The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers outlines the functions that riparian and wetland buffer areas provide and then conclude buffer widths of 25-50 feet wide are adequate to provide those functions. Especially when we are looking at waterfowl production needs or the needs of salmonid fishes, we find that is woefully inadequate for our region. Enclosed is information abstracted from multiple studies that demonstrate much wider buffers are needed for function.

Allen, Arthur W.1985. USFWS HEP Model The majority of lesser scaup nests have been recorded within 33 feet of the water's edge. They have been found up to1300 feet from water. The most preferred nesting habitat for lesser scaup is assumed to occur when a 164 foot zone surrounding permanently flooded, intermittently exposed, and semipermanent 75% canopy cover of herbaceous vegetation. Lesser scaup most frequently are observed on wetlands with at least half of the shoreline bordered by trees

and shrubs.

Gadwall Literature:

Sousa, Patrick K., 1985. USFWS HEP Model. The average distance from nest sites to water was less than 150 feet in several studies of gadwalls: Miller and Collins, 1954; Gates, 1962; Vermeer, 1970. But gadwall nests in North Dakota averaged 1150 feet from water, Duebbert and Lokemoen (1976). Gadwalls typically select the tallest, densest, herbaceous or

shrubby vegetation available in which to nest.

Wood Duck Literature:

Sousa P.J. and A. Farmer. 1983. USFWS HEP model

Limiting features: open water, marsh or shrubs & snags: 14 inch tree minimum but best nest in 24-30 inch dbh. Distance 0-1149 feet from water but 262' average, (Gilmer, 1978). Most nests within 600' of water (Grice and Rogers, 1965).

"The paucity of high quality near-shore habitats and variable ocean conditions makes freshwater habitat more crucial for the survival and persistence of anadromous salmonid stocks in the range of the northern spotted owl than it is for stocks in more northerly areas. Compared to areas with more stable ocean conditions and better developed nearshore habitats, anadromous salmonids in the region of the northern spotted owl are more dependent on freshwater environments to achieve larger sizes, which increase probability of marine survival." Page V-7.

"In general, the authors found the widths of riparian areas required to protect water quality ranged from 12-860 feet. Widths varied as a function of geomorphic characteristics such as slope and soil type and by vegetative structure and cover...Broderson studied three watersheds in western Washington and found that 200 foot buffers, or about one site-potential tree height, would be effective to remove sediment in most situations if the buffer were measured from the edge of the floodplain." Page V-28-29.

"Maintaining the connectivity of all parts of the aquatic ecosystem is necessary for healthy watersheds and good fish habitat (Naiman et al. 1992). First- and second-order streams (Straher 1957), which generally include permanently flowing nonfish-bearing streams and seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, often comprise over 70 percent of the cumulative channel length in mountain watersheds in the Pacific Northwest (Benda et al. 1992). These streams are sources of water, nutrients, wood, and other vegetative material for streams inhabited by fish and other aquatic organisms (Swanson et al 1982; Benda and Zhang 1990; Vannote et al. 1980). Decoupling the stream network can result in the disruption and loss of functions and processes necessary for creating and maintaining fish habitat. Under this conservation strategy, Riparian Reserves are used, in part, to maintain and restore riparian structures and functions of intermittent streams." Page V-34.

"The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team evaluated 199 plant and animal species that use streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in late-successional forests...Five species of riparian aquatic and vascular plants are of special concern under various state, federal and agency listings...These species are dependent on a predictable hydraulic regime, shade, and cool water for survival. Several species of lichens and bryophytes are also dependent on conditions in streams and riparian areas. . .

"Amphibians require cool, moist conditions to maintain their respiratory functions. They are also sensitive to increased temperatures and sedimentation that may reduce reproductive and foraging success. Extirpation of populations in specific areas of the Northwest has occurred for several species and the ranges of several others has been drastically reduced (Corn and Bury 1989; Blaustein and Wake 1990). Forest dwelling species have declined the most. As a result, several species of amphibians are current candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992)." Page V-11.

Rationale for Riparian Reserves or Buffers:

"Tree height and slope distance provide ecologically appropriate metrics with which to establish Riparian Reserve widths. For example, tree height distance away from the stream is a better indicator of potential wood recruitment or degree of shade than is an arbitrary distance. Likewise, slope distance is a more meaningful ecological distance than horizontal distance." Page V-34.

"Thomas et al. (1993) used specific widths, geomorphic features, or a distance equal to the height of a site-potential tree as a tree that has attained the maximum height possible given the site conditions where it occurs. We redefined the height of a site-potential tree as the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or more) for a given site class. For all forests west of the Cascades, except the Siuslaw...height of a site-potential in these areas was 170 feet...Siuslaw National Forest was ... 250 feet. The height of site-potential trees on forests east of the Cascades was estimated at 110 feet." Page V-35.

"Five types of streams or water bodies and interim widths of Riparian Reserves for each are:

"Intermittent streams are an important, and often over-looked, component of aquatic ecosystems (Naiman et al. 1992). Intermittent streams are defined as any non-permanently flowing drainage feature having a definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition...Intermittent streams store sediment and wood and are sources of these materials for permanently flowing streams...Protection of intermittent streams is important for preventing increased rate and frequency of landslides in time and space, preventing accelerated surface and fluvial erosion, providing habitat for species unique to small stream riparian areas, and maintaining the landslide- and flood-delivered supplies of large woody material throughout the landscape.

The width of Riparian Reserves necessary to protect the ecological integrity of intermittent streams varies with slope and rock type...These distances are consistent with the height of 1 site-potential tree discussed previously." Page V-36-38.

Of these management activities, roads represent the greatest risk to riparian and aquatic systems; much greater than timber harvest alone. Timber harvest can increase rates of mass movement several-fold (Ice 1985; Swanson et al. 1987). Road construction increases the rates of landsliding from 30-350 fold (Sidle et al. 1985)." Page V-51.

"Riparian forests may influence habitat structure and food resources of stream systems for lateral distances exceeding a tree height. Tree height distance away from a stream is a meaningful indicator of an area that is crucial for providing aquatic habitat components, including wood and shade. We defined a site potential tree as the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or more) on a given site. In the owl forests, a site potential tree was modeled at 250 feet for the Oregon Coast and 170 feet for all other riparian forests west of the Cascades." Page V-72.

"Interim Riparian Reserves on all permanently flowing streams are wide enough to provide the full suite of ecological functions...and include the floodplain, inner gorges, and unstable and potentially unstable lands. For non-Key Watersheds, interim reserve widths for Riparian Reserve 1 and 2 on intermittent streams are one or one-half site potential tree, respectively. Although these interim Riparian Reserve widths were estimated to be sufficient for providing full ecological effectiveness..., we assumed that there would be a greater risk to aquatic systems with the narrower reserves. In addition, the recovery rate may be slower in non-Key than in Key Watersheds due to less area in Late-Successional and other reserves and limited restoration funds." Page V-74.

* Fish-bearing streams - 300 feet (600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel)

* Intermittent Streams - Key Watersheds 150 feet (300 feet, including both sides of stream channel and option of 75 feet (150' both sides) in non-key watersheds.

Literature:

1. Allen, Arthur W. 1986. Habitat Suitability Models: Lesser Scaup (Breeding). U.S. Dept. of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OSB-82?10.117 .

2. Benda, L.; Zhang, W. 1990. The hydrological and geomorphological characteristics of landslide/dam-break floods in the Cascade Range of Washington. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union.

3. Benda, L.; Beechie, T.J.; Wissmar, R.C.; Johnson, A. 1992. Morphology and evolution of salmonid habitats in a recently deglaciated river basin, Washington state, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences: 49: 1246-1256.

4. Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research. 14: 1011-1016.

5. Beschta, R.L. 1979. Debris removal and its effects on sedimentation in an Oregon Coast Range stream. Northwest Science. 53: 71-77.

6. Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W.; Holtby, L.B.; Hofstra, T.D. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Forestry and fisheries interactions. Contribution Number 57. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. 191-232.

7. Bisson, P.A.; Bilby, R.E.; Bryant, M.D.; Dolloff, C.A.; Grette, G.B.; House, R.A.; Murphy, M.L.; Koski, K.V.; Sedell, J.R. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present and future. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution Number. 57. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. 143-190.

8. Blaustien, A.R.; Wake, D.B. 1990. Declining amphibian populations: a global phenomena? Trends in Ecological Evaluations. 5: 203-204.

9. Broderson, J.M. 1973. Sizing buffer strips to maintain water quality. M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

10. Corn, P.S.; Bury, R.B. 1989. Logging in western Oregon: Responses of headwater habitats and stream amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management. 29:39-57.

16. Gregory, S.; Ashkenas, L. 1990. Riparian managment guide, Willamette National Forest. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 120 p.

17. Gregory, S.V.; Swanson, F.J.; McKee, W.A.; Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience. 41:540-551.

20. Ice, G.G. 1985. Catalog of landslide inventories for the northwest. Technical Bulletin Number 456, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, New York, 78 p.

22. Junk, W.J. et al. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. In: D.P. Dodge (Editor). Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS). Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106:629p

23. McDade, M.H. et. al. 1989. The source area for coarse woody debris in small streams in Western Oregon and Washington. Can. J.For. Res.

24. Medin, Dean E. and Clary, Warren P. 1990. Bird Population in and Adjacent to Beaver Pond Ecosystem in Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-432. Ogden UT: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

26. Naiman, R.J.; Beechie, T.J.; Benda, L.E.; Berg, D.R.; Bisson, P.A.; MacDonald, L.H.; O'Connor, M.D.; Olson, P.L.: Steel, E.A. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In Naiman, R.J., ed. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 127-188.

27. Nehlsen, W.; Williams, J.E.; Lichatowich, J.A. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries. 16(2): 4-21.

28. Sedell, J.R.; Beschta, R.L. 1991. Bringing back the "bio" in bioengineering. In Colt, J.; Dendall, S., eds. fisheries bioengineering: Proceedings of the symposium; Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society 10. 160-175.

29. Sedell, J.R.; Everest, F.H. 1991. Historic changes in pool habitat for Columbia River Basin salmon under study for TES listing. Draft report, December 1990. Corvallis, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 7 p.

30. Sidle, R.C.; Pearce, A.J.; O"Laughlin, C.L. 1985. Hillslope stability and land use. Water Resources Monograph Series II.

34. Straher, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 38: 913-920.

35. Sullivan, K.T.; Lisle, E., Dollof, C.A.; Grant, G.E.; Reid, L.M. 1987. Stream channels: the link between forests and fish in: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution Number 57. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. 39-97.

37. Swanson, F.J.; Benda, L.E.; Duncan, S.H. [and others]. 1987. Mass failure and other processes of sediment production in Pacific Northwest forest landscapes. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W. (eds). Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 57. 9-38. 471 p.

38. Swanson, R.H.; Golding, D.L. 1982. Snowpack management on Marmot Watershed to increase late season streamflow. In Proceedings, 50th Western Snow Conference. 215-218 p.

39. Swanson, F.J.; Gregory, S.V.; Sedell, J.R.; Campbell, A.G. 1982. Land-water interactions: the riparian zone. In Edmonds, R.L., ed. Analysis of coniferous forest ecosystems in western United States. Stroudsburg, P.A.: Hutchinson Ross. 267-291.

40. Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anothy, R.G., [and others]. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook No 553.

41. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl - draft. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 662 p. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

42. Vannote, R.L.; Minshall, G.W.; Cummings, K.W.; Sedell, J.R.; Cushing, C.E. 1980. The river continuim concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 40:452-461.

The following Riparian Management Guidelines were put together for the Willamette National Forest.

It had 100 to 400 foot buffers on fish-bearing streams (Class I and II):

Riparian Management Class I Class II Class III Class III Stable Moderate

& Unstable

Guidelines:

Range of width 150-400' 100-200' 50-100' 75-125'

Average width 200' 100' 75' 100'

Class IV Intermittent Class IV Ephemeral

Stable Moderate Unstable Stable/Moderate Unstable

Range Width 0 25-50' 25 - 100' 0 25-100

Average 0 30 50' 0 50'

Lakes Wetlands

Range of width 500-700' 150-600'

Average width 600' N/A

Gregory, Stan and Linda Ashkenas, 1990, Riparian Management Guide: Willamette National Forest, for Standards and Guidelines of the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) for Riparian Management Areas. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, 120 pages.

"Mature riparian forests and large woody debris in streams can also serve to limit the downstream impacts of mass failures/debris torrents, particularly in headwater streams." (Page 9)

"In small, shaded streams, this invertebrate community is dependent on riparian leaf and needle inputs for its food base. Conifer needles are low in food quality but are abundant and enter the stream year round. Deciduous leaves, on the other hand, are higher in food quality but enter the stream only during a short period in autumn. The combination of the two leaf litter types provides a stable, diverse food base for aquatic invertebrates." (Page 12)

"Riparian vegetation buffers temperature and humidity extremes, thereby creating favorable microclimates. In summer, riparian areas are cooler and more humid than uplands. In winter, riparian areas are less exposed to wind than ridges and upper slopes, and snow depths are less. Consequently, species from elk to salamanders find thermal refuges in riparian areas." (Page 14)

"Mature riparian forests and large woody debris in streams can also serve to limit the downstream impacts of mass failures/debris torrents, particularly in headwater streams." (Page 9)

"In small, shaded streams, this invertebrate community is dependent on riparian leaf and needle inputs for its food base. Conifer needles are low in food quality but are abundant and enter the stream year round. Deciduous leaves, on the other hand, are higher in food quality but enter the stream only during a short period in autumn. The combination of the two leaf litter types provides a stable, diverse food base for aquatic invertebrates." (Page 12)

"Riparian vegetation buffers temperature and humidity extremes, thereby creating favorable microclimates. In summer, riparian areas are cooler and more humid than uplands. In winter, riparian areas are less exposed to wind than ridges and upper slopes, and snow depths are less. Consequently, species from elk to salamanders find thermal refuges in riparian areas." (Page 14)

"A recent study of streams in old-growth forests in the Cascades and Coast Range found that 90% of the large wood in the channel originated within 92 feet of the stream margin (McDade et al. 1989). For large woody debris management alone, riparian management zone widths of approximately 100 feet are required to maintain long-term inputs to streams and lakes. Additional consideration of floodplain functions and wildlife habitats may require even wider management zones." (page 46)