Upload
others
View
21
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sustainable Watershed Planning in Ohio
Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
Population (1990): 10,887,325
Land Area: 106,800 km2
Major Watersheds: 23
Streams & Rivers: 46,956 km
Number of Lakes: 447
Lakes Surface Area: 48,078 ha
Scenic Rivers: 1015 km
Wetland Acrage: Unknown
Original Wetlands Lost: 90%
Current Forest Cover: 30%
Original Forest Cover: 90-95%
ToledoToledo
ClevelandCleveland
Youngstown
Youngstown
Akron-CantonAkron-Canton
ColumbusColumbus
DaytonDayton
CincinnatiCincinnati
OHIO FACTS
Watersheds and Their Streams AreLiving Systems
• A system for converting organic matter and nutrientsinto biomass.
• Multiple steps and transfers in the process.• Healthy Systems support numerous and complex
processes - produce desirable biomass and otherattributes (e.g., high divesrsity, intolerant organisms).
• Unhealthy Systems exhibit fewer steps and simpleprocesses - produce undesirable biomass andattributes (e.g., tolerant organisms, nuisancepopulations).
Quality is Evident in Symptoms of EcosystemHealth
Aquatic Ecosystems: Structureand Function
• Biological components (species, numbers,biomass)
• Physical components (water, habitat attributes)• Energy & Materials (organic and inorganic
chemicals)
Structure:
• The product of the interaction of the structuralcomponents and the processes therein
Function:
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
FlowRegime
High/LowExtremes
Precipitation &Runoff
Velocity
Land Use
GroundWater
ChemicalVariables
BioticFactors
EnergySource
HabitatStructure
Hardness
Turbidity
pH
D.O.
TemperatureAlkalinity
Solubilities
Adsorption
Nutrients
Organics
Reproduction
DiseaseParasitism
Feeding
Predation
Competition
Nutrients
Sunlight
Organic MatterInputs 1 and 2
Production
o o
SeasonalCycles
RiparianVegetation
Siltation
Current
Substrate
Sinuosity
Canopy InstreamCover
Gradient
ChannelMorphology
Bank Stability
Width/Depth
INTEGRITY OF THEWATER RESOURCE
“Principal Goal of theCleanWater Act”
Major Factors Which Determine the Integrity ofSurface Water Resources
Water Resource IntegrityAttributes
Environmental Goods and ServicesProvided By Watersheds
• Ecological resources• Recreational activities• Waste assimilation• Water supplies• Aesthetics
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
Attributes of Ecosystems WithHigh Ecological Integrity
• Inherent potential is realized.• Condition is stable.• Capacity for self-repair is intact.• Minimal external support or management is
required.
(after Karr et al. 1986)
Aquatic Life is Limited by Habitat Quality
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
Coarsest Substrates(gravel, cobble,
boulder)
POOL
GLIDE
RIFFLE
RUN
POOL
GLIDE
RUN
RIFFLE
WoodyDebris
Root-wads
ShallowsDeepPools
Boulders
Slow/ModerateCurrent
Moderate/FastCurrent
Fast Current
Fine Substrates(sand, gravel,
FPOM)
CoarseSubstrates(gravel, cobbles)
IntermediateSubstrates
(gravels, CPOM)
CYCLEREPEATS
HEREFlowDirection
ONE CYCLE OF STREAM HABITAT
LONGITUDINALSEQUENCE OFSTREAM HABITATTYPES & FUNCTIONS:
Pool Functions:• Critical niche habitat & cover• Low flow refugia• Resting area• Feeding area for top carnivores• Nursery area• Depositional area (FPOM1)
Run Functions:• Critical niche habitat• Spawning area• Feeding area for insectivores
& herbivores• Macroinvertebrate production• Primary production habitat
(filamentous algae, diatoms)Riffle Functions:
• Critical niche habitat• Spawning area• Reaeration• Invertebrate production• Primary production habitat
(filamentous algae, diatoms)Glide Functions:
• Transition habitat (pool to run)• Does not predominate in high
quality streams
POOL
GLIDERIFFLERUN
Pool Functions: • Cover • Low Flow Refugia • Resting Area • Nursery Area
Run Functions: • Spawning Area • Oxygenation • Feeding Area • Macroinvertebrate Production
Riffle Functions: • Spawning Area • Oxygenation • Feeding Area • Macroinvertebrate Production • Critical Non-Game Fish Habitat
Glide Functions: • Transitional Habitat • Does Not Pre- Dominate in High Quality Streams
POOLRIFFLE
RUN GLIDE
Pool Functions:• Critical niche habitat &
cover• Low flow refugia• Resting area• Feeding area for top
carnivores• Nursery area• Depositional area
(FPOM1)
Run Functions:• Critical niche habitat• Spawning area• Feeding area for
insectivores &herbivores
• Macroinvertebrateproduction
• Primary productionhabitat (filamentousalgae, diatoms)
Riffle Functions:• Critical niche habitat• Spawning area• Reaeration• Macroinvertebrate
production• Primary production
habitat (filamentousalgae, diatoms)
Glide Function:• Transitional area
(pool to run)• Rare to un-
common in highquality streams
PRIMARY CHANNEL HABITAT TYPES ANDASSOCIATED FUNCTIONS OF EACH
Flow Direction
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
IMPORTANCE OF WOODY DEBRIS TO STREAMHABITAT FORMATION AND MAINTENANCE
Eddy
SideChannel
ChannelBoundary
ChannelBoundary
DepositionalArea
ActiveChannel,
Main Flow
Functionsof WoodyDebris
1.Plunge Pools, Scour2.Eddy Formation3.Current Constrictor,
Riffle Formation4.Trap/Retain Organic
Debris5.Sediment Trap6.Rootwad, Undercut
Banks7.Erosion Control8.Island, Channel
Formation
1
234
5
6
7
8
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
Sinuosity• Ratio of Channel Length to Downvalley Distance
NoSinuosity
LowSinuosity
Bend PoorlyDefined
ModerateSinuosity
1
2
3
HighSinuosity
1
2
3
4
5
6
Function: Creates depth and habitat heterogeneity,more habitat per unit distance
False Banks• Sequence of development of false banks
Dashed linesindicate areastrampled by
livestock herds
False banks caused byunrestricted access of
livestock herds tostream banks
Low flowchannel widens
and depthdecreases
Normal streamhabitat
Wider, shallowerchannel moresusceptible to
intermittent flows
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
Channel Modifications
NormalSummer Flow
Ordinary HighWater Mark Normal Summer Flow
(intermittent flows)
Sedimentdeposition occurs
OUTSIDE mainchannelLittle sediment
deposition in mainchannel
• Channel modification affects how and where finesediment is deposited
Sediment STAYS inmain channel
Ordinary HighWater Mark
Substrate Embeddedness
Substrate Intersticesare open and providebenthic surface area
Substrate may be"armour-plated"
Fine materialsDO NOT
predominate
Embedded
Normal (Nonembedded)
Interstices Filled WithSand or Fine Gravel
Large substrates difficult todislodge from bottom
Large substrates easy todislodge from bottom
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
K
K
K
L
C
C
C
ForestedRiparianBufferZone
100 m
RIPARIAN WIDTH AND ADJACENTLAND USES
10-15 m
WoodedRiparianBufferStrip
RowCrops
RowCrops
Riparian Buffer Zones: BeneficialFunctions
• Habitat forming function - rootwads & large woodydebris form different habitats & provide cover.
• Bank stabilization - large tree root systems.• Retention and uptake of excess water - large trees.• Assimilation of excess nutrients and sediment.• Groundwater recharge and maintenance of flows.• Temperature moderation in summer - shading.• Primary source of organic matter - leaves & detritus.
"More Than Filters for Excess Nutrients andSediment"
• Encroachment, modification, and outrightelimination debilitates and eventually eliminates thedelivery of beneficial and essential functions.
• 50' to 120' on both sides of the bank full channel is a"rule of thumb" minimum necessary to maintain ahigh quality aquatic ecosystem (likely wider for largerrivers).
• not a "hands-off" zone, but must be managed tomeet the needs of the aquatic ecosystem (i.e., tomaintain a designated use).
Riparian Buffer Zones:Management GuidelinesMany negative effects of encroachment arecumulative and occur off-site.
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
Primary Energy Sources for AquaticEcosystems
• Organic matter (primarily leaves, plant matter,and woody debris)
• Ground and surface waters carry solutes andparticles (e.g., attached and dissolved N and P)
Outside ("Allochthonous"):
• Primary production by algae and plants(photosynthesis)
Inside ("Autochthonous"):
Sustainable Watershed Planning: Fundamentals of Aquatic Ecology
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
15-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85 >85
Tot
al P
hosp
horu
s (m
g/l)
QUALITATIVE HABITATEVALUATION INDEX (QHEI)
Headwater Streams
Good/ExcellentQuality Habitat
Relationship of Stream Habitat to Total Phosphorus:Headwater Streams
N H 3 -N
N O 3 -N
N O 3 -N
N H 3 -N
P O 4
P O 4
N H 3 -NN O 3 -N
P O 4
P O 4
CPOM
CPOM
FPOM
PO4, NO3
Association Between Nutrients, Habitat, and the Aquatic Biota in Ohio Rivers and Streams
Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1999-1-1
DSW//MAS 1999-1-1 Aquatic Biota, Nutrients & Habitat in Ohio Rivers & Streams January 7, 1999
Robert A. Taft, GovenorChristopher Jones, Director Ohio Environmental Protection AgencyP.O. Box 1049, Lazarus Government Center122 S. Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049
The purpose of thisfact sheet is to explainOhio EPA’s rationalefor developing a planto protection streamand riparian habitat inOhio. This documentsummarizes some ofthe evidence support-ing the protection andrestoration of instreamand riparian habitat onthe basis of observedtrends of degradationin Ohio, basic researchon the function ofstream ecosystems,and an increased effortto protect and restorestream and riparianhabitats across theUnited States.
Status of Instreamand Riparian Habitatin the United StatesInstream and riparianhabitat has beensubjected to varyingdegrees of degradationand modification overthe past 150 years.Recent moves toprotect stream ecosys-tems is nationwide inscope with the goal ofpreserving and restor-ing aquatic habitats instreams and rivers thatare becoming biologi-cally imperiled. Na-tionally, aquatic biotaare “disproportionatelyimperiled compared to
terrestrial fauna”. Oneof every three fishspecies and two ofevery three crayfishspecies are rare orimperiled. In additionone in ten freshwatermussel species havebecome extinct thiscentury and 73% of the
remaining species arerare or imperiled.1
Even where most ofthe orgininal streamspecies are stillpresent, the ecologicalintegrity of manystreams is often seri-ously impaired be-cause of the distur-
bance of instreamhabitat, sedimentation,flow regime, waterquality, and ripariandestruction. The fivemajor factors thatcontrol and influencethe ecological integrityof streams are illus-trated in Figure 1.Traditionally, water
Figure 1. Five Major Factors that Influence Water Resource Integrity in Streams
WATER RESOURCE INTEGRITY
Flow Regime
Chemical Variables
Biotic Factors
Energy Source
Habitat Structureo o
Solubilities, Adsorption,Nutrients, Organics,
Alkalinity, Temperature,D.O., pH, Turbidit y,
Hardness,
Velocity, Land Use, High/Low Extremes,
Ground Water, Precipitation & Runoff
Parasitis m, Disease, Reproduction, Feeding, Predation, Competition
Nutrients, Sunlig ht, Organic Matter Inputs, 1 and 2 Production,
Seasonal Cycles
Riparian Vegetation, Siltati on, Sinuosity, Current, Substrate, Instream Cover, Width/Depth,
Gradient, Channel Morphology, Bank Stability, Canopy
Benefits of Stream & RiparianHabitat Protection in Ohio
Appendix B. 305(b) Fact Sheet
B - 2
resource managementefforts have focusedlargely on chemicalwater quality param-eters. It is now con-ceded, however, thathabitat loss and othernon-chemical impactsare likely responsiblefor more extensivelosses of biodiversity,and hence, ecologicalintegrity.2 Based on aU. S. Fish and WildlifeService “NationwideRivers Inventory”completed in 1992only 2% of the streamsand rivers in the lower48 states had sufficientexisting high-qualityfeatures to warrantspecial federal protec-tion.3
Because of the mar-ginal, poor, or declin-ing condition ofstreams and theirriparian areas, theNational Academy ofSciences’ NationalResearch Councilcommittee on aquatichabitat restorationrecommends that: (1)erosion control pro-grams should beaccelerated for bothsoil conservation andenvironmental restora-tion purposes, (2)grazing practicesshould be altered tominimize damage toriver-riparian ecosys-tems, (3) erosion
control, where fea-sible, should favor“soft” (e.g., restoringwooded riparianvegetation) engineer-ing over “hard” engi-neering (e.g.,channelization) ap-proaches, (4) unneces-sary dikes and leveesshould be openned tore-establish hydrologi-cal connections be-tween riparian habitatsand streams, and (5)riparian areas shouldbe classified as wet-land systems, on thebasis of their structuraland functional connec-tions to rivers.
This committee alsoset a goal of restoring400,000 miles ofriparian-river ecosys-tems (12% of totalU.S. rivers andstreams) within thenext 20 years. Obvi-ously, habitat protec-tion and restoration isa growing nationalconcern.
Status of Instreamand Riparian StreamHabitat and Biota inOhioGiven the nationalconcerns with instreamand riparian habitatprotection and restora-
tion as outlined above,are the same concernspertinent to Ohio? Theanswer to this questionis an unqualified yes.Statewide monitoringof streams and riverssince 1980 indicatesthat habitat degrada-tion and sedimentationare the second andthird leading cause ofbiological impairmentto streams (Figure 2).4
This data was largelycollected to assesspoint sources ofpollution (e.g., munici-pal or industrial dis-chargers) and likelyunderestimates therelative extent of
Other
Priority Organics
Unknown Toxicity
pH
Flow Alteration
Metals
Ammonia
Habitat Modification
Siltation
Organic Enrichment,
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1988
1992
Miles
_
+
+
+
+
_
_
_
_
+
Figure 2. Causes of impairment to aquatic life in Ohio streams and riverson data from 1979-1987 and data from 197-1991. Sign on graphindicates trend in extent of each cause.
B - 3
nonpoint pollution.This does not meanthat point sources arenot a serious area ofconcern in Ohio. Thebasic physical struc-ture and functioning ofstream ecosystemsneeds to be main-tained, however, if weare to expect a reason-able full recovery andrestoration of impairedwaters as a result ofthe past investments of$4 billion in pointsource pollutioncontrol.
In addition to data onimpairment of streamsand rivers caused byhabitat degradation
and siltation in Ohio,declines in individualspecies populationsand distribution inOhio mirrors nationaltrends. Species suchas the blue pike (ex-tinct) and crystal darter(extirpated) are nolonger found in Ohio,likely as a result of thesiltation of criticalhabitats and changes instream flows. Morealarmingly, speciesonce common acrossOhio have now beengreatly reduced inrange, particularly inthe last half of thiscentury. One exampleof such a decline is inthe range of the bigeye
chub (Figure 3). Priorto 1930 this species,which requires poolsfree of clayey-silts anda continuous supply ofcool, clean water, waswidely distributedacross Ohio; over thelast ten years extensivesampling has docu-mented a seriousdecline to a series ofsmall, widely sepa-rated portions of itsformer range. The1992 Ohio WaterResource Inventoryidentifies similardeclines for an addi-tional 16 species whichare not presently listedas endangered, threat-ened, or special con-cern status by OhioDNR. While it mightbe argued that thesespecies individuallymay be of little directeconomic or socialsignificance, thier roleas “mine canaries”must be taken seri-ously. The fact thatmore than 40% of thenative Ohiofauna isdeclining also hasserious implicationsfor the continuedprovision of aquaticecosystem services inthe future. While ourmonitoring data hasdocumented a substan-tial recovery of aquaticlife from wastewatertreatment impacts inrivers across Ohio,
habitat destruction hasnot been slowed and insome cases is increas-ing. This will result innot only a net loss ofecological resourcevalue but will blunt thebenefits of the morethan 5 billion that hasbeen spent in control-ling chemical waterquality.
Functions of StreamHabitats and Ripar-ian AreasA short summary ofthe important functionsof riparian areas andstream habitat toecosystems is impor-tant to an understand-ing of the importanceof these resources, thepresent threats to theseareas, and the rationaleof Ohio EPA’s StreamProtection Policy.While most peoplerecognize the benefitsof shading of streamsby riparian forests, thefunction of thesehabitats goes substan-tially beyond themoderation of streamtemperatures:
✓ Woody riparian vegeta-tion naturally filterssediments, nutrients,fertilizers, and othernonpoint source pollutants,from overland runoff, andmimimizes stream tempera-ture fluctuations,
✓ Woody riparian vegeta-tion stabilizes stream
Before 1938: Trautman (1981)
1939—1980: Trautman (1981)
1979-1991: OEPA, OSUMZ, ODNR, ODOT
= Strong Populations
Figure 3. Decline in thedistribution of the bigeye chub inOhio during the past 90 years.
B - 4
banks; vegetated streamsbanks are up to 20,000times more resistant toerosion than bare streambanks,
✓ The input of large woodydebris (i.e., trees) intostreams has been shown tobe critically important tostream habitat diversity;99% of woody debris instreams originates within100 feet of the stream bank,
✓ Greater than 50% of thebreeding bird species inOhio use riparian woodedareas to nest. Riparianareas are also criticalmigration habitats; duringthe spring and fall, migra-tory birds are 10 to 14times more abundant inriparian habitats than insurrounding uplandhabitats,
✓ Leaves and woodydebris are important foodsources for stream inverte-brates, which in turn, areessential for fish growthand survival. Healthyriparian zones also reducesedimentation which wouldotherwise inhibit inverte-brate populations.
✓ Riparian systems arewidely recognized as beingessential to the hydrologicalcycle by maintaining andmediating flow in streams.Riparian wetlands storesurplus water and dampenstream discharge fluctua-tions; they can also beimportant groundwaterrecharge and dischargeareas. Groundwaterdischarge can be critical tostreams during low flowperiods and degradation ofriparian forests oftenreduces this benefit,
In order to understandthe threats to streamsand riparian areas and,therefore, the basis ofOhio EPA's StreamProtection Policy, it isimportant to under-stand the many func-tions of riparian andstream habitats. Someof these functions aresummarized below:
✓ Streams are characterizedby a one-way flow of waterwhich transports nutrients,sediments, pollutants andorganisms downstream.Natural streams have manyways to slow such move-ments (fallen trees, widefloodplains) and species areadapted to assimilating thematerial trapped by treesand living in the habitatsthey create.
✓ Streams are open systemsand have importantexchanges of energy andmaterials with adjacentterrestrial systems. Thebordering terrestrialenvironment (the riparianarea) has the greatest effecton a stream ecosystem andthe effect diminishes withdistance from the streams.This means that protectionof riparian areas willusually be the most cost-effective method ofassimilating upland inputscompared to managementtargeted on uplands.Because of the opennessand directional movementof materials in streams thecumulative effects ofconditions in headwaterstreams have majorinfluences on downstream,
mainstem ecosystemsintegrity (i.e., “RiverContinuum Concept”).5
✓ Stream flow variesgreatly through time, andfloods of moderate fre-quency are responsible formost rehabilitation ofstream channels; these areflows that continually flushfine sediments downstream.Protection of streamsincludes maintenance offlows that rehabilitatestream beds, streamchannels, and floodplains.As described by theNational Research Council:“If the observer could viewseveral hundred years ofchanges in a few minutes,using time-lapse aerialphotography, the riverchannel would appear towrithe like a snake, withmeander loops movingdownstream, throwing offoxbows as they go. Thedynamic equilibrium in thephysical system creates acorresponding dynamicequilibrium in the biologi-cal system.”1
✓ Streams are characterizedby habitat patchiness” withalternating riffles andpools, eddies, vegetated andunvegetated channelborders, permanentbackwaters, and seasonalfloodplain habitats.Modifications to streams,such as flow regulation andchannelization, usuallyresults in the loss of this“patchiness” and moreuniform, monotonoushabitat that has greatlyureduced assimilativecapacity.
✓ Because stream commu-nities are a product of adynamic physical environ-ment, in most cases they
may respond well to streamprotection and restorationthat return this dynamismto stream ecosystems.
✓ As natural areas becomefewer and fragmented bydevelopment, streams andwide riparian areas canbecome refugia and vitalcorridors for migration ofanimals and plants and theflow of genetic materialbetween populations.6
✓ Extensive modificationsto streams generally requireextensive amounts ofmaintenance which, ifproperly accounted for,would discourage mostprojects in streams orriparian areas on the basisof economic costs alone.Downstream affects ofactivities in streams andfloodplains often includesincrease flooding, bankerosion, and degradedecosystem health. Channelprojects often follow adownstream progression, ordomino effect, withupstream activities sendingflow downstream morequickly resulting in theneed for channel work andmaintenance there, whichin turn exacerbates prob-lems downstream of theseactivities, ad infinitum.The overall accumulativeeffect of such activities iscostly “stream mainte-nance” activities anddegraded ecosystemintegrity.
Fortunately, mostsolutions to the degra-dation of instream andriparian habitats aresimple andstraightfoward. By
increasing the width of
B - 5
References
1U. S. National Research Council. 1992.Restoration of aquatic ecosystems:science, technology, and public policy.National Academy of Science. NationalAcademy Press, Washington, DC.
2Allan, J. D. and A. S. Flecker. 1993.Biodiversity conservation in runningwaters. BioScience 43(1): 32-43.
3Benke, A. C. 1990. A perspective onAmerica’s vanishing streams. Journal ofthe North American BenthologicalSociety 9: 77-88.
4Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.1992. Ohio water resource inventory:status and trends, Editors. E. T. Rankin,C. O. Yoder, and D. A. Mishne. OhioEPA, Division of Water Quality Plan-ning as Assessment, Columbus, Ohio.
5Knopf, F. L., R. Johnson, T. Rich, F. B.Samson, and R. C.Szaro. 1988. Con-servation of riparian ecosystems in theUnited States. Wilson Bulletin 100(2):272-284.
6Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W.Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E.Cushing. 1980. The river continuumconcept. Canadian Journal of Fisheriesand Aquatic Science 37: 130-137.
7Noss, R. F. 1987. Protecting natural areas infragmented landscapes. Natural AreasJournal 7(1): 2-13.
riparian buffersthrough land usesetback, most instreamand riparian habitatswill recover naturallyover time. Someaspects of aquatichabitat restoration willbe much more difficultto deal with (e.g.,deforestation, water-shed scale flow alter-ations) and will needmore integrated water-shed planning ap-proaches to mesh
environmental protec-tion with the need foreconomic develop-ment, which contraryto some notions, arenot mutually exclusive.High quality streams,riparian habitats, andother natural area are abenefit of living inOhio that peoplerightly expect and thatis essential to Ohio’slong-term economichealth.
Glossary
Riparian Area: Areas adjacent to streams thatare hydrologically and ecologicallinked to streams and rivers. The sizeof the area that has strong interactionswith a stream or river will vary withstream morphology, stream size,geologic features, etc., however, forpurposes of Ohio's Stream ProtectionPolicy it is defined as 2-1/2 times thestream width (bank full) on each side ofthe stream up to 120 feet.
Ecological Integrity: This refers to the expectedcondition of an ecosystem in anatural,relatively undisturbed state. This is nota definition of pristine, but is derivedby examining existing, intact ecosys-tems .
Impairment: Deviation of the biological healthof a stream from the criteria set inOhio's Water Quality Standards basedon minimally unimpacted referencesites
Siltation: Covering of natural substrates byhigher than normal layers of erdoedsoils and other fine substrates
Table 1. Selected riparian buffer zone widths recommended for protection of stream and riparian habitat and waterquality.
Management Recommendations
Reference
Recom-mends
Width (ft) LocationObtainedReference Annotation
USDA (1987) 100’ Missouri Sediment from agriculture; from SCSpamphlet on stream corridor management
Kansas Dept of Health &Environment
66’minimum
Kansas Multiple benefits: reduce erosion, reducetemperature, improve wildlife habitat
Murphy (1991) 50’ forintermit-
tentstreams;100’ for
permanentstreams
Connecti-cut
from edge of stream
Newberry (1992) 75’minimum+ 20’Grass
Nationwide Urban Streams
Welsch (1991)USFWS 75’minimumForestZone +20’ grassupslope
Nationwide 15’ Fixed Forest Zone + 60’ minimumManaged Forested (this width expands basedon soil conditions or existence of majorpollutant sources upland) + 20’ minimumdense grasses and forbes upslope
Zampala & Roman(1983)
300’setback
Septic Nutrients
Shertzer (1992) 100’constr.setback
Pennsylva-nia
Construction Activities near High QualityWaters
Shertzer (1992) 50’ buffer+ 4’ per1˚ Slope
Pennsylva-nia
High Quality Waters, guidelines for erosioncontrol, road siting. 70 degree slope wouldrequire 330’ buffer; 25-330’ buffer fortimber harvest near HQ waters.
USEPA (1993) 35-50’ Forest SMA, additional buffer depending onslope
Florida 0-140’ Forest SMA, additional buffer depending onerodability, etc.
Table 1. Continued
Reference
Recom-mends
Width (ft) LocationObtainedReference Annotation
N. Carolina 50’minimum
.
NorthCarolina
Forest SMA; additional buffer (0-150’)depending on slope and presence of trout instreams.
USEPA (1993) 50’ inheadwater;up to 200’for largerstreams
urban runoff control
Alexandria, VA 100’ VirginiaCity ofAlexandria
unless smaller justified
ODNR - Scenic R. 120’ Ohio along Scenic River
National Marine FisheriesService
100’minimum
WestCoast
Salmonid Protection - related to woodydebris in streams
Nieswand (1990) 50‘ orW=2.
5*T*S0.5;
W=500*S0.5
Model where W = Riparian width, T =Transit time of overland flow, and S =slope; for optimal conditions and 50’minimum flow, T=200
IEP, Inc (1990) Model Model to reduce TSS on basis of infiltrationrates, riparian width
U. S. Forest Service 66’minimum
A buffer less than 66’ is not consideredwindfirm
Schueler (1987) 50-75’preferable
20’ grass strip absolute minimum; 50-75feet preferable + 4’ for each percent increasein slope
Karr, Toth, and Garman(1977)
82-230’ Midwest 25 m (82’) for small, low to mediumgradient streams; 70 m (230’) for largerivers and mountain streams with steepbanks (> 60%)
Erman et al. (1977) 100’ California Buffer zone to protect aquatic invertebratesfrom sedimentation and channel instability.
Table 2. Selected studies documenting the efficiency of the nitrate removal from subsurface and surface flows.
Nitrate Reduction (Subsurface)
ReferenceWidth(m)/%
reduction
Widthfeet Location
ObtainedReference
Annotation
James, Bagley, & Gallagher (inpress)
10 (60-98%)
33’ Forested Buffer
Jacobs & Gilliam (1985) 16 (93%) 53’ Forested Buffer
Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 19 (93%) 62’ Forested Buffer
Schnabel (1986) 19 (40-90%)
62’ Forested Buffer
Lowrance, Todd, & Asmussen(1984)
25 (68%) 82’ Forested Buffer
Pinay & Decamps (1988) 30 (100%) 98’ Forested Buffer
Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 50 (99%) 164’ Forested Buffer
Schnabel (1986) 27 (10-60%)
89’ Grassed Buffer
Schnabel (1986) 19 (40-90%)
62’ Forested Buffer
Pinay ET AL. (1993) 30 (100%) 98’ France X Forested Buffer
Nitrate Reduction (Surface)
Doyle, Standton, & Wolf(1977)
30(98%)
98’ Forested Buffer
Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 50(79%)
164’ Forested Buffer
Dillaha et al (1989) 9(73%)
30’ Grassed Buffer
Dillaha et al (1989) 5(54%)
16’ Grassed Buffer
Young, Huntrods, &Asmussen (1980)
27(84%)
89’ Grassed Buffer
Table 2. Selected studies documenting the efficiency of riparian buffer zones in removing nitrate and phophorus from subsurface and surface flows, removingsediment from overland flow, maintaining ambient temperature in streams, and providing woody debris for aquatic organisms in streams.
Reference
NitrateSurfaceRunoff
NitrateSubsurfaceRunoff
PhophorusSurfaceRunoff
Phospho-rusSubsurfaceRunoff
SedimentRemoval
Tempera-ture
WoodyDebris&CPOMProvision
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width (m)to Remove“Substan-tial”Fraction[Width ft]
Width toMaintainAmbientTempera-ture
WidthNeeded toSupplyStructureor CPOM
Location ofStudy
ObtainedRefer-ence Annotation
James, Bagley,& Gallagher(in press)
10 (60-98%)[33’]
Forested Buffer
Jacobs &Gilliam (1985)
16 (93%)[53’]
Forested Buffer
Peterjohn &Correll (1984)
19 (93%)[62’]
19 (33%)[62’]
19 (74%)[62’]
19[62’]
Maryland Forested Buffer
Schnabel(1986)
19 (40-90%)[62’]
Forested Buffer
Lowrance,Todd, &Asmussen(1984)
25 (68%)[82’]
Forested Buffer
Pinay et al.(1993)
30 (100%)98’
France Forested Buffer(noted importanceof forested buffersas carbon source fordenitrification)
Table 2. Continued
Reference
NitrateSurfaceRunoff
NitrateSubsurfaceRunoff
PhophorusSurfaceRunoff
Phospho-rusSubsurfaceRunoff
SedimentRemoval
Tempera-ture
WoodyDebris&CPOMProvision
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width (m)to Remove“Substan-tial”Fraction[Width ft]
Width toMaintainAmbientTempera-ture
WidthNeeded toSupplyStructureor CPOM
Location ofStudy
ObtainedRefer-ence Annotation
Pinay &Decamps(1988)
30 (100%)[98’]
Forested Buffer
Peterjohn &Correll (1984)
50 (99%)[164’]
50 (79%)[164’]
50 (-114%)[164’]
50 (85%)[164’]
Forested Buffer;Sediment fromagriculture
Schnabel(1986)
27 (10-60%)[89’]
Grassed Buffer
Schnabel(1986)
19 (40-90%)[62’]
Forested Buffer
Doyle,Standton, &Wolf (1977)
30 (98%)[98’]
Forested Buffer
Dillaha et al(1989)
9 (73%)[30’]
9 (79%)[30’]
Grassed Buffer
Dillaha et al(1989)
5 (54%)[16’]
5 (61%)[16’]
Grassed Buffer
Cooper &Gilliam (1987)
16 (50%)[52’]
Forested Buffer
Table 2. Continued
Reference
NitrateSurfaceRunoff
NitrateSubsurfaceRunoff
PhophorusSurfaceRunoff
Phospho-rusSubsurfaceRunoff
SedimentRemoval
Tempera-ture
WoodyDebris&CPOMProvision
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width (m)to Remove“Substan-tial”Fraction[Width ft]
Width toMaintainAmbientTempera-ture
WidthNeeded toSupplyStructureor CPOM
Location ofStudy
ObtainedRefer-ence Annotation
Aubertin &Patrick(1974)*
10-20[33-66’]
10-20[33-66’]
West Virginia Sediment fromclearcut
Haupt & Kidd(1965)*
9[30’]
Idaho Sediment fromlogging road
Trimble &Sartz (1957)*
15-45[49- 148’]
NewHampshire
Sediment fromlogging road
Kovacic &Osborne(unpublished)*
19[62’]
Illinois Sediment fromagriculture
Lynch &Corbett(1990)*
31[102’]
Pennsylvania
Brazier &Brown (1973)*
10[33’]
Oregon Mountain stream
Corbett,Lynch, &Sopper(1978)*
12[39’]
NorthCarolina
Mountain stream
Table 2. Continued
Reference
NitrateSurfaceRunoff
NitrateSubsurfaceRunoff
PhophorusSurfaceRunoff
Phospho-rusSubsurfaceRunoff
SedimentRemoval
Tempera-ture
WoodyDebris&CPOMProvision
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width(m)/%reduction[Width ft]
Width (m)to Remove“Substan-tial”Fraction[Width ft]
Width toMaintainAmbientTempera-ture
WidthNeeded toSupplyStructureor CPOM
Location ofStudy
ObtainedRefer-ence
Murphy(1991)LiteratureReview
30[100’]
WesternStates
Majority of woodydebris from within100’ of streams;some large debriscan remain instream for > 100years
Benke (1985) - Southeast US Documentedimportance ofwoody debris formacroinvertebrateproduction in lowgradient rivers
Erman (1977) 30[100’]
Forested Buffers >100’ ProtectAquatic Inverts
Karr andSchlosser(1977)
25-70[82-230’]
25-70[82-230’]
Andrus et al.(1984)
50 years NorthwestUS
Found that ripariantrees must grow toat least 50 yrs toensure stable supplyof LOD
Young,Huntrods, &Asmussen(1980)
27 (84%)[89’]
27 (83%)[89’]
Grassed Buffer
Table 3. Selected studies documenting the efficiency of the phosphorus removal from subsurface and surface flows.
Phosphorus Reduction (Subsurface)
Reference
DocumentsEffects:Width(m)/%
reduction
WidthFeet
LocationObtainedReference
Annotation
Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 19 (33%) 62’ Forested Buffer
Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 50(-114%)
164’ Forested Buffer
Phosphorus Reduction (Surface)
Cooper & Gilliam (1987) 16 (50%) 52’ Forested Buffer
Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 19(74%)
62’ Forested Buffer
Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 50(85%)
164’ Forested Buffer
Dillaha et al (1989) 9(79%)
30’ Grassed Buffer
Dillaha et al (1989) 5(61%)
16’ Grassed Buffer
Young, Huntrods, &Asmussen (1980)
27(83%)
89’ Grassed Buffer
Table 4. Selected studies documenting the efficiency of the sediment removal from surface flows.
Sediment Control
Reference DocumentsEffects
Width m
Width Location ObtainedReference
Annotation
Haupt & Kidd (1965)* 9 m 30’ Sediment from loggingroad
Trimble & Sartz (1957)* 15-45 m Sediment from loggingroad
Aubertin & Patrick (1974)* 10-20 m 33-66’ Sediment from clearcut
Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 19 m 62’ Sediment from agriculture
Kovacic & Osborne(unpublished)*
19 m 62’ Sediment from agriculture
Table 5. Selected studies documenting the moderating effects of forested riparian zones on streamtemperature.
Stream Temperature
ReferenceDocuments
EffectsWidth (m)
WidthFeet
LocationObtainedReference
Annotation
Karr and Schlosser(1977)
25m-70m Midwest 25m
Aubertin & Patrick(1974)*
10-20 m West Virginia
Lynch & Corbett(1990)*
31m Pennsylvania stream
Brazier & Brown(1973)*
10 Oregon Mountain stream
Corbett, Lynch, &Sopper (1978)*
12m North Carolina mountain stream
Table 6. Selected studies documenting the importance of forested riparian zones for woody debris delivery and otherhabitat fucntions in streams.
Woody Debris
Reference ReccomendsWidth
Docu-mentsEffects
ObtainedRefer-ence
Annotation
Karr andSchlosser (1977)
25m-70m
25m