sign in sign up
<<
Home , Forest ecology

The and Management of in World Rivers

Edited by

Stan V. Gregory

Department of Fisheriesand , Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA

Kathryn L. Boyer

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Wildlife Management Institute, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University; Corvallis, Oregon 97337, USA

Angela M. Gurnell

Department of Geography, King's College London Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK

American Fisheries Society Symposium 37

International Conference on Wood in World Rivers held at Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 23-27 October 2000

Americm Fisheries Society BethesdJ, IYlarvlanci 1003

-- -- .~.:. .~ .' ;'. ".j -: "...;-. ". >'.',;~~"~'~ '~. __7~. .~-j{~:..

~-" The American Fisheries Society Symposium series is a registered serial. Suggested citation formats follow.

Entirebook . Gregory, S. v., K. 1. Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, editors. 2003. The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland.

Chapter within the book Abbe, T. B.,A. P. Brooks, and D. R. Montgomery. 2003. Wood in river rehabilitation and man- agement. Pages 367-389 in S. V. Gregory, K. 1. Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Sympo- sium 37, Bethesda, Maryland.

@ Copyright 2003 by the American Fisheries Society

All rights reserved. Photocopying for internal or personal use, or for the internal or personal use of specific clients, is permitted by AFS provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, USA; phone 978-750-8400. Request authorization to make multiple copies for classroom use from CCc. These permissions do not extend to electronic distribution or long-term storage of articles or to copying for resale, promotion, advertising, general distribution, or creation of new collective works. For such uses, permission or license must be obtained from AFS.

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Control Number 2003112769 ISBN 1-888569-56-5 ISSN 0892-2284

American Fisheries Society website address: www.fisheries.org

American Fisheries Societv 3410 Grosvenor Lme. Suite no Bethesda. :Vlarvland 20814-2199 CSA ..r... . ;;'-"' . : ~--" .; . . '--" ~~_. ~_.,_-.: ; ; : .-

American Fisheries Society Symposium 37:407-420, 2003 @Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2003

Riparian Management for Wood in Rivers

KATHRYN L. BOYER

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wildlife Habitat Management Institute Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA

DEAN RAE BERG

\ Sivicultural Engineering, 15806 60th Avenue w., Edmonds, Washington 98026, USA

I I STAN V. GREGORY

jI I I Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA i I i Abstract.-Riparian and floodplain are vital components of landscapes. They are tran- sitional zones (ecotones) between river and upland where ecological processes i occurring in riparian areas and floodplains connect and interact with those of rivers and I streams. These forests are the major source of large wood for streams and rivers. Extensive 1I I loss of riparian and floodplain forests around the globe is evident from the dramatically : reduced supply of large wood in rivers. Clearly, it is necessary to conserve and restore ripar- ! ian forests to sustain a supply of wood for rivers. This ch,apter discusses river and land i management practices that are designed to provide a continuous source of large wood for rivers and retain wood once it has entered the channel or floodplain. These management i J practices include conservation of intact riparian and floodplain forests, restoration of eco- I logical processes necessary to sustain riparian forests in the long term, and management of \ riparian forests specifically to accelerate recruitment of large wood to rivers and streams. \ \ i Ecological Functions of rela tively small in relation to that recruited cumu- I latively along the longitudinal miles of intact ri- Riparian Fores~ parian forests from headwaters to the mainstems of large river systems (Keller and Swanson 1979; Large wood is a critical component of rivers and Sedell and Froggatt 1984; Townsend 1996; Pie gay streams of forested ecosystems throughout the et al. 1999; Piegay 2003, this volume). world. It provides structure and Native riparian forests develop and function that create and enhance habitat diversity and food in complex and cyclical ways, primarily through Sources for many riparian and aquatic disturbances such as floods, fires, pest and dis- (Benke and Wallace 2003; Bilby 2003; Dolloff and ease outbreaks, and hurricanes. These natural dis- Warren 2003; Pollock et al. 2003; Steel et al. 2003; turbances result in and succession of Wondzell and Bisson 2003; Zalewski et al. 2003; floodplain and riparian forests (Junk et al. 1989; all this volume). Large wood in rivers and streams Stromberg et al. 1993; Piegay and Bravard 1997; originates from both riparian and upland forests Scott et a1. 1997; Middleton 2002), channel avul- (Gumell 2003; S~...ranson2003; both this volume). sion and lateral migration, "pulses" of wood trans- Upland contributions of wood to streams are port and relocation, and floodplain development highly variable and generally a result of landslides (Agee 1988). Riparian and floodplain com- from adjacent hills lopes in headwaters .md steeper position, structure, and successional attributes are portions of wa tersheds (K~ller and Swanson 1979; affected both by local conditions (such .1S land Benda et al. 2003; Nakamura and Swanson 2003; management of individual parcels of land and both this volume I. The proportion of wood in small-scale regimes) ..md large-sc:lle streams and rivers from landslides historiallv is changes in dimJte and human alterLitions l)f lw- ..Wi

-- --- ..

408 BOYER ET AL.

drologic regimes, channel morphology, and land plain forests and their rivers are reciprocal for an use. Over the past 150-300 years in North numerous riparian and riverine processes and GE America, the past 1,000+ years in Europe, and functions, especially the exchange of organic mat- tre perhaps even longer in Africa and Asia, riparian ter, including large wood. Land management to forests and their important ecological functions practices that maintain these functional linkages thE have been chronically and cyclically compro- should be considered when formulating long-term Ta~ mised by human actions at multiple scales land/ river management goals. Na (Decamps et a1.1988; Tabacchi et a1. 1996; Elosegi ma and Johnson 2003; Montgomery et a1. 2003; both Geomorphological linkages of hig this volume). Throughout the world, riparian real forests have high ecological, economic, and in- riparian forests: considerations for trinsic values (such as natural beauty). These riparian management enci values subject riparian forests to controversy and cru: conflict in an increasingly populous human land- The dynamic nature of riparian forest composi- win scape of multiple jurisdictions and conflicting tion and structure reflect the complex linkages kaer points of view. among geomorphic processes acting on rivers Bent Ecological and physical linkages among ri- and adjacent floodplains (Malanson 1993; Hupp succ parian forests, rivers and their floodplains are and Osterkamp 1996; Hughes 1997). The geomor- banI critical to the processes that maintain their many phology of the channel and its floodplain will chan functions (Gregory et al. 1991; Nilsson 1991). Ri- affect rates, amounts, and spatial distribution of of th parian processes occur in three spatial dimensions wood recruitment resulting from bank erosion in w (longitudinal, lateral, and vertical) and over time and lateral channel migration. Recent studies in 2003; within a basin. The conservation, enhancement the Pacific Northwest of North America indicate were and restoration of linkages among these pro- that recruitment of wood from forest stands of year cesses-necessarily at multiple spatial and tem- mountainous streams is greater along uncon- strained stream reaches compared to constrained poral scales-is likely one of the most complex Hya land management challenges of the 21st century. reaches (Acker et a1. 2003). Valley form, as well Watershed management strategies that recognize as type and quality, also influences the fall fore~ relationships among processes acting on riparian direction of a potentially available as river man forests in space and time are now being incorpo- wood (Sobota 2003). Studies in montane streams rated into land management actions and long- of Oregon draining forests of different manage- AnnUi term planning (Gregory et al. 1998; Wissmar and ment regimes demonstrated that, during a flood, quenc Beschta 1998). Land managers and planners are floating large wood and the amount mobilized of rip, beginning to identify mechanisms that can restore (congested versus uncongested wood transport) Succe5 ecological processes of watersheds and should influenced the degree to which floods affect ri- floodp sustain a more continuous, albeit patchy, supply parian tree toppling. In addition, this water- like co oflarge wood to rivers (Oliver et a1. 1992; Beechie borne wood significantly influenced the conse- 1991; [ and Bolton 1999; Zalewski et a1.2003). Conserva- quent amount of large wood that was recruited al. 199 tion or management of uplands, rivers, streams, to the system during a flood event, with longer- hydro1, and their Hoodplains for the purposes of main- term affects likely influenced by forest manage- as well taining or restoring riparian function demands ment practices that occurred over the previous Gohnsc technical acuity and interdisciplinary cooperation decades (Johnson et a1. 2000). In essence, con- in arid exotic s in forest and riparian ecology, fisheries biology, gested wood transport was a function of recent fluvial geomorphology, hydrology, soil science, and historical land-use practices and toppled thrive u and forest stand dynamics, forest and more riparian and deposited more jams in cess of n civil engineering, resource economics, sociology, the channel after a flood. ment (E and other disciplines (Mitsch and Jorgensen 1989; The interaction of in-channel wood, flood- gimes I Berg 1995; Montgomery 1997; Zalewski et a!. borne deposits, and riparian forest development particul. 2003). is essentially a positive feedback loop for wood Species, nitv d vn Riparian forests affect, and are affected by, recruitment. [nstream wood accumulations are . .. e centurie: their streams and rivers (Junk et al. 1989; Gregory roughness elements that strongly int!uence tJ.l1 ests alon et a!. 1991; Bren 19Q3;Brookes et .11.1996; Hupp sediment and <'ravel deposition in rivers and

I

RIPARIAl'>IMANAGEMENT FOR WOOD IN RIVERS 409

and Lienkaemper 1982; Fetherston et al. 1995; Tabacchi, University of Toulouse, personal com- Gerhard and Reich 2000). Floodplain and island munication). trees that are able to withstand floods and grow to large size are future sources of large wood for Riparian forest composition and the channel. For example, in a recent study on the Tagliamento River in northeastern Italy; van del' nutrient dynamics: considerations for Nat et al. (2003) demonstrated that large wood riparian management mass in vegetated island-braided reaches was higher (100-150 t/ha) than in a bar-braided Riparian forest composition affects both spatial reaches (15-70 t/ha). and temporal dynamics of wood in streams and Seral stage of the riparian forest stand influ- rivers, including arrangement and stability of in- ences amount, type, and size of wood that is re- dividual pieces and accumulations of wood and cruited through processes of bank failure, rates. Decomposition rates oflarge , and mortality from disease (Lien- wood in streams and rivers vary widely and de- kaemper and Swanson 1987; Hedman et al. 1996; pend on tree species, piece size, wood quality and \ Benda et al. 2003). In large rivers of France, the condition, and location within the riparianl aquatic system (Harmon et al. 1986; Beechie and \ successional stage of riparian forests coupled with I bank erosion rates differ between meandering Bolton 1999; Bilby 2003). In forested regions of I channels of the Ain River and braided channels North America, conifers provide the most desir- of the Drame River, with consequent differences able structural elements in streams and rivers be- cause they are resistant to movement and decom- \ in wood input volumes (Citterio 1996; Piegay 2003): wood inputs in the Ain River study reach pose slowly (Bisson et al. 2003; Dolloff and Warren were twice that of the Drome over the same 8- 2003). Though deciduous trees generally decom- year period. pose more quickly than conifers, submerged hard- wood species in beaver ponds decompose very slowly, in several reported cases as low as 1.1% Hydrological linkages with riparian per year (Modkinson 1975). forests: considerations for riparian The contiguity of the riparian forest in a wa- management tershed and connectivity of the river with its flood- plain affect flow discharge rates, channel migra- Annual hydrological patterns, including flood fre- tion rates, exchange of nutrients between surface quency and magnitude, affect active recruitment and subsurface flows, all of which in turn affect of riparian trees to the channel and regeneration dynamics of riparian plant communities. Intrica- success of newly established seedlings on the cies of these linkages are well illustrated in nutri- floodplain, especially for Hood-dependent species ent cycling processes of temperate forests of the like cottonwood (Populus spp; Howe and Knopf northwest Pacific rim. In this region, returning 1991; Decamps 1996; Scott et al. 1997; Shafroth et anadromous salmon and steell1ead Oncorhynchus al. 1998; Stromberg 2001). Natural and altered spp. are significant nutrient sources to rivers, hydrologic regimes also affect regeneration rates streams, and adjacent riparian forests. Adult fish, as well as species composition of riparian forests both through excretion and releasing gametes in (Johnson 1992; Tabacchi et al. 1996). For example, the month or so following return to freshwater in arid watersheds of the western United States, and prior to death, contribute substantial amounts exotic species such as saltcedar Ta111arixchil1ensis of marine-derived nitrogen (approximately 30% thrive under altered How regimes that inhibit suc- of the total) to a stream (Cederholm et al. 1999). cessofnative cottonwood Populusjremontiirecruit- Spawned-out carcasses are the other main source ment (Busch and Smith 1995). Hydrological re- of returning nutrients and, under natural condi- gimes thus influence the susceptibility of a tions, are distributed ~xtensiveiy throughout the particular rivE:!rsystem to invasion by exotic plant aquatic system where salmon are able to spawn species, which, in turn, determines plant commu- (Cederholm and Peterson 1985; Michael 1995; nity dynamics for long time periods (decades and Bilby et a1. 19%; Larkin and Slaney 1997). Recent centuries!. This is very evident in the riparian for- studies in Alaska compared growth rates of trees ests along the Gdrrone Ri\'er of France. which has in riparian forests adjacent to salmon spawning a high diversity of tree species (about :200), but sites to growth rates of trees in riparian .1reas .1d- greater than 50°:, l)t these are ~xotic spE:!ciE:!s(E. jacent to streams where no spawning historicall~' :~."., ----

....

410 BOYERET AL.

occurred (Helfield and Naiman 2003). Total an- distributions of piece volume, length and orien- nual growth per unit forest area was more than tation (Van Sickle and Gregory 1990), and influ- three times higher along spawning reaches. In the ence of valley wall slope on tree fall angle (Minor same study, tree ring data indicated that trees 1997; Sobota 2003). A wood budget approach has reached large enough size to fall into and persist also been used to explore wood standing stock at in the spawning streams 200 years earlier than in the reach- (Murphy and Koski 1989) and network- nonspawning reaches. Thus marine-derived ni- scale (Benda et al. 2003). Collectively, a range of trogen from spawning salmon appears to fertil- insights into forest-stream interactions has re- ize riparian trees that eventually enter the stream sulted from wood simulation studies that would and, in turn, may enhance habitat for future gen- otherwise be difficult to obtain through field re- erations of salmon. search alone (Gregory 2003). In the Pacific Northwest of the United States, Interim- or smaller-scale approaches to im- coastal riparian forests in early seral stages fol- prove river and stream fish and to alter lowing have a large red alder Alnus rubra fluvial dynamics have focused on the intentional component. Recent studies in Washington State placement of wood in channels (Abbe et a!. 2003; demonstrated that red alder is also a significant Bisson et al. 2003; Reich et al. 2003; all this vol- source of nitrogen to streams and, thus, may be ume). These short-term approaches can expedite an important component of riparian forest nutri- improvement of degraded rivers and streams. ent cycles, particularly since its nitrogen fixation However, these approaches are likely to prove is directly involved in riparian hardwood produc- even more effective when designed to comple- tion (Volk et a!. 2003). Alder-derived nitrogen may ment long-term riparian ob- offset the lower marine-nitrogen contributions jectives that focus on recovery of a sustainable that have occurred with drastic declines in return- source of wood for rivers as a central goal. Long- ing adult salmon. term riparian forest management strategies that highlight wood recruitment as an objective in- clude (1) conservation of intact riparian and flood- Management Applications for plain forests, (2) restoration of degraded riparian Maintaining a Source of Large forests and their ecological processes and func- Wood for Rivers tions, and (3) active management that prescribes silvicultural treatments specifically for wood recruitment. The complexity of interactions among the forest and river, its physical setting, its ecological role, and disturbance history poses an intellectual chal- Conservation of intact functional lenge to natural resource scientists and land man- riparian and floodplain forests agers trying to design strategies to restore eco- logical functions, including those provided by Numerous estimates of the dramatic loss of ripar- ~., wood in rivers. Add to this inherent complexity ian and floodplain forests around the world are the mix of jurisdictional boundaries and socioeco- alarming in their implications for nomic concerns of multiple landowners within a and aquatic habitats (Welcomme 1979; Tabacchi watershed, and the land management challenge et al. 1990; NRC 1992, 2002a, 2002b; Malanson becomes even more daunting. Wood budgets and 1993). Because of the rapid loss of functional wet- models are effective tools in light of this complex- lands and riparian areas around the world, the ity (Benda et a!. 2003; Gregory 2003; this volume). scientific is calling for aggressive pro- Several wood models have been linked to forest tection of these limited resources. Conservation models and used to explore the long-term conse- of intact riparian areas may prove to be the most quences of various riparian management regimes cost-effective management approach for initial . on wood dynamics in streams (Prognosis, restoration of ecological functions to watersheds, Rainville et a!. 1985; ORGANON, Berg 1995; FVS, including delivery of wood to channels (Frissell Bragg et al. 2000; RAIS, Welty et al. 2002; Meleason and Nawa 1992; Naiman et al. 1992; Gregory et al., in press) and the fate l)f carbon from ripar- 1997). For example, conservation of soil and soil ian forests (Malanson and Kupfer 1993). Other quality on managed riparian areas can be acc~lIl- wood models have been linked to forest stand data plished indirectlv with sound land use practlces to explore wood recruitment -:haracteristics. such that protect ripa~ian and woody vegetatio~, as source distance (McDade et a1.1990\, rrequenc\' such as fencing to exclude livestock from sel151- RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT FOR WOOD IN RIVERS 411 tive riparian areas. On private lands, incentive old-growth forests per se. In most scenarios " programs that compensate landowners for the around the world, restoring riparian forest to la te- purchase of conservation easements or provide tax successional seral stages may not be feasible be- incentives for riparian conservation are promis- cause managers must work within shorter time ing approaches to protect intact riparian and frames, infrastructure constraints, and political floodplain forests as a source for large wood in and economic mandates. In some cases, mimick- streams and rivers. However, determining the ing or restoring natural flow regimes are promis- appropriate value of these lands is not without ing approaches for riparian restoration (Hughes controversy in market-based economies where 1997; Molles et al. 1998; NRC 2002b). Reconnect- ecological goods and services are not customar- ing floodplains and rivers with connected ripar- ily considered in real estate appraisals (Daily et ian forest patches of various structure and widths a1. 1997). also deserves consideration (Gore and Bryant 1988; Wissmar and Beschta 1998; Ward et al. 1999; Restoration of degraded riparian and Mutz 2000). This approach has potential for re- storing large-scale ecological functions to river floodplain forests systems as a whole. Planning and implementing restoration actions as controlled experiments, col- Management actions that restore long-term dy- lecting baseline data, and comparing results to rel- namics of riparian forests should eventually pro- vide a renewable source of wood for rivers. Res- evant reference sites encourages evaluation and learning about the effectiveness of these innova- toration of ecological functiQns may take decades, tive approaches and their efficacy for long-term and in some cases centuries, of concerted man- adaptive watershed management (Berg et a1.1998; agement focus to achieve recovery of riparian for- Zalewski et a1. 2003). ests and complex river and stream habitats. This requires patience and perseverance by the people and governments that pay for and implement res- Riparian forest management: toration of impaired ecosystems. In the United silvicultura,l treatments States, federal programs such as those of the Farm Bill provide funding for landowners interested in Stochastic natural disturbances, such as floods, improving fish and wildlife habitat, water qual- windstorms, fires, landslides, and flood-induced ity, and soil erosion, all of which can influence bank erosion, can be expected to deliver most of riparian conditions on private lands. However, the potential large wood to rivers and streams, inadequately trained program managers respon- but may be ineffective in reaching supplementa- sible for developing incentive program objectives tion goals for today's wood-deprived rivers. may not address the ecological complexity of Therefore, a key component of any ambitious river-riparian systems and underestimate the time watershed restoration strategy should be ripar- required to restore desired ecological functions. ian silviculture. Silvicultural designs that consider For example, the United State Department of principles of stream ecology and forest stand dy- Agriculture's (USDA) Conservation Reserve En- namics when developing management prescrip- hancement Program provides incentive payments tions can accelerate riparian forest succession and to agricultural landowners in more than 27 states wood recruitment. In the Pacific Northwest, goals to limit agricultural production in converted ri- for stand structure are based on reference condi- parian areas and replant them with native ripar- tions of the few remaining old-growth stands, as ian species. However, out of the 1.4 million acres well as habitat needs of aquatic species (such as available for riparian improvement as of 2002, less complex structure and water quality), especially than 14% have as their primary objective improv- fish and amphibians. Appropriate riparian forest ing riparian areas as a source of large wood for silvicultural approaches must consider the inter- aquatic habitat (USDA, unpublished dMa). In ad- actions of aquatic and terrestrial pro- dition, many of the agreements made between cesses (Gregory et a1. 1991) coupled with life his- USDA and the landowner require only .1IS-year tory requirements for a variety of salmon dnd contr<1ctperiod. Lunger-term (30-50 years) leases other aquatic species that live in adjacent streams are needed to restore ecological functions to ri- and rivers. The declines of economicallv and cul- parian areas. such .1Swood recruitment to adja- turally important salmon have led to numerous cent waters. studies to determine important freshwater habi- Riparian forest restoratiun goals need not be tat dements. including the size .md .1mounts l){ ---

412 BOYER ET AL.

instream large wood (Bryant 1983; Bilby and tions under different stocking levels can be esti- Bisson 1991; Bjornn and Reiser 1991; Bisson et mated using these methods. al. 1992; Fausch and Northcote 1992). Scientists and land managers have applied these studies SITE PREI'.'\RATION AND EARLY STAND MAINTENANCE.-Ri- to determine appropriate wood loading stan- parian forests may be difficult to re-establish in dards for maintaining complex salmon and trout areas where trees have not existed for long peri- habitats, especially on federal lands. As de- ods of time, as in lowland agricultural areas. Of- scribed in previous sections, wood dynamics are ten, disturbed sites are prone to invasion by ex- complex, and thus, prescribing uniform stan- otic weeds and shrubs, especially immediately dards makes less sense than establishing a range following discontinued use of herbicides and pes- of desired conditions tailored to the local area. It ticides for crop production. Early, intensive site is possible to determine the size and amount of preparation is one key to suppressing weed com- wood a riparian forest is expected to provide for petition. Nonnative plants (weeds) will likely specific reaches of stream and river habitat and sprout and grow among planted stock regardless ,. then determine if this amount lies within a range of soil condition. Generally, this is a temporary considered acceptable by aquatic habitat special- nuisance because these species are often shade ists. Tree growth models (for example, Wykoff intolerant and do not survive once sapling cano- et al. 1982) have been developed that link site- pies begin to close (usually within 2-5 years). ,t'" specific stream wood objectives to the size and Some more aggressive exotic species, such as Hi- density of potential large wood in the riparian malayan blackberry, will competitively exclude forest. Silvicultural systems can be designed to desired riparian shrub species for decades and focus on wood recruitment to streams and riv- should be controlled early on. ers and incorporate forest growth models for Native riparian understory species also pro- stand projection, site preparation and mainte- vide important ecological functions of riparian nance regimes, planting density and stand de- communities, including structural diversity, food velopment plans, prescriptions, and ~ources, microclimate, nutrient cycling, and habi- monitoring protocols. Each of these aspects is tat for riparian species that may influence recip- described below: rocal habitat subsidies between riparian areas and streams (Hilderbrand et al. 1999; Steel et al. s a STAND PROfECTIONS OF RIP.~RIANFOREsTs.-The USDA 2003). These understory plant species should also d Forest Service Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS, be considered when designing silvicultural sys- .. Wykoff et al. 1982) is an example of a public-do- tems for the re-supply of large wood to streams h main growth and yield model that can be used to and rivers. u compare growth of various stands once they are I' established under a silvicultural system. In addi- PLANTING DENSITY AND STAND DEVELOPMENT.-Initial w tion to modeling growth of multispecies stands, planting density significantly affects forest stand se FVS can also predict yields in stands of mixed development. High-density have th composition (for example, 50% hardwood and smaller trees compared to low-density plantations 50% conifer species). While there are numerous pI over similar periods of growth. Under high-den- m other public-domain models (for example, DF- sity scenarios, larger numbers of stems become nl SIM, Curtis et al. 1981; TASS, Mitchell and available for use in stream habitat improvement rie Cameron 1985; ORGANON, Hester et al. 1989), projects. Actively selecting trees to be thinned, Ps, FVS has many versions adaptable to most regions based on the current size or species, can uptimize of North America. pli. growth.l\tlixed stock plantations have advantages. sta While most simulation models are easily ac- Diseases associated with mono-cultures are mini- me cessible, several other methods can estimate ri- mized because pathogen migration is interrupted aU1 parian forest stand structure through time. Em- by plants of different genera, which ,1re resistant tra. to each other's diseases. pirical yield tables (McArdle et al. 1949; Minore of I 1983; Nystrom et a1. 1984) predict the growth of a eqt particular species at specific sites. Density man- PUNTiNGPATTERN.-Oncethe stand is established fine agement diagrams (DMD) show the relationship and undesirable species are controlled, silvicu1- tivE between stocking and various growth parameters tural svstems can be modified to create desired sire ut ,1species (tor example. Hibbs 1987;Smith 1987; ecological structure and function (Berg d a1.19Q8). ties L'Jn~ et ,11.1988). Length of time to desired condi- ;\!umerous species ,1l1d spatial patterns .He pas- ~

RIPARIAN !>L-\NAGEMENT FOR WOOD IN RIVERS 413 sible (Franklin et al. 1996). Two important func- year 100 (earlier on the smaller streams), enough tions should be considered when establishing ri- wood could be recruited to the stream to meet the parian forests: (1) adequate trees of the proper size desired outcomes. Other stocking levels produce and species should be grown to supply streams larger diameter trees but at lower overall density, or rivers with sufficient volumes of wood, and (2) limiting the available large wood for recruitment ,- stands should be managed to maintain adequate to streams and rivers. 111eformer might be neces- shade to moderate stream temperatures. sary where streams are devoid of large wood, Competition between planted trees and in- while the latter may be useful on streams with vasive, exotic vegetation can be reduced by me- desired amounts of large wood, and regenerating chanically controlling weeds as frequently as standing stock in the riparian forest would be possible. Conventional herbicides are an alter- available as a long-term source of wood for the native to mechanical removal, but their use near channel. streams may contaminate surface waters or harm Thinning can be done in patches or applied organisms. uniformly across a forest stand (Franklin et al. 1996). Various patterns of thinning can affect the THINNING IMPACTS ON STAND DEVELOPMENT.- Thinning type and amount of nahual regeneration of ripar- riparian forest trees can accelerate the time re- ian forest. For example, openings of one-quarter quired to reach desired stand conditions by con- to one-half acre have been found to provide suffi- centrating growth on fewer stems (Daniel et al. cient growing space for Douglas-fir regeneration 1979; Curtis et a1. 1997; Beach and Halpern 2001; (Isaac 1943;Curtis et al. 1997).]3ecause of the prox- Zeide 2001). Competition for nutrients and sun- imity to edges in many riparian stands (stream- light among plants is well understood and has side and fieldside), light availability may be been applied to forest stands (Beach and Halpern greater than in forest interiors, resulting in greater 2001). As forest stands mature, competition for natural regeneration. limited light and nutrients increases. Thinning less desirable species-is intended to establish or accel- MONITORINGMonitoring managed riparian for- erate development of species of greater economic ests provides a framework for systematic and and/ or ecological value, such as providing large, quantitative measurements of change over time. slowly decomposing wood for rivers. Rainville Monitoring silvicultural systems that are designed and others (1985) suggest that thinning, if not and implemented specifically as a source for wood done properly, will reduce the amount of large in rivers can generate timely information about wood available for recruitment. While thinning the progress of riparian forest development and has potential benefits, these methods are largely the effectiveness of silviculhual treatments to meet untested in riparian ecological applications (Berg wood recruitment goals. Through monitoring, 1995, 1997;Beechie et a1.2000). Forest managers problems can be identified and silvicultural prac- who invest time and resources must recognize tices can be modified to better achieve goals and some level of risk, such as tree loss, because of objectives of the landowner (Berg 1997). the physically active and dynamic nature of flood- Vegetation monitoring generally includes es- plains and riparian areas. Simulations from FVS timating seedling survival and density, measur- models predict that thinning produces larger ing annual growth rates, estimating cover and/ numbers of trees that meet the desired size crite- or production, and quantifying species ria within the given time for both Douglas-fir diversity. Performance standards for vegetation Pseudotsuga me11zesiiand western red cedar Tlzuja are based on the initial planting density, which is plicata (Table 1). 1110ugh average diameters of two site-specific, and a functiun of the managed stem stands may be comparable, small trees are far density. High survival is desired because high more numerous in an un-thinned stand (Berg, density will block invasive exotic plants and pro- author's unpublished data). Thinning concen- vide the broadest possible selection for thinning. trates growth in fewer individuals so that the sizes Data collected when monitoring a stand can be ..~. of trees are larger thuugh density is lower. This used to develop contingency plans for corrective equates to a potentially higher value from both measures to take in the event that performance financial and ~cologiGl1 standpoints. If the ubjec- standards dre not met. tive is to maximize the number uf trees uf J de- ,\.tloniturin~ channel conditions to assess sired size. stands could be planted at high densi- wood loading :1l1dhabitat changes provides a IVay ties along ..111streams lip to 20 m wide. since b:' to e\"aluate effectiveness ()f forest mana!2;ement 414 BOYERET AL.

TABLE1. FVSmodeledstandsfor Douglas-firand westernredcedar,demonstratingthe effectof thinningon tree diameter (DBH) and height. Stand initiation conditions for these silvicultural systems were 4,064 total stems per hectare (SPH);thinning was from below (removing the smallest stems first) and removed 50% of the stems at each entry. Douglas-fir Western redcedar Mean Mean tree Mean Mean tree Stand DBH height DBH height Total treatment (em) (m) SPH (cm) (m) SPH SPH 50 years No thin 29.4 26 540 29.4 26 529 1069 Thin twice 35.6 28 716 35.4 28 54 303 at age 20 and 40 Thin once 33.9 28 635 33.8 28 214 849 at age 25

100 years No thin 51.6 39 179 51.6 39 175 354 Thin twice 56.0 41 287 56.0 41 20 307 at age 20 and 40 Thin once 55.7 41 235 55.7 41 76 312 at age 25

and the rate at which aquatic habitat is improv- dation of the proposed or implemented silvicul- ing as a result of riparian silvicultural practices. tural system. Where target numbers of large wood pieces have A multifunctional silvicultural plan de- been achieved by placing logs from the adjacent signed to improve riparian forest conditions for stand after a thinning or from off-site sources, pe- long-term recruitment of wood to rivers should riodic monitoring (annually for 5-10 years) is nec- be designed to evaluate the effectiveness of dif- essary to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of ferent riparian management strategies in meet- the project. This includes surveys to determine if ing ecological objectives. A network of well-docu- large wood remains within the project reach or if mented and monitored riparian silvicultural replacement from upstream or the riparian forest systems then becomes a robust set of treatments has kept the reach in desired condition. Amounts to test various prescriptions and ecological re- of wood can change if the export of wood exceeds sponses in the watershed. Riparian forest man- the import or if the wood traps other pieces that agement does come at some price. The costs of have moved from upstream. If large wood is ex- tending the stand may not be recovered from ported faster than it is delivered from the adjacent harvest revenue and are thus an un rewarded riparian area or from upstream, wood supplements investment in ecological services for the benefit may need to be added. This additional wood of fish, water quality, and riparian forests. If de- should only come from the adjacent riparian for- signed, implemented, and monitored carefully, est if monitoring data suggest that trees of suffi- these systems can also senre as demonstration cient size exist in adequate numbers to sustain a sites of successful forestry applications for agen-. long-term source of wood into the future. des or landowners seeking to justify the costs of In addition, characteristics of the riparian for- providing ecological services to society. est (density of trees, average and maximum sizes, crown structure, rate of growth and regeneration. Conclusion understory vegetation. and overall community structure) should be monitored to guide ongoing Riparian forest management applications pre- riparian mana~ement. These attributes of ripar- ian forests are related to the effectiveness and \'ali- sented here inte\!;r<1tewhat we know about ripar- ian processes with specific techniques to restore . . ..', - ~:'~;~~;~~~"'"-r_~~ "..i ::~_ ~ ;; ___

RIPARiAI'I MANAGEMENT FOR WOOD IN RIVERS 415 or improve riparian functions. They are based on Agee, J. K. 1988. Successional dynamics in forest ri- current knowledge of natural ecosystem functions parian zones. Pages 31-43 in K. J. Raedeke, edi- and practical considerations (Berg 1995; Gregory tor. Streamside management: forestry and fish- 1997; Bilby and Bisson 1998; Naiman et al. 1999). ery interactions. Institute of Forest Resources, ... University of Washington, Seattle. Hypotheses about riparian forest improvement Beach, E. W., and C. B. Halpern. 2001. Controls on and subsequent wood recruitment to rivers can conifer regeneration in managed riparian for- be tested using an experimental, science-based ests: effects of seed source, substrate, and veg- approach with cooperation from stakeholders etation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research who are applying innovative techniques on their 31:471-482. land (Franklin 1997; Hulse et al. 2002). Concur- Beechie, T., and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to re- rently, managers and stakeholders must acknowl- storing salmonid habitat-forming processes in edge the dynamic nature of riparian and flood- Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 24(4):6- 15. plain forests and the amount of time required to ~, restore ecological functions in a constantly chang- Beechie, T., G. Pess, P. Kennard, R. E. Bilby, and S. ing landscape. The spatial significance of the ef- Bolton. 2000.Modeling recovery rates and path- ways for woody debris recruitment in North- fects of riparian forests on river landscapes and western Washington streams. North American the globally significant conditions that are likely Journal Fisheries Management 20:436-452. to impact their conservation must also be recog- Benda, L., D. Nliller, J. Sias, D. Martin, R. Bilby, C. nized. Climate and land-use changes coupled with Veldhuisen, and T. Dunne. 2003.Pages 49-73 in their impacts on hydrological regimes have clear S. V. Gregory, K. L. Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, consequences on the quality, quantity, and dynam- editors. The ecology and management of wood ics of wood in rivers. Restoring function to altered in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, landscapes may be daunting, and a return to what Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland. Benke, A. c., and J. B. Wallace. 2003. Influence of we think of as historical presettlement conditions wood on invertebrate communities in streams is not feasible. Restoring even a fraction of a man- and river~. Pages 149-177 in S. V.Gregory, K. L. aged riparian landscape is warranted if, in doing Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology so, key processes important for clean water, fish and management of wood in world rivers. and wildlife habitat, and intrinsic values are sus- American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, tained for future generations.. Bethesda, Maryland. Berg, D. R. 1995. Riparian silvicultural system de- sign and assessment in the Pacific Northwest Acknowledgments Cascade Mountains. Ecological Applications 5:87-96. We are grateful to the following colleagues for Berg, D. R. 1997.Active management ofriparian habi- technical assistance with this chapter: Mark tats. Pages 50-61 in K. B. McDonald and F. Meleason assisted with wood modeling text and Weinmann, editors. Wetland and riparian res- content. Art Mckee, Mike Maki, and Dan Sobota toration: taking a broader view. US EPA, Region provided timely and thorough editorial review 10, Publication EPA 910-R-97-007, Seattle. and suggestions for improvement. Berg, D. R., P. Stevenson, and S. Hashisaki. 1998. Ri- parian silvicultural trials in Washington State. Pages 23-25 inEcosystem restoration: turning the .. References tide; proceedings 1998Society of Ecological Res- , ';; toration Northwest Chapter Symposium. Soci- Abbe, T. A., A. P. Brooks, and D. R. Montgomery. ety of Ecological Restoration and University of 2003. Wood in river rehabilitation and manage- Washington Center for Streamside Studies. ment. Pages 367-389 inS.V.Gregory, K. L. Boyer, Bilby,R E., and P.A. Bisson. 1991. Enhancing fisher- and A. M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology and ies resources through active management of ri- management of wood in world rivers. Ameri- parian areas. Pages 201-209 in B. White and 1. can Fisheries Society,Symposium 37, Bethesda, Guthrie, editors. Proceedings of the 15th North- Maryland. east Pacific Pink and Chum Salmon Workshop. Acker. S. A., S. V.Gregon', G. Lienkaemper. W. A. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver. McKee. F. J. Swanson, .md S. D. ~Iiller. 2003. Bilby,R. E., B. R. Fransen, ,md P. A. Bisson. 1996. [n- Composition. <:ompJexitv..md tree mortality in corporation ofnitrogen and carbon irom spawn- riparian torests in the central Western C..JscJdes ing coho salmon into the trophic system of small ot Oregon. Forest Ecology .md ~[anagement streams: e\'idence trom stable isotopes. Cma- 173:293-308. dian [ournal ut Fisheries and A.quatic Sciences 33:164-173. --

416 BOYER ET AL.

Bilby,R. E., and P.A. Bisson. 1998.Function and dis- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci- tribution of . Pages 324-346 ences 42:1222-1225. in R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby, editors. River Cederholm, C. J., M. D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. ecology and management lessons from the Pa- Sibatani. 1999. Pacific salmon carcasses: essen- cific coastal ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New tial contributions of nutrients and energy for York. aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries Bilby,R. E.2003. Decomposition and nutrient dynam- 24(10):6-15. ics of wood in streams and rivers. Pages 135- Citterio, A. 1996. Dynamique de depots et de prise 147 in S. V. Gregory, K. 1. Boyer, and A. M. en charge du bois mort sur deux hydrosystemes Gurnell, editors. The ecology and management l'AIDet la Drome (The dynamics of deposition of wood in world rivers. American Fisheries and mobilisation of dead wood in two hydro- Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland. systems: the River Ain and the River Drome). Bisson, P. A., T. P. Quinn, G. H. Reeves, and S. V. Master's Thesis. Universite Lyon, Lyon, France. Gregory. 1992. Best management practices, cu- Curtis, R. 0., G. W. Clendenen, and D. J. DeMars. mulative effects, long-term trends in fish abun- 1981. A new stand simulator for coastal Dou- dance in Pacific Northwest river systems. Pages glas-fir: DFSIM users guide. USFSPacific North- /-;," 189-232 in R.J. Naiman, editor. Watershed man- west Forest and Range Experiment Station, Gen- agement: balancing sustainability and environ- eral Technical Report PNW-128, Portland, mental change. Springer-Verlag, New York. Oregon. Bisson, P. A., G. H. Reeves, and S. V. Gregory. 2003. Curtis, R. 0., D. D. Marshall, and J. F. Bell. 1997. Trends in using wood to restore aquatic habi- LOGS: A pioneering example of silvicultural tats and fish communities in western North research in coast Douglas-fir. Joumal of Forestry American rivers. Pages 391-406 in S.V.Gregory, 95:19-25. K. 1. Boyer,and A. M. Gurnell, editors. The ecol- Daily, G. c., S. Alexander, P. R. Ehrlich, 1. Goulder, ogy and management of wood in world rivers. J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, H. A. Mooney, S. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Postel, S. H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G. M. Bethesda, Maryland. Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits Bjomn, T.c., and D. W. Reiser. 1991.Habitat require- > supplied to human societies by natural ecosys- ments of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-138 in tems. Issues in Ecology 2:1-16. W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and Daniel, T.w., J. A. Helms, and F. S.Baker. 1979. Prin- rangeland management on salmonid fishes and ciples of silviculture. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Spe- New York. cial Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland. Decamps, H., M. Fortune, F.Gazelle, and G. Pautou. Bragg, D. c., J. 1. Kershner, and D. W. Roberts. 2000. 1988. Historic influence of man on the riparian Modeling large woody debris recruitment for dynamics of a fluvial landscape. Landscape small streams of the Central Rocky Mountains. Ecology 1:163-173. United States Department of Agriculture For- Decamps, H. 1996. The renewal of floodplain for- est Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station ests along rivers: a landscape perspective. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-55, Fort Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung fUr Collins, Colorado. Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie Bren, 1. J. 1993. Riparian zone, stream, and flood- 26:35-59. plain issues: a review. Journal of Hydrology Dolloff, C. A., and M. 1. Warren, Jr. 2003. Fish rela- 150:277-299. tionships with large wood in small streams. Brookes, A., J. Baker, and C. Redmond. 1996. Flood- Pages 179-193 in S. V.Gregory, K. 1. Boyer, and ,;. - plain restoration and riparian zone manage- A. M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology and man- ment. Pages 201-228 in A. Brookes and J. F. agement of wood in world rivers. American Shields, editors. River channel restoration: guid- Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, ing principles for sustainable projects. Wiley, Maryland. Chicester, UK. Elosegi,A., and 1. B.Johnson. 2003. Wood in streams Bryant, M. D. 1983. The role and management of and rivers in developed landscapes. Pages 337-- woody debris in West Coast salmonid nursery 353 ill S. V. Gregory, K. 1. Boyer, and A. M. streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Gurnell, editors. The ecology and management Management 3:322-330. of wood in world rivers. Americm Fisheries Busch. D. E., ,md S. D. Smith. 1995. Mechanisms as- Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland. sociated with decline of woody species in ripar- rausch, K. D., ,1l1dT. G. Northcote. 19Y2. L.1Cge ian ecosvstems of the southwestern u.s. Eco- woody debris .1l1dsalmonid habitat in .1small logical Ylonographs ti5:3-17-370. coast';l British C)lumbia stream. Cmadian Jour- Cederholm. C. r.,

RIPARIAN iVIANAGEMEi'iT FOR WOOD IN RIVERS 417

Large woody debris, physical process. and ri- Lienkaemper, K. Cromack, Jr., and K. W. parian forest succession in montane river net- Cummins. 1986. The ecology of coarse woody works of the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphol- debris in temperate ecosystems. Pages 133-302 ogy 13:133-144. in A. MacFadyen and E. D. Ford, editors. Ad- Franklin. J. E, D. R. Berg, D. A. Thornburgh, and J. vances in ecological research. Volume 15. Aca- e. Tappener. 1996.Alternative silvicultural ap- demic Press, New York. proaches to timber harvesting: variable reten- Hedman, e. w., D. H. Van Lear, and W. T. Swank. tion harvest systems. Pages 111-130 in K. A. 1996.In-stream large woody debris loading and Kohm and J.E Franklin., editors. Creating a for- riparian forest seral stage associations in south- estry for the 21st century: the science of ecosys- ern Appalachian Mountains. Canadian Journal tem management. Island Press, Washington, of Forestry Research 26:1218-1227. D.e. Helfield, J. M., and R. J. Naiman. 2003. Effects of Franklin, J. F.1997.Ecosystem management: an over- salmon-derived nitrogen on riparian forest view. Pages 21-53 in A. W. Haney and Mark S. growth and implications for stream productiv- Boyce, editors. Ecosystem management: appli- ity. Ecology 82:2403-2409. cations for sustainable forest and wildlife re- Hester, A. S., D. W. Hann, and D. R. Larson. 1989. sources. Yale University Press, New Haven, Organon: southwest Oregon growth and yield Connecticut. model user manual, version 2.0. Forest Research Frissell, e. A., and R. K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence and Lab, College of Forestry, Oregon State Univer- causes of physical failure of artificial habitat sity, Corvallis. structures in streams of western Oregon and Hibbs, D. E. 1987. The self-thinning rule and red al- Washington. North American Journal of Fish- der management. Forest Ecology and Manage- eries Management 12:182-197. ment 18:273-281. Gerhard, M., and M. Reich. 2000. Restoration of Hilderbrand, G. V.,T.A. Hanley, e. T.Robbins, and streams with large wood: effects of accumulated e. e. Schwartz. 1999.Role ofbrown bears (Ursus and built-in wood on channel morphology, habi- arctos)in the flow of marine nitrogen into a ter- tat diversity and aquatic . International restrial ecosystem. Oecologia 121:546-550. Review of Hydrobiology 85:123-137. Hodkinson, 1.D. 1975. Dry weight loss and chemi- Gore, J. A., and F. L. Bryant. 1988. River and stream cal changes in ,;ascular plant litter of terrestrial restoration. Pages 23-38 in Rehabilitating dam- origin, occurring in a beaver pond ecosystem. aged ecosystems.CRCPress Inc., BocaRaton, Journal of Ecology 63:131-142. Florida. Howe, W. H., and F. L. Knopf. 1991. On the immi- Gregory, S. V.,F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee. and K. W. nent decline of the Rio Grande cottonwoods in Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of central New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist riparian zones: focus on links between land and 36:218-224. water. Bioscience 41:540-551. Huggenberger, P., E. Hoehn, R. Beschta, and W. Gregory, S. V.1997. Riparian management in the 21st Woessner. 1998.Abiotic aspects of channels and century. Pages 69-85 in K. A. Kohm and J. E floodplains in riparian ecology. Freshwater Bi- Franklin, editors. Creating a forestry for the 21st ology 40:407-425. century. Island Press, Washington, D.e. Hughes, F. M. R. 1997. Floodplain biogeomorph- Gregory, S. V., D. W. Hulse, D. H. Landers, and E. ology. Progress in Physical Geography 21:501- Whitelaw. 1998. Integration of biophysical and 529. socioeconomic patterns in riparian restoration Hulse, D., S. Gregory, and J. Baker. 2002.Willamette of large rivers. Pages 231-247 in H. Wheater and River basin planning atlas: trajectories of envi- e. Kirby, editors. Hydrology in a changing en- ronmental and ecological change. Oregon State vironment. Wiley, Exeter, UK. University Press, Corvallis. Gregory, S. V.2003. Modeling the dynamics of wood Hupp, e. R., and W. R. Osterkamp. 1996. Riparian in streams and rivers. Pages 315-335 inS. V.Gre- vegetation and fluvial geomorphic processes. gory, K. L. Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell. editors. Geomorphology 14:277-295. The ecology and management of wood in world Isaac, L. A. 1943.Reproductive habits of Douglas-fir. rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium e. L.Pack Forestry Foundation, Washington D.e. 37, Betl1t~sda,iviarvland. Johnson, W. e. 1992.Dams and riparian forests: case Gurnell, A. M. 2003. Wood storage and mobility. study from the upper Missouri River. Rivers Pages 75-91 ill S. V.Gregory, K. L. Boyer. .md A. 3:229-242. M. Gurnell. editors. The ecology and manage- Johnson. S. L.. F.J. Swanson. G. E. Grant. and S. M. ment of wood in IVorld rivers. American Fish- Wondzell. 2000.Riparian forest disturbances by eries Society. Symposium 37. Bethesda. Mary- ol mountain flood-the influence of floated land. wood. Hvdrological Processes 14:3031-3050. Harmon 1-1.E..J. F.Franklin. F.J. Swanson. P.SlJllins. Junk. W. r.. P'-B.Bayl~y..md R. E. Sparks. lQ!3Y.The S. P. Cline. ~. G. .-\umen. J. R. SedelL G. \V. flood pulse concept in nver-floodplain systems.

, " .~'.i'

\-,.:...

;ii~~~!I~~~i{i~~j.i;*;~,~~~1;1;~~,c;"~;;.r~~1i~~3!~~lt0tr~i;Ai'J;s~:i~;;~~fir;~~~~~,'~,'-:.'..~~-~""~"...:'.:;.. 418 BOYER ET AL.

Canadian Special Publications in Fisheries and Montgomery, D. R 1997.What's best on the banks? Aquatic Sciences 106:110-127. Nature 388:328-329. Keller, E. A., and F.J. Swanson. 1979. Effects of large Montgomery, D. R, B. D. Collins, J. M. Buffington, organic material on channel form and fluvial and T. B. Abbe. 2003. Pages 21-47 in S. V. Gre- processes. Earth Surface Processes 4:361-380. gory, K. L. Boyer, and A M. Gumell, editors. Larkin, G. A, and P.A. Slaney. 1997. Implications of The ecology and management ofwood in world trends in marine-derived nutrient influx to rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium south coastal British Columbia saImonid pro- 37, Bethesda, Maryland. duction. Fisheries 22(11):16-24. Murphy, M. L., and K. V. Koski. 1989. Input and Lienkaemper, G. W.,and F.J. Swanson. 1987.Dynam- depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams ics of large woody debris in streams in old- and implications for streamside management. growth Douglas-fir forests. Canadian Journal of North American Journal of Fisheries Manage- Forest Research 17:150-156. ment 9:427-436. Long, J. N., J. B. McCarter, and S. B. Jack. 1988. A Mutz, M. 2000. Influences of woody debris on flow modified density management diagram for patterns and channel morphology in a low-en- coastal Douglas-fir. Western Journal Applied ergy, sand-bed stream reach. International Re- Forestry 3(3):88-89. view of Hydrobiology 85:107-121. Malanson, G. P. 1993. Riparian landscapes. Cam- Naiman, R. J., T.J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Berg, bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. P.A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M. D. O'Conner, Malanson, G. P., and J. A Kupfer. 1993. Simulated P. L. Olsen, and E. A Steele. 1992. Fundamen- fate of leaf litter and woody debris at a riparian tals of ecologically healthy watersheds in the cutbank. Canadian Journal of Forest Research Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. Pages 23:582-590. 127-188 in R. J. Naiman, editor. Watershed Meleason, M. A., S. V. Gregory, and J. P. Bolte. In management: balancing sustainability and en- press. Implications of riparian management vironmental change. Springer-Verlag. New strategies on wood in streams of the Pacific York. Northwest. Ecological Applications. Naiman, R. J., S. R. Elliott, J. M. Helfield, and T. C. McArdle, R. E., W. H. Meyer, and D. Bruce. 1949. O'Keefe. 1999. Biophysical interactions and the Yield of Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest, structure and dynamics of riverine ecosystems: Revised. USDA Technical Bulletin 201,Washing- the importance of biotic feedbacks. Hydro- ton, D.C. biologia 410:79-86. McDade, M. H., F. J. Swanson, W. A McKee, J. F. Nakamura, E, and E J. Swanson.2003.Dynamicsof Franklin, and J. V.Sickle. 1990.Source distances wood in rivers in the context of ecological dis- for entering small streams turbance. Pages 279-297 in S. V. Gregory, K. L. in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology Journal of Forest Research 20:326-330. and management of wood in world rivers. Michael, J. H. 1995. Enhancement effects of spawn- American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, ing pink salmon on stream rearing juvenile coho Bethesda, Maryland. S salmon: managing one resource to benefit an- Nilsson, C. 1991. Conservation management of ri- other. Northwest Science 69(3):228-233. parian communities. Pages 352-372 in L. Middleton, B. 2002. Flood pulsing in wetlands: re- Hansson, editor. Ecological principles of nature storing the natural hydrological balance. Wiley, conservation. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam. New York. NRC (National Research Council). 1992.Restoration Minor, K. P. 1997. Estimating large woody debris re- of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and cruitment from adjacent riparian areas. Master's public policy. National Academy Press, Wash- S( thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. ington, D.C. . Minore, D. 1983. Western redcedar: a literature re- NRC (National Research Council). 2002a. The Mis- view. USDA USFS General Technical Report souri River ecosystem: exploring the prospects PNW-150, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range for recovery. National Academy Press, Washing- 51- Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. ton, D.C. Mitchell, K. J., and 1. R Cameron. 1985. Managed NRC (National Research Council). 2002b. Riparian stand yield table for coastal Douglas-fir: iititial areas: functions and strategies for management. density and precommercial thinning. Ministry National Academv Press, Washington, D.C. of Forests, Victoria, Be. Nvstrom. M. N., D. S. DeBelLand C. D. Oliver. 1984. Mitsch. W. J., and S. E. Jorgensen. 1989. Ecological - Development of voung growth Western re~c~ ~ngineering. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Liar stands. USFS Research paper. PNW J2 . Molles, M. C. Jr" C. S. Crawford. L. M. Ellis. H. M. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range ExperiII1ent Sot Vallett. ,md C. N. Dahm. 1998. Managed flood- Station, Portland. Oregon. L ing for riparian ~cosystem restoration. BioSci- Oliver. C. D.. D. R. Berg, D. R. L.u~en. "md K. I . ence -1,8:7-1,9-7'56. O'Hara. l~tl~. Lntegr~tin~ management toOs, RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT FOR WOOD IN RIVERS 419

ecological knowledge, and silviculture. Pages Steel, E. A., W. H. Richards, and K. A. Kelsey. 2003. 361-382 in R.J. Naiman, editor. Watershed man- Wood and wildlife: benefits of river wood to ter- agement: balancing sustainability and environ- restrial and aquatic vertebrates. Pages 235-247 mental change. Springer-Verlag, New York. in S. V.Gregory, K. L. Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, Piegay, H., and J.-P. Bravard. 1997. Response of a editors. The ecology and management of wood Mediterranean riparian forest to a 1in 400 year in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, flood. Ouveze River, Drome-Vaucluse, France. Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 22:31- Stromberg, J. c., S. D. Wilkens, and J. A. Tress. 1993. 43. Vegetation-hydrology models as management Piegay, H., A. Thevenet, and A. Citterio. 1999.Input, tools for velvet mesquite (Prosopisvelutina) ri- storage and distribution of large woody debris parian ecosystems. Ecological Applications along a mountain river continuum, the Drome 3:307-314. River, France. Catena 35:19-39. Stromberg, J. 2001. Restoration of riparian vegeta- Piegay, H. 2003. Dynamics of wood in large rivers. tion in the south-western United States: impor- Pages 109-133 in S. V.Gregory, K. L. Boyer, and tance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism. A. M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology and manage- Journal of Arid Environments 49:17-34. ment of wood in world rivers. American Fisher- Swanson, F.J. 2003. Wood in rivers: a landscape per- ies Society,Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland spective. Pages 299-313 in S. V. Gregory, K. L. Pollock, M. M., M. Heim, and D. Werner. 2003. Hy- Boyer, and A. M. Gumell, editors. The ecology drologic and geomorphic effects ofbeaver dams and management of wood in world rivers. and their influence on fishes. Pages 213-233 in American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, S. V. Gregory, K. L. Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, Bethesda, Maryland. editors. The ecology and management of wood Swanson, F. J., and G. W. Lienkaemper. 1982. inter- in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, actions among fluvial processes, forest vegeta- Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland. tion, and aquatic ecosystems, South Fork Hoh Rainville, R P., S. C. Rainville, and E. L. Lider. 1985. River, Olympic National Park. Pages 30-34 in Riparian silvicultural strategies for fish habitat E. E. Starkey, J. F.I;ranklin and J. W. Matthews, emphasis. Pages 186-196 in Proceedings of 1985 editors. Ecological research in national parks of Society ofAmerican National Conven- the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University tion. Fort Collins, Colorado. Press, Corvallis. Reich, M., R Wildman, and J. L. Kershner. 2003. Re- Tabacchi, E., A. M. Planty- Tabacchi, and H. De- storing streams with large wood: a synthesis. camps. 1990.Continuity and discontinuity of the Pages 355-366 in S. V.Gregory, K. L. Boyer, and riparian vegetation along a fluvial corridor. A. M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology and man- Landscape Ecology 5:9-20. agement of wood in world rivers. American Tabacchi, E., A. Planty-Tabacchi, M. J. Salinas, and Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, H. Decamps. 1996. Landscape structure and di- Maryland. versity in riparian plant communities: a longi- Sedell, J. R, and J. L. Froggatt. 1984. Importance of tudinal comparative study. Regulated Rivers: streamside forests to large rivers: The isolation Research and Management 12:367-390. of the Willamette River, Oregon, U.s.A., from Townsend, C. R 1996.Concepts in river ecology: pat- its t100dplain by snagging and streamside for- tern and process in the catchment hierarchy. est removal. Verhandlungen lnternationale Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie Supplement 113:4-21. Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte van der Nat, D., K. Tockner, P. J. Edwards, and J. V. Limnologie 22:1828-1834. Ward. 2003. Large wood dynamics of complex Scott, M. L., G. T. Auble, and J. M. Friedman. 1997. Alpine river floodplains. Journal of the North Flood dependency of cottonwood establishment American Benthological Society 22:35-50. along the Missouri River, Montana, USA. Eco- Van Sickle, J., and S. V.Gregory. 1990. Modeling in- logical Applications 7:677-690. puts of large woody debris to streams from fall- Shafroth, P. B.,G. T.Auble, J. C. Stromberg, and D. T. ing trees. Journal of Forest Research 20:1593- Patten. 1998. Establishment of woody riparian 1601. vegetation in relation to annual patterns of Yolk, C. J., P. M. Kiffney, and R L. Edmonds. 2003. 7 ~:;~~'~~./~~;~~ii streamflow, Bill Williams River, Arizona. Wet- Role of riparian red alder in the nutrient dynam- lands 18:577-390. ics of coastal streams of the Olympic Peninsula, Smith, N. J. 1987. Stand density control diagram for Washington. USA. Pages 213-225 illJ. Stockner, WesternRedcedar,TJItL;aplicata.ForestEcology editor. Nutrients in salmonid ecosvstems: sus- Jnd Management :7:235-244. taining production dnd biodiversity. American Sobota. D. J. 2003. Fall directions Jnd breakage of Fisheries Society, Symposium 3-!'.Bethesda, riparian trees along streams of the Pacific North- Marvland. west. M. S. ThesIs. Oregon State Uni,'ersity. Ward, J. V.. K. TocKner. ,1Ild F. Schiemer. 19QQ,Biodi- C'lrvallis. \'ersity or fll1odplall1ri\'er ~cosystems: ecotones 420 BOYER ET AL.

and connectivity. Regulated Rivers: Research editors. The ecology and management of vyood and Management 15:125-139. in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Welcomme, R. 1979. Fisheries ecology of floodplain Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland. rivers. Longman, New York. Wykoff, W.R., N. L.Crookston, and A. R. Stage. 1982. Welty,J.L T.Beechie, K. Sullivan, D. M. Hyink, R. E. User's guide to the Stand Prognosis Model Bilby, C. Andrus, and G. Pess. 2002. Riparian {FVS}.USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Aquatic Interaction Simulator (RAIS): a model Research Station, General Technical Report INT- of riparian forest dynamics for the generation 133, Ogden, Utah. of large woody debris and shade. Forest Ecol- Zalewski, M., M. Lapinska, and P. B. Bayley. 2003. ogy and Management 162:299-318. Fish relationships with wood in large rivers. Wissmar, R. c., and R. L. Beschta. 1998. Restoration Pages 195-211 in S. V.Gregory, K. L. Boyer, and and management of riparian ecosystems: a A. M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology and man- catchment perspective. Freshwater Biology agement of wood in world rivers. American 40:571-585. Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, Wondzell, S. M., and P.A. Bisson. 2003. Influence of .' Maryland. wood on aquatic biodiversity. Pages 249-263 in Zeide, B. 2001. Thinning and growth. Journal of For- S. V. Gregory, K. L. Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, estry 99:20-25. .,..: ._~~.'ji: 'h l;~

. ,. ' .

'~. :.' ! r '..".,.,;.... :: ' ,..- ...! r ..'

. ..l ~~~;. il\': . r ~~ i .;...... I. . . ~..;; :~;'.. ~:.. '. '... r _. . ' .~ .';. .-......

-; .:.;"! . :i . . .. .~i.. -

'. " . ~. ~. " '1..';

i...I ": -1';'

',. ';.i~-.'~\,

'?i:~;;!~t