The Use of Geographic Information Systems, Remote
Sensing, and Suitability Modeling to Identify Conifer
Restoration Sites with High Biological Potential for
Anadromous Fish at the Cedar River Municipal
Watershed in Western Washington, U.S.A.
Lauren A. Mollot1,2 and Robert E. Bilby3
Abstract
We developed a methodology integrating several forms
of remotely sensed data into a Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) model that identifies suitable sites for
riparian conifer restoration at the Cedar River Municipal
Watershed in western Washington, U.S.A. The model in-
tegrates vegetative and geomorphic variables with infor-
mation on the habitat preferences of anadromous fishes to
identify riparian stands where conifer restoration would
have the greatest biological benefit for salmon recovery.
The high-resolution raster datasets used in our analysis
were capable of characterizing the biophysical attributes
of riparian areas at finer spatial scales than was previously
possible. This model is intended to serve as a screening
tool to identify candidate sites for riparian area restora-
tion. The assessment approach described in this study can
be applied not only to model salmonid habitat at the
watershed scale but also to assess landscape patterns rele-
vant to a wide range of restoration goals. This methodo-
logical framework offers several advantages over other
Introduction
Riparian forests play a critical role in creating aquatic
habitat (Gregory et al. 1991; Naiman et al. 1998, 2000;
Reeves et al. 1998). Streamside forests influence streams
by providing large wood, organic matter, and nutrients; re-
gulating microclimate; and stabilizing banks (Meehan et al.
1977; Franklin 1992; Beechie & Sibley 1997; Castelle &
Johnson 2000). In the Pacific Northwest (PNW), many of
these functions have been altered due to human activities
such as development, agriculture, flood control, and log-
ging. One effect of cutting trees in streamside areas has
been a reduction in the proportion of sites with a conifer-
1
College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, PO Box 352100,
Seattle, WA 98195, U.S.A.
2
Address correspondence to L. A. Mollot, email lauren.mollot@weyerhaeuser.
com
3
Weyerhaeuser Company, University of Washington, PO Box 9777, Mail Stop
WTC 1B10, Federal Way, WA 98063-9777, U.S.A.
Ó 2007 Society for Ecological Restoration International
doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00340.x
336
approaches to restoration site selection and planning.
First, the fine-scale spatial resolution of the GIS datasets
(pixels •5 m) used in the model provides a more accurate
representation of the habitat conditions than has been
possible with coarser-scale data (pixels ‚5 m). Therefore,
the accuracy of site identification is greatly improved. Sec-
ond, the quantitative nature of the model exercises greater
objectivity than some other landscape-scale planning ap-
proaches. This regional planning tool could be replicated
in other watersheds with comparable datasets and could
be applied to identify habitat restoration sites for other
species or guilds of species by simply altering the model
criteria to match the habitat needs of the target organ-
isms.
Key words: GIS modeling, habitat suitability mapping,
hyperspectral high-resolution imagery, LiDAR, remote
sensing, riparian forest restoration, salmon and trout habi-
tat, stream channel geomorphology, watershed surface
analysis.
dominated overstory and an increased representation of
deciduous- and shrub-dominated sites than was the case
historically (Mikkelsen 2001; Compton et al. 2003; Volk
et al. 2003).
This change in riparian forest composition has been
linked to a decrease in the delivery of large woody debris
(LWD) to stream channels (Bilby & Ward 1989, 1991).
LWD impacts many stream processes including pool for-
mation, sediment routing, and organic matter dynamics
(Harmon et al. 1986; Bilby & Bisson 1998) and provides
habitat and cover for many PNW fishes (Bisson et al.
1982; Beechie & Sibley 1997). Streams in older, conifer-
dominated riparian stands often have a higher abundance
of large-diameter wood than streams flowing through
areas with deciduous trees (Bilby & Ward 1991; Beechie
& Sibley 1997; Beechie et al. 2000). Large conifer logs typ-
ically have a greater impact on channel processes (Bilby
& Ward 1989) and persist for a longer time in the channel
due to a slower decay rate and larger size than wood from
deciduous trees (Harmon et al. 1986; Bilby et al. 1999;
Restoration Ecology Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 336–347 JUNE 2008

Hyatt & Naiman 2001). The reduction of LWD in streams
has been identified as a factor contributing to the decline
in anadromous fish stocks (Nehlsen et al. 1991; Bilby &
Bisson 1998; NCASI 1999). Many populations of these
fishes in the PNW have been listed as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (Naiman
et al. 1998, 2000; Reeves et al. 1998; NOAA Fisheries
2005).
As a result, the vast majority of stream and riparian res-
toration efforts in the PNW are focused on salmon habi-
tat. Planting conifer trees in riparian areas occupied by
shrubs or deciduous trees has become a commonly applied
restoration strategy in the region (Collins & Montgomery
2002; Roni 2005). One of the primary reasons for reintro-
ducing conifers is to provide for future sources of LWD.
Efforts to restore conifer to hardwood-dominated riparian
stands have included removing the current overstory and
planting conifer seedlings or releasing suppressed trees
present in the understory by removing overstory decidu-
ous trees (Berg 1995; Roni et al. 2002).
In selecting locations for riparian restoration actions
intended to benefit anadromous fishes, stream channel
form and the capacity for a site to support conifers should
be key criteria. There is a strong correlation between
juvenile salmon abundance and stream channel attributes.
Low-gradient, unconfined stream reaches are typically pre-
ferred by anadromous fish for spawning and rearing (Hicks
1989; Montgomery 1994; Dunham et al. 1999; Burnett
2001). Attempts to improve riparian conditions that
enhance the production of LWD would be most beneficial
if conducted at low-gradient, unconfined sites. Potential
restoration sites also should be capable of supporting coni-
fer trees long term. However, sites for these projects are
often selected with little consideration of where this type of
Figure 1. Location of the CRMW within Washington State. The watershed boundary is outlined with a bold black rectangle.
JUNE 2008 Restoration Ecology
GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling
riparian stand manipulation would have the most beneficial
effect on fish.
A primary objective at the Cedar River Municipal
Watershed (CRMW) is the restoration of anadromous fish
populations. One of the strategies for achieving this goal
is the restoration of streamside vegetation that will con-
tribute to the creation and maintenance of productive
stream habitat. Identifying where these actions could be
most profitably applied has been a challenge given the
large size of the watershed. This problem could be
reduced if potential restoration sites could be located
using remotely sensed data and spatial analysis tools. We
integrated several forms of remotely sensed data from
a large watershed in western Washington (360 km2) into
a GIS model that identifies suitable sites for riparian coni-
fer restoration while maximizing the biological potential
for anadromous fish.
Methods
Study Area
The CRMW is managed by the City of Seattle and located
50 km east of Seattle on the west side of the Cascade
Range (lat 2121.99, long 47.47) (Fig. 1). The CRMW is
mountainous, and nearly the entire watershed (360 km2)
is forested. Elevations range from 150 to 1,700 m (City of
Seattle 2000). The area experiences a maritime climate
characterized by dry summers and wet winters. Precipita-
tion ranges from 150 to 300 cm annually, increasing with
elevation. Much of the precipitation at the higher eleva-
tions in the watershed occurs as snow (Franklin & Dyrness
1973). Streams flow through both glacial U-shaped valleys,
resulting from alpine glaciation that occurred about
337
GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling
20,000 years ago, and fluvially incised V-shaped valleys
(Frizzell et al. 1984).
The CRMW is currently managed as an ecological
reserve and a municipal water source, representing a pri-
mary source of fresh water for the region. Historically, the
CRMW was also used for timber production. Logging
activity within the watershed began in the 1880s; many
stands were last cut in the 1930s (City of Seattle 2000).
The watershed contains stands ranging in age from 0 to
800 years. Due to the logging history, second-growth for-
ests are heavily represented (28,000 ha). About 16% of
the CRMW (6,000 ha) was never logged and currently
supports late-successional forests over 300 years old: most
of this is fragmented (City of Seattle 2000). More than half
of the watershed supports stands over 50 years old.
The watershed is primarily within the Western hemlock
(Tsuga heterophylla) forest zone (Franklin & Dyrness
1973). Much of the area is dominated by stands of Doug-
las-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) established after logging.
The primary conifer species in the CRMW are Douglas-
fir, Western hemlock, Mountain hemlock (T. mertensi-
ana), Western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Pacific silver fir
(Abies amabilis), Grand fir (A. grandis), and Subalpine fir
(A. lasiocarpa). Hardwoods such as Red alder (Alnus
rubra), Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and Black
cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) are common primarily
in riparian areas. Common riparian shrub species are
Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Vine maple (A. circina-
tum), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), Swordfern (Polysti-
chum munitum), Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), and
Huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.).
Analytical Framework
We used hyperspectral imagery, light detection and rang-
ing (LiDAR), terrain data, and GIS techniques to build
a suitability model. Five elements were involved in this
process:
(1) GIS-based neighborhood operations were applied to
the riparian forest cover layer (5-m pixel resolution)
to minimize noise by averaging the between-pixel
variability.
(2) A 4-m LiDAR elevation model was used to develop
two layers estimating channel gradient and confinement.
(3) Weighted ranks were assigned to each of the three
layers based on their potential for conifer restoration
and fish habitat.
(4) A spatially explicit habitat suitability model was de-
veloped using GIS that integrated the three layers.
(5) The model was applied to identify restoration sites at
the watershed scale where riparian restoration measures
would be most likely to benefit salmon populations.
Data Processing
The channel attribute data were derived from a 4-m
LiDAR digital elevation model (DEM). In order to
338
extract channel gradient and confinement, it was necessary
to delineate drainage basin boundaries, the channel net-
work, stream reaches, tributary junctions, active channel
width, and valley width. These geomorphic layers were
derived using watershed surface analysis tools (Miller 2003).
The riparian forest cover data used in the suitability
model were derived from the MASTER (Modis/Aster)
digital, airborne-collected dataset known as flown in
August 2001 (Hook et al. 2001). The procedures used for
the remote sensing analysis are fully described in Mollot
et al. (2007). The pixel resolution was 5 m, and the image
was subset into 25 spectral bands corresponding to the vis-
ible through the shortwave infrared wavelengths (a ¼
0.524–2.5 lm). A supervised classification was conducted
using a maximum likelihood algorithm in ENVI 3.5. Eight
land cover classes were mapped including deciduous, early
seral conifer (10–29 yr), mid-seral/mature conifer (30–
119 yr), late-seral/old-growth conifer (1201 yr), bare/soil/
sand/road, water/lake, glint, and shade/shadow. The broad
canopy cover categories were classified at an overall
accuracy of ;80% when compared with field observa-
tions. Class accuracy was high (80–90%) for deciduous,
early seral, and mid-seral conifers. Accuracy scores that
exceeded 80% were considered quite good (Congalton
1991; Congalton & Green 1999).
Neighborhood Analysis of Riparian Forest Cover Layer
Boundary determinations for riparian patches presented
difficulties due to the high degree of inter-pixel variability
in riparian areas captured by the 5-m pixel resolution of
the forest cover layer. The classified forest cover layer was
brought into a GIS environment, and a neighborhood
analysis procedure was applied to reduce some of the
inter-pixel noise and more clearly identify patches of simi-
lar vegetation.
A focal majority technique was applied to examine the
relationship between a center pixel and the surrounding
cells in a defined region. All the procedures used a 5 3 5
moving window around each pixel, and a new raster data
layer was generated where each pixel was assigned a cover
type based on the combined cover types of the surround-
ing pixels. Assignment of a cover type to a pixel was based
on a set of rules that varied depending on the cover type
as described below.
Mixed stands were defined as forested patches contain-
ing both conifer and deciduous–codominant cover types.
A pixel was assigned to one of the three ‘‘mixed’’ classes
based on the following decision criteria:
(1) If the number of conifer or deciduous pixels in the
5 3 5 window was greater than 17, then it was not
considered mixed and was assigned the forest cover
type of the dominate cover class.
(2) If the number of conifer or deciduous pixels in the
window was 11–17, then the center pixel was consid-
ered to be ‘‘mixed.’’
Restoration Ecology JUNE 2008

(3) If a pixel was ‘‘mixed’’ and the number of conifer or
deciduous pixels in the window was 11–14, then the
center pixel was called ‘‘evenly mixed.’’
(4) If a pixel was ‘‘mixed’’ and the number of conifer or
deciduous pixels in the window was 15–17, then the
center pixel was called either ‘‘mixed (conifer domi-
nant)’’ or ‘‘mixed (deciduous dominant)’’ depending
on the cover type with the majority of pixels.
The resulting vegetation cover layer produced from this
analysis included three new forest cover classes: evenly
mixed, mixed conifer dominant, and mixed hardwood
dominant.
Old-growth stands also exhibited high inter-pixel vari-
ability due to frequent canopy gaps, heavy shade, and other
factors (Mollot et al. 2007). Therefore, a similar procedure
was applied to reduce inter-pixel variation in old-growth
stands. However, the process was simplified for this cover
type because a GIS layer based on field surveys containing
the location and age of all old-growth stands, over 190 years
old, within the study area was available (City of Seattle
2000). We assigned all pixels falling within the boundaries
of the areas already mapped as old-growth to this cover
class. Riparian areas supporting old-growth vegetation that
were not already mapped in the existing GIS layer were
classified using the same approach described for mixed
stands. A pixel was designated as old-growth if more than
50% of the surrounding pixels were identified as ‘‘old-
growth’’ in the original forest cover layer.
Deriving Geomorphic Layers From LiDAR Surface
The geomorphic layers, channel gradient, and confine-
ment were derived through multiple procedures using 4-m
LiDAR DEM of the study area. Initially, an elevation and
a slope surface were created for the study area. Bld_grd
and Netrace are the software programs used to conduct
the watershed surface analysis (Miller 2003). The Bld_grd
program was used to delineate the extent of the watershed
and channel network defined as the upslope area contrib-
uting flow to the Cedar River. Once the flow direction was
computed to determine the contributing area, a flow accu-
mulation layer was derived based on the area draining into
each pixel and the outflow direction of water exiting each
pixel. Flow accumulation was calculated using an algo-
rithm described by Tarbotoon (1997). This method relied
on topographic convergence, rather than the path of
the steepest descent, as the criterion for directing flow.
Channel initialization was estimated using a topographic
threshold as a function of drainage area indicating the
presence of a channel. Bld_grd incorporated differential
criteria for the initiation of low-gradient and high-gradient
channels as described by Miller (2003).
The Netrace program used output layers from Bld_grd
to create a channel network by determining the potential
flow of water draining from one pixel to another. The
channel network was required in order to generate values
for active channel width and valley width, which were
JUNE 2008 Restoration Ecology
GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling
later used to calculate gradient and confinement. Active
channel width (ACW) was approximated for each stream
reach based on the drainage area and two empirically
derived coefficients using the equation:
ACW ¼ 3:13ðDrainage Area0:4457 Þ:
The values for the two coefficients in the regression
were derived empirically from a dataset containing known
channel widths and drainage areas for over 200 streams in
western Washington (Fransen, unpublished data; R2 ¼
0.76). These coefficients were also similar to those found
by Castro and Jackson (2001) for the Pacific maritime
region, which includes western Washington.
In addition, the valley floor width (VFW) was deter-
mined for each reach. The width of the valley floor was
estimated as the length of a transect that intersected the
valley walls at a specified height above the channel. The
height above the channel was specified as a number of
bankfull depths. The bankfull depth was calculated as
a function of drainage area (Miller 2003).
The values for ACW and VFW were subsequently used
to determine channel confinement, one of the parameters
used in the suitability model. An index of confinement
(CI) was calculated based on the ratio of VFW to ACW.
This ratio indicated the number of times a particular reach
could fit into the corresponding valley floor:
CI ¼ VFW=ACW:
Mean gradient was estimated for each stream reach
using contour line crossings and based on the fit of a poly-
nomial over a centered window of elevations along the
channel network (Miller 2003). The attribute values of
channel gradient and confinement were converted to ras-
ter layers. Each pixel in the layer was assigned the value
of the reach that it drains to. This approach was taken in
order to assign the geomorphic attributes to pixels corre-
sponding to the area covered by the riparian forest cover
layer. This enabled a model to be built that overlaid the
raster layers using a map calculation on vegetative and
geomorphic characteristics of pixels corresponding to the
riparian zone.
Habitat Suitability Model
The channel gradient, confinement, and riparian forest
cover raster layers were used as inputs into the GIS
model. Each layer was stratified into several attribute clas-
ses. Each class was ranked by assigning the attribute a
weighted value ranging from low to high suitability
(0–100) based on their function in the provision of habitat
and potential for conifer restoration. First, the riparian
forest cover classes were ranked based on the objective of
restoring late-seral conifer conditions to stands that are
339
GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling

currently dominated by deciduous and young conifer. ison across all data layers. All three data layers were as-
Sites supporting deciduous-dominated, early seral com- sumed to share similar importance in terms of their fish
munities were ranked higher than sites with older conifer. habitat function, and thus, their scores were equally
Gradient and confinement values were ranked based on weighted. Final suitability scores were calculated using
aggregated preferences of Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus an additive model by summing the weighted value scores
kisutch) and Steelhead (O. mykiss). Increasing the abun- (Table 1) for gradient, confinement, and vegetation.
dance of these two species is an objective of the CRMW
restoration effort. The preferences were derived from an
Suitability Score
assessment of fish distribution for drainages along the
coast of Oregon (Burnett 2001; Burnett et al. 2003). This ðA ¼ HighÞ 1 ðB ¼ HighÞ 1 ðC ¼ HighÞ
¼ ;
assessment examined the relationship between physical 3
stream channel and floodplain characteristics and the den-
sity of juvenile fish. Gradient values were stratified into where A ¼ gradient, B ¼ confinement, and C ¼ riparian
five classes with lower gradient reaches receiving a higher forest cover.
value due to the fact these reaches consistently support In the above equation, an output raster dataset is cre-
higher densities of juvenile Coho salmon and Steelhead. ated storing the results from an expression, adding the
The confinement index classes were assigned, and there weighted values for the three layers on a cell-by-cell
was an inverse relationship between the index value and basis. This process generated an output layer that iden-
constraint (Burnett et al. 2003). A summary of all three tified a suitability score for each pixel based on the sum
model layers is given and their attribute values are listed of the values for the same pixels in the input layer val-
in Table 1. The weighted ranks for channel gradient, con- ues. Pixels with the highest ranked scores were consid-
finement, and riparian vegetation together provided an ered to have the greatest potential for restoration. The
indication of both the biological potential of a site to result of this procedure was a new raster layer where
maximize Coho salmon and Steelhead production and its each pixel was given a value ranging from 0.0 to 100
suitability as a location for implementing measures to en- (low to high) based on their suitability according to the
courage the development of old conifer conditions. After model criteria. These values were then classified on an
the ranking process, each of the input layers was reclassi- ordinal scale where each pixel was assigned to one of
fied from their class values to their weighted values based the four suitability categories based on its biological
on their suitability level so that the raw data values were potential for anadromous fish: none/poor, low, moder-
standardized along the same scale (Table 1). The reclassi- ate, and high.
fication procedure was conducted prior to running the
suitability model so that all the input layers were assigned
Creating Variable-Width Riparian Buffers
the appropriate attribute values necessary to inform the
model. Most of the variables generated through the procedures
Each of the ranked layers was then incorporated into described above were derived for the entire watershed,
a suitability model. A spatial overlay process involving not just the riparian area. The analysis was reduced to the
map algebra was performed using a pixel-to-pixel compar- riparian zone using a buffer and clip procedure. This zone
was defined as a 45.7-m buffer around the active channel
Table 1. Weighted ranking system for model layers. width. This width distance was chosen because it corre-
sponded to the administrative definition of the riparian
Suitability Weighted zone width at the CRMW (City of Seattle 2000). How-
Data Layer Class (%) Value Value ever, this width also has ecological relevance for our anal-
Gradient (% slope) 0–3 High 100 ysis. One of the primary objectives of introducing conifer
3–8 Good 75 trees into riparian stands is to provide a future source of
8–10 Moderate 50 large wood for the stream. Nearly all wood delivered from
10–15 Poor 25 riparian areas to stream channels is produced within 50 m
>15 None 0 of the channel edge corresponding to the site potential
Confinement >7 High 100 tree height of a Douglas-fir tree (Murphy & Koski 1989;
index 4–7 Moderate 50
0–4 None 0
McDade et al. 1990).
Riparian forest Deciduous High 100 There were several steps involved in this process. First,
cover Mixed conifer/ High 100 a new buffer field (buffACW45m) was added to the stream
deciduous reach layer. A variable buffer width was built around the
Early seral conifer Good 75 centerlines of the stream reach network using the follow-
Mid-seral/ None 0 ing equation:
mature conifer
Late-seral/ None 0
old conifer
buffACW45m ¼ ACW=2 1 45:7:

340 Restoration Ecology JUNE 2008

 GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling

The buffer layer was used as a mask to clip the water-

shed-wide suitability layer to the excluding data falling
outside the riparian zone.

Results

Neighborhood Analysis of Riparian Forest Cover Layer

Neighborhood analysis procedures resulted in a new out-
put layer that included three new mixed cover classes:
evenly mixed, mixed conifer dominant, and mixed hard-
wood dominant (Fig. 2). This figure also illustrates how
the high–spatial resolution (5-m) pixels created a salt and
pepper look in the original map. Application of this tech-
nique enabled the objective delineation of areas support-
ing similar vegetation at a scale (the stand) appropriate
for restoration treatments. There was a great reduction
in variability after the application of the focal majority
procedure. The application of similar procedures to delin-
eate old-growth areas also greatly reduced among-pixel
variability. Figure 2. Detail maps showing the effects of the neighborhood
analysis on mixed cover types before (top) and after (bottom).
Each color represents a different cover type. Mixed types are shown
Deriving Geomorphic Layers Through GIS Analysis in shades of gray.
of LiDAR Surface
Determination of channel gradient and confinement by toration was determined from a combined suitability score
application of the Netrace model to the LiDAR-derived derived by summing the suitability values for each layer.
surface model produced gradient values ranging from The possible suitability scores ranged from 0 to 100. The
approximately 0.0 to 97% (Fig. 3). The values for confine- areas of high suitability tended to cluster in the western
ment ranged from 0.0 to 526, representing the ratio of the portion of the watershed, an area of lower elevation and
active channel width to the valley floor width. topographic relief. The suitability parameters were de-
rived for all pixels in the watershed. As a result, a suitabil-
ity map for the entire watershed was generated (Fig. 5).
Suitability Mapping
Clipping the coverage to the riparian area provided a
Suitability scores were assigned to each of the input layers, watershed-scale suitability map specific to riparian areas
resulting in suitability maps for confinement, gradient, and along stream channels (Figs. 6 & 7).
riparian forest cover (Fig. 4). The application of the We consider the model output as a screen to guide on-
LiDAR surface model and the high-resolution vegetation the-ground assessments of restoration rather than an exact
data enabled these values to be assigned with a high representation of the future potential of a site to contrib-
degree of spatial precision. The potential of a site for res- ute to anadromous fish production. Therefore, one of the

Figure 3. Detail maps showing channel gradient (left) and confinement (right) derived from LiDAR. Stream reaches are displayed in blue. The
maps are shown in gray scale representing a range of values. Gradient values are shown as low (black) to high (white). Confined areas are shown
from unconfined (white) to confined (black).

JUNE 2008 Restoration Ecology 341

GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling
Figure 4. Detail suitability maps of gradient (upper), confinement
(middle), and forest cover (lower). Stream reaches are displayed in
blue. The map shows a gray scale gradient of values for suitability
levels. Darker shades indicate poor suitability and lighter shades
high suitability.
objectives of this study was to identify a set of locations
where on-the-ground assessment of restoration potential
would be most appropriate. To this end, the sites were
assigned to suitability classes as shown in Table 2. Only
342
Figure 5. Watershed map showing the final result of the suitability
analysis. The map shows a gray scale gradient of values for
suitability levels. Darker shades indicate poor suitability
and lighter shades high suitability.
28% of the riparian areas across the CRMW currently
exhibit the geomorphic and vegetative conditions to sug-
gest that they have a moderate to high potential for coni-
fer introduction (Table 3).
Discussion
Spatial analysis through the use of GIS technologies and
remote sensing are powerful tools for restoration planning
and site selection (Llewellyn et al. 1996; Lehman &
Lachavanne 1997; Sessions et al. 1997; Moser et al. 2000).
Suitability mapping is one approach that has become pop-
ular in conducting watershed-scale assessments of habitat
conditions (Russell et al. 1997; Hardy & Addley 2001;
Hyatt et al. 2004). However, the highly variable nature of
riparian vegetation and the need for precise channel and
riparian topographic data in order to accurately evaluate
habitat potential have historically hampered efforts to
conduct assessments for streamside locations (Anderson
1971; Hall et al. 1991; Lunetta et al. 1997). The fine-scale,
spatial heterogeneity common in forests bordering streams
and rivers cannot be adequately captured by coarse-scale
datasets (Neale 1997; Schuft et al. 1999; Moser et al. 2000;
Zidek 2000).
High–spatial and –spectral resolution data have re-
cently become available and have proven to be more
suited to capturing this fine-scale variability (Franklin
1992; Benda et al. 1998; Frisell & Ralph 1998; Peterson &
Thomas 1998; Shugart et al. 2000; Treitz & Horwath
2000). The datasets used in our analysis were capable of
characterizing the attributes of riparian areas at finer spa-
tial scales than was previously possible. Although these
data enabled a thorough characterization of topographic
and vegetative conditions of riparian areas, the fine-scale
pixel resolution also introduced considerable variability,
especially into the vegetation layer. The forest cover layer
was first defined at the finest grain resolution (5 m).
Restoration Ecology JUNE 2008
 GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling

Figure 6. Detail maps showing the riparian buffer (left) and the clipped suitability (right). Stream reaches are displayed in blue. The maps show
a gray scale gradient of values for suitability levels. Darker shades indicate poor suitability and lighter shades high suitability.

However, this scale produced a high degree of between- the organization of the vegetation into distinct patches of
pixel heterogeneity, which complicated the definition of similar age and overstory type. Application of the neigh-
stand boundaries. This variability in some cases masked borhood analysis’ filtering procedures minimized the
variability and enabled the delineation of spatial units
(stands) that would be comparable to the scale at which
conifer restoration projects would be implemented. This
procedure also enabled the identification of three classes
of mixed stands based on the relative proportion of coni-
fer to hardwood trees in the canopy. The new, mixed
forest classes were added to the original cover types,
resulting in a vegetation layer with seven riparian cover
classes used in the suitability model. The additional mixed
forest types enabled the model to identify those locations
with higher proportions of deciduous trees, which would
be better candidates for restoration.
The accuracy and reliability of the geomorphic layers
were enhanced by using the 4-m LiDAR DEM. Until
recently, U.S. Geological Survey DEMs (30- or 10-m reso-
Figure 7. This map shows the final result of the suitability analysis
within the riparian zone. This map shows locations within the riparian lution) have been used for similar applications (Lunetta
zone (white) that have the greatest restoration potential based on the et al. 1997; Giles & Franklin 1998; Burnett et al. 2003;
model criteria. The map shows a gray scale gradient of values for suit- Miller 2003). Many of these studies indicated that results
ability levels. Darker shades indicate poor suitability and lighter would have been improved with higher resolution eleva-
shades high suitability. tion models. Clarke and Burnett (2003) compared 30- and
10-m digital elevations in the Coast Range of Oregon and
Table 2. Suitability score classification. found a clear improvement in the estimation of slope clas-
ses with the 10-m DEM, which enables more accurate
Suitability Class Suitability Score delineation of watershed boundaries and channel features.
None/poor 0–40 Lunetta et al. (1997) used a 30-m DEM as one data source
Low 40–60 in a model to identify restoration sites in several water-
Moderate 60–80 sheds in Washington. Stream sections of at least 100 m in
High 80–100 length were required to obtain slope estimates due to the
coarse resolution of the DEM. They found that their abil-
ity to identify restoration sites improved as the length of
Table 3. The percentage of riparian areas across the watershed in channel unit used to estimate slope decreased. The ability
each suitability class.
to accurately estimate slope for channel segments less
Suitability Class Area (%) than 100 m would have improved the accuracy of their
assessment. In addition, photogrammetry and digital line
None/poor 43 graphs greater than or equal to 1:24,000 have also been
Low 29 used (Gonzalez et al. 1995; O’Brien-White & Thomason
Moderate 17 1995; Moser et al. 2000; Poole et al. 2002; Hyatt et al.
High 11
2004). The resolution of these data sources was limiting

JUNE 2008 Restoration Ecology 343

GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling
when mapping small changes in topography. The DEM
we used substantially reduced the problems encountered
in these earlier efforts. Determination of valley constraint
on smaller channels also was a problem encountered in
some studies using coarser-resolution DEMs (D. Miller
2005, Earth Systems Institute, personal communication).
The DEM we used enabled much more accurate delinea-
tion of valley width and constraint for smaller channels in
the CRMW.
The MASTER imagery provided most advantage along
larger stream channels, where vegetation tends to be more
varied, responding in part to the diverse surfaces created
by complex fluvial processes operating along larger chan-
nels (Featherston et al. 1995). The imagery provided a
more accurate characterization of the spatial variability
in vegetation than historically possible using satellite
imagery. Application of the neighborhood analysis then
enabled a very precise delineation of the boundaries of
area supporting similar overstory vegetation. The bound-
aries derived from this analysis closely matched field
observations by CRMW scientists.
Our analysis was conducted across a fairly large area
(approximately 360 km2). As a result, file sizes associated
with the LiDAR dataset were very large. Despite the use
of advanced computing technology, limitations in system
resources and processing speed made it necessary to
resample these data from 2 to 4 m. This suggests that soft-
ware and hardware are still limiting factors when conduct-
ing detailed GIS analyses at large spatial scales (100 km2).
Even though these data were resampled to a coarser reso-
lution, the 4-m scale was still far superior to most available
terrain models. In addition, this resolution was compara-
ble to the spatial unit of analysis applied to the forest
cover layer (5 m). Ground truthing of the geomorphic
layers did not fall within the scope of this project. How-
ever, internal review of the results by scientific staff at the
CRMW indicated a close correspondence between the
model predictions and expert knowledge about stream
channel conditions at known sites on the ground.
The variables used in the suitability model to define
restoration potential were chosen because channel confine-
ment, gradient, and streamside vegetation are major deter-
mining factors of salmon habitat quality in streams
(Meehan et al. 1977; O’Brien-White & Thomason 1995;
Lunetta et al. 1997; Tabacchi et al. 1998; Burnett et al.
2003). The scoring system used for confinement and gradi-
ent was intended to broadly represent the types of channels
most heavily used by Coho salmon and Steelhead (Burnett
et al. 2003). This approach was consistent with the overall
goal of creating a landscape-scale screening tool to locate
conifer restoration sites that would have the greatest poten-
tial benefit for anadromous fishes. If the objective had been
to identify sites of benefit to an individual fish species, then
the scoring system could have been modified to reflect the
habitat preferences of that species.
The manner in which we parameterized the suitability
model created a fairly stringent tool for identifying ripar-
344
ian restoration opportunities. The restrictive nature of the
model was due to the fact that co-occurrence of high suit-
ability values for all three criteria was relatively rare
(11%). Overall, ideal sites occupied a relatively small pro-
portion of the total area. A majority of potential restora-
tion sites were located in the upper left region of the map.
This area represents the lower elevation region of the
watershed, and it contains a relatively high proportion of
low-gradient, unconfined channels often associated with
early seral forest types. Sites appropriate for restoration
were quite limited throughout the upper sections of the
watershed where streams were steeper and more confined
and conifer forest was more frequent.
The suitability scoring system, modified from Burnett
et al. (2003), contained some elements of subjectivity. Be-
cause we simply summed the suitability scores for gradi-
ent, confinement, and vegetation, we assumed that all
three are equally important in determining fish habitat
condition. However, we had no justification for assigning
weights to the factors, and the relative importance of these
parameters may vary among sites (Burnett et al. 2007).
Also, the assignment of score ranges for poor, low, moder-
ate, and high suitability classes was subjective. However,
our goal was to identify locations where riparian restora-
tion is likely to offer greatest benefits to anadromous
fishes, and the process we used to assign sites to suitability
classes enabled us to achieve this goal. Alterations in the
scoring system would have expanded or contracted the
classes, but it would not have changed the overall ranking
of the sites.
This model is intended to serve as a screening tool to
identify candidate sites for riparian area restoration. How-
ever, final selection of restoration locations from among
the candidate sites will require field assessment of condi-
tions to ensure that the model evaluation was accurate
and to determine whether a site is capable of supporting
conifers. Floodplain sites may support deciduous vegeta-
tion due to frequent flooding. Although such sites might
receive a high suitability score, they would be poor choices
for attempting to restore conifer. Thus, on-the-ground
evaluation enables a final decision about suitability to be
made. The model does enable the identification of those
locations where a site visit is warranted, thereby reducing
cost and increasing effectiveness of implementing these
projects.
The assessment approach described in this study can be
applied not only to spatially model salmonid habitat at
the watershed level but also to assess landscape patterns
relevant to a wide range of restoration goals. This model
could easily be modified and applied to other locations or
to other species as long as a set of critical habitat variables
can be identified, and these variables can be extracted
from remotely sensed data sources. The methodological
framework used here offers several advantages over other
approaches to restoration site selection and planning.
First, the fine-scale nature of the data used in the model
provides a more accurate representation of the habitat
Restoration Ecology JUNE 2008

conditions than has been possible with coarser-scale data,
improving the accuracy of site identification. Second, the
quantitative nature of the model exercises greater objec-
tivity than some other landscape planning approaches.
Implications for Practice
d Restoration planning at large spatial scales can be
enhanced through the integration of spatial data and
suitability modeling.
d High-resolution datasets provide the capability of
characterizing biophysical and ecological attributes
with higher precision at finer spatial scales than was
historically possible.
d The quantitative nature of the model exercises
greater objectivity than some other landscape plan-
ning approaches.
d Models such as this one can serve as a screening tool
to establish baseline conditions, prioritize candidate
restoration sites, and also monitor and evaluate the
progress of restoration treatments toward some de-
sired future condition.
d The assessment approach presented here can be used
to assess landscape patterns relevant to a wide range
of restoration goals. Identification of restoration sites
for other species could be accomplished by simply
altering the model criteria to match the habitat needs
of the target organisms.
d This approach could be replicated in other water-
sheds with comparable datasets to generate a regional
assessment of restoration opportunities.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, A. J. B. 1971. Ordination methods in ecology. Journal of Ecol-
ogy 59:713–726.
Beechie, T. J., G. Pess, P. Kennar, R. E. Bilby, and S. Bolton. 2000. Mod-
eling recovery rates and pathways for woody debris recruitment in
northwestern Washington streams. North American Journal of Fish-
eries Management 20:436–452.
Beechie, T. J., and T. H. Sibley. 1997. Relationships between channel
characteristics, woody debris, and fish habitat in northwestern
Washington streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Soci-
ety 126:217–229.
Benda, L. E., D. J. Miller, T. Dunne, G. H. Reeves, and J. K. Agee. 1998.
Dynamic landscape systems. Pages 261–288 in B. E. Bilby and B. J.
Naiman, editors. River ecology and management: lessons from the
Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer Verlag Press, New York.
Berg, D. R. 1995. Riparian silvicultural design and assessment in the
Pacific Northwest Cascade Mountains, USA. Ecological Applica-
tions 5:87–96.
Bilby, B. E., and P. A. Bisson. 1998. Function and distribution of large
woody debris in streams. Pages 324–346 in B. E. Bilby and B. J.
Naimain, editors. River ecology and management: lessons from
the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer Verlag Press, New York.
Bilby, R. E., J. T. Heffner, B. R. Fransen, J. W. Ward, and P. A. Bisson.
1999. Effect of immersion in stream water on the deterioration of
JUNE 2008 Restoration Ecology
GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling
wood from five tree species commonly used for habitat enhance-
ment projects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
19:687–695.
Bilby, R. E., and J. W. Ward. 1989. Changes in characteristics and
function of woody debris with increasing size of streams in western
Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:
368–378.
Bilby, R. E., and J. W. Ward. 1991. Characteristics and function of large
woody debris in stream draining old-growth, clearcut and second
growth forests in southwestern Washington. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:2499–2508.
Bisson, P. A., J. L. Nielsen, R. A. Palmasson, and L. E. Grove. 1982. A
system of naming habitat types in small streams with examples of
habitat utilization by salmonids during low streamflow. Pages 62–73
in N. B. Armantrout, editor. Acquisition and utilization of aquatic
habitat inventory information. Proceedings of a symposium, 1981.
American Fisheries Society, Western Division, Alaska; Department
of Fish and Game, British Columbia; Ministry of Environment,
Conservation Division, Portland, Oregon.
Burnett, K., G. Reeves, D. Miller, S. Clarke, K. Christiansen, and K. V.
Borland. 2003. A first step toward broad-scale identification of
freshwater protected areas for Pacific salmon and trout in Oregon,
USA. Pages 144–154 in J. P. Beumer, A. Grant, and D. C. Smith,
editors. Aquatic Protected Areas: what works best and how do we
know? Proceedings of the World Congress on Aquatic Protected
Areas, Cairns, Australia, 2002. Australian Society for Fish Biology,
North Beach, Western Australia, Australia.
Burnett, K. M. 2001. Relationships among juvenile anadromous salmo-
nids, their freshwater habitat, and landscape characteristics over
multiple years and spatial scales in Elk river, Oregon. Ph.D. disser-
tation. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Burnett, K. M., G. H. Reeves, D. J. Miller, S. Clarke, K. Vance-Borland,
and K. Christiansen. 2007. Distribution of salmon-habitat potential
relative to landscape characteristics and implications for conserva-
tion. Ecological Applications 17:66–80.
Castelle A. J., and A. W. Johnson. 2000. Riparian vegetation effective-
ness. Technical Bulletin No. 799, National Council for Air and
Stream Improvement, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Castro, J. M., and P. L. Jackson. 2001. Bankfull discharge recurrence in-
tervals and regional hydraulic geometry relationships: patterns in
the Pacific Northwest, USA. Journal of the American Water Re-
sources Association 37:1249–1262.
City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conserva-
tion Plan: for the issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of
threatened and endangered species. Pages 1–242. City of Seattle,
1–3.
Clarke, S., and K. Burnett. 2003. Comparison of digital elevation models
for aquatic data development. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 69:1367–1375.
Collins, B. D., and D. R. Montgomery. 2002. Forest development, wood
jams and restoration of floodplain rivers in the Puget Lowland,
Washington. Restoration Ecology 12:237–247.
Compton, J. A., M. R. Church, S. T. Larned, and W. E. Hogsett. 2003.
Nitrogen export from forested watersheds in the Oregon Coast
Range: the role of N2-fixing red alder. Ecosystems 6:773–785.
Congalton, R. G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifica-
tions of remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing of Environment
37:35–46.
Congalton, R. G., and K. Green. 1999. Assessing the accuracy of remotely
sensed data: principles and practices. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Dunham, J. B., M. M. Peacock, B. E. Rieman, R. E. Schroeter, and G. L.
Vinyard. 1999. Local and geographic variability in the distribution
of stream-living Lahontan cutthroat trout. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 128:875–889.
345
GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling
Featherston, K. L., R. J. Naiman, and R. E. Bilby. 1995. Large woody
debris, physical process, and riparian forest development in montane
river networks of the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphology 13:133–144.
Franklin, J. F. 1992. Scientific basis for new perspectives on forests
and streams. Pages 25–72 in R. J. Naiman, editor. Watershed man-
agement—balancing sustainability and environmental change.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon
and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Frisell, C. A., and S. C. Ralph. 1998. Stream and watershed restoration.
Pages 599–624 in B. E. Bilby and B. J. Naimain, editors. River ecol-
ogy and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion.
Springer Verlag Press, New York.
Frizzell, V. A. Jr, R. W. Rabor, D. B. Booth, K. M. Ort, and R. B. Waitt
Jr. 1984. Preliminary geology map of the Snoqualmie Pass 1:100,000
quadrangle, Washington; USA. Geological Survey Open-File Map
OF-84-693. U.S. Geological Survey.
Giles, P. T., and S. E. Franklin. 1998. An automated approach to the
classification of slope units using digital data. Geomorphology 21:
251–264.
Gonzalez, C., L. Ortigosa, C. Marti, and J. M. Garcia-Ruiz. 1995. The
study of the spatial organization of geomorphic processes in moun-
tain areas using GIS. Mountain Research and Development 15:
241–249.
Gregory, S. N., F. J. Swanson, W. A. Mckee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991.
An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between
land and water. BioScience 41:540–551.
Hall, F. G., D. B. Botkin, D. E. Strebel, K. D. Woods, and S. J. Goetz.
1991. Large-scale patterns of forest succession as determined by
remote sensing. Ecology 72:628–640.
Hardy T. B., and C. R. Addley. 2001. Vertical integration of spatial and
hydraulic data for improved habitat modeling using geographic infor-
mation systems. Pages 65–76 in Hydro-ecology: linking hydrology
and aquatic ecology. Workshop proceedings, 1999. IAHS Pub. no.
266. Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Harmon, M. E., J. F. Franklin, F. J. Swanson, P. Sollins, S. V. Gregory,
J. D. Lattin, et al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temper-
ate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15:133–302.
Hicks, B. J. 1989. The influence of geology and timber harvest on channel
morphology and salmonid populations in Oregon Coast range
streams. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Hook, S. J., J. J. Myers, K. J. Thome, M. Fitzgerald, and A. B. Kahle.
2001. The MODIS/ASTER airborne simulator (MASTER)—a new
instrument for earth science studies. Remote Sensing of Environ-
ment 76:93–102.
Hyatt, T. L., and R. J. Naiman. 2001. The residence time of large woody
debris in the Queets River, Washington, USA. Ecological Applica-
tions 11:191–202.
Hyatt, T. L., T. Z. Waldo, and T. J. Beechie. 2004. A watershed scale
assessment of riparian forests with implications for restoration. Res-
toration Ecology 12:175–183.
Lehman, A., and J. B. Lachavanne. 1997. Geographic information systems
and remote sensing in aquatic botany. Aquatic Botany 58:195–207.
Llewellyn, D. W., G. P. Shaffer, N. J. Craig, L. Creasman, D. Pashley, M.
Swan, and C. Brown. 1996. A decision-support system for prioritiz-
ing restoration sites on the Mississippi River alluvial plain. Conser-
vation Biology 10:1446–1455.
Lunetta, R. S., B. L. Cosentino, D. R. Montgomery, E. M. Beamer, and
T. J. Beechie. 1997. GIS-based evaluation of salmon habitat in the
Pacific Northwest. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sens-
ing 63:1219–1229.
McDade, M. H., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, J. F. Franklin, and J. Van
Sickle. 1990. Source distances for coarse woody debris entering
small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal
of Forestry Research 20:326–330.
346
Meehan, W. R., F. J. Swanson, and J. R. Sedell. 1977. Influences of
riparian vegetation on aquatic ecosystems with particular re-
ference to salmonid fishes and their food supply. U.S. Forest Ser-
vice Symposium. Reproduced from, ‘‘Importance, preservation
and management of riparian habitat: a symposium,’’ 9 July 1977,
Tucson, Arizona.
Mikkelsen, K. N. 2001. Factors influencing the distribution of conifers and
red alder in riparian zones in Western Washington. Published mas-
ter’s thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
Miller, D. 2003. Programs for DEM analysis. Earth Systems Institute,
Seattle, Washington (available from http://www.fsl.orst.edu/clams/
prj_wtr_str_indx.html) accessed 15 February 2005.
Mollot, L. A., D. Munro, and R. E. Bilby. 2007. Classifying fine-scale spa-
tial structure of riparian forests using hyper spectral high resolution
remotely sensed imagery at the Cedar River Municipal Watershed
in western Washington, USA. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing
33:99–108.
Montgomery, D. R. 1994. Geomorphological influences on salmon spawn-
ing distributions. Proceedings of the Annual Geological Society of
America Conference, Geological Society of America, Boulder,
Colorado.
Moser, T. J., D. R. Lindeman, P. J. Wigington, M. J. Schuft, and J. Van
Sickle. 2000. Methods for multi-spatial scale characterization of
riparian corridors. International Conference on Riparian Ecology &
Management in Multi-land Use Watersheds, 28–31 August 2000.
Wigington, P. J., R. L. Beschta, editors. American Water Resources
Association, Middleburg, Virginia. EPA 600/A-00/021.
Murphy, M. L., and K. Koski. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris
in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:427–436.
Naiman, B. J., K. L. Fetherston, S. J. McKay, and J. Chen. 1998. Riparian
forests. Pages 289–323 in B. E. Bilby and B. J. Naimain, editors.
River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal
ecoregion. Springer Verlag Press, New York.
Naiman, R. J., R. E. Bilby, and P. A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian ecology and
management in the Pacific coastal rain forest. BioScience 50:996–1011.
NCASI (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.). 1999.
Assessing effects of timber harvest on riparian zone features and
functions for aquatic and wildlife habitat. Technical Bulletin No.
0775. NCASI, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Neale, C. M. U. 1997. Classification and mapping of riparian systems
using airborne multispectral videography. Restoration Ecology
5(4S):103–112.
Nehlson, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowick. 1991. Pacific salmon
at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho and
Washington. Fisheries 16:4–21.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Fisheries.
2005. Endangered Species Act status of West Coast salmon and
stealhead. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, NW Region,
Seattle, Washington (available from http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/
1salmon/salmesa/pubs/1pgr.pdf) accessed 15 April 2006.
O’Brien-White, S., and C. S. Thomason. 1995. Evaluating fish habitat in
a South Carolina watershed using GIS. Proceedings from the
Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wild-
life Agencies 49:153–166.
Peterson, D. L., and P. V. Thomas. 1998. Dimensions of scale in ecology,
resource management, and society. Pages 499–522 in D. L. Peterson
and T. V. Parker, editors. Ecological scale: theory and applications.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Poole, C. G., J. A. Stanford, C. A. Frissell, and S. W. Running. 2002.
Three-dimensional mapping of geomorphic controls on flood-plain
hydrology and connectivity from aerial photos. Geomorphology
48:329–347.
Reeves G. H., P. A. Bisson, and J. M. Dambacher. 1998. Fish communi-
ties. Pages 200–234 in J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby, editors. River
Restoration Ecology JUNE 2008

ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecore-
gion. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Roni, P. 2005. Overview and background. Page 350 in P. Roni, editor.
Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollack, and
G. R. Pess. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a
hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest
watersheds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
22:1–20.
Russell, G. D., C. P. Hawkins, and M. P. O’Neil. 1997. The role of GIS in
selecting sites for riparian restoration based on hydrology and land
use. Restoration Ecology 5:56–68.
Schuft, M. J., T. J. Moser, P. J. Wigington, D. L. Stevens Jr, L. S.
McAllister Jr, S. S. Chapman, and T. L. Ernst. 1999. Develop-
ment of landscape metrics for characterizing riparian-stream net-
works. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65:
1157–1167.
Sessions, J., R. Reeves, N. J. Johnson, and K. Burnett. 1997. Implement-
ing spatial planning in watersheds. Pages 271–277 in K. A. Kohm
and J. F. Franklin, editors. Creating a forestry for the 21st century.
JUNE 2008 Restoration Ecology
GIS, Remote Sensing, and Suitability Modeling
The science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington,
D.C.
Shugart, H. H., L. Bourgeau-Chavez, and E. S. Kasischke. 2000. Determi-
nation of stand properties of boreal and temperate forests using
high-resolution imagery. Forest Science 46:478–486.
Tabacchi, E., D. L. Correll, R. Hauer, G. Pinay, A. P. Tabacchi, and R. C.
Wissmar. 1998. Development, maintenance and role of riparian veg-
etation in the river landscape. Freshwater Biology 40:497–516.
Tarbotoon, D. G. 1997. A new method for the determination of flow di-
rections and upslope areas in raster layer digital elevation models.
Water Resources 33:309–319.
Treitz, P., and P. Horwath. 2000. High spatial resolution remote sensing
data for forest ecosystem classification: an examination of spatial
scale. Remote Sensing of Environment 72:268–289.
Volk, C. J., P. M. Kiffney, and R. L. Edmonds. 2003. Role of riparian red
alder in the nutrient dynamics of coastal streams of the Olympic
Peninsula, Washington, USA. American Fisheries Society Sympo-
sium 34:213–222.
Zidek V. 2000. Classification of tree species in the riparian (floodplain)
forest using multispectral digital data from an airborne scanner.
Journal of Forest Science. 46:400–410.
347