Glossary National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Riparian Area: Areas adjacent to streams that 2Allan, J. D. and A. S. Flecker. 1993. are hydrologically and ecological Biodiversity conservation in running linked to streams and rivers. The size waters. BioScience 43(1): 32-43. of the area that has strong interactions 3Benke, A. C. 1990. A perspective on with a stream or river will vary with America’s vanishing streams. Journal of stream morphology, stream size, the North American Benthological geologic features, etc., however, for Society 9: 77-88. purposes of Ohio's Stream Protection 4Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Policy it is defined as 2-1/2 times the 1992. Ohio water resource inventory: stream width (bank full) on each side of status and trends, Editors. E. T. Rankin, the stream up to 120 feet. C. O. Yoder, and D. A. Mishne. Ohio EPA, Division of Water Quality Plan- Ecological Integrity: This refers to the expected ning as Assessment, Columbus, Ohio. condition of an ecosystem in anatural, 5Knopf, F. L., R. Johnson, T. Rich, F. B. relatively undisturbed state. This is not Samson, and R. C.Szaro. 1988. Con- a definition of pristine, but is derived servation of riparian ecosystems in the by examining existing, intact ecosys- United States. Wilson Bulletin 100(2): tems . 272-284. 6Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Impairment: Deviation of the biological health Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. of a stream from the criteria set in Cushing. 1980. The river continuum Ohio's Water Quality Standards based concept. Canadian Journal of on minimally unimpacted reference and 37: 130-137. sites 7Noss, R. F. 1987. Protecting natural areas in fragmented landscapes. Natural Areas Siltation: Covering of natural substrates by Journal 7(1): 2-13. higher than normal layers of erdoed soils and other fine substrates

B - 5 Table 1. Selected riparian buffer zone widths recommended for protection of stream and riparian habitat and water quality. Management Recommendations Recom- mends Obtained Reference Width (ft) Location Reference Annotation USDA (1987) 100’ Missouri Sediment from ; from SCS pamphlet on stream corridor management Kansas Dept of Health & 66’ Kansas Multiple benefits: reduce erosion, reduce Environment minimum temperature, improve wildlife habitat

Murphy (1991) 50’ for Connecti- from edge of stream intermit- cut tent streams; 100’ for permanent streams Newberry (1992) 75’ Nationwide Urban Streams minimum + 20’ Grass Welsch (1991)USFWS 75’ Nationwide 15’ Fixed Forest Zone + 60’ minimum minimum Managed Forested (this width expands based Forest on soil conditions or existence of major Zone + sources upland) + 20’ minimum 20’ grass dense grasses and forbes upslope upslope Zampala & Roman 300’ Septic Nutrients (1983) setback

Shertzer (1992) 100’ Pennsylva- Construction Activities near High Quality constr. nia Waters setback

Shertzer (1992) 50’ buffer Pennsylva- High Quality Waters, guidelines for erosion + 4’ per nia control, road siting. 70 degree slope would 1˚ Slope require 330’ buffer; 25-330’ buffer for timber harvest near HQ waters. USEPA (1993) 35-50’ Forest SMA, additional buffer depending on slope Florida 0-140’ Forest SMA, additional buffer depending on erodability, etc. Table 1. Continued Recom- mends Obtained Reference Width (ft) Location Reference Annotation N. Carolina 50’ North Forest SMA; additional buffer (0-150’) minimum Carolina depending on slope and presence of trout in . streams. USEPA (1993) 50’ in urban runoff control headwater; up to 200’ for larger streams Alexandria, VA 100’ Virginia unless smaller justified City of Alexandria ODNR - Scenic R. 120’ Ohio along Scenic River

National Marine Fisheries 100’ West Salmonid Protection - related to woody Service minimum Coast debris in streams Nieswand (1990) 50‘ or Model where W = Riparian width, T = W=2. Transit time of overland flow, and S = 5*T*S0.5; slope; for optimal conditions and 50’ W=500*S minimum flow, T=200 0.5

IEP, Inc (1990) Model Model to reduce TSS on basis of infiltration rates, riparian width U. S. Forest Service 66’ A buffer less than 66’ is not considered minimum windfirm Schueler (1987) 50-75’ 20’ grass strip absolute minimum; 50-75 preferable feet preferable + 4’ for each percent increase in slope Karr, Toth, and Garman 82-230’ Midwest 25 m (82’) for small, low to medium (1977) gradient streams; 70 m (230’) for large rivers and streams with steep banks (> 60%) Erman et al. (1977) 100’ California Buffer zone to protect aquatic from sedimentation and channel instability. Table 2. Selected studies documenting the efficiency of the nitrate removal from subsurface and surface flows.

Nitrate Reduction (Subsurface) Width Width Obtained Reference (m)/% feet Location Annotation Reference reduction James, Bagley, & Gallagher (in 10 (60- 33’ Forested Buffer press) 98%) Jacobs & Gilliam (1985) 16 (93%) 53’ Forested Buffer Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 19 (93%) 62’ Forested Buffer Schnabel (1986) 19 (40- 62’ Forested Buffer 90%) Lowrance, Todd, & Asmussen 25 (68%) 82’ Forested Buffer (1984) Pinay & Decamps (1988) 30 (100%) 98’ Forested Buffer Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 50 (99%) 164’ Forested Buffer Schnabel (1986) 27 (10- 89’ Grassed Buffer 60%) Schnabel (1986) 19 (40- 62’ Forested Buffer 90%) Pinay ET AL. (1993) 30 (100%) 98’ France X Forested Buffer Nitrate Reduction (Surface) Doyle, Standton, & Wolf 30 98’ Forested Buffer (1977) (98%) Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 50 164’ Forested Buffer (79%) Dillaha et al (1989) 9 30’ Grassed Buffer (73%) Dillaha et al (1989) 5 16’ Grassed Buffer (54%) Young, Huntrods, & 27 89’ Grassed Buffer Asmussen (1980) (84%) Table 2. Selected studies documenting the efficiency of riparian buffer zones in removing nitrate and phophorus from subsurface and surface flows, removing sediment from overland flow, maintaining ambient temperature in streams, and providing woody debris for aquatic organisms in streams.

Phospho- Woody Nitrate Nitrate Phophorus rus Debris Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface Sediment Tempera- &CPOM Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Removal ture Provision Width (m) to Remove Width to Width Width Width Width Width “Substan- Maintain Needed to (m)/% (m)/% (m)/% (m)/% tial” Ambient Supply Obtained reduction reduction reduction reduction Fraction Tempera- Structure Location of Refer- Reference [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] ture or CPOM Study ence Annotation James, Bagley, 10 (60-98%) Forested Buffer & Gallagher [33’] (in press) Jacobs & 16 (93%) Forested Buffer Gilliam (1985) [53’] Peterjohn & 19 (93%) 19 (33%) 19 (74%) 19 Maryland Forested Buffer Correll (1984) [62’] [62’] [62’] [62’]

Schnabel 19 (40-90%) Forested Buffer (1986) [62’]

Lowrance, 25 (68%) Forested Buffer Todd, & [82’] Asmussen (1984) Pinay et al. 30 (100%) France Forested Buffer (1993) 98’ (noted importance of forested buffers as carbon source for denitrification) Table 2. Continued Phospho- Woody Nitrate Nitrate Phophorus rus Debris Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface Sediment Tempera- &CPOM Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Removal ture Provision Width (m) to Remove Width to Width Width Width Width Width “Substan- Maintain Needed to (m)/% (m)/% (m)/% (m)/% tial” Ambient Supply Obtained reduction reduction reduction reduction Fraction Tempera- Structure Location of Refer- Reference [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] ture or CPOM Study ence Annotation Pinay & 30 (100%) Forested Buffer Decamps [98’] (1988) Peterjohn & 50 (99%) 50 (79%) 50 (- 50 (85%) Forested Buffer; Correll (1984) [164’] [164’] 114%) [164’] Sediment from [164’] agriculture Schnabel 27 (10-60%) Grassed Buffer (1986) [89’] Schnabel 19 (40-90%) Forested Buffer (1986) [62’] Doyle, 30 (98%) Forested Buffer Standton, & [98’] Wolf (1977) Dillaha et al 9 (73%) 9 (79%) Grassed Buffer (1989) [30’] [30’]

Dillaha et al 5 (54%) 5 (61%) Grassed Buffer (1989) [16’] [16’]

Cooper & 16 (50%) Forested Buffer Gilliam (1987) [52’] Table 2. Continued Phospho- Woody Nitrate Nitrate Phophorus rus Debris Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface Sediment Tempera- &CPOM Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Removal ture Provision Width (m) to Remove Width to Width Width Width Width Width “Substan- Maintain Needed to (m)/% (m)/% (m)/% (m)/% tial” Ambient Supply Obtained reduction reduction reduction reduction Fraction Tempera- Structure Location of Refer- Reference [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] ture or CPOM Study ence Annotation Aubertin & 10-20 10-20 West Virginia Sediment from Patrick [33-66’] [33-66’] clearcut (1974)* Haupt & Kidd 9 Idaho Sediment from (1965)* [30’] logging road Trimble & 15-45 New Sediment from Sartz (1957)* [49- 148’] Hampshire logging road Kovacic & 19 Illinois Sediment from Osborne [62’] agriculture (unpublished)* Lynch & 31 Pennsylvania Corbett [102’] (1990)* Brazier & 10 Oregon Mountain stream Brown (1973)* [33’]

Corbett, 12 North Mountain stream Lynch, & [39’] Carolina Sopper (1978)* Table 2. Continued Phospho- Woody Nitrate Nitrate Phophorus rus Debris Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface Sediment Tempera- &CPOM Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Removal ture Provision Width (m) to Remove Width to Width Width Width Width Width “Substan- Maintain Needed to (m)/% (m)/% (m)/% (m)/% tial” Ambient Supply Obtained reduction reduction reduction reduction Fraction Tempera- Structure Location of Refer- Reference [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] [Width ft] ture or CPOM Study ence Murphy 30 Western Majority of woody (1991) [100’] States debris from within Literature 100’ of streams; Review some large debris can remain in stream for > 100 years Benke (1985) - Southeast US Documented importance of woody debris for macroinvertebrate production in low gradient rivers Erman (1977) 30 Forested Buffers > [100’] 100’ Protect Aquatic Inverts Karr and 25-70 25-70 Schlosser [82-230’] [82-230’] (1977) Andrus et al. 50 years Northwest Found that riparian (1984) US trees must grow to at least 50 yrs to ensure stable supply of LOD Young, 27 (84%) 27 (83%) Grassed Buffer Huntrods, & [89’] [89’] Asmussen (1980) Table 3. Selected studies documenting the efficiency of the phosphorus removal from subsurface and surface flows. Phosphorus Reduction (Subsurface) Documents Effects: Width Obtained Reference Width Location Annotation Feet Reference (m)/% reduction Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 19 (33%) 62’ Forested Buffer Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 50 164’ Forested Buffer (-114%) Phosphorus Reduction (Surface) Cooper & Gilliam (1987) 16 (50%) 52’ Forested Buffer Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 19 62’ Forested Buffer (74%) Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 50 164’ Forested Buffer (85%) Dillaha et al (1989) 9 30’ Grassed Buffer (79%) Dillaha et al (1989) 5 16’ Grassed Buffer (61%) Young, Huntrods, & 27 89’ Grassed Buffer Asmussen (1980) (83%) Table 4. Selected studies documenting the efficiency of the sediment removal from surface flows. Sediment Control Reference Documents Width Location Obtained Annotation Effects Reference Width m Haupt & Kidd (1965)* 9 m 30’ Sediment from logging road Trimble & Sartz (1957)* 15-45 m Sediment from logging road Aubertin & Patrick (1974)* 10-20 m 33-66’ Sediment from clearcut Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 19 m 62’ Sediment from agriculture Kovacic & Osborne 19 m 62’ Sediment from agriculture (unpublished)* Table 5. Selected studies documenting the moderating effects of forested riparian zones on stream temperature. Stream Temperature Documents Width Obtained Reference Effects Location Annotation Feet Reference Width (m) Karr and Schlosser 25m-70m Midwest 25m (1977) Aubertin & Patrick 10-20 m West Virginia (1974)* Lynch & Corbett 31m Pennsylvania stream (1990)* Brazier & Brown 10 Oregon Mountain stream (1973)* Corbett, Lynch, & 12m North Carolina mountain stream Sopper (1978)* Table 6. Selected studies documenting the importance of forested riparian zones for woody debris delivery and other habitat fucntions in streams. Woody Debris Reference Recco Docu- Obtained Annotation mends ments Refer- Width Effects ence Karr and 25m- 25m Schlosser (1977) 70m