DOCSLIB.ORG

Proceedings from the Wood Compatibility Initiative Workshop

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proceedings from the Wood Compatibility Initiative Workshop PROCEEDINGS FROM THE WOOD COMPATIBILITY WORKSHOP INITIATIVE RESOURCES: CONGRUENT MANAGEMENT OF MULTIPLE United States Department of Agriculture CONGRUENT MANAGEMENT Forest Service OF MULTIPLE RESOURCES: Pacific Northwest Research Station PROCEEDINGS FROM THE General Technical Report PNW-GTR-563 WOOD COMPATIBILITY November 2002 INITIATIVE WORKSHOP Keynote papers • Aquatic studies • Scale issues • Silviculture studies • Nontimber forest products • Social/economic studies PNW-GTR-563 2002 PNW-GTR-563 EDITORS Adelaide C. Johnson is a hydrologist, Aquatic and Land Interactions Program, PNWResearch Station, Juneau, Alaska 99801; Richard W. Haynes and Robert A. Monserud are research foresters, Human and Natural Resources Interactions Program, PNWResearch Station, Portland, Oregon 97208. Technical editors include Mary Willox, Longmont, Colorado 80501; and Rachael Baker, Juneau, Alaska 99801 Cover design and graphic layout of proceedings: Jenny Beranek, Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Cover graphic/chapter heading graphic: Terry Inokuma, Philomath, Oregon Cover photo credit: Paul Hennon, PNW Research Station, Juneau, Alaska 99801 Papers were provided in camera-ready form for printing by the editors, who are therefore responsible for the content and accuracy. Opinions expressed may not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The use of trade or firm names is for information only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. CONGRUENT MANAGEMENT OF MULTIPLE RESOURCES: PROCEEDINGS FROM THE WOOD COMPATIBILITY INITIATIVE WORKSHOP Adelaide C. Johnson, Richard W. Haynes, and Robert A. Monserud, Editors Skamania Lodge Stevenson, Washington December 4-7th 2001 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-563 November 2002 ABSTRACT Johnson, Adelaide C.; Haynes, Richard W.; Monserud, Robert A. eds. 2002. Congruent management of multiple resources: proceedings from the Wood Compatibility Initiative workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 252 p. The Wood Compatibility Initiative (WCI) addresses options that may increase the compatibility between wood produc- tion and other societal values derived from forestlands. The set of 25 papers included in this proceedings presents the sum- maries of WCI-related research, compiled from a workshop held December 4-7th 2001 at the Skamania Lodge in Stevenson, Washington. The workshop proceedings papers are grouped into six general topics: 1) workshop keynote papers, 2) aquatic- related studies, 3) issues relating to scale, 4) silviculture studies, 5) nontimber forest products related research, and 6) social/ economic studies. These papers set the context for scientific and management inferences as well as illustrate the complex and diverse array of information needed in the development of land management strategies at different spatial scales. KEY WORDS: Forest management, societal values, wood production, tradeoffs, compatibility. ENGLISH/METRIC EQUIVALENTS When you know: Multiply by: To find: Meters (m) 3.28 Feet Square meters (m2) 10.8 Square feet Centimeters (cm) 2.54 Inches Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres Kilometers (km) .62 Miles Kilogram (kg) 2.205 Pounds Feet (ft) .305 Meters Square feet (ft2) .093 Square meters Inches (in) .394 Centimeters Acres .405 Hectares Mile 1.609 Kilometers Pounds (lbs) .454 Kilograms Proceedings from the Wood Compatibility Initiative Workshop CONTENTS 1. Emergent Results from the Wood Compatibility Initiative Richard W. Haynes, Robert A. Monserud, and Adelaide C. Johnson 1 A. KEYNOTE PAPERS 2. Challenges to Integrating Wood Production Biodiversity, and Other Socioeconomic Values at Broad Scales: an Example from Coastal Oregon 13 Thomas A. Spies, K. Norman Johnson, Pete Bettinger, William C. McComb, Janet L. Ohmann, and Gordon H. Reeves 3. Effects of Streamside Forest Management on the Composition and Abundance of Stream and Riparian Fauna of the Olympic Peninsula 27 Martin G. Raphael, Peter A. Bisson, Lawrence L.C. Jones, and Alex D. Foster 4. Socioeconomic Factors Influencing Land Use and Management Changes in the Pacific Northwest 41 Ralph J. Alig and Jeffrey D. Kline 5. Mixed Alder-Conifer Forests: Managing Upland Ecosystems in Southeast Alaska for Wood Products, Wildlife, and Fish 51 Paul Hennon, Mark Wipfli, Robert Deal, Adelaide Johnson, Toni De Santo, Mark Schultz, Tom Hanley, Ewa Orlikowska, Gomi Takashi, Mason Bryant, and Rick Edwards B. AQUATIC STUDIES 6. Influence of Site and Landscape Features on Vertebrate Assemblages in Small Streams 61 Peter A. Bisson, Martin G. Raphael, Alex D. Foster, and Lawrence L.C. Jones 7. A Survey of Research on Riparian Responses to Silviculture 73 Patrick G. Cunningham 8. Riparian Buffers and Thinning Design in Western Oregon Headwaters Accomplish Multiple Resource Objectives 81 Deanna H. Olson, Samuel S. Chan, and Charles R. Thompson 9. Research on Streamside Issues Through the Wood Compatibility Initiative 93 Susan Bolton and Cara Berman 10. Physical and Chemical Processes in Headwater Channels with Red Alder 101 Adelaide C. Johnson and Richard T. Edwards C. SCALE ISSUES 11. An Evaluation of Tradeoffs Between Wood Production and Ecological Integrity in the Oregon Coast Range 111 Thomas A. Spies, K. Norman Johnson, Gordon Reeves, Pete Bettinger, Michael T. McGrath, Robert Pabst, Kelly Burnett, and Keith Olsen 12. Framing the Discussion of Future Forestry in the Pacific Northwest 121 Fred J. Swanson, John H. Cissel, Deana D. Pennington, and Julia A. Jones 13. Development of Mixed Red Alder-Conifer Stands in Southeast Alaska 127 Robert L. Deal and Ewa H. Orlikowska D. SILVICULTURE STUDIES 14. Do Large Trees Always Have Higher Wood Product Value? 135 R. James Barbour, David D. Marshall, Dean L. Parry, and Glenn Christensen 15. Stem Characteristics and Wood Properties: Essential Considerations in Sustainable Multipurpose Forestry Regimes 145 David D. Marshall and Dean S. DeBell 16. How Adaptable are Forest Growth Models For Simulating Alternative Silvicultures in the Northwest? 151 Robert A. Monserud and Andrew P. Robinson 17. Factors Influencing Growth and Flowering of Understory Plants in Conifer Stands in Western Washington 159 Constance A. Harrington, Karl R. Buermeyer, Leslie Chandler Brodie, and Bryan W. Wender 18. Compatibility of Breeding for Increased Wood Production and Long-term Sustainability: the Genetic Variation of Seed Orchard Seed and Associated Risks 169 Randy Johnson and Sara Lipow E. NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS 19. Assessment of Western Oregon Forest Inventory for Evaluating Commercially Important Understory Plants 183 Nan Vance, Andrew Gray, and Bob Haberman 20. Assessing Commercial Understory Species: Quantity, Quality, Supply and Demand 191 Becky K. Kerns, Susan J. Alexander, David Pilz, and Leon H. Liegel 21. Silvishrooms: Predicting Edible Ectomycorrhizal Mushroom Productivity 199 David Pilz, Randy Molina, Eric Danell, Richard Waring, Catherine Rose, Susan Alexander, Daniel Luoma, Kermit Cromack, and Charles Lefevre 22. Involving Stakeholder Communities in Research on Nontimber Forest Products 209 Roger D. Fight, Ellen M. Donoghue, and Harriet H. Christensen F. SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STUDIES 23. Logic Models as Frameworks for Thinking about Compatibility 215 Keith M. Reynolds 24. Compatibility of Timber and Conservation: Tracing the Tradeoff Frontier 225 Claire A. Montgomery 25. Assessing Temporal Trends in Forest Inventory and Analysis Data: Applications to Criteria and Indicators 233 Joseph A. Donnegan 26. Social Acceptability of Natural Resource Decision-making Processes 245 Keith M. Reynolds Proceedings from the Wood Compatibility Initiative Workshop, number 1. EMERGENT RESULTS FROM THE WOOD COMPATIBILITY INITIATIVE Richard W. Haynes1, Robert A. Monserud2, and Adelaide Johnson3 ABSTRACT The Wood Compatibility Initiative (WCI) was stimulated by the public debate over forest management, which often por- trayed management choices as involving tradeoffs between biophysical and socioeconomic components of ecosystems. Its purpose is to expand information on the options that may increase the compatibility between wood production and other societal values derived from forestlands. The WCI addresses two aspects of the compatibility issue. First, how can various forest management practices be related to an array of associated goods and services? Second, how can the effects of differ- ent approaches to forest management be derived across relatively large and complex ecosystems? The goal is to enable a richer public dialogue about the ability of land management options to produce timber, nontimber forest products, fish, and wildlife. KEY WORDS: Forest management, forest production, tradeoffs, compatibility. INTRODUCTION Considered in aggregate at the regional scale, compatible wood production increases the overall level of some forest The Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station has a value(s) without decreasing others. The goal is to remove 75-year tradition of discovery in forest and range research forest management from the divisive arena of either or (see Duncan 2000 for details). Since 1998, scientists at the choices. PNW Research Station have been engaged in an effort called the Wood Compatibility Initiative (WCI) to develop The WCI addresses two aspects of the compatibility a greater understanding of potential compatibility among issue. First, how can various forest management
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Riparian Vegetation Management
    Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice Guide Riparian Vegetation Management Second edition, June 2009 Your comments SEPA is committed to ensuring its Good Practice Guides are useful and relevant to those carrying out activities in Scotland’s water environment. We welcome your comments on this Good Practice Guide so that we can improve future editions. A feedback form and details on how to send your comments to us can be found at the back of this guide in Appendix 1. Acknowledgements This document was produced in association with Northern Ecological Services (NES). Page 1 of 47 Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice Guide: Riparian Vegetation Management Second edition, June 2009 (Document reference: WAT-SG-44) Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 What’s included in this Guide? 3 2 Importance of riparian vegetation 6 3 Establishing/creating vegetation 8 3.1 Soft or green engineering techniques 8 3.2 Seeding and planting of bare soil 10 3.3 Creating buffer strips 11 3.4 Planting trees and shrubs 15 3.5 Marginal vegetation 18 3.6 Urban watercourses 21 4 Managing vegetation 24 4.1 Management of grasses and herbs 24 4.2 Management of heath and bog 27 4.3 Management of adjacent wetlands 28 4.4 Management of non-native plant species 29 4.5 Management of scrub and hedgerows 31 4.6 Management of individual trees 31 4.7 Management of trees – riparian woodland 33 4.8 Management of trees – conifer plantations 35 4.9 Large woody debris 37 4.10 Marginal vegetation 37 4.11 Urban watercourses 40 4.12 Use of herbicides 40 4.13 Environmental management of vegetation 41 4.14 Vegetation management plans 41 5 Sources of further information 42 5.1 Publications 42 5.2 Websites 44 Appendix 1: Feedback form – Good Practice Guide WAT-SG-44 45 Page 2 of 47 1 Introduction This document is one of a series of good practice guides produced by SEPA to help people involved in the selection of sustainable engineering solutions that minimise harm to the water environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix K. Survey and Manage Species Persistence Evaluation
    Appendix K. Survey and Manage Species Persistence Evaluation Establishment of the 95-foot wide construction corridor and TEWAs would likely remove individuals of H. caeruleus and modify microclimate conditions around individuals that are not removed. The removal of forests and host trees and disturbance to soil could negatively affect H. caeruleus in adjacent areas by removing its habitat, disturbing the roots of host trees, and affecting its mycorrhizal association with the trees, potentially affecting site persistence. Restored portions of the corridor and TEWAs would be dominated by early seral vegetation for approximately 30 years, which would result in long-term changes to habitat conditions. A 30-foot wide portion of the corridor would be maintained in low-growing vegetation for pipeline maintenance and would not provide habitat for the species during the life of the project. Hygrophorus caeruleus is not likely to persist at one of the sites in the project area because of the extent of impacts and the proximity of the recorded observation to the corridor. Hygrophorus caeruleus is likely to persist at the remaining three sites in the project area (MP 168.8 and MP 172.4 (north), and MP 172.5-172.7) because the majority of observations within the sites are more than 90 feet from the corridor, where direct effects are not anticipated and indirect effects are unlikely. The site at MP 168.8 is in a forested area on an east-facing slope, and a paved road occurs through the southeast part of the site. Four out of five observations are more than 90 feet southwest of the corridor and are not likely to be directly or indirectly affected by the PCGP Project based on the distance from the corridor, extent of forests surrounding the observations, and proximity to an existing open corridor (the road), indicating the species is likely resilient to edge- related effects at the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Buffer Restoration
    Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual Chapter 6 BMP 6.7.1: Riparian Buffer Restoration A riparian buffer is a permanent area of trees and shrubs located adjacent to streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Riparian forests are the most beneficial type of buffer for they provide ecological and water quality benefits. Restoration of this ecologically sensitive habitat is a responsive action to past activities that may have eliminated any vegetation. Key Design Elements Potential Applications Residential: Yes Commercial: Yes Ultra Urban: Yes Industrial: Yes Retrofit: Yes Highway/Road: Limited · Reestablish buffer areas along perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams · Plant native, diverse tree and shrub vegetation Stormwater Functions · Buffer width is dependant on project preferred function (water quality, habitat creation, etc.) · Minimum recommended buffer width is 35’ from top of stream Volume Reduction: Medium bank, with 100’ preferred. Recharge: Medium · Create a short-term maintenance and long-term maintenance Peak Rate Control: Low/Med. plan Water Quality: Med./High · Mature forest as a vegetative target · Clear, well-marked boundary Water Quality Functions TSS: 65% TP: 50% NO3: 50% 363-0300-002 / December 30, 2006 Page 191 of 257 Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual Chapter 6 Description The USDA Forest Service estimates that over one-third of the rivers and streams in Pennsylvania have had their riparian areas degraded or altered. This fact is sobering when one considers the important stormwater functions that riparian buffers provide. The non-structural BMP, Riparian Forest Buffer Protection, addresses the importance of protecting the three-zone system of existing riparian buffers. The values of riparian buffers – economic, environmental, recreational, aesthetic, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • An Agroforestry Project: Sustainable Tree-Shrub-Grass Buffer Strips
    Volume 78 Article 5 1-1-1991 An Agroforestry Project: Sustainable Tree-Shrub- Grass Buffer Strips Along Waterways Richard Schultz Iowa State University Joe Colletti Iowa State University Carl Mize Iowa State University Andy Skadberg Iowa State University Bruce Menzel Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/amesforester Part of the Forest Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Schultz, Richard; Colletti, Joe; Mize, Carl; Skadberg, Andy; and Menzel, Bruce (1991) "An Agroforestry Project: Sustainable Tree- Shrub-Grass Buffer Strips Along Waterways," Ames Forester: Vol. 78 , Article 5. Available at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/amesforester/vol78/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ames Forester by an authorized editor of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN AGROFORESTRY PROJECT: susTAINABLE TREE-SHFIUB-GRASS BUFFEFI STRIPS ALONG WATERWAYS BY F]lCHAF]D SCHULTZ, JOE COLLETTl, CAFZL MIZE, ANDY SKADBEFIG, AND BFIUCE MENZEL Introduction the streambank, the aquatic ecosystem, and for providing wildlife habitat for terrestrial Iowa is a mosaic landscape of agricultural animals. crops, pasture lands, native woodlands. prai- rie remnants, wetlands, and a network of A cooperative project on a private farm was streams and rivers. With settlement and the started in the spring of 1990. An interdiscipli- increased mecha- naryteam fromthe nization of agricul- Departments of ture, many natural Forestry, a as ` sgffi se.>< isee`s±gg // //,i/// i/// i/ // // //////i1/,,,,,74,i,,;,,#,// ,z/ /// Agronomy, Geol- woodland corri- `x,`,`/`se*/a <.*ng ng`'` -i- dors along these `asJz '3¥sezl , ` i ogy and Atmo- i // /// streams and rivers spheric Sciences, i$3& and Animal Ecol- were removed.
    [Show full text]
  • Buffering the Buffer, by Leslie M. Reid, And
    Buffering the Buffer1 Leslie M. Reid2 and Sue Hilton3 Abstract: Riparian buffer strips are a widely accepted tool for helping to sustain ¥ Maintenance of the aquatic food web through provision aquatic ecosystems and to protect downstream resources and values in forested of leaves, branches, and insects areas, but controversy persists over how wide a buffer strip is necessary. The physical integrity of stream channels is expected to be sustained if the ¥ Maintenance of appropriate levels of predation and characteristics and rates of tree fall along buffered reaches are similar to those in competition through support of appropriate riparian undisturbed forests. Although most tree-fall-related sediment and woody debris ecosystems inputs to Caspar Creek are generated by trees falling from within a tree’s height of the channel, about 30 percent of those tree falls are triggered by trees falling ¥ Maintenance of water quality through filtering of from upslope of the contributing tree, suggesting that the core zone over which sediment, chemicals, and nutrients from upslope sources natural rates of tree fall would need to be sustained is wider than the one-tree- height’s-width previously assumed. Furthermore, an additional width of “fringe” ¥ Maintenance of an appropriate water temperature buffer is necessary to sustain appropriate tree-fall rates within the core buffer. regime through provision of shade and regulation of air Analysis of the distribution of tree falls in buffer strips and un-reentered stream- temperature and humidity side forests along the North Fork of Caspar Creek suggests that rates of tree fall are abnormally high for a distance of at least 200 m from a clearcut edge, a ¥ Maintenance of bank stability through provision of root distance equivalent to nearly four times the current canopy height.
    [Show full text]
  • Mushrumors the Newsletter of the Northwest Mushroomers Association Volume 20 Issue 3 September - November 2009
    MushRumors The Newsletter of the Northwest Mushroomers Association Volume 20 Issue 3 September - November 2009 2009 Mushroom Season Blasts into October with a Flourish A Surprising Turnout at the Annual Fall Show by Our Fungal Friends, and a Visit by David Arora Highlighted this Extraordinary Year for the Northwest Mushroomers On the heels of a year where the weather in Northwest Washington could be described as anything but nor- mal, to the surprise of many, include yours truly, it was actually a good year for mushrooms and the Northwest Mushroomers Association shined again at our traditional fall exhibit. The members, as well as the mushrooms, rose to the occasion, despite brutal conditions for collecting which included a sideways driving rain (which we photo by Pam Anderson thought had come too late), and even a thunderstorm, as we prepared to gather for the greatly anticipated sorting of our catch at the hallowed Bloedel Donovan Community Building. I wondered, not without some trepidation, about what fungi would actually show up for this years’ event. Buck McAdoo, Dick Morrison, and I had spent several harrowing hours some- what lost in the woods off the South Pass Road in a torrential downpour, all the while being filmed for posterity by Buck’s step-son, Travis, a videographer creating a documentary about mushrooming. I had to wonder about the resolve of our mem- bers to go forth in such conditions in or- In This Issue: Fabulous first impressions: Marjorie Hooks der to find the mush- David Arora Visits Bellingham crafted another artwork for the centerpiece.
    [Show full text]
  • Template for Pdfs.Pmd
    2.12 Stream temperature and buffers Buffers can help maintain cooler water temperatures in small streams if the vegetation provides adequate shade on the water surface. This can be beneficial for coldwater aquatic species and for water quality. Stream shade is comprised of topographic shade provided by nearby hills, bank shade, and vegetative shade. Streams with vegetation removed usually have undesirable summer temperature increases from 5 to 11oC. Aspect, channel morphology, and groundwater input may affect temperatures more than buffers. Key Design Considerations • Incorporate topography and bank shade in the design. • Trees and shrubs provide the most shade but unmowed or ungrazed grass buffers can provide shade on streams less than 8 feet in width. • Buffer shading effectiveness decreases as stream width increases. • Windthrow may be common in buffers retained after timber harvest and wider buffers may be necessary. • Buffers may need to be wider (150 to 1000 ft) to maintain other microclimatic factors (e.g., soil temperature, humidity). 2.12 Biodiversity 2.12 References Anbumozhi, V.; Radhakrishnan, J.; Yamaji, E. 2005. Impact of riparian buffer zones on water quality and associated management considerations. Ecological Engineering. 24: 517-523. Barton, D.R.; Taylor, W.D.; Biette, R.M. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 5: 364- 378. Beschta, R.L. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: an alternative perspective. Rangelands. 19: 25-28. Blann, K.; Nerbonne, J.F.; Vondracek, B. 2002. Relationships of riparian buffer type to water temperature in the Driftless area ecoregion of Minnesota.
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption of Conservation Buffers: Barriers and Strategies
    United States Department of Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Buffers: Barriers and Natural Strategies Resources Conservation Service Social Sciences Institute October 2002 Adoption of Conservation Buffers Front cover photo courtesy of NRCS Photo Gallery http://photogallery.nrcs.usda.gov/ Acknowledgments Supporting data for this publication includes social science research studies, reports from the Conservation Technology Information Center, and summaries of field interviews. I would especially like to thank NRCS technical specialists David Buland, Jim Cropper, David Faulkner, Aaron Hinkston, Jim Robinson, Gary Wells, and Bruce Wight for their time and expertise. Sandy Hodge, State Specialist-Public Policy, Community Development Extension Program, University of Missouri, graciously assisted me with her time and technical materials, including photos. Thanks also to Frank Clearfield, director, Social Sciences Institute, and to Peter Smith, director, NRCS Resource Economics and Social Sciences Adoption of Conservation Buf Division, for taking the time to help edit and modify this document, and Mary Mattinson, Suzi Self, and Wendy Pierce, NRCS National Cartography and Geospatial Center, for editing and preparing the document for publication. Gail Brant Sociologist Social Sciences Institute fers Adoption of Conservation Buffers Adoption of Conservation Buffers: Barriers and Strategies Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3B Contour Buffer Strips
    Chapter 3b Contour Buffer Strips Definition of contour Design considerations buffer strips Location and layout Contour buffer strips are narrow strips of permanent, herbaceous vegetative cover established across the Buffer strip width The actual width of the contour buffer strip is deter­ slope and alternated down the slope with wider mined by the purpose or purposes identified, the type cropped strips (fig. 3b–1). of vegetation to be established, and its effectiveness. Where more than one purpose is being served, the Contour buffer strips are most suitable on slopes most restrictive criteria governs. ranging from 4 to 8 percent where slope lengths are less than the critical slope length beyond which con­ Minimum widths for various purposes and types of touring loses its effectiveness. Critical slope length is vegetation are stated in the contour buffer strip prac­ determined by using the Revised Universal Soil Loss tice standard for your area. Generally, contour buffer equation (RUSLE) or other approved erosion predic­ strips are a minimum of 15 feet wide for grasses or tion technology. grass legume mixtures and 30 feet for legumes alone. Experience has shown that by increasing the mini­ The practice is not suited to long slopes where lengths mum width to 20 feet, flow velociy through the buffer exceed critical slope length by more than 1.5 times is reduced even further thus reducing the risk of unless other practices, such as terraces or diversions, erosion immediately below the buffer. are installed to intercept the flow. Contour buffer strips are more effective in trapping Width of cultivated strips Since contour buffer strips are established in conjunc­ sediment and filtering pollutants and less likely to fail tion with contour cropped strips, the spacing between in areas where storm energy intensities are low to buffer strips is determined by the purpose(s) being moderate and where 10-year erosion index (EI) values served and the criteria stated in the practice standard.
    [Show full text]
  • Buffer Strip Function and Design Ïïï
    ÒÒÒ BUFFER STRIP FUNCTION AND DESIGN ÏÏÏ An Annotated Bibliography Compiled for the Region III Forest Practices Riparian Management Committee by James D. Durst and James M. Ferguson Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division SUMMARY Natural forests adjacent to water bodies can contribute all of the ten habitat components listed in the FRPA, AS 41.17.115, which were discussed in the Introduction. The relative importance of each component to maintaining fish habitat and water quality varies with differences in the physical and other characteristics of the water body, such as stream width (or lake size), gradient, incision depth, bank characteristics, and average, seasonal, and peak flow. Research has demonstrated the importance of maintaining forested conditions along water bodies that are naturally forested. In the 1990s, this research began to be incorporated into forest practices-related laws and regulations. In Alaska, the FRPA, Tongass Timber Reform Act, and Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) revision each prescribe mandatory buffers for certain types of fish-bearing (and, in the case of TLMP, some non-fish-bearing) water bodies. Buffer widths vary, based on different water body classifications, which are in turn based on different physical stream characteristics, and the presence of anadromous fish. The TLMP standards use the classification of Paustian (1992). These buffers were designed for the relatively small stream systems found in Southeast Alaska. Murphy (1995) provides a good summary of buffer-related research conducted in Alaska, and riparian management recommendations that have been applied in Southeast Alaska. The Tongass Land Management Plan (1997) and the FRPA revisions of 1999 update Murphy’s summary of existing buffer standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Catchment Issues
    UPPER CATCHMENT ISSUES TASMANIA First edition feature — Upper Catchment Issues in the North Eastern Highlands Journal of The Community Based Risk Assessment Group of Tasmania Vol. 1 No. 1 ISSN 1444-9560 Upper Catchment Issues - Tasmania Disclaimer: Articles from any person, group or organization are accepted for publication at the discretion of the Editor, and the opinions expressed therein may not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor. Copyright: Readers of this publication are reminded that all material appearing in The Journal, including any specially composed article, is covered under the copyright laws of Australia and may not be reproduced or copied in any form or part whatsoever or used for any promotional or advertising purpose without the written consent of the Editors, author or artist. Submissions — Guide for intending authors We welcome submissions on topics concerning any aspect of upper catchment issues. Consult a current issue of the journal for style and layout of submissions. Intending authors are reminded that a very diverse audience reads the Journal and so highly technical or specialised terminology should be carefully explained. Finally, responsibility for spelling, punctuation and referencing shall remain with the author. Submissions should be addressed to: The editor, 8 Lenborough Street Beauty Point Tasmania 7270 Deadlines for Submissions Australia Desktop Publishing: January, 7 Resource Publications (ABN 66 828 584 972) 9 Lenborough Street Beauty Point, Tasmania, 7270 Phone: (03) 6383 4594 Fax: (03) 6383
    [Show full text]
  • The Massachusetts Vegetated Buffer Manual
    TThhee MMaassssaacchhuusseettttss BBuuffffeerr MMaannuuaall Using Vegetated Buffers to Protect our Lakes and Rivers Prepared by the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission For The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 2003 Massachusetts Vegetated Buffer Manual About The Massachusetts Buffer Manual In 2001 the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission was awarded a Nonpoint Source Pollution grant to conduct a demonstration and outreach project. The goal of this project was to promote the bene- fits of vegetated buffers. The three main objectives to achieve this goal were to 1) create a buffer guidance document, 2) plant five buffer demonstration sites and 3) talk about vegetated buffers to the public. This document, three of the buffers seen in Chapter 2 and several presentations made to lake groups and conservation commissioners are direct outcomes of this project. Russ Cohen of the Riverways Program was our partner and co-presenter for three of our "on the road" presentations. Many thanks, Russ. Acknowledgements To our Partners: A very special thank you goes out to our project partners, without whose contributions the Buffer Project would not have been made possible. These plant specialists, landscape professionals and nurseries have voluntarily contributed their time, expertise and materials to our demonstration projects and to this document. Their support is greatly appreciated. Robert Akroyd, landscape architect, Greylock Design Associates Rachel Fletcher and Monica Fadding, Housatonic River Walk Rick Harrington, landscaper, Good Lookin' Lawns Dorthe Hviid, horticulturist, Berkshire Botanical Garden Dennis Mareb, owner, Windy Hill Farm Christine McGrath, landscape architect, Okerstrom Lang, Ltd. Craig Okerstrom Lang, landscape architect, Okerstrom Lang, Ltd. Greg Ward, owner, Ward's Nursery and Garden Center Raina Weber, plant propagation, Project Native (an undertaking of the Railroad St.
    [Show full text]