Management Guidelines for Riparian Forests 



prescription for a specific site must be done in 

 conjunction with knowledge of conditions up- 

 stream and downstream. Potts and Anderson 

 (1990) recommend a pre-disturbance appraisal 

 to help define specific prescriptions. 



Site preparation and successful regenera- 

 tion are a major concern in streamside areas. 

 Competition from grasses and shrubs often pre- 

 cludes conifer regeneration unless site prepara- 

 tion and regeneration are carefully planned. 

 Hand scalping and planting is usually sug- 

 gested for SMZs, but this may not be adequate 

 site preparation to ensure regeneration success 

 because of the heavy competition on wetland 

 sites. Equipment usage is generally precluded 

 in the current Best Management Practices. This 

 may lead to general development of non-regen- 

 erated conditions which may not meet the de- 

 sired future condition. Many examples of non- 

 stocked areas in wetiands exist due to inade- 

 quate site preparation and/or grazing. A win- 

 dow of opportunity for site preparation may be 

 needed to ensure tree regeneration and to mimic 

 natural plant community succession. For me- 

 chanical or burning practices, this may be only 

 a few weeks in late summer when the water 

 tables are at the lowest level. If water tables rise 

 following timber harvesting (as has been ob- 

 served in several wetland sites), then site prepa- 

 ration may need to be delayed a few years until 

 regrowth is sufficient to lower the water table 

 again. With the present lack of predictability, 

 monitoring may be the most efficient process to 

 adjust timing of site-preparation and regenera- 

 tion treatments to ensure meeting objectives. 



Results — SxREAMsroE Management 

 Zones 



Adjacent Wetlands 



Four habitat types (Pfister and others 1977) 

 had been previously proposed as "wetiand" and 



several other types or phases as "transitional." 

 As discussed previously (see Table G-1), the 

 BMP audits confirmed this categorization. How- 

 ever, classification revision during 1989 and 

 1990 has provided an expanded list of "wet- 

 land" types for northwestern Montana (Boggs 

 and others 1990). Field identification of the 

 following "wetiand" habitat types (h.t.) and 

 community types (c.t.) should meet the intent 

 and definitions of the Best Management Prac- 

 tices for including adjacent wetiands within the 

 Streamside Management Zone: 



Abies lasiocarpalCalamagrostis canaden- 

 sis h.t (Subalpine fir/Bluejoint) 



Abies lasiocarpalOplopanax horridum h.t. 

 (Subalpine fir/Devil's club) 



Abies lasiocarpa/Streptopus amplexifolius, 

 h.t., Ligusticum canbyii phase (Sub- 

 alpine fir/Twisted stalk h.t., Canby's 

 licorice-root phase) 



PicealCalamagrostis canadensis c.t. 

 (Spruce/Bluejoint) 



Picea/Cornus stolonifera h.t. (Spruce/Red- 

 Osier dogwood) 



Picea/Equisetum arvense h.t. (Spruce/ 

 Horsetail) 



PicealLysichticum americanum h.t. (Spruce/ 

 Skunk cabbage) 



Thuja plicatalOplopanax horridum h.t. 

 (Western red cedar/Devils club) 



Thuja plicatalAthyrium filix-femina h.t. 

 (Western red cedar/Lady fern) 



Several other forest types are included in 

 the riparian site classification, but are inter- 

 preted as being "transitional" between "wet- 

 land" and "upland" conditions (for example, 

 Abies lasiocarpal Ledum glandulosum h.t.) At 

 this time we have insufficient data to recom- 

 mend requiring inclusion within the SMZ. How- 

 ever, examination of local soil and water table 

 situations may suggest including part or all of 



Flathead Basin Cooperative Program Final Report 



Page 95 



