fundamentals of aquatic ecology - ohio epa · 2009. 4. 8. · sustainable watershed planning:...

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:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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"):


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%)


Lowrance, Todd, & Asmussen(1984)

25 (68%) 82’ Forested Buffer

Pinay & Decamps (1988) 30 (100%) 98’ Forested Buffer


Schnabel (1986) 27 (10-60%)

89’ Grassed Buffer

Schnabel (1986) 19 (40-90%)


Pinay ET AL. (1993) 30 (100%) 98’ France X Forested Buffer

Nitrate Reduction (Surface)

Doyle, Standton, & Wolf(1977)

30(98%)


Peterjohn & Correll (1984) 50(79%)


Dillaha et al (1989) 9(73%)




Young, Huntrods, &Asmussen (1980)

27(84%)


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)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





SedimentRemoval

Tempera-ture









Location ofStudy


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





SedimentRemoval

Tempera-ture









Location ofStudy


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





SedimentRemoval

Tempera-ture









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) 50(-114%)


Phosphorus Reduction (Surface)

Cooper & Gilliam (1987) 16 (50%) 52’ Forested Buffer









Young, Huntrods, &Asmussen (1980)

27(83%)


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