The Importance of Caring for Our Critical Riparian Habitats

The idea of managing riparian areas has gone through many iterations throughout time, from removing large wood in streams (Swanson et al., 2020, 55-66) to building fences that protect a narrow band of riparian vegetation (NRCS, 2009), forest laws that protect stream buffers from logging (Oregon Forest Laws, 2026), and a hands-off or passive approach that encourages natural order and succession (National Academies, 2002). So, what is the right approach when considering active management for riparian areas? The answer begins with understanding past and present human impacts to our riparian ecosystems that have diminished their function, while simultaneously finding a relevant reference point within our changing climate to help guide restoration and conservation efforts. 

An example of early logging without stream buffers. Date: 8/1/65 Photo: AAB-059. HJ Andrews Experimental Forest and Oregon State University

Example of a reference condition in the Upper Minam River in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, protected since 1964. Date 9/2/2017. Photo credit: Ian Wilson 

Only by understanding the change that led to the degraded conditions of riparian areas are we able to understand what may need to be fixed or, as Aldo Leopold delicately states in Round River, "to keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution to intelligent tinkering" (Leopold, 1953, 146-147). We tend to fixate on individual species for commercial benefit or charismatic species that are in need of protection, when in fact the sum is greater than the parts. A healthy and humble appreciation for complex ecosystem interactions is a good place to start. A combination of resource extraction such as timber and mining, river channelization, dams, removal of beavers, and over-allocation of water for agriculture and human development has forever altered the riparian landscape in the Pacific Northwest and across our planet Earth in all but a few places (Backhouse, 2015; NOAA Fisheries, 2017; Pandey et al., 2022). 

Rather than recounting the numerous riparian management strategies of the past employed to offset these degradations, I think it would be more instructive to discuss current riparian health and wise alternatives for stewarding these critical landscapes. More than 90% of our riparian areas have been altered in ways that disrupt their integrity and function, while wetlands have declined by half since the arrival of Europeans (Oregon State University, 2009). However, these systems support over 80% of all fish and wildlife at some point in their life histories (Krueper, 1993), making them some of the most diverse habitats on our planet with critical migration corridors (Merritt, 2022). What this means is that most of the streams you are familiar with are not what they used to be. 

Graphic of global biodiversity decline since 1970 with freshwater biodiversity pulling the overall decline down. 

Proverbially speaking, we are unable to put the genie back in the bottle in many of these riparian corridors because the footprint of human density and development may be past the tipping point. However, there are landscapes with vestiges of these ecological functions that are worth preserving or managing wisely. This puts us on the doorstep of the 21st century, a warming planet with extreme drought, wildfire and flooding (Dwire et al., 2018; Merritt, 2022). These climate forcing events have occurred in Earth's history, although on a very different landscape, one with intact riparian corridors, complete with floodplain connection, riparian hardwoods and resiliency to bounce back from catastrophic events much more quickly than today's riparian areas. 

In our current landscape, rivers have often incised or cut down through the land they flow through by human-made impacts, drying out floodplains, and making them more susceptible to pressures from climate, ongoing human activity and natural stressors. This in turn opens the door for invasive species that are dry-tolerant to move in (Dwire et al., 2018). A common example is dry-tolerant conifers that encroach on floodplains with such species as juniper (Juniperus spp.) or lodgepole (Pinus contorta spp.), although the list extends to invasive grasses and weeds. Not only does this alteration in the floodplain make them susceptible to invasive species, but also to wildfire, which is ravaging the West at untold scale and speed (National Interagency Fire Center, 2026). What once was one of Earth's most resilient ecosystems has become vulnerable, a chink in the armor of our most biodiverse habitats on planet Earth. 

How do we remedy this? There have been a number of techniques tried over the years, from simple protection, leave it alone, to more engaged activities that aim to replicate a former state through the addition of habitat features such as large wood, pools and gravel bars (Roni et al., 2002). Leasing water in-stream is perhaps one of the most fundamental and immediate ways we can protect the one thing that seems to be disappearing before our eyes (Water for Colorado, 2024). While these strategies have proven effective, they are no match for the scale and speed of climate change that is leading to species extinction, streams drying up and wildfires expanding into novel habitats such as floodplains (Clifton et al., 2018; Fleishman, 2025; Urban, 2024). 

There are renewed calls to actively manage riparian areas in forested habitats in the recently released Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Forest Service, 2026). This plan calls for, among other actions, increased timber harvest, including in riparian areas. What does this mean: removing dry-tolerant conifer trees, ignoring past buffers that protect streams from sedimentation associated with roads and logging, or something else? Do these actions benefit the floodplain by releasing native hardwoods, or do they exacerbate the drying through increased solar inputs? What is the right level of tinkering, as Aldo Leopold put it, and when are we better to let natural systems function, independent of our hand, letting our ego rest and enjoying the splendor of the complex web that ties these biological hotspots together? 

I am going to provide a position, based on my experience and career as a fish biologist, habitat restoration specialist and one who takes pleasure in making keen observations in wild places. First, the notion that wild places need management is inherently flawed in that it assumes natural processes need our touch in order to succeed. This is proven incorrect in the long history of species evolution that occurred independent of human evolution or alongside in a harmonious way. Now, you say we have forever altered our landscapes; therefore, we either have a moral obligation to fix them or an ego that will not let us off the hook, subjugating our mind while oppressing our will. 

I had a forestry professor who used to like to say, things in nature are not black and white. There is no smoking gun that is going to fix this problem or human intervention that will cure all. Instead, we should carefully consider how each of those parts is valuable and by removing any one, you can change the order and function. At last, nature is resilient in ways we are only beginning to understand if we take the time to allow natural processes to evolve through space and time. 

The preferred alternative being proposed in the Blue Mountains Forest Revision Plan calls for a 244% increase in mean annual timber volume, resulting in road use and reconstruction that will deliver sediment to streams with sensitive aquatic species (Forest Service, 2026). Increased sediment reduces egg-to-fry survival and disrupts food webs that support endangered species of Chinook, steelhead and bull Trout in our National Forest headwater systems (Jensen et al., 2009; Davis, 2026). These populations are struggling to hold on to existence from a myriad of stressors, often referred to as death by a thousand cuts (Bilby et al., 2023). Let's eliminate unnecessary disturbance.

The Blue Mountain Ecoregion with roads in black, wilderness in green and national forest in gray. There are enough roads in the Blues to circle the globe. 

Let's revisit the dry-tolerant conifer species encroaching a floodplain and explore some different management options and likely outcomes. Strategy one: remove the dry-tolerant species and hope that this shift to an earlier succession sheds light on the floodplain, allowing sun-loving native hardwoods to grow, yet we may be missing the one important factor the hardwoods need in order to thrive: water. Our well-intended efforts may fall short, increasing solar radiation to the floodplain, risking further drying and warming of the subsurface water in the absence of water (Hausner et al., 2018; Wondzell et al., 2019). Now, let's say we take those same dry-tolerant species and instead of removing them from the floodplain, let's add them back in the form of wood structures in the stream with the intention of connecting the floodplain, detaining water and creating an environment capable of supporting native hardwoods (Hausner et al., 2018). This second management decision could be an example of actively managing a floodplain towards a trajectory that changes the plant community and shifts the regime towards resilience. 

Perhaps a different approach may yield more positive results. Leaving the encroached conifers in place and reconnecting the floodplain with wood meant to mimic beaver dams and attract the original stream restoration specialist, beavers. Through inundation, these dry tolerant species are not able to withstand the anaerobic conditions their roots will be exposed to, naturally culling them from an environment they were never truly evolved for, leaving behind standing snags, valuable habitat for a host nesting birds and cavity boring specialist such as woodpeckers. The remaining trunk, now devoid of leaves, allows light through to a floodplain saturated with water and ripe for hardwood growth. As these hardwoods grow and provide forage for beavers, they can move in, maintaining and building dams, keeping the water level up and the cycle of hardwood growth alive (Castro et al., 2023).

Beaver dam complex and lodge at the confluence of Wrench Creek and Kelly River, Noatak National Preserve. Michael P Carey, Research Fish Biologist, Alaska Science Center. 

This preserves the biodiversity of these critical pathways that connect different ecoregions while making them more resilient to extreme climate events such as wildfire and drought resistance from water latency (Fairfax & Whittle, 2020; Pollock et al., 2026). Riparian management may just require a nudge and support for ecosystem engineers who have been stewarding these landscapes for millennia. 

Dixon Creek Trib of NF Sprague_Beaver Complex in Bootleg fire. Charlie Erdman, Trout Unlimited

Referenced Studies

Clifton, C. F., Day, K. T., Luce, C. H., Grant, G. E., Safeeq, M., Halofsky, J. E., & Stabb, B. P. (2018). Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Blue Mountains, Oregon, USA. Climate Services, 10, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2018.03.001

Davis, V. I. (2026). Effects of Fine Sediment on the Productivity of Stream Ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest [University Honors Theses. Paper 1885.]. Portland State University. https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.1921

Dwire, K. A., Mellmann-Brown, S., & Gurrieri, J. T. (2018). Potential effects of climate change on riparian areas, wetlands, and groundwater-dependent ecosystems in the Blue Mountains, Oregon, USA. Climate Services, 10, 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.10.002

Fairfax, E., & Whittle, A. (2020). Smokey the Beaver: beaver-dammed riparian corridors stay green during wildfire throughout the western USA. Ecological Applications, 30(8). 10.1002/eap. 2225

Fleishman, E. (2025). Seventh Oregon Climate Assessment. Oregon State University. https://doi.org/10.5399/osu/1181

Forest Service. (2026, July). Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). USDA.

Hausner, M. B., Huntington, J. L., Nash, C., Morton, C., McEvoy, D. J., Pilliod, D. S., Hegewisch, K. C., Daudert, B., Abatzoglou, J. T., & Grant, G. (2018). Assessing the effectiveness of riparian restoration projects using Landsat and precipitation data from the cloud-computing application ClimateEngine.org. Ecological Engineering, 120, 432-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.06.024

Jensen, D. J., Steel, A., Fullerton, A. H., & Pess, G. R. (2009). Impact of Fine Sediment on Egg-To-Fry Survival of Pacific Salmon: A Meta-Analysis of Published Studies. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 17(3), 348-359. 10.1080/10641260902716954

Krueper, D. (1993). Effects of Land Use Practices on Western Riparian Ecosystems. Bureau of Land Management. Retrieved August 20, 2026, from https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/22916

Leopold, A. (1953). In Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold (pp. 146-147). Oxford University Press.

Merritt, D. M. (2022). Encyclopedia of Inland Waters. Riparian Zones - Science Direct. Retrieved August 20, 2026, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/referencework/abs/pii/B9780128191668001778

National Academies. (2002). Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management (2002). Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management (2002). Retrieved August 20, 2026, from https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/10327/chapter/7

National Interagency Fire Center. (2026, August 20). National Fire News. National Interagency Fire Center. Retrieved August 20, 2026, from https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/nfn

NOAA Fisheries. (2017). ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) & Snake River Basin Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Retrieved August 20, 2026, from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/recovery-plan-snake- river-spring-summer-chinook-salmon-and-snake-river-basin

NRCS. (2009). NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Vermont NRCS SPECIFICATION GUIDE SHEET for Riparian Forest Buffer (391). Retrieved August 20, 2026, from https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/api/CPSFile/22122/391_VT_PS_Riparian_Forest_Buffer_2009

Oregon Forest Laws. (2026). Water and Fish. Water and Fish - Oregon Forest Laws. Retrieved August 20, 2026, from https://oregonforestlaws.org/water-and-fish

Oregon State University. (2009, August 9). Study: riparian zones need natural touch. Study: riparian zones need natural touch. Retrieved August 20, 2026, from https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/study-riparian-zones-need-natural-touch#:~:text=Up%20to%2090%20percent%20of,impacts%20and%20perform%20other%20functions.

Pandey, S., Kumari, T., Verma, P., Singh, R., & Raghubanshi, A.S. (2022, January 21). Impact of anthropogenic stresses on riparian ecosystem and their management perspectives. Impact of anthropogenic stresses on riparian ecosystem and their management perspectives. Retrieved August 20, 2026, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited- volume/abs/pii/B9780323850452000042

Pollock, M. M., Munsch, S. H., & Yokel, E. (2026, July 8). Riparian wetland creation using beaver dam analogues improves threatened salmon populations amidst severe drought. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 10.3389/fevo.2026.1717337

Roni, P., Beechie, T. J., Bilby, R. E., Leonetti, F. E., Pollock, M. M., & Pess, G. R. (2002). A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22, 1-22.

Swanson, F. J., Gregory, S. V., Iroumé, A., Ruiz-Villanueva, V., & Wohl, E. (2020, February 11). Reflections on the history of research on large wood in rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 46, 55-66. 10.1002/esp.4814

Urban, M. C. (2024, December 6). https://doi.org/10.5399/osu/1181. Science, 386(6726), 1123-1128. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461

Water for Colorado. (2024, March 19). Fifty Years of Instream Flow: What it’s Taught Us, and Why We Love it. Fifty Years of Instream Flow: What it’s Taught Us, and Why We Love it. Retrieved August 21, 2026, from https://www.waterforcolorado.org/whats-new/blog/fifty-years-of-instream-flow- what-its-taught-us-and-why-we-love-it/

Wondzell, S. M., Diabat, M., & Haggerty, R. (2019). What Matters Most: Are Future Stream Temperatures More Sensitive to Changing Air Temperatures, Discharge, or Riparian Vegetation? JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, 55(1), 116-132.