Duration: 10/01/2001 to 09/30/2003

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Serious environmental and economic consequences of degraded riparian conditions are increasingly evident, and have become prominent land management issues in the North Central Region. Many landscape changes can be implicated. However, the elimination, fragmentation, loss of diversity, and mismanagement of riparian systems, as well as, stream channelization and other drainage modifications is a central cause of the impaired capability of riparian areas to function properly, contributing to broad-scale issues. Among these issues are exacerbated flooding, polluted waters, sedimentation of waterways and reservoirs, and numerous at-risk aquatic and terrestrial species. Impacts are also being felt farther downstream where there are drinking water and aquatic health concerns in the lower Mississippi River, as well as hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico traced to nutrient pollution from Midwestern agriculture. Restoration and management of properly functioning riparian areas are critical to mitigating these resource concerns. However, barriers both scientific and social restrict land owner participation in coordinated riparian management programs may lead to inconsistent management of riparian lands. Overcoming these barriers will require an integrated research framework to better understand biophysical aspects of riparian functions on individual properties and along waterways at a watershed level, and their relationship to benefits that society wants riparian lands to provide through the development of efficient and effective management and policies.

Justification: Riparian areas are lands next to streams, lakes, and wetlands that act as transitional links between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Healthy riparian areas play a key role in maintaining environmental quality and producing economic and social benefits to land managers and society. For example, they protect water quality, provide wildlife habitat, produce commodities, provide recreational opportunities, and enhance landscape aesthetics. Over much of the North Central Region, land managers have often altered their riparian areas often without regard for the social, economic, and ecological benefits they provide. Eliminated and fragmented natural riparian vegetation, mismanaged timber and livestock production, channelized streams, and other drainage modifications are examples of the impaired capability of riparian areas to function properly. Meanwhile, extensive land conversion to cultivation and development has increased the need for improved riparian management to provide important environmental benefits. Land managers play a significant and critical role in the disposition of riparian lands. For the North Central Region, improved riparian land management can enhance agricultural production, improve water quality, and reduce soil erosion. The continued strength of the Midwest breadbasket is intertwined with the natural resource quality of riparian lands. Yet today, serious environmental and economic consequences of degraded riparian systems are increasingly evident and have become prominent regional land management issues. There is substantial interest within the Midwest research community and among local citizens to improve riparian conditions in both rural and urban settings. The research community needs to develop and understand efficient and effective methods and materials to employ in riparian systems. In addition, most states have programs to assist land managers to adopt more environmentally sound riparian land use practices, but these programs must be guided by sound scientific information.

Most of the considerable body of evidence confirming the ecological value and effectiveness of riparian zones as sinks for nonpoint source pollution has come from existing vegetated riparian zones. This body of literature recommends the protection or enhancement of the existing vegetation. As an example, Welsch (1991) presented a system for the protection of water quality, which has been widely adopted by scientists and managers in much of the Eastern United States, that prescribes the maintenance of undisturbed forest near the stream edge. In many agricultural watersheds of the North Central Region, nearly all native riparian vegetation has been removed and the land converted to row crop or pasture agriculture. In these converted systems, establishment of riparian vegetation should function in a similar fashion to natural riparian communities. However, there is little information available for restored or reestablished riparian buffer systems in extensively modified agricultural landscapes, particularly in the Midwestern United States (Osborne and Kovacic 1993, Schultz et al. 1995, Isenhart 1998). While scientists and resource managers can borrow from the existing knowledge base, there are many fundamental, process-based questions that need to be answered related to the variability and mechanisms of nonpoint source pollution removal in established riparian buffers.

Timber harvest in riparian areas in forested systems can affect stream quality. Degradation may occur due to increased sediment, higher water temperatures, altered light regime, and nutrient input. Concerns about riparian areas in forested watersheds often focus on balancing impacts to ecological functions with opportunities for sustained timber management (Palik et al. 1999). Achieving this balance is a concern in the upper Lake States due to the abundance of surface water and high proportion of riparian commercial timber (Laursen 1996). Consequently, there is growing pressure on agencies and the forest industry to adopt guidelines for forest management in riparian areas (e.g., Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1995). The approach of these guidelines is to delineate a riparian management area that excludes or restricts timber management that prevents or reduces functional degradation of the riparian area.

Delineation of riparian management area widths is a politically charged issue, as is the determination of acceptable levels of management within the areas. Guidelines for riparian management area widths and intensity of management often lack scientific support. Rather, they reflect desires to provide some level of protection to riparian functions, without overly restricting timber management opportunities. Stakeholders want a better understanding of the effects of timber management on riparian area functions to refine the guidelines. However, stakeholder interest tends to be polarized between those advocating maximum protection of riparian areas, at the expense of timber management, and those interested in maximizing timber management opportunities by minimizing management restrictions. The polarization among stakeholders that results from a focus on extracting products often overlooks the importance of riparian zones to provide critical or beneficial habitat features for a variety of organisms. Aquatic species such as fish, mussels, and a host of invertebrates depend upon healthy rivers and streams. Many species are specialists, dependent upon specific features of the aquatic system, such as stream order, substrate type. and water velocity, as well as water quality. Small perturbations of the stream conditions that these species have adapted to over thousands of years can disrupt life history strategies and threaten populations. Some long-lived taxa, such as mussels, may still be present, but are failing to reproduce. These populations might be rescued if we better understood their life history requirements in relation to riparian systems.

Riparian zones also provide critical breeding habitat for many animal species that require water during their reproductive life stage. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals represent major taxa with members that require or benefit from the specific habitat features provided by riparian zones. However, these terrestrial and semi-terrestrial animals are often overlooked in favor of strictly aquatic species in planning for riparian management areas. For some types, riparian zones are the primary habitats used during breeding and therefore represent limiting habitat. For others, particularly mammals, riparian zones are critical corridors for movement. Barriers to movement may prevent exploitation of available food resources or limit q species' ability to colonize new sites. Poor riparian zone management could negatively affect population stability or overall fitness for those species dependent upon these habitats. Conversely, best management practices widely applied to riparian zones in the North Central Region could greatly enhance wildlife habitat and reverse negative population trends for some species.

The uncertainties surrounding establishment of riparian systems in agricultural regions and management guidelines for forested systems argue for research that examines and demonstrates the effects of various, integrated approaches on riparian functions. The multiple values associated with riparian areas argue for management approaches that balance desires to both protect and utilize riparian resources. There is little research in the North Central region, or nationally, that addresses this balanced approach. Establishment, protection, and constrained management of riparian systems should also move toward the societal goal of improved water quality.

The role of stream riparian zones in regulating the transport of pollutants from agricultural land to streams should also be considered during the development of guidelines for wooded-riparian management. Research indicates that, to produce long-term improvements in water quality, riparian management areas must be designed or managed with and understanding of: 1) the processes that remove or sequester pollutants entering the buffer system (e.g., patterns of pollutant transport and the role of vegetation and microbial processes in pollutant removal are related to ground and surface water hydrology); 2) the effects of management practices on pollutant retention; 3) the effects of forest buffers on aquatic systems; 4) the time to recovery after harvest of trees or re-establishment of buffer systems; and 5) the effects of underlying soil and geological materials on chemical, hydrological, and biological processes.

Spatial patterns in biophysical properties, such as those described by ecoregions, dictate definition of research questions (i.e., questions about best management practices design and effectiveness will differ among northern Minnesota, southeastern Minnesota, South Dakota, and eastern Nebraska). The social landscape represents a second, spatially-structured pattern that both constrains and empowers riparian area managers. However, to be effective in developing riparian management and policies that will provide improved on-site practices and protect downstream water quality while "remaining consistent" with our need to use and develop land and water resources, we must combine biophysical and social approaches. Biophysical aspects must identify relationships that control patterns on the landscape and the interconnection with water quality at local and watershed scales. Social aspects must help us identify barriers to understanding and opportunities for implementing effective riparian management strategies.

Biophysical and hydrological models are needed for researchers, planners, and field professionals to use as decision tools to aid in the design and management of riparian management areas for increasing or sustaining on-site and downstream water quality. One promising model under development is the Riparian Ecosystem Management Model (REMM) at the Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Tifton, GA. Prior to wide-scale distribution, the developers are seeking partners to test the model and to build regional databases of model input variables and process algorithms in an integrated fashion. A specific objective of this NC proposal will be to recalibrate the model with the assistance of the developers to allow its application to riparian ecosystems in the North Central Region. This project will also contribute to a regionally applicable database of model input variables that will be made available to interested researchers and resource managers.

Knowledge of the biological, physical, and economic potential of the land is fundamental to the optimal management of riparian areas. However, the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of specific riparian management area initiatives also depend on farmer/landowner attitudes and the social context in which these attitudes are formed. A parallel challenge to achieving the restoration and efficient management of riparian buffer zones, therefore, is the need to attain improved understanding of farmer and landowner behavior as it relates to adoption strategies toward innovative management approaches. Individual decisions to participate must be subsequently linked in cross-boundary watershed or ecosystem level collaborative management efforts (Dedrick et al. 1998). Successful programs and policies must reflect local watershed knowledge, integrate community and scientific concerns, and develop incentives that foster stewardship behavior (Priester and Kent 1997).

The task of implementing riparian area management in managed forest and agricultural landscapes dominated by multiple ownerships is complicated by the unfamiliarity of resource managers with research methods involving psychological scaling and attitude measures (Hall 1998). Several authors (Bliss et al. 1997. Dedrick et al. 1998) have cited the dearth of research on landowner attitudes and have called for a more refined approach to attitude measurement on the part of natural resource managers with more precise terminology and framing of questions. As attitudinal factors (affect, beliefs, and behavior) have been found to be related to social judgments about natural resource management alternatives (Hall 1998), a research need exists to measure the attitudes of Midwestern farmers and landowners toward riparian lands.

Attitudes are formed and decisions to adopt innovative riparian management practices are made in a social context. The importance of informal communication between farmers and landowners within a watershed cannot be underestimated when new ideas are being proposed (Dedrick et al, 1998, West et al. 1988). Watershed managers and researchers have an inadequate understanding of which factors influence acceptance of new practices (Brunson 1993). However, when individuals who act as community opinion leaders are also early adopters of new best management practices, the rate of adoption by others in the same social group may be increased. Evidence suggests that proactive, opinion-leading farmers who have adopted an innovation appear to be effective messengers in convincing other farmers to try new approaches. The interpersonal farmer-to-farmer interaction apparently helps mitigate the evaluation and decision stages of the adoption process. A specific objective of this NC project will be to develop a similar model of watershed opinion leaders in an effort to predict adoption strategies in regard to best management practices for riparian areas.

Social factors must also be addressed at the community level. The capacity of communities to accommodate change will enhance collective responsibilities toward management of riparian lands at the landscape level. Additional multi-disciplinary research is needed to link social, economic, and demographic data with trends in riparian land use within a watershed and subwatersheds (Kuczenski et al. 1999).

Related, Current and Previous Work

Numerous riparian research and assessment activities are being conducted by state and federal agencies, private organizations, and universities across the North Central Region. Previous research provides a considerable body of evidence that confirms the ecological value and effectiveness of riparian zones as sinks for nonpoint source pollution (Peterjohn and Correll 1984, Lowrance et al. 1984, Jacobs and Gilliam 1985, Cooper et al. 1987, Lowrance 1992, Jordan et al. 1993, Osborne and Kovacic 1993, Castelle et al 1994, Groffinan 1996, Hill 1996, Verchot et al. 1997). Several authors have recently reviewed the role of stream riparian zones in regulating the transport of pollutants from agricultural land to streams Lowrance et al. 1995, 1997, Hill 1996, Correll 1997, Cilliam et al. 1997, Fennessy and Cronk 1997). These research results led Welsch (1991) to formulate a system for the protection of water quality, widely adopted by scientists and managers in much of the Eastern United States that prescribes the maintenance of undisturbed forest near the stream edge. The current research and riparian land use programs provide a major opportunity for evaluating increased economic gain, increased quality of management in the eyes of the public, and increased sustainability of agricultural and forested lands from improved riparian zone management. However these studies are not integrated, and it is difficult to compare data across studies or understand how outcomes may vary based on ecoregional differences in geology, soils, and climate. Many studies focus on only a few aspects of riparian biophysical function or habitat values, and even fewer, perhaps none, integrate socio-economic and biophysical opportunities and constraints.

Much of the previous social science research on nonindustrial private forest landowners primarily has concentrated on the perceptions, motivations, and intentions as related to watershed and ecosystem management or adoption of forest stewardship programs (Broderick et al 1996 Cross and Green 1996, Graesser and Force 1996, Mills et al. 1996, Williams et al. 1996, Dedrick et al. 1998). Although some recent studies have begun to address measurement of landowner attitudes (Yang 1993, Mills et al. 1996), it can be argued that methods employed to date measure articulations rather than attitudes (Egan and Jones 1995). Little information is available on social factors affecting adoption of management guidelines specific to riparian management areas or their implementation in agricultural landscapes.

Project participants are involved in a wide range of major, ongoing, riparian research and demonstration projects throughout the North Central Region. A listing and brief description of these projects is included as Table 3. An objective of the proposed NC project is to provide an umbrella structure to blend these individual projects into cooperative and complementary research programs that capitalize on regional input.

Objectives

1. Our procedural model will be to use all centrally available project funds to draw people together to develop several synthetic projects. Based on the proposals generated by those discussions, we will accomplish the following objectives: The unifying objectives of this project will be to provide an integrated process-based approach to understanding biophysical function within riparian zones and to determine effective riparian management practices for increasing or sustaining on-site and downstream water quality. We will explicitly address three major themes; biophysical, social, and integration of the biophysical and social components. We will initiate long-term studies to determine changes in riparian function over time, including the response time required for restored buffers to become functionally equivalent with established buffers. These objectives will culminate with our goal, that is to answer the question: What riparian management and policies will provide improved on-site practices and accumulative human benefits and protect downstream water quality while "remaining consistent" with our need to use and develop land and water resources? Specifically, the objectives of this project are to: <ul> <li>Assess biophysical functions of riparian management as they relate to management practices for increasing or sustaining on-site and downstream water quality. <li>Evaluate alternative riparian management systems in terms of cost effectiveness, water quality benefits, and adoption by land managers. <li>Develop integrated tools needed for land management and policy development, to select and enhance adoption of preferred riparian management systems.</ul>
   

Methods

Subject to the success of our ability to generate external funds using this project to leverage additional funding, we propose to serve the needs of a wide range of audiences. Some of our target audiences will include individual landowners and managers. We anticipate that those people will find most useful practical and tested formats such as best management practice manuals and laminated decision guides useful for on-site design and evaluation. Other people interested in our work will include researchers, agency collaborators, and program managers. We feel those people will be more concerned with larger, more generic questions and that they will be interested in a wider variety of formats for transmitting information. As such, we will develop, test, and evaluate more technology- and education-based tools for this audience.

Ongoing projects within the North Central Region by those affiliated with the proposal provide the opportunity to examine the effects of riparian management practices on on-site benefits and water quality parameters (see Tables 1 and 3 for additional detail). Current research of our biophysical research team is located in several geographic locations with sharp contrast between vegetation types and land use. These study projects will allow us to: a) examine biophysical functions of riparian management areas and land manager adoption in forest, grassland, and agricultural settings within the context of natural variation in riparian characteristics within the watershed, b) examine potential ecoregion differences in riparian areas by including watersheds that differ in geomorphic setting, stream physical characteristics, land use, and land management perception, and c) explicitly examine scale issues in riparian management by comparing site- level and landscape contributions to riparian outcomes.

Currently monitored biophysical properties among the ongoing projects include stream sediment, water temperature and chemistry, stream invertebrate and fish communities, stream coarse woody debris and benthic organic matter, particulate organic matter input, riparian plant and bird communities, tree regeneration, residual tree blow down, soil disturbance, and logging efficiency. Examples of pertinent ongoing projects are as follows. 1) The Minnesota Integrated Riparian Management Project is an adaptive management experiment comparing four riparian forest management treatments, replicated three times in each of two watersheds. The Minnesota Project includes headwater streams in northern hardwood forest and second-third order streams in aspen-conifer forest. 2) The Bear Creek Watershed Project, located in first-second order streams within intensive row-crop agriculture in central Iowa, includes over 5 miles of reestablished riparian buffer in a chronosequence from 0 to 10 years of age whose biophysical function is compared with riparian zones under crops, cool season grasses, and mixed timber. 3)

The Agroecosystems Project in the northern Great Plains of South Dakota is designed to address four aspects of the interaction of vegetation and stream processes. These aspects include: a) the functional relationships between vegetation and hydrogeomorphology, b) development of management prescriptions and cost-effective methods to restore riparian health, c) an inventory the composition and structure of the riparian vegetation along the Big Sioux River in eastern South Dakota, and d) continuation of research on previous riparian restoration work in western South Dakota (Mortenson Ranch Project) and add two additional restoration sites. 4) Finally, several proposal participants are associated with the Pilot Watershed Projects in Illinois. The pilot watersheds include Court, Sugar, Big, and Hurricane creeks. The projects have four goals: a) provide a forum for local producers and land owners to improve their watersheds, b) streamlining land owner access to funding through multi-agency cooperation, c) evaluate the effectiveness of watershed management practices, and d) function as showcases for watershed management.

Objective 1, sub-objective a): A regional inventory of riparian environmental conditions utilizing Gap Analysis Project databases. The purpose of the Gap Analysis Program is to provide broad geographic information on the status of common vertebrate animal species and their habitats and to identify centers of biodiversity. Gap Analysis is conducted by combining the distribution of natural vegetation with the predicted distribution of vertebrates and vegetation types as indicators of biodiversity. These biodiversity maps are overlaid with stewardship maps to identify "gaps" in biodiversity conservation.

Project leader Bruce Menzel at Iowa State University will facilitate joint planning and coordination by members WI, MN, MO, and IL. Gap is a U.S. EPA-funded and coordinated nation-wide research project, organized by states, which utilizes geographic information system technologies to map and analyze environmental features and wildlife distributions. We will utilize the geographic information system land use and vegetation coverages that are being assembled by the Gap projects in the various states. We will sample riparian sites stratified according to ecoregion, drainage area, etc. Geographic information system data will be verified on the ground at selected riparian sites both within and nearby selected watersheds by assessing their condition with standardized protocol. We will then merge the assessment information back into the geographic information system and extrapolate to all different riparian categories to produce the regional inventory. Because the geographic information system coverages already exist for most states, this should be relatively inexpensive and the work could proceed fairly quickly. The Gap researchers are already networked and are cooperating on standardization.

Objective 1, sub-objective b): Collect consistent, integrated data across several areas to examine regional patterns in riparian function. Tom Isenhart (IA) and Karl Williard (IL) will facilitate planning and coordination across current projects, sharing of equipment, pooling of data, data analysis, and summarization of findings with teams led by cooperators from MN, SD, NE, and MN. Under this proposed project, current monitoring efforts will be expanded to assess a consistent and a potentially broader array of on- site variables and the effects of riparian vegetation manipulation on these variables. Additional biophysical parameters will include channel dynamics of restored/restoring riparian zones, riparian hydrology, and denitrification processes in riparian zones. This integrated approach will allow us to examine functional analysis and dynamics of well-managed wooded, grass, and wetland riparian zones. We will use ongoing projects (e.g., Agroecosystem project in South Dakota; Bear Creek, Iowa; the Pilot Watersheds, Illinois; the Minnesota Riparian Management Experiment; Rogers Memorial Farm, University of Nebraska; and Clear Creek Watershed, Nebraska) and potentially at other sites (e.g., Sugar Creek, Indiana - Purdue University) to establish a database.

As part of this sub-objective, we will involve, test, and modify as appropriate the Riparian Ecosystem Management Model (Altieretal, 1994). This model is specifically being developed to evaluate management alternatives in riparian areas for mitigating nonpoint source pollution. Besides its use by researchers to better understand the interaction of ecosystem processes, the Riparian Ecosystem Management Model is intended for use by planners as a decision tool to aid in the effective management of these areas. It is a process-based model, simulating surface and subsurface hydrology, nutrient dynamics, and plant growth on a daily time step. The impetus behind its development is that although general guidelines are available on the management of streamside areas for providing control of water quality, information is lacking on how buffer zones should be designed to accommodate site-specific characteristics. Information is also lacking on how management alternatives may affect the water quality functions of buffer systems. The Riparian Ecosystem Management Model simulates hydrology, nutrient dynamics, erosion/sedimentation, and plant growth in riparian areas. Utilizing user-supplied state variable's, rate functions are modeled using process-based algorithms. Richard Lowrance (USDA-ARS, Riparian Ecosystem Management Model lead, see attached letter of support) has sought assistance from our group should the proposal be approved. The Riparian Ecosystem Management Model and the existing input "default" database has been developed for forested systems in the southeast. The Riparian Ecosystem Management Model group is searching for collaborators to validate the model for other systems, and they have particular interest in the upper Midwest because this is where most buffer establishment is occurring. We would use ongoing and proposed work to establish a database of Riparian Ecosystem Management Model inputs that would have applicability across the region. In the validation step, we would use experimental and monitoring results from our proposed project to modify the algorithms in the Riparian Ecosystem Management Model to work in Midwest systems. Two specific examples reflect differences in the Midwest and Southeast - accounting for tile drainage and seasonally frozen soils. We will use the Riparian Ecosystem Management Model to integrate regional knowledge and as a feedback loop to identify knowledge gaps and direct future research. One additional pragmatic advantage to using the Riparian Ecosystem Management Model is that there is support for its modification and use by the NRCS (particularly through their Institutes). This project will also contribute to a regionally applicable database of model input variables that will be made available to interested researchers and resource managers.

Objective 1. sub-objective c): Integrate available geographic information system data for a subset of watersheds to address landscape-scale questions. Melinda Knutson (WI) and Christine Ribic (WI) will lead this task. They and their colleagues will use a replicated, demonstration project approach with target watersheds identified in different ecoregions. An example of a researchable question to be addressed under this objective would be the proportion of a watershed required to be under best management practices to achieve water quality and other wildlife benefits. Data collection protocols have been standardized so that data can be compared across ecoregions, however, each demonstration project will study some aspect of our list of pressing research questions in depth. Sampling frames for biophysical data will be established so that we can correlate management practices stream morphology, water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat data with species presence/absence or abundance. Organisms of interest include amphibians, reptiles, and birds Finally, geographic information system models predicting species presence/absence and abundance will be developed from the research data and used as predictive models for entire ecoregions. Follow-up research will involve validation of these models.

Objective 2, sub-objective a): Evaluate alternative riparian management systems in terms of cost effectiveness and benefits. This sub-objective will be facilitated by Edna Loehman and her colleagues at Purdue University (IN). We will use geographic information systems to perform evaluation at a watershed scale and evaluate costs and benefits for a representative watershed in the Midwest. GLEAMS will be used to estimate loads (sediment, nitrates, pesticides) by agronomic practices and weather conditions for representative farms typical of the area. Other data layers will include soil type and slope and land use. Benefits of riparian management will be determined in terms of the pollution load reduction and quality of wildlife habitat. Costs of management will depend on whether riparian areas must be reestablished or are presently existing.

Objective 2, sub-objective h): Identify programs to enhance adoption of riparian management systems. This sub-objective will be facilitated by Edna Loehman and her colleagues at Purdue University (IN). Adoption studies can help identify impediments and needed incentives in a given geographic location. Low adoption rates may in part be explained by insufficient cost sharing and lack of information regarding efficacy (Ribaudo, 1997, Feather and Cooper, 1995). We will compare producer willingness to adopt to water user willingness to pay (WTP) for a locally- based riparian management program. The comparison of adoption and WTP studies will result in the identification of a feasible program, including the size and composition of buffer strips and the nature of cost sharing requirements. More specific procedures are as follows for a specific geographic location: 1) Based on results of representative farms and watershed modeling, prepare an information brochure to describe efficacy of alternative riparian management systems. 2) Using the information brochure, carry out a study of willingness by local producers to adopt riparian management. Both survey and focus group techniques will be employed. The focus group format allows interaction between producers and among producers and researchers. Survey and focus group results will be compared to see the effect of framing on willingness to adopt. 3) Carry out a study of local willingness to pay for cost sharing for water quality improvement. Survey respondents and focus group participants will be selected by random sampling. Surveys will be administered through a mail service. Focus groups will be executed with the participation of local NRCS and extension educators.

Objective 2, sub-objective c): Identify barriers to land owner adoption of appropriate practices (best management practices) and determine whether they can be overcome. Participants involved with the Pilot Watersheds Program (Doug Austen, Jean Mangun and Karl Williard (IL)) will be responsible for leading the collaborative effort assessing and inventorying replicated demonstration areas within the Pilot Watersheds (IL) and other sites (IA, NO, NE). Areas of expertise represented by project participants include; human dimensions of natural resource management, social dimensions of agroforestry, factors that facilitate or constrain adoption of agroforestry practices, natural resource economics, and extension. We will adapt the adoption-diffusion model advanced by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) and applied by Cross and Green (1996) to non-industrial private forest landowners to develop an opinion leadership model of farmers and landowners within managed forest and agricultural watersheds dominated by multiple ownerships. Land managers and agricultural extension agents will be asked to nominate individuals whom they feel meet a set of opinion-leading, early-adopting criteria. Each individual nominated will be sent a leadership self-evaluation test (Rogers and Shoemaker 1971, Raymond 1985, Cross and Green 1996), a self assessment of interpersonal skills (McEvoy et al. 1988, Cross and Green 1996), a self assessment of riparian restoration or conservation practices already implemented on their property. A riparian best management practice workshop will be held for respondents who meet selected leadership criteria. A self-administered mail questionnaire will be sent to cooperators 6 and 18 months following the workshop. A simple linear regression model will be used to relate opinion-leadership scores with diffusion-adoption activity response variables. Selection criteria and survey instruments have been standardized by the Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. Regional workshops will be jointly planned and coordinated by state agencies (eg., Illinois DNR, Wisconsin DNR, Missouri Department of Conservation) and the University of Missouri Center for Agro forestry.

Objective 3): Develop integrated tools needed for land management and policy development, to select and enhance adoption of preferred riparian management systems. Jim Perry (MN) will lead our Integration subcommittee that will draw together the people most interested in integrated decision making, but will not exclude ecologists, foresters, anthropologists, economists, soil scientists, hydrologists and engineers. We will focus on applied decision-making tools where we incorporate the biophysical and social outcomes from objectives 1 and 2 to enhance adoption of riparian systems and guide policy making, educational resources, and strategies that are focused toward helping land managers improve management of riparian areas.

The integration function will cut across all of the components identified in the first two objectives. In objective one, we specifically identify four areas of ongoing biophysical riparian research (Northern MN, Bear Creek - IA, South Dakota, and IL) with additional sites to be added. The Gap Analysis Program/Geographic Information Analysis work will assess the attributes within these study sites and other systems. These studies will provide the background for the social dimensions of the project, specifically the physical and temporal response of the riparian zones that can be expected.

Within objective two, the alternative riparian management systems will be based on the biophysical studies and the current status of the science. This project will provide: 1) the opportunity for continuous interaction among the biophysical scientists such that biophysical scientists can provide the framework about what is possible and for the social scientists to introduce concerns of landowners; and 2) completed projects that can be better integrated.

For objective three, it is necessary that the social data be spatially explicit in order to integrate the biological and social outcomes. This will allow us to use the social models integrated with geographic systems to run "what if scenarios based on the ecological outcomes of landowner-preferred management practices. An example to illustrate the importance of the overlay of social and ecological suitability would be the scenario that if 70% of the landowners within a watershed adopt riparian buffers, but none of the landowners in the critical portions of the watershed adopt buffers, very little will be gained ecologically. To be successful in answering such questions, it will be necessary to closely integrate all facets of the proposed work.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Contingent on additional proposals that can be leveraged based on this proposal, we will supply several tangible products in each of our three thematic areas.
• <u>Biophysical Component:</u> Our proposed biophysical research will facilitate the understanding of the functional aspects of healthy riparian areas. This understanding will aid restoration and management of riparian areas to mitigate issues related to exacerbated flooding, polluted waters, sedimentation of waterways and reservoirs, and numerous at-risk aquatic and terrestrial species in the North Central Region that also influence hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Objective 1, sub-objective <i>a): A regional inventory of riparian environmental conditions utilizing Gap Analysis Project databases.</i>
• <i>Outcome: </i>A regional inventory of riparian environmental conditions. <P>* Completion expected within two years of project initiation. This work will provide essential information for scientists involved with Objective 1c. The target audience would be technical experts within USDA-NRCS, Extension personnel, and the general public. The distribution would be made available as a CD and/or website.</p>
• Objective 1, sub-objective<i> b): Collect consistent, integrated data across several areas to examine regional patterns in riparian function.</i>
• <i>Outcome:</i> Riparian Areas Manual that provides a functional analysis of wetland, grass, and well-managed woody riparian areas adjacent to agricultural and forested lands across the North Central Region<p> <i>Outcome:</i> Assessment Guides for Channel Engineering and Assessment Guides for feasibility of restoration/remediation <p> See attached "Outcomes" for additional information.</p>

Milestones

(0): attached Table 4.

(0):0

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Organization/Governance

This regional project will be a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary program involving several scientists from the SAES, state agencies, USGS, USDA-ARS, and USDA- Forest Service. The major functions of the project are to bring together Midwestern scientists working in the general area of riparian research for the purpose of exchanging information from existing research efforts and developing new, more broadly based research, focused on addressing the objectives of this proposal.

From an administrative perspective, the project will be organized as an NC committee with each participating entity having one "official" representative appointed by the appropriate administrator for that agency, the regional advisor, and the CSREES representative constituting the committee. The committee chair will have primary responsibility for overall leadership of the project and will work closely with the program coordinator to oversee the conduct and coordination of the project. The chair will be assisted in this process by the vice-chair and secretary.

The committee will meet annually. It will be divided into three sub-committees based on the thematic areas (biophysical, social, and integration) identified in the proposal. Each sub-committee with have a chair and vice-chair. All officers will be elected for two year terms and will move by succession to the next higher level.

A quarter-time program coordinator supported by one of the participating agencies or SAES will be chosen by the executive committee after consultation with potentially interested entities. The program coordinator would be responsible for the day to day business of the program and would provide the focal point for jointly developed proposals and projects. The program coordinator would distribute jointly acquired funding, provide appropriate record keeping for jointly funded efforts, and have lead responsibility for reports required by funding agencies as well as the annual project report to CSREES.

The officers of the NC committee, chairs of all sub-committees, and the program coordinator will form the executive committee. Once the first NC chair has completed his or her term, the past-chair will become an additional member of the executive committee. The SAES administrative advisor and CSREES representative will also serve as ex officio members of the executive committee. The executive committee will have responsibility for developing the annual meeting agenda and program for the technical committee and will address other business that may arise requiring action during the intervals between the technical committee meetings. The executive committee will meet on two occasions during each year and will be updated periodically by the program coordinator on matters of interest to the committee. Proposals for changes to the organizational structure can be proposed through the executive committee and will be communicated to the membership prior to each annual meeting. Any substantive changes to the program structure or focus would be decided by vote of the technical committee members present at the annual meeting.

Literature Cited

Altier, L.S., R.R. Lowrance, R.G. Williams, J.M. Sheridan, D.D. Bosch, R.K. Hubbard, W.C. Mills and D.L. Thomas. 1994. An ecosystem model for the management of riparian areas. Pages 373-387. In: Riparian ecosystems in the humid U.S.: functions and values. National Association of Conservation Districts, Washington, D.C.

Bliss, J. C., S. K. Nepal, R. T. Brooks and M. D. Larsen. 1997. In the mainstream: Environmental attitudes of mid-south forest owners. Southern journal of Applied Forestry 21(1):37-43.

Broderick, S. H., L. B. Snyder, and C.B. Tyson. 1996. Selling stewardship within the community: A social marketing approach. Pages 255-263. In: Proceedings: Symposium on nonindustrial private forests: Learning from the past, prospects for the future. M. J. Baughman (ed.). Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Brunson, M. W. 1993. "Socially acceptable" forestry: What does it imply for ecosystem management. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 94:14-21.

Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements - a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882.

Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, R.B. Daniels, and W.P. Robarge. 1987. Riparian areas as filters for agricultural sediment. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51:416-420.

Correll, D.L. 1997. Buffer zones and water quality protection: general principles. Pages 7-23. In: Buffer Zones: Their Processes and Potentials in Water Protection. N.E. Haycock, T.P., Burt, K.W.T. Goulding and G. Pinay (eds.). Quest Environmental. Harpenden, United Kingdom.

Dedrick, J. P., J. E. Johnson, T. E. Hall, and R. B. Hull. 1998. Attitudes of nonindustrial private forest landowners to ecosystem management in the United States: A review. Pages 173-193. In: Proceedings of a Symposium: Extension forestry: Bridging the gap between research and application. J. E. Johnson (ed.). Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Egan, A. F. and S. B. Jones. 1995. The reliability of landowner survey responses to questions on forest ownership and harvesting. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 12:184-186.

Feather, P. M., and J. Cooper. 1995. Voluntary Incentives for Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution. AIB-716, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Resource Service.

Fennessy, M.S. and J.K Cronk. 1997. The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particularly nitrate. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 27:285-317.

Gilliam, J.W., J.E. Parsons and R.L. Mikkelsen. 1997. Nitrogen dynamics and buffer zones. Pages 54-62. In: Buffer Zones: Their Processes and Potentials in Water Protection. N.E. Haycock, T.P. Burt, K.W.T. Goulding and G. Pinay (eds.). Quest Environmental. Harpenden, United Kingdom.

Graesser, P. W. and J. E. Force. 1996. Early and late adopters of stewardship planning. Pages 222-229. In: Proceedings: Symposium on nonindustrial private forests: Learning from the past, prospects for the future. M. J. Baughman (ed.). Minnesota Extension Service. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Groffman, P.M., G. Howard, A.J. Gold, and W.M. Nelson. 1996. Microbial nitrate processing in shallow groundwater in a riparian forest. Journal of Environmental Quality 25:1309- 1316.

Hall, D. A. 1998. Socio-psychological factors related to the social judgment of white-tailed deer hunting. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 242 pp.

Haymond, J. L. 1985. Diffusing silvicultural innovations in nonindustrial private forestland owners social system: A study of opinion leaders. Ph.D. Dissertation Clemson University Clemson, South Carolina. 151pp.

Haymond, J. L. 1988. NIPF opinion leaders: What do they want? Journal of Forestry 86:30-35.

Hill, A.R. 1996. Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. Journal of Environmental Quality 25:743-755

Isenhart, T.M., R.C. Schultz, and J.P. Colletti. 1997. Watershed restoration and agricultural practices in the midwest: Bear Creek in Iowa. Pages 318-334. In: Watershed Restoration- Principles and Practices. J.E. Williams, M.P. Dombeck, and C.A. Woods (eds.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jacobs, T.C. and J.W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian losses of nitrate from agricultural drainage waters. Journal of Environmental Quality 14:472-478.

Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll, and D.E. Weller. 1993. Nutrient interception by a riparian forest receiving inputs from adjacent cropland. Journal of Environmental Quality 22-467-473

Kuczenski, T. K., D. R. Field, and P. R. Voss. 1999. Toward integrated resource management-Wisconsins Kickapoo River watershed. Unpublished manuscript.

Laursen, S. B. 1996. A description of the riparian forest resource in the state of Minnesota. Pages 15-20. In: At the water's edge: the science of riparian forestry. S. B. Laursen (ed ) Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota.

Lowrance, R., L.S. Altier, J. Denis Newbold, R.R. Schnabel, P.M. Groffman, J.M. Denver D L Correll, J. W. Gilliam, J.L Robinson, R.B. Brinsfield, K.W. Staver, W. Lucas, and A.H. Todd. 1997. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environmental Management 21:687-712.

Lowrance, R.R. 1992. Groundwater nitrate and denitrification in a coastal plain riparian forest. Journal of Environmental Quality 21:401-405.

Lowrance, R.R., G. Vellidis, and R.K. Hubbard. 1995. Denitrification in a restored riparian forest wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality 24:808-815.

Lowrance, R.R., R. Todd, J. Fail, Jr., 0. Hendrickson, Jr., R. Leonard, and L. Asmussen. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374-377.

McEvoy, T.J., S.H. Broderick, and R.S. Stewart. 1988. A strategy to improve the adoption of forest management practices, especially for wildlife, on private industrial woodlands. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 53-62-66

Mills, W. L., W. L. Hoover, S. Vasan, K. T. McNamara, and V. Nagubadi. 1996. Factors influencing participation in public management assistance programs. Pages 204-213. In: Proceedings: Symposium on nonindustrial private forests: Learning from the past, prospects for the future. M. J. Baughman (ed.). Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1995. Protecting water quality and wetlands in forest management. Best management practices in Minnesota. Department of Natural Resources. 140pp.

Osborne, L.L. and D.A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29:243-258.

Palik, B. J., Zasada, J., and Hedman, C. 1999. The ecology of riparian silviculture. In E. S. Verry (ed.). Managing riparian forests in the continental, eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton (In press).

Perry, J., C. Blinn, M. K. Fox, B. Palik, J. Mattson, M. Thompson, S. Verry, L. Johnson, C. Richards, R. Newnian, E. Merten, R. Dahlman, and P. Emerson. 1998. Evaluating riparian area dynamics, management alternatives and impacts of harvest practices. Report to the Minnesota Forest Resources Council. 50 pp.

Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Con-ell. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466-1475.

Preister, K. and J. A. Kent. 1997. Social ecology: A new pathway to watershed restoration. Pages 28-48. In: Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices. J.E. Williams, M.P. Dombeck, and C.A. Woods (eds.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Ribaudo, M. 1997. Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Voluntary Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Programs. Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Department of Agricultural Economics Research Service.

Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations, 3rd ed. The Free Press, New York.

Rogers, E. M. and F. F. Shoemaker. 1971. Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. The Free Press, New York.

Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart, W.W. Simpkins, C.W. Mize and M.L. Thompson. 1995. Design and placement of a multi-species riparian buffer strip system. Agroforestry Systems 31:117-132.

Verchot, L.V., E.C. Franklin and J.W. Gilliam. 1997. Nitrogen cycling in Piedmont vegetated filter zones: II. subsurface nitrate removal. Journal of Environmental Quality 26:337-347.

Welsch, D. J. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. NA-PR-07-91. USDA Forest Service, Radnor, Pennsylvania.

West,P.C.,M. Fly, D. J. Blahna and E. M. Carpenter. 1988. The communication and diffusion of NIPF Management strategies. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 5:265-270.

Williams, R. A., D. E. Voth, and C. Hitt. 1996. Arkansas' NIPF landowners' opinions and attitudes regarding management and use of forested property. Pages 230-237. In: Proceedings: Symposium on nonindustrial private forests: Learning from the past, prospects for the future. M. J. Baughman (ed.). Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Yang, Y. 1993. Landowners' attitudes toward government programs to improve water quality. M.S. Thesis, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 64 pp.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

DE, IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, SD, WI

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

NIFA, Southern Illinois University, USGS/University of Wisconsin