RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS:
Restoring and Managing a Vital Chesapeake Resource
Conference Proceedings
October 5-6, 1994
Ellicott City, Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Program
Recycled/Recyclable
Printsd on psporttysl cont&ins
at toast 50% recycled fiber
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers:
Restoring and Managing a Vital Chesapeake Resource
October 5-6,1994
Conference Proceedings
Chesapeake Bay Program
May 1995
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS:
Restoring and Managing a Vital Chesapeake Resource
October 5-6,1994
Ellicott City, Maryland
On October 5-6,1994, the Nutrient Subcommittee and Forestry Work Group of the Chesapeake Bay
Program hosted a conference on the subject of Riparian Forest Buffers. Participants came together
to discuss, debate and learn about the value of our riparian forest resources and their potential use
as protective buffers for water quality, fish and wildlife and other diverse objectives.
Background- Forestry Work Group Efforts
In 1993, the Forestry Work Group presented an "issue paper" to the Chesapeake Bay Program calling
for acceleration of a variety of efforts related to the use of riparian forest buffers. Throughout 1993-
94, buffers were debated as a tool in the development of the Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategies
for the Bay watershed. Many involved both supported the concept and criticized its usefulness. It
was clear that there was a keen interest in the subject but that a general knowledge and wider
understanding and appreciation for the value of forest buffers did not exist.
The Forestry Work Group with support of State Forestry Agencies, the Nutrient and Living
Resources Subcommittees, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, began a number of efforts aimed
at addressing these education and technology transfer needs. In 1993, we commissioned a "scientific
consensus" on the state-of-our-knowledge about riparian forest buffers in order to provide a better
scientific foundation for their use. This document will be available from the Bay Program in May of
1995. In addition, we began efforts to compile a handbook to transfer this knowledge to people in
the field. We also began a watershed-wide riparian forest inventory. These projects are in progress
today. We developed educational materials and spoke to dozens of conservation groups, workshops,
government agencies, and industry, landowner, and citizen groups on the subject.
Why a Forest Buffer Conference?
The "Scientific Consensus" process provided a clear conclusion: Riparian forest buffers were a
management practice of importance to the Chesapeake Bay Program; not only for helping to control
non-point sources of pollution but also to improve the health of our aquatic resources and provide
a host of other benefits. The consensus also provided our first view of a set of important
considerations for forest buffer planning and use in terms of nutrient removal, a subject so important
to accomplishing Bay restoration goals.
-------
TOPIC AREAS
-> Scientific Foundations
-^Definition and Design
-^Establishment & Maintenance
-*Future Management
-HJrban lands
-^Developing Areas
-^Agricultural Areas
-^Managed Forests
As a result, the conference was
developed to expand the level of
both technical and practical
knowledge related to forest buffer
use and to stimulate interest and
new energy to address many of the
issues of forest buffer
implementation in the field. The
format and presentations and
exhibits attempted to represent the
different issues and solutions that
are often unique to different land
use settings in the Bay Watershed, •^^^^^^••••••^••^^•^^•^^^•i^^^^^^""
In addition to scientific information,
we decided to go a step further, that is, to focus on bringing together a host of people with examples
and practical experience in translating scientific knowledge into action.
•4Role of Local governments and Non-profits.
^Incentives/Disincentives
•4Partnerships and Education
-*Case Studies
Attendance
Over 280 participants from the states within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and elsewhere around
the country participated. The conference
attendance represented an excellent crossection
of interest and involvement with riparian forest
buffers:
/Local Government 78
/State Government 74
/Private and Non-profits 60
/Federal Government 49
/Landowners/Managers 10
/Scientists 10
The Future
While planning this conference, the Chesapeake Bay Commission passed a resolution calling for the
development of a Bay Program "policy" to favor the use of riparian forest buffers. The Governors
and Federal Agencies formalized this commitment through an Executive Council Directive on
October 14. A Policy Panel has just begun its work to carry out this Directive. The conference was
appropriately timed to begin the discussion and debate for the policy and scope out the range of issues
that will need to be addressed. Successful development and especially implementation of future
forest buffer initiatives will require an informed and active grass roots network such as this
conference assembled. We certainly hope to work with many of you in the future.
f. }/<^^ . "^/U^i.^
i •.•Mini i..^i ii. .,,! nr £,«' %«v* <*m*m • • • trr
\n/*tf\r TTiinlr f
Victor Funk ' Dr. John C. Barber
Chair, Nutrient Subcommittee Chair, Forestry Work Group
Albert H. Todd
USDA Forest Service
Conference Chairman
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers:
Restoring and Managing a Vital Chesapeake Resources
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
AGENDA i
SPEAKERS LIST ix
ABSTRACTS
KEYNOTE. ADDRESS
"Riparian Forests - Environment on the Edge" 1
Neil Sampson
SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS
"Ecology of Forested Streams in the Chesapeake Bay" 7 >
Bernard Sweeney
"Ecological Value of Shoreline Forests along the Chesapeake Bay" 8
Richard Everett
"Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffers" 9
Richard Lowrance
LUNCHEON SPEAKER
"The Human Dimension of Riparian Conservation" 11
Tom Makowski, Soil Conservation Service
URBAN RIPARIAN BUFFERS
"Planning for the Restoration of Riparian Forest Buffers in Urban Environments" *
Abstract not available
"Emphasizing Natural Riparian Areas in Urban Stormwater Retrofit" *
Abstract not available
"Building Community Involvement in Stewardship of Riparian Areas" *
Abstract not available
RIPARIAN FORESTS AND OPEN SPACE IN SUBURBAN AREAS
"Planning for Riparian Forest Buffers in the Developing Landscape" 12
Tom Schueler
"Providing Wildlife Values through the Use of Riparian Forest Corridors" 13
Rich Pais Draft, McKuen and Walker, Inc.
"Criteria and Issues for Forest Buffer Implementation in Suburban Areas" *
Abstract not available
FOREST BUFFERS IN AGRICULTURE
"Ecologically-based Assistance to Farmers: Integrating Riparian Forest Buffers 15
in Farm Conservation Planning"
Jeffrey Loser
'- "The Potential for Managing Riparian Areas as Perennial Vegetative Systems" *
Abstract not available
-------
STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT AREAS FOR SILVICULTURE
"Forest Buffers vs. Streamside^Management Zone: Defining Their Use in Forest 19
Management"
Gordon Stuart
"Designing Streamside Management Zones in Forest Management" 22
Andrew Dolloff
"Integrating Harvest Planning in the Riparian Area with Forest Stewardship" 23
Mike Foreman
FOREST BUFFER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
"Watershed/Landscape Considerations for Forest Buffer Use" 24
David Correll
"Using the Natural Ecosystem as a Guide: Considerations for Planning" 25
Charles Williams
"Transforming Science into Policy: How Are Buffer Widths Established" 27
Cameron Carte
DESIGNING AN EFFECTIVE BUFFER
"Crop Tree Management in Riparian Areas" *
Abstract not available
"Stream Channel Erosion and Riparian Restoration" 28
Larry Lubbers
"Planning Forest Buffers with Wildlife in Mind" 29
Lisa Petit
FOREST BUFFER ESTABLISHMENT AND. MAINTENANCE
"Using SCS Soil Surveys for Riparian Forest Buffer Establishment" *
Abstract not available
"Technical Considerations for Selecting and Planting Riparian Tress and Shrubs" 31
Mike Hollins
"Maintaining Riparian Plantings: Considerations and Techniques" *
Abstract not available
FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER SYSTEMS
"Greenvyays and the Future Management of Riparian Areas" 32
Doug Pickford
"Maintaining Landowner Options through Forest Stewardship" 33
Steve Koehn
"Managing Forest Buffers in the Suburban Landscape" 35
Marc Raab
LAWS AND POLICIES RELATED TO RIPARIAN BUFFER PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION
"National Perspectives on Riparian Protection and Management" 36
James Lyons
"Regional/State Approaches to Riparian Buffer Protection and Management" 45
Dov Weitman
-------
"Status of Riparian Policies and Regulations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed" 46
John Lipman
INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES
"Overcoming Disincentives to Forest Buffer Establishment of Farms" 51
Tom Simpson
"Incentives/Disincentives for Private Land Managers to Enhance and Retain .52
Riparian Forests"
Jack King
"Federal and State Incentive Programs for Rural and Urban Riparian Forest Buffers" 53
JeffHoran
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC RIPARIAN PARTNERSHIPS
"Linking Mitigation with Riparian Forest Buffer Establishment" 54
James Richardson
"The Lancaster County Stream Protection Task Force: A Grass-Roots Approach 56
to Agricultural Riparian Management"
Lamonte Garber
"A Non-Profit Role in Working with Landowners to Protect and Enhance 57
Riparian Forests"
Steve Bunker
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN RIPARIAN PROTECTION
"Finding Creative Solutions to Riparian Forests Through Open Space and 58
Stormwater Planning"
Toby Tourbier r
"Working with Local Interests to Protect Sensitive Areas" *
Abstract not available
"County/Municipal Partnerships for Meaningful Riparian Protection" *
Abstract not available
REACHING THE LANDOWNER AND THE PUBLIC
"Lessons Learned from the PA Stream Fencing Program" *
Abstract not available
"Riparian Easements and Stream Protection" 59
Robert Whitescarver
"Building Coalitions with the Agricultural Community for Riparian Forest *
Enhancement"
Abstract not available
OTHER REGION CASE STUDIES
"A Plan to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution to Long Island Sound through 61
Riparian Enhancement"
Laura Tessier
"The Big Darby Creek Project" 62
Kathy Smith
"Riparian Assessment, Protection and Restoration in the Tar-Pamlico Basin" 63
Randy Dodd
-------
AGRICULTURAL/RURAL EXAMPLES
"Using Agroforestry Systems" ' *
Abstract Tiot available
"The Falling Springs Greenway Project" *
Abstract not available
"Monancy Watershed Project" 64
George Eberling
URBAN/SUBURBAN EXAMPLES
"Revitalizing Baltimore's Riparian Forests through Neighborhood Action" 66
Shawn Dalton
"A County-wide Creek Valley District for Riparian Management" 67
Irish Grandfield
"Forming Local Stream Teams" 68
Sharon Meigs
FARMERS/LANDOWNERS PANEL
Richard Norling 69
Melvin Baile, Jr. *
Abstract not available
Johnston Hegeman 70
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS 71
EVALUATIONS 80
APPENDIXES
• Riparian Buffer Fact Sheet
• Annotated Riparian Buffer Bibliography
-------
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS:
Restoring and Managing a Vital Chesapeake Resource
October 5-6, 1994
Turf Valley Inn
Ellicott City, Maryland
DA Y ONE - Detailed Azenda
7:00 Exhibit Set-up
8:00 Registration and Coffee,
9:00 PLENARY SESSION #1 -
WELCOME- Vic Funk, Chair of the Nutrient Subcommittee
Chesapeake Bay Program
KEYNOTE ADDRESS - Neil Sampson, Ex. Vice President, American Forests
10:00 PLENARY SESSION #2 -
SCIENTIFIC FOUNDA TIONS
Moderator: Dr. John C Barber, Chair, Forestry Work Group
"Ecology of Forested Streams in the Chesapeake Watershed"
Dr. Bernard W. Sweeney, Philadelphia Academy of Sciences
"Ecological value of shoreline forests along the Chesapeake Bay"
Dr. Richard Everett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
" Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers "
Dr. Richard Lowrance, Agricultural Research Service
SETTING THE FOCUS: Albert Todd, USDA Forest Service
12:00 LUNCH-
LUNCHEON SPEAKER: "The Human Dimensions of Riparian Conservation"
Dr. Thomas Makowski, Sociologist, Soil Conservation Service, National Technical
Center
-------
1:00-1:30 EXHIBITS
1:30-3:00 CONCURRENT SESSION #1 - "Definition and Design of Riparian Forest Buffer
Systems"
URBAN RIPARIAN BUFFERS-
Moderator: Don Outen, Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and
Resource Management
"Planning for the restoration of Riparian Forest Buffers in urban environments"
Lome Herson- Jones, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
"Emphasising natural riparian areas in urban stormwater retrofit"
Fernando Pasquale, Prince William County, VA
"Building Community Involvement in Stewardship of riparian areas"
Gene Piotrowski, Urban Forestry Program, Maryland Forest Service
RIPARIAN FORESTS AND OPEN SPA CE IN SUBURBAN AREAS-
Moderator: Jim Cox, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
"Planning for Riparian Forest Buffers in the developing landscape"
Tom Schueler, Center for Watershed Protection -
"Providing wildlife values through the use of riparian forest corridors"
Rich Pais, Draft, McKuen, and Walker, Inc.
"Criteria and issues for forest buffer implementation in suburban areas"
Rocky Powell, Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and
Resource Management
FOREST BUFFERS IN AGRICULTURE-
Moderator: Lynn Schuyler, EPA Non-point Source Program Leader, Chesapeake Bay
"Ecologically-based assistance to farmers: Integrating Riparian Forest Buffers in Farm
Conservation Planning"
Jeffrey Loser, Soil Conservation Service
"The potential for managing riparian areas for as perennial vegetative systems"
Dr. Louis Licht, University of Iowa
"Practical considerations for riparian forest buffer use in agriculture"
George Seals, Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Districts
-------
STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT AREAS FOR SIL VICULTURE -
Moderator: Robert Merrill, Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry .
"Forest Buffers vs Streamside Management zones: Defining their use in forest
management"
Gordon Stuart, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC
"Designing Streamside management zones in forest management"
Andrew Dolloff, Project Leader, Coldwater Fisheries, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station, Blacksburg, VA
"Integrating timber harvest planning in the Riparian Area with forest st&vardship"
J. Michael Foreman, Virginia Department of Forestry
3:00 BREAK -
3:30-5:00 CONCURRENT SESSION #2-
"Establishing and Managing Riparian Forest Buffers"
^v
FOREST BUFFER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS -
Moderator: Rupert Friday, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
" Watershed/Landscape Considerations for Forest Buffer Use "
Dr. David Correll, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
"Using the natural ecosystem as a guide: considerations for planning"
Dr. Charles Williams, Clarion University of Pennsylvania
"Transforming Science into Policy: How are buffer widths established?"
Cameron Carte, Society of American Foresters
DESIGNING AN EFFECTIVE BUFFER
Moderator: Dr. Cherry Keller, US Fish and Wildlife Service
"Crop Tree Management in Riparian Areas"
Karen Sykes, Forester, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area
"Stream channel erosion and riparian restoration "
Larry Lubbers, Watershed Evaluation Division, MD Department of Natural
Resources
i
"Planning forest buffers with wildlife in mind"
Dr. Lisa Petit, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
hi
-------
FOREST BUFFER ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE -
Moderator: Dave Welschj'USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area
"Using SCS Soil Surveys for Riparian Forest Buffer Establishment"
Carl Robinette, Soil Scientist^ Soil Conservation Service
"Technical Considerations for selecting and planting riparian trees and shrubs"
Mike Hollings, Environs/Sylvan Nurseries
"Maintaining riparian plantings: Considerations and techniques "
Len Wrabel, Consulting Forester
FUTURE MAN A CEMENT OF RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER SYSTEMS-
Moderator: Eric Schwaab, Director of Maryland Forest Service
"Managing for riparian forest corridors in the urban environment"
Doug Pickford, Northern Virginia Planning District Commission
"Maintaining landowner options through Forest Stewardship "
Steve Koehn, Maryland Forest Service
"Managing forest buffers in the suburban landscape"
Marc Raab, Howard County Department of Recreation and Parks
5:00-7:00 EXHIBITS -
5:00 - 7:00 COCKTAIL RECEPTION -
IV
-------
DA Y TWO - Detailed Asenda
8:30 PLENARY SESSION #3 -
LA WS AND POLICIES RELATED TO RIPARIAN BUFFER PROTECTION
AND RESTORATION
Moderator: Ann Swanson, Chesapeake Bay Commission
"Nationalperspectives on riparian protection and management"
James Lyons, Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment,
US Department of Agriculture
"Regional/State approaches to riparian buffer protection and management"
Dov Weitman, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Watersheds,
Oceans and Wetlands
"Status of Riparian policies and regulations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed"
John Lipman, Chesapeake Bay Commission
9:40 BREAK -
10:00-11:00 CONCURRENT SESSION #3 -
"Implementation: Working together for Riparian Forests"
INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES -
Moderator: John Riley, State Forester of Maryland
"Overcoming disincentives to Forest Buffer establishment on farms"
Tom Simpson, Maryland Department of Agriculture
"Incentives/Disincentives for private land managers to enhance and retain riparian
forests"
Jack King, Chesapeake Corporation, West Pointe, VA
"Federal and State incentive programs for rural and urban riparian forest buffers"
JeffHoran, Regional Forester, Maryland Forest Service
-------
PRIVA TE AND PUBLIC RIPARIAN PARTNERSHIPS-
Moderator: Lauren Wenzel, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
"Linking mitigation with riparian forest buffer establishment"
James Richardson, Forest and Wetland Conservation Associates, Inc.
"The Lancaster County Stream Protection Task Force: A grass-roots approach to
agricultural riparian management"
Lamonte Garber, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
"A Non-profit role in working with Landowners to protect and enhance riparian forests"
Steve Bunker, Nature Conservancy
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN RIPARIAN PROTECTION -
Moderator: Deborah Southard, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
"Finding Creative Solutions to Riparian Forests through open space and stormwater
planning" - J. Toby Tourbier, Toubier and Walmsley, Inc.
"Working with local interests to protect sensitive areas"
Ginger Howell, Forest Conservation Coordinator, MD Forest Service
"County/Municipal Partnerships for meaningful Riparian Protection "
Jerry Walls, Lycoming County Planning Commission, PA
REA CHING THE LANDO WNER AND THE PUBLIC -
Moderator: Robert Tjaden, Maryland Cooperative Extension
"Lessons learned from the PA Stream Fencing Program "
Mark Dubin, Pennsylvania Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
"Riparian Easements and stream protection "
Robert Whitescarver, Soil Conservation Service, Augusta County, VA
"Building coalitions with the agricultural community for riparian forest enhancement"
Jeff Opel, Queen Annes Soil Conservation District
\\
-------
11:15-12:15 CONCURRENT SESSION #4
"Case Studies of Riparian Protection, Restoration, and Management"
OTHER REGION CASE STUDIES -
Moderator: Richard Everett, US Fish and Wildlife Service
NEW YORK: "A Plan to control Nonpoint Source Pollution to Long Island Sound
through Riparian Enhancement"
Laura Tessier, Westchester County Planning Department
OHIO: "The Big Darby Creek Project"
Kathy Smith, Ohio Department of Forestry -
NORTH CAROLINA: - "Riparian Assessment, Protection, and Restoration in the
Tar-Pamlico Basin "
Randy Dodd, Research Triangle Institute
AGRICULTURAL/RURAL EXAMPLES-
Moderator: Russ Mader, Soil Conservation Service, CBPO
" Using Agroforestry Systems "
Dr. Louis Licht, University of Iowa
"The Falling Springs Greenway Project"
Sam Small, Vice President, Falling Springs Greenway, Chambersburg, PA
"Monocacy Watershed Project"
George Eberling, Maryland Forest Service,
URBAN/SUBURBAN EXAMPLES-
Moderator: Scott Crafton, VA Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Agency
"Revitalizing Baltimore's Riparian forests through neighborhood action "
Shawn Dalton, Yale University, Urban Resources Institute
"A County-wide Creek Valley District for Riparian Management"
Irish Grandfield, Loudoun County Department of Planning
"Forming Local Stream Teams "
Sharon Meigs, Prince Georges County, MD
vii
-------
FARMERS/LANDOWNERS PANEL
Moderator: Rob Northrop, Maryland Forest Service
Richard D. Norling, Deer Creek, Darlington, MD
Melvin Batte, Jr., New Windsor, MD
Johnston Hegeman, Tobacco Run, Churchville, MD
12:15 BOX LUNCHES - Go to discussion groups
12:30 FACILITA TED DISCUSSION GROUPS
"Defining a riparian forest buffer policy/program that works"
URBAN LAND USE GROUP -Facilitators: Shawn Dalton, Baltimore City Parks and
Recreation, & Gene Piotrowski, Maryland Forest Service
SUBURBAN LAND USE GROUP - Facilitators: Rocky Powell, Baltimore City & Rick
Cooksey, USDA Forest Service
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE GROUP -Facilitators: Royden Powell, MD Dept of
Agriculture & Deb Southard, VA Dept of Conservation and Recreation
FORESTRY LAND USE GROUP- Facilitators: Steve Koehn, MD Forest Service
& Mike Foreman, VA Department of Forestry
2:00 BREAK
2:30 PLENARY SESSION #5: PANEL DISCUSSION-
"Riparian Forest Buffers: Future Directions"
PANEL MEMBERS:
Caren Glotfelty, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Royden Powell, Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Dave Welsch, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry Program
Nick Carter, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Moderator: Bill Matuszeski, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program
4:00 ADJOURN
viii
-------
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS WORKSHOP
SPEAKERS CONTACT LIST
Mr. C. Victor Funk
PADER
400 Market Street State Office Building
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
(717)787-5259
Mr. Neil Sampson
Executive Vice President; American Forests
P.O. Box 2000
Washington, DC 20013
(202) 667-3300
Mr. John C. Barber
Forestry Workgroup Chair
Rt. 3 Box 1150
Warsaw, VA 22572
(804) 394-4901
Dr. Bernard W. Sweeney
Stroud Water Research Center
Philadelphia Academy of Sciences
R.D. #1, Box 512 Spencer Road
Avondale,PA 19311
(215)268-2153
Dr. Richard Everett
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Suite 535
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)573-4518
Dr. Richard Lowrance
USDA-ARS
Southeast Watershed Research Lab
Tifton,GA 31793
(912)386-3514
Mr. Tom Makowski
USDA Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 6567
Fort Worth,.TX 76115
(817)334-5456
Ms. Lome Herson-Jones
MWCOG
777 North Capitol St., N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002-4201
(202) 962-3347
Mr. E. Fernando Pasquael
Chief, Watershed Management Division
Department of Public Works
4379 Ridgewood Center Drive
Prince William, VA 22192-5308
(703) 792-7070
Mr. Gene Pietrowski
MD DNR Division of Forestry
Tawes State Office Building, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)974-3776
Mr. Tom Schueler
Center for Watershed Protection
8630 Fenton Street, Suite 910
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301)589-1890
Mr. Rich Pais
Draft, McKuen and Walker, be.
200 East Pennsylvania Avenue
Towson, MD 21286
(410)296-3333
Mr. Rocky Powell
Baltimore County DEPRM
Courts Building, Room 416
401 Bosley Avenue
Towson, MD 21204
(410)887-3733
Mr. Jeffrey Loser
Soil Conservation Service
Conservation Planning
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013
(202)720-1834
IX
-------
Dr. Louis Licht
University of Iowa
Civil and Environmental Engineering
120 Engineering Research Facility
Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
(319)335-5050
Mr. George Seals
Tri-county Soil & Water Conservation District
10000 Catharpin Road
Spotsylvania, VA 22553
(703)373-8592
Mr. Gordon Stuart
'USDA USFS
Cooperative Forestry
14th and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20250
(202)205-1382
Mr. Andrew Dolloff
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station
VPI-Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0321
(703)231-4864
Mr. J. Michael Foreman
Virginia Department of Forestry
P.O. Box 3758
Charlottesville, VA 22903
(804) 977-6555
Dr. David Correll
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
P.O. Box 28
Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)798-4424
Dr. Charles Williams
Department of Biology
Clarion University of Pennsylvania
Clarion, PA 16214
(814)226-1936
Mr. Cameron Carte
Society of American Foresters
5400 Grosvenor Lane
Bethesda,MD 20814
(301)897-8720 x 116
Ms. Karen Sykes
USDA USFS .
180 Canfield Street
P.O. Box 4360
Mongantown, WV 26505
(304)285-1532
Mr. Larry Lubbers
MD DNR, Tidewater Administration
Tawes State'Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)974-5780
Dr. Lisa Petit
Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center
National Zoological Park
3001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20008
(202) 673-4908
Mr. Carl Robinette
USDA SCS
11602 Bedford Road, NE
Cumberland, MD 21502
(301)777-1494
Mr. Mike Hollins
Environs/Sylvan Nurseries
P.O. Box 299
Freeland,MD 21053
(717)227-0486
Mr. Len Wrabel
Consulting Forester
275 Bamhart Road
Westminster,.MD 21158
(410) 840-8223 or 857-2322
Mr. Doug Pickford
Northern VA Planning District Commission
7535 Little River Turnpike
Annandale,VA 22003
(703) 642-0700
Mr. Steve Koehn
MD DNR Forestry Program
Tawes State Office Building, E-1
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)974-3776
-------
Mr. Mark Raab
Howard County Dept. Recreation & Parks
Executive Center,"Suite 170
3300 North Ridge Road
Ellicott City, MD 21043
(301)313-7256
Mr. James Lyons
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural
Resources and Environment
USDA NRE
14th & Independence, S.W., Room 217E
Washington, DC 20250
Mr. Dov Weitman
EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
401M Street, S.W.,WH-553
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7100
Mr. John Lipman
Chesapeake Bay Commission
60 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)263-3420
Dr. Thomas W. Simpson
MD Department of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)841-5865
Mr. Jack King
Chesapeake Corporation
P.O. Box 311
West Pointe, VA 23181
(804)843-5000
Mr. Jeff Horan
MD DNR Division of Forestry
2 South Bond Street
Bel Air, MD 21014
(410)836-4551
Mr. James Richardson
Forest & Wetland Conservation Associates
15716 Buena Vista Drive
Derwood, MD 20855
(301)948-1686
Mr. Lamonte Garber
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Agricultural Policy Analyst
214 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717)234-5550
Mr. Steve Bunker
The Nature Conservancy
2 Wisconsin Circle •
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
(301)656-8673
\
Mr. J. Toby Tourbier
706 S. Front St.
Philadelphia, PA 19147
(215)922-4077
Ms. Ginger Howell
Forest Conservation Coordinator
Maryland Forest Service
311 South Aurora Street
Easton,MD 21601
(410)820-4367
Mr. Jerry Walls
Executive Director
Lycoming County Planning Commission, PA
48 West Third Street
Williamsport, PA 17701
(717)323-2230
Mr. Mark Dubin
Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
130 North Duke Street
York, PA 17401
(717)843-6328
Mr. Bobby Whitescarver
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 70
Verona, VA 24482
(703) 248-4328
Mr. Jeff Opel
Queen Annes County Soil Conservation Service
505 Railroad Avenue, Suite 3
Centreville, MD 216J7
(410)758-1671
XI
-------
Ms. Laura Tessier
Westchester County Planning Department
148 Marteine Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
(914)285-2342
Ms. Kathy Smith
304 Patrick Avenue
Urbana, OH 43078
(513)653-4106
Mr. Randall C. Dodd
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
(919)541-6491
Dr. Louis Licht
University of Iowa
Civil and Environmental Engineering
120 Engineering Research Facility
Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
(319)335-5050
Mr. Sam Small
Vice President
Falling Springs Greenway
1132 Kennebec Drive
Chambersburg, PA 17201
(717)267-0011
Mr. George Eberling
Maryland Forest Service
14038 Blairs Valley Road
Clear Spring, MD 21722
(410)791-4010
Mr. C. Scott Crafton
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department
805 E. Broad Street, #701
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 225-3444
Ms. Shawn Dalton
URI
2600 Madison Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21207
(410)396-0712
Mr. James P. "Irish" Grandfield
Loudoh County Department of Planning
750 Miller Drive, SE
Suite 800
Leesburg,VA 22075
(703)777-0164 or -0104
Ms. Sharon Meigs
PrinceGeorge's County
9400 Peppercorn Place, Suite 600
Landover, MD 20785
(301)925-7163
Mr. Richard D. Norling
Deer Creek
P.O. Box 5850
Darlington, MD 21031-5850
(410)734-7720
Mr. Melvin Baile, Jr.
853 Medford Road
New Windsor, MD 21776
(410)848-9589
Mr. Johnston Hegeman
P.O. Box 246
Churchville, MD 21028
(410) 836-4551 [c/o Frank Lopez]
xn
-------
RIPARIAN FORESTS -- ENVIRONMENT ON THE EDGE
• •
R. Neil Sampson
AMERICAN FORESTS
October 5, 1994
The Chesapeake Bay and its future are intricately tied to the land use and management
of the entire watershed, and the entire region. Nowhere, however, is it more critical to
manage land correctly than in that intimate edge where water meets land. Here, in the
riparian zone, more than anywhere else, people can make an enormous difference -- either
positive or negative.
So I commend the^ Chesapeake Bay Program, and the Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay, for sponsoring this conference on riparian forests. It is a subject of enormous
importance, and I am impressed with the talent you have assembled to consider it.
In thinking about the challenge of managing riparian forests, it seems logical to start
with a viewpoint about the nature of forests themselves, and the interactions between people,
time and events that have resulted in the forests of the Chesapeake region.
In thinking about people and forests, it seems clear that we have gone through several
periods in the past which, while they hold many common elements, can be described as
signficantly different in many ways. Understanding these periods, which I will call eras, may
be essential to understanding the current challenges we face, and in developing sound
strategies to adddress them.
The forests of the Chesapeake, as is true around the world, evolved in association
with human cultures. For 10,000 years or so, native American cultures and forests evolved
together. Records from early explorers, along with the scientific evidence being amassed by
a variety of historical analysis techniques, suggest both that the forests were subject to fairly
significant changes and that many native cultures managed them quite intensively.
With fire as a primary management tool, native Americans cleared land for
agriculture, kept the area around villages open so that enemies could not sneak up unseen,
affected wildlife grazing patterns by keeping meadows open and affecting the quality of
forage, and drove game for more effective hunting. The resulting forests were open in the
understory, favoring large, fire-resistant tree species, and containing large openings,
sometimes called "deserts" in the early journals. The myth of the forest primevial, dense and
dark and unaffected by humans, reaching from the Atlantic to the Mississippi seems to be
more an invention of creative writers and artists than an environmental fact.
To characterize this as an "era" of the ever-changing relationship between humans and
forests oversimplifies much diversity in cultures over time and space, but it has the advantage
of grounding our discussion in the full history of forest management in the region. The
central organizing principle of native forest management was subsistence; the major scientific
discipline would today be called ecology; the major tool was fire; the major crops were
1
-------
firewood and building wood, wild game for food, and a wide variety of other food,
medicinal, and useful plant and ariimal products. When fields, forests, or other sources of
subsistence wore down, entire villages would move to new territory and clear new village
sites and fields from the forest. A fairly lightly-populated society lived in, and significantly
affected, Chesapeake forests, fields, and waters.
The arrival of Europeans changed all this, of course. Unfamiliar diseases wiped out
many native settlements, in some cases decades before European settlement arrived, and the
forest, unmanaged, grew into a jungle in many areas. Europeans wanted to replicate the
towns, farms, and fixed property boundaries of their ancestors as they settled this new land.
Forests were an impediment to agriculture and transportation, but provided a seemingly-
endless storehouse of the wood needed to build and fuel a new civilization. Thus began the
pioneer era of forest-human interaction. Its central organizing principle was development; its
main scientific discipline was engineering; its tools were machines powered largely by water,
wood, humanpower, and draft animals; its major forest crops were logs for building and fuel
and wildlife for food. Forests literally vanished as the frontier moved west; as in many
regions virtually the entire forest was either harvested or burned, or both. All of this was
accomplished with only rudimentary roads; the transportation system relied heavily on water,
with flumes, canals, and river drives being common features. Railroads, often built right in
the stream bottoms, penetrated deeply into some forested regions to provide the means of
extracting logs.
Only toward the end of the 19th Century did the excesses of the pioneer era stir
people to establish a conservation movement, typified by the American Forestry Association
and the National Park System in the late 1800's, and the National Forest System and Forest
Service in the early 1900's. The spectre of a "timber famine" drove much of that early
movement, which sought to import scientific forest management principles from Europe,
educate more Americans in the basic notion of conservation, and assure that all wood
products harvested were effectively utilized instead of wasted.
The constant improvement of machines, as well as fear of a "timber famine," ushered
in the third era of human-forest interaction — the industrial era. Although it started 'earlier,
one major turning point for this era was World War II. With an enormous appetite for
industrial materials accompanied by a huge leap in the production of large earthmovers,
trucks, and other machinery, the war signalled a major change in how people viewed and
used their forests. Productivity became the central organizing principle — not just extraction
of timber, but its sustained yield. That meant investments in forest management, and new
forms of cost-return accounting. Economics became a major scientific underpinning in forest
management, with managers searching for the "economic maturity" of a stand of timber in
anticipation of its harvest and replacement.
Achieving high productivity in the industrial era meant controlling most variables, and
focusing management attention on the most valuable commercial species in the forest. One
of the natural outcomes was clearcutting, with its success at converting the forest to the most
-------
productive species of trees, along with an intensive search for the chemical and other means
that would exclude competing plants, as well as pestiferous hugs and other organisms. A
major beacon here was agriculture, which seemed to be doing an increasingly good job of
controlling and simplifying systems and increasing output on annual crops. A goal of many
foresters was to emulate that success.
With bigger and more efficient machines, as well as an ever-improving highway-based
transportation network in rural areas, the importance of roads grew apace during the
industrial era. Big earthmovers built roads into previously-impenetrable places, and a
network of road access reached, in many areas, into virtually every forest stand. Not just
forest harvest, but forest protection and management depended on access, and access
demanded roads.
%
While timber became the sole forest crop of industrial managers, the public
increasingly looked to the forest as a recreational resource, and public demands for fish and
wildlife, scenic resources, and "wild" places began to increasingly conflict with industrial
goals. This became particularly polarized on the federal lands, and conflicts escalated. An
environmental movement, intent at first on pressing the industrial foresters to modify then-
ways and give more priority to forest values other than timber, grew increasingly frustrated
and militant, until recent years have seen them focus almost entirely upon keeping forest
management out of sensitive areas and, increasingly, out of all public lands.
Out of this history of constantly changing public values and evolving technolgy, it is
clear that today we are moving into a new era. This "New Era" is not just about forestry -
it is about how we, as a society, view our forests, and how we conceptualize our relationship
to them. While it is somewhat presumptuous to say with certainty what this new era will
involve, some aspects seem to be fairly clear. First of all, the central organizing principle
will be sustainability - sustainability of a wide variety of forest values including, but not at
all limited to, timber. Since we now characterize the forest as being an important part of a
larger ecosystem, management will focus on how well a particular forest fulfills its role
within the greater landscape. That creates the need for enormous amounts of data — far more
than any human can process at one time. Thus, the science base for the new era will be
information management — computers, if you will, and all manner of geographic information
systems and other data analysis methods to help us understand what we know and use it to
make good decisions. The ability to process far larger amounts of data than at any time in
the past will, in turn, lead to the gathering of additional data, in ways such as aerial surveys,
satellites, and other technical wizardry.
The tools of the new era, in addition,to computers, will be an increasingly-
sophisticated array of equipment designed to work in the forest with a minimum of permanent
environmental impact. Low-impact machines will move gently through forests, removing
selected trees without damaging others, and without damaging fragile soils or aquifers.
Helicopters and other types of aircraft will remove logs, and low-flying drone aircraft will
provide low-cost environmental monitoring, all with virtually no direct impact on the land.
-------
In addition, some old techniques and understandings — many abandoned for decades —
will return. Prescribed fire will re-introduce tire into those systems that cannot be maintained
without it. Plants that provided food and healing to native Americans will be rediscovered,
and valued.
But, lest we get lost in theory and nostalgia, let us jolt ourselves into reality by
realizing that this era of forest management must find a way to maintain the forests we need
and want in association with a human population that is perhaps 100 times larger than in the
pre-settlement era. The best we can bring, in terms of lessons from the past and technologies
from the future, will be put to a test never before attempted. This will call for our very best
science, our very best technology, our very best management. But under all this, it will
demand, in our democratic society, a realistic and reasonably commonly-held public vision of
what our forests can and should do in today's world. That, it seems to me, is our most
significant challenge.
Let me share some ideas with you that I feel we need to debate, refine, and infuse
into public consciousness.
First and foremost, if we can decide on what we want the forests of the Chesapeake to
do for us, we'll have to manage them to get that result. Whether you talk about riparian
forests or upland forests, urban forests or rural forests, young forests or old forests, none of
them got where they are today without 10,000 years of human interaction, and none will
proceed in any but a random, chaotic way in the future where we leave them untended.
Where we can decide what we want, we'll have to work to get it.
Second, we'll have to be careful of how our human institutions have created
distinctions that don't help us conceptualize or manage ecosystems. People have historically
viewed water as a boundary, marking the edge of our area. Rivers and bays form state
boundaries, town boundaries, land ownership boundaries. The riparian area is often the
outside edge of these,operating and management units. It may also be the boundary in most
people's minds, as they think of areawide problems and solutions.
But water bodies form the center, not the edge, of ecosystems and landscapes. To
truly consider an ecosystem, we will have to consider entire watersheds, and this may mean
finding ways to merge some of our current human boundaries into new combinations for
planning and management. To truly consider a riparian forest, we will have to start with the
water and consider the land use all the way to the top of the watershed, in order to make the
riparian edge functionally integrated with the whole.
Thirdly, we will have to truly understand the term "adaptive management."
Ecosystem management must be adaptive management. But this has some elements that may
differ from what many people expect. First of all, it means that all management is,
essentially, an experiment. We make a change in the ecosystem, based on a theory about
how that action will affect the system, then we watch to see if the system responds in the way
-------
we intended. This demands feedback information from monitoring, that feedback must then
be fed into our models to make them more accurate for the future. When we set out to
change a forest, we need to know what is there, and what is done. Then, we need to
measure the results. Future management options, and the models upon which they are based,
become better-informed with the information from each succeeding action. For the citizen
watching forest plans discussed today, what that means is that, if there is not a solid plan
(and budget) for post-action monitoring, the plan is not truly an ecosystem management
design.
What adaptive management also means, however, is that surprises or failures are a
normal part of the exercise. If we learn from our failures, they can be some of our most
important efforts. This is a critical distinction. In the "control" model of industrial forestry,
when the ecosystem responded in a surprising or unforseen way, this was called a failure.
Professionals or agencies were criticized for failing; thus, there was a large incentive to hide
surprising or unintended outcomes. In the adaptive management model of the new era,
surprises or unintended outcomes enrich our data bases and inform future managers, often in
a more useful fashion than a normally-expected result might have.
Fourthly, we need to recognize that, even with the best monitoring we can design and
afford, we may have ecological changes that we can't foresee in time to forestall or prevent.
It seems almost axiomatic that environmental trends tend to be slow and difficult to measure,
while ecosystem responses seem to be episodic and often quite significant. In other words,
while the levels of environmental pollution may rise slowly and give little indication of any
cause-effect relationship on the ecosystem, suddenly the system will go through a major
change. Our problem may be thresholds, which we do not understand and can't see coming.
If that is true, and we only see the adverse effects some time after the threshold has been
exceeded, it makes it very tough to make timely corrections. Our best hope here is to
improve our data and modeling of large ecosystems like the Chesapeake, and hope that, when
major changes occur, such as happened to the fisheries in recent years, we can reconstruct
enough of the situation to better understand what caused us to break over that threshold, and
what the best options are to try to reverse the situation.
Fifth, adaptive management means that you actually do things in the forest, on the
land, and in the ecosystem. I have heard proposals today that seem to propose a form of
"adaptive non-management," in that they propose that we do nothing and see what happens,
then do nothing in response. That, it seems to me, is tantamount to watching traffic jams and
counting accidents, in hope that somehow, fate will unscramble the mess somewhere along
the way. Nature designs forests, including riparian forests, by accident. Some people
believe that the outcome of those accidents, without human intervention, will somehow
emerge as the most environmentally sound arid effective solution. I do not share that view. I
believe that, instead, you will simply get what you get.
Finally, we need to recognize that a major portion of the riparian forests of the
Chesapeake in the 21st Century will be urban forests. By that, I mean that the forest
-------
ecosystem of which they are an integral part will contain major human-constructed elements
.such as roads, bridges, houses, and, other aspects of the developed environment. We need to
assess those urban forests ecologically with the same rigor that we evaluate all forests, and
we need to create planning and management tools that are effective in properly managing
them for both their urban and riparian values.
But this is going to take an enormous amount of public education and understanding to
achieve, and this may be where the Alliance can perform a great service. Would people
today tend to favor the selective removal of some trees from a riparian forest zone in order to
get the type of species mix, understory growth, and other character that science indicates
would be best for that particular riparian zone? Can we use emerging science to inform
public debate in the region so that we can agree on the best way to achieve the riparian forest
function that both the land and water need? Or would some scientists and the public instead
favor a total ban on foresTmanagement in that zone, prefering whatever tangle of vegetation
might emerge over any sense of determined goals? Are we still captive of the "natural
balance" ecological myth, or have we accepted modern ecology's lessons? Are we willing to
submit our scientific conclusions to the rough-and-tumble of political debate, so that a public
consensus can emerge?
Where the historic forest developed under a regular fire regime, are the residents of an
area, and the air quality agencies, ready to allow land managers to institute a prescribed fire
regime? If they don't, do you have any idea how you are going to get back a forest that
resembles the historic condition? What options are we prepared to offer a citizenry that is
deathly afraid of fire, conditioned by 50 years of Bambi and Smokey Bear?
I do not, as I am sure many of you do not, know the answers to all these questions
today. Perhaps many of you feel these are not the right questions to ask. Many of you may
be skeptical about the "new era" of human-forest interaction that I have posed. Some may
think that the old industrial ways were just fine, and that any talk of "new ways" is
premature. Others may be convinced that all forestry is still mired in the 1970's, and that the
talk of new ways of conceptualizing forest ecosystems, doing adaptive management, and
achieving sustainable forestry is just a smokescreen for the same old ideas and methods.
But I'm hopeful that there's a growing cadre of concerned conservationists — both lay
citizens and environmental professionals — who are ready to lay those old stereotypes and
mythologies aside, and come together to design a new vision for forestry in the 21st century.
As they do, they could not find a better place to begin than in the critical riparian forests of
the Chesapeake. And they could scarcely find a better venue for discussion, searching, and
reaching for consensus than the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, , and this conference. I
truly wish you the very best in that effort.
-------
Ecology of Forested Streams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Dr. Bernard W. Sweeney
Stroud Water Research Center,
The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
. 512 Spencer Rd
Avondale,PA 19311
The presence or absence of trees on land adjacent to stream channels significantly affects the
structure and function of stream systems draining into the Chesapeake Bay. Small forested tributaries are
about 2!/2 wider than deforested streams and have more benthic surface area in the form of inorganic (sand,
gravel cobble) and organic (tree roots, leaf litter, wood, etc.) substrates as habitat for aquatic plants and
animals. Streamside forests affect food quality and quantity for macroinvertebrates and fish directly through
inputs of particular food (leaf litter, soils, wood, etc.) and indirectly by affecting the structure and
productivity of the microbial (algae, bacteria) food web through shading and modifying the levels of
dissolved organic carbon and nutrients. Deforestation eliminates shading and can result in a 2-5 °C warming
of small streams which greatly affects important life history characteristics of the resident macroinvertebrates
and fish (e.g. growth rate, survivorship, adult size and fecundity, timing of reproduction). The importance of
streamside forests to steam recovery and restoration was described and a spatial protocol for planting
streamside forests as buffers for mitigating non-point source pollution was reviewed. It was concluded that
restoration of streamside forests can and should plan a critical role in restoring water and habitat quality to
the tributaries feeding the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
The Ecological Value of Shoreline Forests Along the Chesapeake Bay
Dr. Richard Everett
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
177 Admiral Cochran Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401 .
The importance of, and links between, riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat characteristics are well
appreciated for freshwater ecosystems. Recent work in the Chesapeake Bay indicates that shoreline forests
along tidal reaches also have important influences on nearshore shallow water habitats. As for freshwater
ecosystem, trees at the aquatic-terrestrial ecotone are a source of coarse woody debris (CWD) which provides
structural complexity in the nearshore aquatic habitat. Controlled and replicated field experiments have
demonstrated greater abundance and diversity offish and crustaceans at CWD compared to sites lacking
debris. Further experiment have revealed that one ecologically important role of CWD in estuarine habitats is
as a refuge from predation for small species and juveniles of larger species. Deforestation of shorelines
during urban, suburban and agricultural development removes the source of CWD, and thus reduces the
physical complexity of nearshore aquatic habitats. Although historic and continuing human activities have
greatly decreased the amount of CWD in estuarine habitats, several lines of evidence indicate an important
role over evolutionary time scales. The importance of CWD for shallow water fauna in the Chesapeake Bay
may have increased in recent decades, due to the decline of submersed aquatic vegetation in many upper and
mid-bay tributaries.
-------
"Water Quality Function of Riparian First Buffers"
••
Dr. Richard Lowrance
USDA-ARS
Southeast Watershed Research Lab
Tifton, Georgia 31793
Riparian (streamside) forests are known to reduce delivery of nonpoint source pollution to streams
and lakes in many types of watersheds. In addition, riparian forests are known to be important in controlling
the physical and chemical environment of streams and in providing detritus and woody debris for streams and
near-shore areas of water bodies. Riparian forest were the original native vegetation in most streamside areas
of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Research conducted in naturally occurring riparian forests and experimental and on-farm grass filters
has been used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop a general "Riparian Forest Buffer System
specification" for controlling nonpoint source pollution from agriculture and improving general water quality.
The specification calls for a three zone buffer system, with each zone having specific purposes but also
having interactions with the adjacent zones to provide the overall RFBS function. Zone 1 of the RFBS is an
area of permanent forest vegetation immediately adjacent to the stream channel and encompassing at least the
entire streams channel system. Zone 2 is an area of managed forest, upslope from Zone 1. Zone 2 is
managed for control of pollutants in subsurface flow and surface runoff through biological and chemical
transformations, storage in woody vegetation, infiltration and sediment deposition. Zone 3 is a grass or other
herbaceous filter strips upslope form Zone 2. Zone 3 is managed to provide spreading of concentrated flow
into sheet flow and to remove sediment and sediment associated pollutants. '<
The most general function of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems is to provide control of the stream
environment. These functions include modifying stream temperature and controlling fight quantity and
quality; enhancing habitat diversity; modifying channel morphology; and enhancing food webs and species
richness. All of these factors are important to the ecological health of a stream and are best provided by a
RFBS which includes a Zone 1 that approximates the original native vegetation. These functions occur
along smaller streams regardless of physiographic region. These functions are most important on smaller
streams, although they are important for bank and near-shore habitat on larger streams and the. shoreline of
the Bay. RFBS contribute to bank stability and thus minimize sediment loading due to instreams bank
erosion. Depending on bank stability and soil conditions in Zone 1, management of Zone 2 for long-term
rotations may be necessary for sustainability of stream environment function of Zone 1.
The next most general function of RFBS is control of sediment and sediment-borne pollutants carried
in surface runoff. Properly managed RFBS should provide a high level of control of sediment and sediment
borne chemicals regardless of physiographic region. Natural riparian forest studies indicate that forests are
particularly effective in filtering fine sediments and promoting co-deposition of sediment as water infiltrates.
The slope of the RFBS is the main factor limiting the effectiveness of the sediment removal function. In all
physiographic settings it is important to convert concentrated flow to sheet flow in order to optimize RFBS
function. Conversion to sheet flow and deposition of coarse sediment which could damage young vegetation
-------
are the primary functions of Zone 3 - the grass vegetated filter strip.
The next most general function of RFBS is to convert nitrate in shallow groundwater moving
towards streams. When groundwater moves in short, shallow flow paths, such as in the Inner Coastal Plain
(primarily the westerns shore), 90% of the nitrate input may be removed. In contrast, nitrate removal may be
minimal in areas where water moves to regional groundwater such as in Piedmont and Valley and Ridge areas
with marble or limestone bedrock, respectively. In these and some OUter Coastal Plain regions, high nitrate
groundwater may emerge in stream channels and bypass most of the RFBS. hi the areas where this occurs or
where high nitrate water moves out in seepage faces, deeply rooted tress in Zone 1 or in seepage areas will'be
essential. The degree to which nitrate (or other groundwater pollutants) will be removed in the RFBS
depends on the proportion of groundwater moving in or near the biologically active root zone on the residence
time of the groundwater in these biologically active areas.
The least general function of the RFBS appears to be control of dissolved phosphorous in surface
runoff or shallow groundwater. Control of sediment-bom P is generally effective. In certain situations,
dissolved P can contribute a substantial amount of total P load. Most of the soluble P is bioavailable, so the
potential impact of dissolved P on aquatic ecosystems is greater. It appears that natural riparian forests have
very low net dissolved P retention, hi managing for increased P retention, effective fine sediment control
should be coupled with use of vegetation which can increase P uptake into plant tissue.
Research on functions of natural, restored and enhanced RFBS is needed in all portions of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Research should be directed into four general areas: 1) assessment of existing
riparian forests relative to the RFBS standard; 2) assessment of potential RFBS restoration for NPS pollution
control; 3) assessment of NPS pollution control in pilot restoration and enhancement projects; 4) determine
the effects of management factors on both pollution control and control of the stream environment. The
research, because of the need to do relatively large scale projects which last for substantial periods of time,
should be coordinated with demonstration/restoration/enhancement projects. Some of the major research
questions should address the uncertainty associated with the functions discussed above. Research should be
directed toward testing the hypotheses concerning which functions of RFBS occur in specific physiographic
settings and the specific management conditions under which these functions are likely to be enhanced, hi
particular, research on the time to recovery of RFBS functions and the processes which control the various
functions should be integrated into demonstration projects.
10
-------
The Human Dimension of Riparian Conservation
• •
Tom Makowski
USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service
P.O. Box 6567
Fort Worth, TX 76115
Purpose
To provide you with an understanding of landowners that will enable you to more effectively persuade people
to establish and maintain riparian forest buffers.
Agenda
Landowner Decision-Making: Reasons landowners adopt or reject conservation practices and
management systems
Unable but Willing
Unable and Unwilling
Able and Willing
Able but Unwilling
II. Attributes of Conservation Practices Which are Fundamental to Improving the Rate of Adoption:
Relative Advantage
Complexity
III. Phases in the Adoption Process
Observability of Results
Compatibility
Trialability
1.
2.
3!
4.
5.
Awareness
Interest
Evaluation
Trial
Adoption
FV. A Plan of Action for Implementing Riparian Forestry Programs
Persuasive Communication
• win landowner trust
• know your product
• keep your skin thick
• given them a smile and a handshake
• talk the landowner's talk
• trot out your testimonials
• never overpromise or underdeliver
• update your tool kit
Principles of Marketing
•Target groups;
• Identify group's needs,
problems and concerns
• Meet needs and solve problems
11
-------
Planning for Urban Forest Buffers in the Developing Landscape
Tom Schueler
Center for Watershed Protection
8630 Fenton Street, Suite 910
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Benefits of Stream Buffers
Buffers allow streams to move laterally over time and should be a prerequisite for future stream
restoration projects. They reduce watershed imperviousness and small drainage complaints. Buffers are the
most effective flood control insurance and provide sites for stormwater detention ponds. They allow for forest
conservation reforestation sties and serve as foundations for greenway systems. Lastly, buffers minimize the
creation of new fish barriers and discourage storm drain enclosures.
A Suggested Stream Buffer Model:
Each buffer should have three zones including an inner (streamside), middle (floodplain) and outer
(setback) zone. The width, vegetative target and allowable use within each zone should be different. The width
of the middle zone can expand to include the following; 100 yr floodplain; steep slopes (4 ft per 1% increase in
slope), any adjacent wetlands or critical habitats; and extra width for third order or higher streams. The stream
should be defined in terms that can be clearly delineated in the field and on a mapping unit. The developer
should be compensated with extra density outside the buffer, if the buffer consumes too much land. The .
number and kind of buffer crossings must be clearly defined. A stream buffer is one element of the total BMP
system for the site. Lastly, the buffer must be mapped, posted and managed.
The Three-Stage Buffer Model
There are five techniques that maintain the integrity of buffers in the Planning Stage.. Buffer limits
need to be present on all clearing/grading and erosion control plans. The bugger boundaries need to be
recorded on official maps. The acceptable/unacceptable buffer uses need to be established. Lastly incentives
should be provided to owners to protect buffers through conservation easements rather than deed restrictions.
There ware four ways that the integrity of stream buffers is maintained during the Construction Stage.
Define the limit of disturbance (LOD) for buffers by preconstruction stakeout. Set the LOD based on the drip
line of the forested buffer. Conduct preconstruction meetings to familiarize contractors with the LOD and
buffer limits. Lastly, mark the LOD with silt fence barrier, signs and other methods to exclude construction
equipment and stockpiling.
To maintain the integrity of stream buffer systems during the post development stage four actions must
be performed. Mark buffer boundaries with permanent signs describing allowable uses. Educate property
owner and homeowner associations regularly. Conduct annual bufferwalks to inspect the buffer network.
Lastly, reforest buffer areas that are grassed or in turf.
Buffers and Urban StormWater
Pollutant removal is the most frequently cited justification for urban stream buffers. However, there is
little evidence that buffers actually remove urban pollutants in stormwater. Most sites will require a structural
BMP for long term pollutant removal however, not all BMPs are always compatible with stream buffer
objectives or forest targets.
12
-------
Wildlife Corridors in the Suburban Environment
Richard C. Pais
Daft, McCune, Walker, Inc
200 East Pennsylvania Avenue
Towson, MD21286
The creation of wildlife corridors has been frequently cited as a rationale or potential benefit of the creation
of stream buffers and greenways in Maryland. Citizen groups and others opposed to development near streams have
attempted to use the corridor theory as a rationale to relocate or limit the scope of new construction. There have
been numerous popular and semi-scientific publications and discussions regarding the necessity of buffers in
maintaining biological diversity. Many of these dissertations have not been subject to peer review or make broad
generalizations which do not apply to suburban ecosystems. For example, the Forestry Workgroup (FWG) of the
Chesapeake Bay Program states that one of the physical and biological functions of buffers in the region is, "as
connectors between isolated blocks of habitat" (FWG 1993). However, there is no reference to terrestrial vertebrate
species which may benefit by this connection. This treatise is designed to provide factual information of the value
of wildlife corridors in the suburban environment which can be used to help in land use and management decisions.
Definition and Theoretical Value
Wildlife corridors can be defined as, "a linear landscape feature that facilitates the biologically effective transport of
animals between larger patches of habitat dedicated to conservation functions" (Soule 1991). It is important to note
that emphasis on transport or movement. The fundamental value of corridors is to facilitate the movement of
individuals (Forman 1983, Harris 1988, Lines and Harris 1989). This is because corridors are linear and lack the
habitat quality of the patches they connect (Keller et al. 1993).
Forest corridors can provide valuable habitat for a wide variety of species and they can function as specialized
habitats (Rodiek 1991). This is because their linear nature and frequent association with streams creates large areas
of edge. Diversity and richness in terrestrial vertebrates is frequently higher in edge areas than in surrounding
patches (Hunter 1990).
However, corridors in Maryland are typically created between two forest patches or "islands". Their biological
objective should be to increase the likelihood that a given species will persist in the islands they connect and in the
region (Soule 1991). In my opinion, species for which forest corridors may provide a vital component in sustaining
future populations in suburban Maryland should meet the following criteria:
1. They must depend on large forest patches for survival during some portion of their life cycle.
2. Their population densities are naturally slow such that,"...they must receive immigrants if they are
to survive in isolated patches" (Soule 1991).
3. They cannot move from forest patch to forest patch without an interconnecting forest strip.
Conservation Species
Management of corridors throughout North America has focused on large carnivores and on rare, threatened or
endangered species. There are no large carnivores in suburban Maryland. Most of the rare terrestrial vertebrate
species in Maryland which are forest dependent are nongame birds (Maryland Natural Heritage Program). It has
been well document that these forest interior birds require large forest areas to successfully breed (Robbins, et al
1989) and their populations are frequently very low. However, most of these species are neotropical migrants and
13
-------
are capable of extended periods of flight. Hunter (1990) states, "it is hard to image that migrator}' bird species
would require corridors to find a suitable patch in which to settle". Robbins et al. (1993) found that riparian forest
corridors must be at"least 100m wide, "to" provide some nesting habitat for area sensitive birds". He recommends & '
focus on preserving large tracts of woodlands (3,000 ha or greater) as critical to conservation of woodland
dependent species.
In my experience, there are relatively few species which meet the criteria stated above in suburban Maryland. 1
believe wild turkey (Melagris gallopavo), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) and several species of reptiles (box
turtles (Terrapene Carolina), copperheads (Agkistrodon contortrix). etc.) may benefit from corridors and may
possibly avoid local extirpation if the corridors function only as movement corridors for these species. However.
my observation and the scientific literature are replete with examples of corridors in distributed landscapes which
may cause more harm to rare species than no corridors at all.
For example, Adams and Dove (1989) provide an excellent review of scientific studies conducted on the
effectiveness of corridors in the urban environment. They state, "During the course of the present study, we found
little empirical evidence documenting the use and value of interconnecting corridors among habitat reserves
(islands)". The use of corridors by nontarget species may be more detrimental to the conservation of large forest
patches than no corridors. Simberloff and Cox (1987) describe corridors as too expensive and too likely to allow
disease, exotic organisms and predators to spread into forest patches. Corridors in the suburban landscape
frequently are surrounded by commercial, residential and industrial developments. These habitats often hold
significant populations of species which are potential predators on forest dwellers (cowbirds (Molothrus alter).
raccoons (Procvon lotor), domestic cats (Felis catus), etc.). Corridors can be a vector for plant species such as
Norway maple (Ace platanoides) which can cause the slow deterioration of the vegetation structure and diversity of
an entire forest ecosystem (Pais, Personal Observation). Interspecific competition for forest resources with more
ubiquitous species which use corridors may pose a treat to woodland species conservation. For example, white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have been widely observed using corridors in Maryland and have been
considered, "an insidious treat to neotropical migrants" (Gates and Giffen 1991) because of their grazing on forest
understory plants needed for nesting and cover. . .
Probable Values of Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors in the suburban environment can function to create scenery, recreation, pollution abatement and
land value enhancement (Moss 1987). They can also provide a critical educational link for human with wildlife in
suburban settings (Adams and Dove 1989). I believe the value of corridors to forest dependent wildlife is very
questionable and, in fact, corridors may be detrimental. The determination of whether wildlife corridors are worth
the time and resources extended by government agencies and private developers should only be made by certified
professional biologists.
Note: The management of lands typically reserved as corridors for habitat of specific species in decline may have
merit. A recent study of Breeding Bird Surveys have concluded that over the past 26 years, "woodland species have
fared reasonably well with higher proportions of increasing species than grassland or shrubland birds (Peterjohn and
Sauer 1994)". Lynch and Whigham (1984) found that, "Dissection of the landscape into small highly isolated
patches of forest adversely effects some bird species, but structural and floristic characteristics of the forest are more
important than patch size and isolation for many species... in Maryland". I believe that creating the proper
vegetation species composition and structure can limit the effects of harmful edge species on the forest interior and
create a habitat for early successional species in decline. This approach requires a long term commitment to
.management by property owners of the corridor and property owners in the surrounding area. I have observed this
commitment to a limited degree through creation of Urban Wildlife Sanctuaries as marketing and educational tools
for new communities. Expanding this concept may be the best way to insure continues species richness and
diversity in suburbia.
14
-------
Ecosystem Based Assistance for Farmers:
Integrating Riparian Forest Buffers in Conservation Plans
Jeffrey R. Loser
USD A, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Riparian forest buffers serve, many important functions in any ecosystem, and certainly, those
functions are vital for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Restoring and managing riparian forest
buffers can be done, but to do so will require the development of sound policies, use of effective
information and education activities, and initiation of both technical assistance and financial
incentives. Foremost in this effort must be the actions of private landowners, for they ultimately
control the land adjacent to waterbodies and wetlands. Without the acceptance of those private
landowners to restore and properly manage riparian areas, our most noble goals will not be met
This presentation reviews how we can involve private landowners in the decisionmaking process
through effective resource conservation planning. While the Natural Resource Conservation
Service [NRCS] (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) primarily works with farmers and rural
land owners, the concepts presented have application in urban and suburban area, too.
This presentation covers 3 primary topics:
1] Ecosystem based assistance as a way to assist land users and decisionmakers to develop
their plans for sustaining, managing, protecting, and enhancing all natural resources -- including
riparian areas - while considering human needs and socio-economic concerns.
2] The Natural Resource Conservation Service's Planning Process as a dynamic and
effective procedure that enables land users and decisionmakers to develop and implement viable
and meaningful resource conservation plans.
3] How riparian forest buffers can [and should] be readily integrated into conservation
plans as a part of a comprehensive resource management system.
ECOSYSTEM BASED ASSISTANCE
Most land planners and natural resource managers, in the public and private sectors, are now
looking at all natural resources as land management plans and programs are being developed. But
that hasn't always been the case. Many plans and programs have been oriented towards only one
resource or resource concern. To overcome the limitations of addressing only one natural resource
at a time, the concept of ecosystem management is being used. Ecosystem management has
many definitions, but generally it involves the consideration of all natural resources ~ the soil,
water, air, plant, and animal resources - along with the human needs and other socio-economic
considerations. Within NRCS, we use the term ecosystem based assistance because we do
not directly manage the resources but we provided assistance to others who manage the resources.
The goal of NRCS' ecosystem based assistance is to assist land users and decisionmakers develop
resource management plans that serve as the primary document for describing the sustained use,
management, and protection of the soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources. But its not just
total resource management The human factor is also involved. Human concerns such as
economics, social issues, and cultural resource aspects are taken into consideration. Objectives of
the land user and decisionmaker are an important part of the process,
15
-------
Ecosystem based assistance is intended to provide technical assistance to natural resource users and
decisionmakers. Ecosystem based planning provides the foundation to sound resource use and
management. By involving the land users and decisionmakers in the process they will understand
the principles of resource management, and will be more receptive and effective at managing the
resources. When we establish a goal for our ecosystem, the ultimate success towards reaching that
goal will be dependent on the actions of those individuals, groups, and units of government that
have decisionmaking authority. We therefore must keep everyone involved in the process every
step along the way towards establishing the programs and poficies for the ecosystem.
NRCS PLANNING PROCESS
NRCS and other cooperating partners have developed and used an effective planning process that
has been tried and proven for many years (over 30 years !). This process fits the needs for
ecosystem management. When put to use, this process results in viable and meaningful plans for
managing, protecting, and restoring natural resources.
The planning process is both effective and logical in its concept It provides a mechanism to equip
land users and decisionmakers to carry out sound resource management decisions based on
knowledge of principles acquired during their participation in the process. All resource concerns
or requirements can be integrated into a single management document that precludes the need for
several plans to meet individual environmental, resource, and program requirements.
The NRCS planning process has several steps and should be done in order. No step should be
omitted. The steps are:
Pre-Planning - All activities leading up to resource planning with a client are in this phase. This
normally begins in one of two ways: the potential client seeks assistance from the planner or the
planner seeks the potential client Explaining the planning process and the expected, benefits of a
plan are usually discussed at this time. Both the client and the planner has certain roles and
requirements that must be understood. The client must devote time to develop the plan and to
assemble related data about the planning situation, define the planning area, and commit to
receiving the assistance and to being an active participant The planner must order and prepare
work maps of the planning area and surrounding areas, initiate a case file for the plan and client
assemble natural resource data, and commit to providing assistance in a cooperative manner,
recognizing the planner is adviser and the client is the decisionmaker.
Identify Problems and Opportunities — Identify resource problems in the planning area and
associated problems of interrelated ecosystems. Identify conditions that are impairing or degrading
the natural resources and identify the opportunities to enhance the resources. Problems and
opportunities guide the remainder of the planning process. As planning progresses and additional
information is developed, other problems and opportunities are usually recognized. All problems
and opportunities do not have to be identified initially for the planning process to proceed.
Determine Objectives — Develop an understanding with the client of the desired conditions for the
planning area as compared to the existing conditions. This includes the desired resource uses,
resource problem reductions and corrections, and onsite and offsite environmental protection. Plan
objectives are based on the needs and values of the client and interested publics regarding the use,
treatment, and management of the resources. Planners should use this time to help the client think
more broadly about the problems and opportunities for resource protection and enhancement,
whether that be for restoring riparian forest buffers, enhancing wildlife habitat or other important
ecosystem concerns.
*'•"• - ,
16
-------
Inventory Resources ~ Collect data and information about the planning area's resources, including
socio-economic conditions. This information is used to define the problems arid opportunities and
to formulate alternatives. Information concerning the natural resources and the land management is
gathered from published reports, from other agencies, and from the client A complete inventory
provides a benchmark for measuring the effects and impacts of the planned actions.
Analyze Resources -- Study the resource and socio-economic data to clearly define the resource
conditions, including limitations to their use and potentials. Benchmark conditions are determined.
The process provides the information needed to formulate and evaluate alternatives. The analyses
should clearly establish the cause and effect relationships among resources and the ecosystem that
provide information about existing and future conditions.
Formulate Alternatives - Develop alternatives to achieve the objectives of the client and interested
public by solving resource problems and taking advantage of opportunities to improve the resource
base. All reasonable alternatives should be considered, including those that will prevent a problem
from occurring as well as those that address an existing problem. Measures that mitigate potential
adverse impacts should also be included as appropriate. The client must participate in the forming
of alternatives to allow more practical alternative formulation and improves the chances of
successful implementation of the plan.
Evaluate Alternatives - Evaluate the .alternatives to determine their effect in addressing the
objectives, problems, and opportunities. This step includes an evaluation of the potential effects
on social, cultural resource, economic, and environmental concerns. This evaluation provides the
client with the information needed to make firm and meaningful decisions. This provides the client
further opportunity to be involved in the planning process and maximized the likelihood of full
implementation of resource management systems.
Make Decisions — Make decisions to determine which alternative(s) to implement The step
involves comparing the alternatives and selecting one for implementation. The client is the
decisionmaker. Then prepare the necessary documentation [the plan] of the decision. Well
documented and understood decisions are a prerequisite to application of the plan. When the
planner has effectively taught ecosystem and conservation principles, the client may be able to
implement the plan without further technical assistance.
Implement Plan — Implement the selected alternative as it was recorded in the plan. This includes
technical assistance for installing conservation management practices and systems, and obtaining
needed permits, land rights, surveys, designs, and other items. It also includes the operation and
maintenance needed to assure proper functioning after the initial installation is completed.
Evaluate Plan -- Evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented plan. Often this step is forgotten by
the planner, but not by the client who has to live with the implemented system. This evaluation is
done to:
> assure the plan is functioning as planned and meets the objectives;
> identify maintenance needs;
> identify need for modifications, additions, and revisions to the plan;
> identify reasons for lack of progress in plan implementation; and,
> encouragement the client to continue to operate and maintain the applied systems.
17
-------
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER: AN EXAMPLE
Lets look at an example of how to integrate riparian forest buffers in a farm conservation plan.
Pre-planning - Assume that a dairy farmer has requested a farm conservation plan.
Identify Problems and Opportunities -- The farmer indicates he has streambank erosion problems,
surface water problems (sediment), pasture management problems. A review of the planning area
indicates that cattle have direct access to a stream, including areas where the stream flows through a
grass pasture and a wooded area.
Determine Objectives --.The fanner's objectives are to improve animal health, improve milk
production, stop streambank erosion.
Inventory and Analysis of Resources — Inventory of resources includes soils information,
identification of various water pollution causes (sediment, nutrients, bacteria), identification of
spring in pasture.
Formulate Alternatives ~ Several alternatives are prepared:
#1 - Improve pasture grazing system; exclude cattle from wooded area;
#2 - Improve pasture grazing system; exclude cattle from most of wooded area, especially adjacent
to stream; spring develop and watering trough; exclude cattle from stream; and,
#3 - Improve pasture grazing system; exclude cattle from all of wooded area; spring develop and
watering trough; exclude cattle from stream and plant riparian forest buffer.
Evaluate Alternatives —
#1 — Pasture improvement helps increase milk production; livestock exclusion from woods helps
reduce streambank erosion; streambank erosion still exists in pasture; access to stream
doesn't help improve animal health; animals no longer have shade.
#2 ~ Pasture improvement helps increase milk production; livestock exclusion from woods and
stream helps reduce streambank erosion; no access to stream and clean spring water helps
improve animal health; some shade provided in woods.
#3 ~ Pasture improvement helps increase milk production; livestock exclusion from woods and
stream helps reduce streambank erosion; no access to stream and clean spring water helps
improve animal health; no shade provided in woods; riparian forest buffer enhances water
quality, increases wildlife habitat
Decisions — The farmer chooses Alternative #3. He is not happy that he has no shade for the
dairy cattle, and requests further alternatives for that new objective.
Implement Plan - The farmer implements the plan after it was revised to allow for livestock use to
limited portions of woods only during high heat/humidity days in July, August
Evaluate Plan - Planner and client agree to evaluate the plan at least once each year for next 3
years.
18
-------
Forest Buffers vs. Streamside Management Areas
»•
Gordon Stuart
USDA Forest Service
Cooperative Forestry
14th and Independence.^ S.W.
Washington, DC 20250
with
Lee Hemdon
USDA Soil Conservation Service
Washington, DC
BACKGROUND
At a 1978 national conference on Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems, many agencies made
commitments to improving riparian protection and management programs. Since that time the Conservation
Reserve Program set up the Filter Strip practice for agriculture, the Coastal Zone Act established the
Streamside Management Area Management Measure for silviculture, and research has documented the
effectiveness of riparian forest buffers for agriculture. A certain amount of chaos in terms and specifications
has resulted.
The issue is not so much one practice vs. another as it is to apply an appropriate practice in the appropriate
location based on land use, legal requirements, landowner preference and practice design while taking the
natural variability of conditions along a stream into account.
Riparian areas support a variety of human uses and include a range of physical conditions. It is also
important to realize that the varying conditions along a stream mean practices and specifications will change
from place to place.
SORTING IT OUT .
\
1. Viewing riparian management as a system rather than as a practice.
This is the concept of the Soil Conservation Service Resource Management System approach. Resource
Management System are developed for specific land uses. They are a grouping of practices and
specifications designed to address an overall goal.
i v
These practices are ecosystem based, landuse specific measures, which meet landowner goals and protect
public values are desired.
Land uses:
Forest land - Streamside Management Area
Cropland - Forest Buffers and Grass Filter Strips
Pasture land - Forest Buffers and Stream Access Control
Urban - Storm Water Management and Flood Ways
The Streamside Management Area term is used for the shoreland area where adaptive forest management
practices ar applied to existing forest lands because of water.
Forest Buffer in this paper means establishing or maintaining a riparian forest and porus forest soils between
land cleared for agriculture and a stream (Welsch 1991).
19
-------
2. Three scenarios for riparian trees:
rs to restore riparian ecosys
;st to maintain the riparian <
i riparian functions.
• Establishing Forest Buffers to restore riparian ecosystems
Managing an existing forest to maintain the riparian ecosystem
• Retaining forested areas during development to retain riparian fi
Forested stream corridors
Forested stream corridors are an important component of achieving and sustaining the biological integrity
goals of water quality legislation. While intensive forestry activities anyplace on a watershed may affect
water quality, silviculture! activities near water are the most critical. The following are examples of
Streamside Management Area policies:
Streamside Management Area Position Statement
National Association of State Foresters:
"NASF believes guidelines for Streamside management should be flexible, reflecting stream
variability, yet adequate to protect water quality and quantity as well as stream channel integrity.
Activities that occur within a Streamside cone should take into consideration statutory requirements,
water quality objectives and landowner management objectives and options."
Streamside Management Areas
Coastal Zone Act Management Measure Guidelines
"Establish and maintain a Streamside management area along surface waters, which is sufficiently
wide and which includes a sufficient number of canopy species to buffer against detrimental change
in water temperature regime of water body, to provide bank stability, and to withstand wind damage.
Manage the SMA in such a way as to protect against soil disturbance in the SMA and delivery to the
stream of sediments and nutrients generated by forestry activities, including harvesting. Manage the
SMA canopy species to provide a sustainable source of large woody debris needed for instreams
channel structure and aquatic species habitat.
Riparian Area Management
USDA Forest Service Policy
2. "Mange riparian ares under principles of multiple-use and sustained yield, while emphasizing
protection and improvement of soil, water, vegetation and fish and wildlife resources. Give
preferential consideration to riparian dependent resources when conflict among land use activities
occur."
4. , SMAs perform four basic function:
• Retain sufficient shade to protect temperature sensitive streams
• Retain the rough forest floor to infiltrate runoff from roads
• Provide large woody debris for aquatic habitat and channel stability
• Provide habitat for riparian dependent species
5. State in the Bay Watershed have adopted the following BMPs for SMAs:
NY Riparian Buffer Protection practice is a 100 to 150 feet on slopes over 30%.
PA Forest Filter Strip of 25 to 165 feet on 70% slopes. Allows for partial cutting.
WV Forest Filter Strip of 25 to 200 feet on 70% slopes. Allows for partial cutting.
20
-------
MD Streamside management Zone of 50 to 250 feet on slopes over 41%. Allows for partial
cutting
VA .Streamside management Zone 66 to 200 feet on slopes over 45%. Partial cutting is allowed.
6. Research basis of Streamside Management Area practice
Forest Filter Strip Practice.
Developed by FS research at Hubbard Brook, NH (Trimble 1957). Intensively studied by Packer
(1966) and Swift (1987). Forest floor roughness, side slope steepness and distance between roads
and channels are three key factors for keeping erosion out of streams. •
Retaining Canopy Shade on Streams.
Green (1950) documented forest streams were 10 degrees cooler in the summer than streams in the
mountains of NC. EPA's 1980 Silvicultural procedural handbook addressed temperature control on
small streams.
Flood Velocities.
Arcement (1989) documented the relationship between the number of woody stems and flood
velocity. Increasing the number of woody stems increases flood plain roughness (Mannings N) and
slow velocity.
Sediment Deposition.
Aust (1991) documented a net increase in sediment deposition where harvesting increased the
number of woody stems.
Channel Stability
Beschta (1986) reported the value of trees in providing the woody debris which stabilizes small
headwater streams.
Substrate for Aquatic Life.
Benke (1985) documented the importance of snags as substrate in Georgia Coastal Plain streams.
Snags comprised 4% of the habitat surface, but provided 60% of the biomass for 4 major fish species
NO WEAK LINKS IN THE SYSTEM
Streams are linear features which cross jurisdictions and ownerships. A coordinated approach across
boundaries is needed.
Stream segments are affected by upstream sources of pollution and downstream channel changes.
A critical mass of "good" practices is needed to make a measurable difference. It is easier for a few
problems to impair the system than for a few good spots to correct it.
Meeting the water quality goal of biological integrity will require a coordinated system of practices.
Biolgical Integrity is the Sum of Many Parts.
21
-------
Designing Streamside Management Zones in Forest Management
••
C. Andrew Dolloff and Heather A. Pert
U.S. Forest Service
and
Steve McMullin
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0321
Historical evidence suggests that stream habitats and riparian areas in the Southeast, like those in
other parts of the country, were structurally more complex than at present. Much of the land over which
many Appalachian streams flow has been used for a variety of purposes including timber production,
livestock grazing and other agricultural activities, mining and recreation. Many streams still exhibit the
effects of past land and water use practices such as splash damming stream "improvement" for transportation
of logs, and erosion associated with roads and the removal of streamside vegetation.
Riparian areas have become focal points for many conflicting interests. Interest in riparian areas is
increasing because of their influence on floodplain hydrology, streamflow, water quality, fisheries, wildlife,
recreation and the value of timber and other products. As major components of landscapes, riparian areas do
not conform to patterns of ownership or jurisdiction. Coordination among all upstream, downstream,
instream and near-stream users.is vital to protect, manage or enhance riparian areas. Under the paradigm of
ecosystem management, impacts and influences on entire ecosystems are addressed and natural processes are
highly valued. Riparian issues must now by considered on multiple spatial scales and resource planning must
incorporate best management practices to address the concern of diverse publics.
Researchers at Virginia Tech are developing processes to unify the knowledge available in the
literature and from resource professionals for merging diverse user values, legal mandates and biological
criteria into long-term management goals. Fundamental to the applicability of this process is a clear
understanding of "desired future conditions". Natural resource managers and professionals are increasingly
asked to consider all user groups, not just the traditional consumptive users such as timer industry, hunters
and anglers, when developing management goals and research agendas. A process that accounts for the value
and uses of key riparian tree species to all user groups would assist in meeting these goals. Managers should
than be able to make decisions regarding riparian zones based on long-term objectives that include designated
or allowable uses, costs and compatibly with surrounding landscapes. Benefits include syntheses of
information necessary to provide a range of "desired future conditions" in southern Appalachian riparian
zones and enhanced understanding of the ability of management to influence the composition and structure of
riparian areas. Needs for specific research also will be identified. Armed with this knowledge and an
appreciation for the benefits of interdisciplinary management, future generations of managers will be better
able to meet the increasing demands for traditional and potential new uses of riparian ecosystems.
22
-------
Integrating Timber Harvest Planning in the Riparian Area with Forest Stewardship
•
Mike Foreman
Virginia Department of Forestry
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
The Forest Stewardship Program is a multi-agency land management effort to enhance the quality of
forest management activities on private land. This program provides private landowners with technical
assistance in the management of their natural resources, including fish and wildlife habitat, soil and water,
recreation and wood products. Any landowner or manager with 20 acres or.more may qualify for Forest
Stewardship.
Historically, landowners and managers contacted natural resource agencies when they believed a
timber harvest was an appropriate management consideration at that point in time. Often, a timber sale was
already planned or being conducted, thus eliminating the possibility for the adequate planning of a streamside
buffer or riparian area. The Forest Stewardship Program offers a unique opportunity to foster initial contacts
into well-planned timber harvest with suitable riparian buffers.
In the context of the Stewardship Program, there are three actions that landowners or managers can
perform to ensure the riparian area is protected. First, locate your riparian areas on your Forest Stewardship
Plan by requesting this information through your forester or by locating these areas yourself. Second, locate
these areas on the ground utilizing a visible marking system. Specifically labelled flagging, for example, can
be used to identify these areas. If trees are to be harvested from the riparian buffer area, mark those
individual trees. Also, put the stipulation in your harvest contract to minimize disturbance in the buffer area.
Finally, evaluate the health of your riparian area. What is the upstream land use? Are my stream banks
eroding? Does my stream contain beneficial large, woody debris? If these questions do not lead you to
conclude that your riparian area is healthy, consider a restoration or enhancement project. In Virginia, the
Forest Stewardship Program provides opportunities for.restoring riparian area through cost-share benefits
and plan preparation.
The last chance to protect water quality lies in the area closest to the water. Take care of what we are
managing by using programs like Forest Stewardship or consider restoring it if not present. To integrate
timber harvesting and riparian area management takes careful purposeful planning. The restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay depends, at least in part, in our efforts in the woods.
23
-------
Chesapeake Bay Riparian Forests: Their Role in Filtering Agricultural Drainage
• •
David L. Correll
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
Edgewater, MD 21037
The Atlantic Coastal Plain of North America was almost entirely forested prior to
European settlement in the 17th century. The settlers soon cleared the forest, but along small
streams and in the rather hilly inner Coastal Plain it was often not worth the effort to clear the
riparian areas. Thus, a landscape developed in which the uplands were farmed and the lowland
riparian zones were left as relict deciduous hardwood forest. These forests were usually logged
but otherwise left unmanaged.
We have studied nutrient dynamics in three Coastal Plain riparian forests. All receive
both overland storm flows and shallow groundwater discharges from uplands managed for
rowcrop production. These sites are on small headwaters streams. Although the soil surface
in these forests is seldom covered with standing water, the groundwater table is near the
surface, except during extended drought. The oxidation/reduction potential of the soils beneath
the water table is normally quite low. Conceptually, it is important to remember that all of the
water in a headwater stream had to traverse the riparian zone before entering the channel, while
for larger streams only the lateral flows interact with the fioodplain except during large storms.
At these three sites we have extensive data and a number of technical publications have
resulted. We have tracked both overland storm flows and shallow groundwater from the farm
fields through the riparian zones. We have found that most of the nitrate in the agricultural
runoff, both on the surface and in the groundwater is removed before it gets to the stream
channels. In addition much of the acidity is neutralized, and in some setting most of the
suspended soil particles are also removed. Since most of the phosphorus and much of the
ammonium and organic nitrogen moves as eroded soil particles, these are removed when soil
particles are trapped in the riparian zone. This nutrient and sediment removal is almost equally
effective in all seasons of the year. Similar results have been reported at other Coastal Plain
sites in North Carolina and Georgia. All of these sites have confining impermeable clay layers
near the soil surface, so that all groundwater percolating from these fields is forced to pass
through the root zone of the forest.
Only 18% of the area of the Chesapeake Bay watershed is in the Coastal Plain. In the
Piedmont and Appalachian parts of the watershed the groundwater pathways are quite different.
In many types of setting in these regions groundwater moves at greater depths and may only
come near the surface as it is discharged directly into stream channels. In these settings
riparian forests still have high values by providing excellent habitat for both stream and
terrestrial biota, and they still play a beneficial role in processing overland storm flows, but
these forests are less likely to remove nutrients from groundwater efficiently. Riparian forests
along streams underlaid with limestone bedrock in the valleys of the Ridge and Valley region
are among the least likely to provide groundwater quality benefits. Riparian forests in much
of the Piedmont and some parts of the Appalachians collect groundwater that flows only 20
to 50 feet below the surface in a zone of fractured rock above fairly impermeable bedrock.
As this groundwater approaches the stream channels this layer of fractured rock usually thins
and this gives riparian forests in those settings an intermediate likelihood to remove nutrients.
24
-------
USING THE NATURAL ECOSYSTEM AS A GUIDE: CONSIDERATIONS
FOR PLANNING
Charles E. Williams
Department of Biology
Clarion University of Pennsylvania
Clarion, PA 16214-1232
Streamside forests are the dominant riparian ecosystems in the northeastern United
States. Typified by distinctive vegetation, soils and hydrology, riparian ecosystems may
vary greatly in structure and composition among sites within the region. The plant
community in particular is the most variable component of northeastern riparian
ecosystems. Understanding the range of variation in riparian plant community
composition, and the factors that affect the structure of riparian plant communities, are
key to planning successful riparian conservation and restoration programs. Natural riparian
ecosystems can serve as baseline models to guide restoration efforts in degraded systems,
as a source of locally adapted biota for restoration projects, and as centers of biodiversity
for conservation projects in riverine landscapes.
But what is a "natural" riparian ecosystem? Quantifying the composition and
variation of riparian plant communities is central to characterizing the natural state of
riparian ecosystems within a region. In streamside forests, plant communities are generally
organized into three distinct strata: 1) a canopy stratum consisting of small and large
trees; 2) a shrub stratum composed of shrubs and tree saplings; and 3) a ground stratum
consisting of herbaceous plants and woody plant seedlings. Composition of the plant
community, particularly the importance of flood-adapted riparian species, will vary
greatly with stream order. In small headwater systems where seasonal flooding impacts are
less severe, the riparian plant community usually consists of woody plants typical of the
surrounding forest matrix and a mixed ground layer of mesic forest herbs and riparian or
wetland herbs. In larger riverine systems, the riparian plant community is dominated by
both flood-adapted woody plants and herbs. Thus, the importance of "true" riparian plant
species generally increases with increasing stream order for both woody and herbaceous
plants.
Natural riparian vegetation also varies with stream valley geomorphology.
Common geomorphic surfaces within a stream valley in the northeastern United States
include the: 1) active floodplain; 2) inactive floodplain; 3) terrace; 4) toeslope; and 5)
valley slope. In the geomorphic gradient from active floodplain to valley slope, substrates
change from alluvial to upland soils and the intensity and extent of flood disturbance
decreases. Riparian plant species, particularly herbs, track both soil and disturbance
gradients and are generally most prevalent in the frequently flooded, alluvium-dominated
soils of floodplain and lower terrace geomorphic surfaces.
25
-------
The final major factor that influences the composition of natural riparian plant
communities is site history, particularly human land use impacts. In many areas in the
eastern United States, riparian ecosystems have been extensively altered or destroyed
outright by pollution, poor farming practices and urbanization, among other factors. The
degree and duration of human impacts to riparian ecosystems greatly influences the
composition of the plant community. In heavily impacted riparian systems, plant species
diversity is often greatly depressed from natural levels, dominance is shifted to a few
stress-tolerant species and alien plant species assume greater importance in the
community. In riparian ecosystems that have endured some human impacts in the past, the
degree and speed of recovery of the plant community depends on the extent and intensity
of the disturbance and the length of time since the disturbance occurred. When choosing a
riparian ecosystem as a potential model for restoration, some knowledge of past and
present site history is essential for evaluating the "naturalness" of the system and thus, the
appropriateness of the potential model.
»
Allegheny National Forest (ANF) and Clarion University of Pennsylvania (CUP)
have recently entered into a research partnership focusing on characterizing the major
structural and taxonomic components of natural headwater riparian ecosystems in the
500,000 acre ANF. ANF lies within the nonglaciated Allegheny Plateau Physiographic
Province of northwestern Pennsylvania. The region is heavily forested and the
predominant land uses include timber harvest and gas and oil extraction. Upland plant
communities, particularly plateau forests, have been extensively studied from both basic
and applied standpoints, but the composition of riparian plant communities of the
nonglaciated Allegheny Plateau is poorly known.
Information on riparian ecosystem structure generated by the cooperative
• ANF/CUP project will be used to improve the resolution of ANF's GIS-based ecological
land types map and in the development of a comprehensive riparian management plan for
ANF. We have employed both intensive and extensive field sampling techniques to
characterize headwater riparian ecosystems. Seven intensive riparian study sites were
selected along a geomorphic gradient ranging from an intermittent stream system to a
broad, forested floodplain system. Permanent monitoring plots were established at each
intensive site to track ecological changes on a long term basis. Baseline data collected
from permanent plots at each site Included: composition of the plant community, presence
and decay condition of course woody debris, age and density of the forest canopy, soil
types and stream valley geomorphology. Extensive sampling, involving the rapid
assessment of riparian vegetation, soils and geomorphic surfaces, was conducted along
seven additional headwater riparian systems in ANF. The goal of extensive sampling was
to determine the degree of variation present in headwater riparian ecosystem structure and
to provide a validation of vegetation types predicted by analysis of intensive study sites.
Although we are in the early stages of analysis of the riparian project data, some benefits
are already obvious. Perhaps the most important is the recognition that riparian
ecosystems support the greatest diversity of plant species of virtually any terrestrial plant
community in ANF.
26
-------
Transforming Science into Policy: How Are Buffer Widths Established
• *
Cameron Carte
Society of American Foresters
5400 Grovsnor Land
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-2198
There exists a broad, comprehensive compilation of scientific literature that is applicable to the
development and implementation of forestry related non-point source pollution abatement techniques, known
as best management practices (BMPs). Forested buffer strips, more commonly referred to in the forest
literature as "streamside management zones" (SMZs) are an essential part of any forestry BMP program
designed to remove the amount of runoff and sedimentation resulting from silviculture activities.
A streamside management zone is a sensitive zone immediate to the intermittent streams, continuous
flowing streams and lakes where specific precautions during forestry activities are needed to protect water
quality. The ability for a SMZ to prove itself effective in non-point source water pollution abatement is
directly tied to how wide it is. The establishment of effective buffer strip widths is a topic of considerable
debate within the forestry community. Simple logic would cause one to arrive at the conclusion that the wider
the buffer strip under the auspices of ceterus paribus, the better the sediment control, and this is in fact true.
It is in the context of practical forestry where the debate originates. It is at this point where the economic
costs of leaving buffer strips are weighed against the effectiveness in controlling sediment produced by
forestry operations. In fact, this economic feasibility criterion is the central decision-making hurdle that must
be negotiated in any sort of environmental protection policy.
How wide must an SMZ be before it is considered wide enough to adequately protect water courses
from silvicultural non-point source pollution? Why is the minimum recommended SMZ width for Tennessee
25 feet and 50 feet in Maryland? Are Tennessee and Maryland so different geographically and silviculturally
that these difference in minimum recommended SMZs are caused by these dissimilarities, or does something
other than science-based attributes affect the decisions involved in establishing minimum SMZ widths?
This paper will look at the scientific, economic, political and social considerations policy-makers
must explore when establishing environmental protection policies, specifically minimum SMZ widths. We
will try to shed some light on how the political policy process converts science into science-based policies. In
short, we will attempt to explore how a state such as Alabama arrives at a given minimum width, in this case
35 feet, for a SMZ. Is the science on which the policy was based consistent in its findings? Was science
utilized at all or is it that these types of decisions are purely political in nature? Is the SMZ width of a given
state arbitrarily set with no real rationale for doing so, or is it "keep with the Jones" - in essence copying
what other state have done? Could it be that establishing minimum effective SMZ widths is a combination of
all of these in some way? The contemplation of these questions will be the central focus of this presentation.
27
-------
Designing an Effective Forest Buffer
Larry Lubbers
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
, Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
An effective riparian forest buffer must have a close physical connection with the surface and
groundwater of the adjacent stream system. Many riparian woodlands have lost their buffering capacity
because of changes in hydrology and accelerated rates of erosion and sedimentation.
Channelization, water withdrawals, increases in storm flows and reduced base flows due to
development are a few of the factors that can affect stream and groundwater hydrology. Unfortunately most
storm water management (SWM) designs generally do not compensate for the cumulative impacts of multiple
SWM facility discharges within a stream system. Road crossings, curbs and gutters and other "drainage
improvements" will short circuit the infiltration capacity of riparian zones and help to lower near stream
groundwater levels. Reductions in groundwater levels can alter forest species composition and reduce
nutrient uptake rates.
Erosion of stream banks and beds is another problem that will reduce the functional value of a
riparian forest buffer. Forested stream system have evolved to accommodate certain levels of erosion and
sediment transport. Many of the land use changes mentioned above can also cause accelerated erosion
problems that will disrupt the biological processing of organic material within the stream and forest.
Unlimited livestock access to stream banks is another source for erosion and sediment loadings that will
cause problems that extend beyond the pasture area.
Once a stream channel has become incised and unstable it can set off a chain reaction of channel
adjustments that will increase forest and stream habitat degradation far downstream. From a geologic
perspective the erosion rates and channel adjustments may appear inconsequential but the biological and
water quality impacts can be significant to both the local and downstream environments.
In order to design or maintain an effective riparian forest buffer it is important to assess the physical
conditions of the stream corridor. A multi-disciplinary team assessment of the watershed can provide a
broader understanding of problems and potential management alternatives. The EPA Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol (RBP) for habitat assessment is a particularly efficient way to characterize the structural integrity of
the biological community. The Rosgen stream classification system is another important tool for determining
channel stability and for designing ecologically sound stream stabilization projects. These methods have
been used in several watersheds in Maryland in order to improve or protect the ecological value of riparian
forest buffers.
28
-------
PLANNING FOREST BUFFERS WITH WILDLIFE IN MIND
Lisa J. Petit
Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center
National Zoological Park
Washington, DC 20008
Wildlife corridors can be defined generally as linear strips of habitat that allow movement
of individuals among larger habitat patches. Corridors can be established at many scales, ranging
from regional levels in which fairly contiguous habitat may extend across multiple state lines, to
the scale of a single hedgerow or riparian buffer strip within a local landscape. The conservation
value of wildlife corridors has been thoroughly debated. Proposed advantages of corridors all
. concern the enhancement of movement between isolated habitat patches for animals that would
be otherwise impeded from crossing through unsuitable areas (e.g., agricultural fields, highways,
urbanization). Corridors may promote gene flow among disjunct populations, provide migration
pathways, or enhance natal dispersal of young individuals. Disadvantages of corridors may
include providing a barrier to movement of species that use a different type of habitat,
enhancement of the spreading of fire or disease, and an increase in the numbers of exotic "weedy"
species, or of detrimental species such as predators. Additionally, because of the negative edge
effects associated with the high edge-to-interior ratio, corridors could become "ecological traps"
for species usually associated with habitat interiors through lowered reproductive success.
Establishment of riparian buffers for enhancement of water and soil quality along
watercourses also may provide benefits to wildlife if they serve as suitable habitat corridors.
However, the potential utility of these buffers as corridors for different wildlife species will
depend on the extent to which those species use the corridors for movement versus for
reproduction. Unfortunately, very little is known currently about the use of corridors by wildlife.
The few studies that have examined the issue have focused on birds and mammals. Results of
those studies indicate that riparian buffers in areas such as the western U.S. or Australia, where
the surrounding landscape often is largely denuded, can harbor large numbers of species.
However, it is unclear whether these corridors are acting as a conduit for animals to move
between suitable areas, or whether the buffers simply are the only (albeit low quality) habitat
available. Two studies conducted in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have examined use of forest
corridors by songbirds. One study (Keller et al. 1993, Wetlands 13:137-144) examined use of
riparian buffers of different widths by breeding birds. Those authors recommended a minimum
buffer width of 100 m to attract breeding Neotropical migratory birds, as many of those species
were not present in narrower buffers. Yet, past research has indicated that, even if a species of
songbird is present, reproductive success of that species may be lower in narrow strips compared
to larger habitat patches. Thus, riparian buffers may not provide high quality breeding habitat for
many songbird species.
Another study conducted in 1992-94 by D. Petit, L. Petit, and J. Lynch of the Smithsonian
Institution indicated that forest corridors, including riparian buffers, may be very important for
songbirds during migration. In that study, more species of migratory songbirds were found in
large (>500 ha) than in small (<100 ha) forest tracts, whether or not the tracts were connected to
29
-------
other forests by corridors. However, small tracts that were connected to other forests by an
intervening corridor supported significantly more species than did isolated small tracts. The
presence of a corridor apparently increased the use of small forest tracts by migrating birds,
possibly by serving as a conduit from other habitat patches. Further studies are needed to
determine appropriate corridor widths to enhance use by migrating birds.
The few studies on wildlife use of corridors have suggested that corridors may be
beneficial for movement of individuals during some periods, but may not provide high quality
breeding habitats. Before designing riparian Buffers to enhance their value for wildlife
populations, land managers should consider the following key issues: (1) Which wildlife species
are of greatest conservation priority in the region?, (2) How important would the corridor be (as
compared to other patches or reserves) as habitat for those priority species within the region?,
and (3) Can the buffer be enhanced enough to meet the minimum area requirements of target
wildlife species? For example, riparian buffers that join with large forest tracts may not need to be
designed to provide high quality breeding habitat for songbirds, yet still may provide breeding
habitat for some reptiles, amphibians, or invertebrates, and useful connecting habitat for migrating
songbirds. On the other hand, in areas where riparian buffers provide most of the woodland
habitat available, managers may want to widen the buffers as much as possible (preferably >100
m) to increase the breeding habitat quality for birds and other interior species. In most cases,
vegetation within the riparian buffer should be planted or managed to maintain both a high.
structural diversity and a high plant species diversity, usine native plant species.
30
-------
Technical Considerations for Selecting and Planting Riparian Trees and Shrubs
Mike Hollins
Ecosystem Recovery Institute Envirens, Inc.
P.O.'BOX 299
Freeland, Maryland 21053
and
Jeffrey L. Horan
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Division of Forestry
2 South Bond Street
Bel Air, Maryland 21014
The success of any mitigation planting, reforestation or afforestation effort is determined to a large
degree by the decisions made prior to ever placing a plant in the ground. The design of a successful
afforestation or reforestation project is primarily dependent on three major factors 1) species and community
distribution and range; 2) site analysis including edaphic factors and 3) biological interactions.
Species and community distribution primarily take into consideration the species appropriate for the
physiographic region and more specifically the topographic position. Changes in the micro-topography and
the moisture regime may occur within a few feet in riparian plantings due to the nature of riverine and wetland
systems. Matching the species to edaphic factors including soil type, texture, structure and depth, along with
directional orientation and the soil moisture regime on the site, are essential. Species interaction is another
major consideration that is often overlooked in planting design. The primary concern of species interaction
include crafting the correct species assemblage or association, encouraging mychorhizal colonization in the
root zone, guarding against invasive and competing vegetation and assuring the availability of water during
the crucial establishment period.
After site analysis, decision can be made regarding the appropriate species, size or grade of the
planting material, availability of the desired material, costs and scheduling of the planting. Planting
techniques and their implementation are determined by these decisions and the site analysis.
Maintenance and integrity of the planting after installation involves protection from drought,
protection from wildlife damage, proper diagnosis of disorders and the guarantee provisions of the design
specifications. Commitment to the success of the project should be the responsibility of all parties including
the designer, reviewer, installer and client.
31
-------
Greenways and the Future Management of Riparian Areas
*
Doug Pickford
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission
7535 Little River Turnpike, Suite 100
Annandale, Virginia 22003
Future growth in the Washington Metropolitan region present both opportunities and challenges to
the preservation of riparian areas. The Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, in conjunction with
loc al, regional, state, federal and private organizations has initiated the development of a regional greenways
and open space plan that is designed to help address many of the issues associated with growth and the
preservation of the region's environmentally sensitive areas.
The development of a regional plan is being pursues as a grassroots, bottom up process where
community based organizations and local government plans for preserving riparian areas through the use of
greenways and other similar mechanisms (such as Fairfax County's environmental 1 quality corridors) are
being aggregated into a common, regionwide format. This planning process allows for the identification of
inconsistencies, gaps and opportunities for cooperation among all of the agencies and organizations involved.
The presentation provided an overview of the greenways concept - detailing the elements of a
greenway plan, their benefits and the roles and responsibilities of the organizations and agencies responsible
for greenway planning and implementation. The discussion also addressed issues such as resolving conflicts
between the preservation of riparian areas and the placement of active recreational facilities; how to limit
public access to area of sensitivity; and enhancing the riparian effects by corridors through active
management. The discussion was accompanied by examples of techniques for riparian preservation,
greenway implementation and facility construction through out the Northern Virginia region.
32
-------
Managing Landowner Options through Forest Stewardship
Steven W. Koehn
Department of Natural Resources, Forest Service
Tawes State Office Building, IE
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Forest Stewardship Program
To improve the management of private forest lands, the Forest Stewardship Program has been developed by the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Forest Service in cooperation with other natural resource
conservation agencies, consulting and industrial foresters and forest advocacy groups. Through the Forest
Stewardship Program, comprehensive and inter-disciplinary Resource Conservation Plans are prepared for
non-industrial private forest landowners. Cooperating agencies provide technical assistance to private
landowners for implementing sound conservation practices designed to meet the landowner's objectives for all
. their forest resources including water, recreation and wildlife. This .State program is part of a nationwide effort
initiated by the National Association of State Foresters in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service, State and
Private Forestry Program.
Stewardship Incentive Program
The Forest Stewardship Act of 1990 authorizes the cooperative Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) to
stimulate enhanced management of non-industrial private forest lands through cost-sharing of approved
practices. The State Forester, in consultation with the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee, has
determined cost-share levels, practice priorities and minimum acreage requirements. Technical responsibility
for SIP practices will be handled by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS).
Cost-sharable practices include: management plan development, tree planting, forest and agroforest
improvement, windbreak and hedgegrow establishment, soil and water improvement, wildlife habitat
improvement and forest recreation enhancement.
Buffer Incentive Program
The Buffer Incentive Program has been established to encourage the planting and maintenance of forest buffers
on private land. Landowners who plant and maintain forested buffers will be eligible for a one-time $500 per
acre grant. Land within 300 feet of a waterway, between one and 50 acres, a minimum of 50 feet wide and
within 100 year floodplain on H.U.D. maps would meet the eligibility requirements of the program.
Landowners must plant at least one acre of eligible land and agree to protect the trees for a minimum of 10
years. After one growing season if the landowner has 65% survival of the planting stock, they will receive a
$500 per acre grant.
OTHER COST-SHARE PROGRAMS
FEDERAL
• Forest Incentive Program: This production oriented program was authorized by Congress in 1973 to
share the cost of tree plantings with private landowners. The federal share of these costs range up to
65%, depending upon the cost-share rate set by the county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Committee.
• Agricultural Conservation Program: This program is intended to provide funding to accomplish
33
-------
maximum conservation and environmental protection. It provides up to 65% of the costs of
establishing as well as agricultural conservation practices such as tree crops and grasses waterways.
The ACP Program is administered by the USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service • •
(ASCS). Technical assistance is provided by the Soil Conservation Service and the Department of
Natural Resource Forest, Park and Wildlife Service.
Conservation Reserve Program: Created by the 1985 Farm Bill, the intent of this program is to take
highly eroded acreage out of production for at least 10 years, if not permanently. A 50% cost-share for
tree establishment is provided as well as annual rental payments for .10 years while the practice is
being maintained. The program is administered by ASCS, technically assisted by SCS and Maryland
DNR and complemented by MDA's Maryland Agricultural Cost-Share Program.
STATE
Woodland Incentive Program: The purpose of this cost-share program is to provide non-industrial
private woodland owners with financial assistance for tree planting, timber stand improvement and
other forest management activities. Those eligible must own 10 to 500 contiguous wooded acres
capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year; accept cost-share assistance not to
exceed 50% of actual or fixed rate cost, whichever is less; not currently applying for or receiving
federal cost-share for the same practice on the same acreage; manage their woodland according to a
plan prepared or approved by a Licensed Forester and agree to limit cost-share funds to a maximum of
$5,000 each year or $15,000 for a three-year accomplishment. Other conditions include the owner's
commitment to at least 15 years of management and allow access to his property for periodic
inspections.
TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
FEDERAL
Public Law 96-451: This federal incentive permits up to $ 10,000 of capitalized reforestation costs
each year to be eligible for a 10% investment tax credit (subtracted from taxes owed) and 7-year
amortization (subtracted from gross income to compute adjusted gross income).
STATE
Forest Conservation and Management Program: The intent of this program is to preserve forest lands
from alternate uses and conserve the resource using the principals of scientific forest management.
Landowners having five or more contiguous forested acres who agree to adhere to a resource
conservation plan for a minimum of 15 years, sign a contract and receive a tax incentive in the form of
frozen assessments (usually at the agricultural rate) on those forested acres for the 15 year period.
Participating landowners who plant trees and increase their forest acreage can add those acres to their
agreement one year after seedling establishment.
Reforestation/Timber Stand Improvement Tax Deduction (TAXMOD Program): The intent of this
program is to protect and enhance our forests as well as create an economic climate conducive to
growing trees. Owners or leases of between 10 and 500 acres of "commercial" forest lands (capable of
growing 20 cu ft of wood/year) may deduct double their direct costs associated with certified
reforestation and timber stand improvement from their federal adjusted gross income for Maryland
income tax purposes. Reforestation must result in at least 400 healthy seedlings or sprouts per acre.
TSI included thinning by mechanical or chemical means as well as pruning.
-------
Managing Forest Buffers in the Suburban Landscape
••
Mark D. Raab
Howard County Department of Recreation and Parks
3300 North Ridge Rd. Suite 170
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043 !
Selectivity in Acquisition .
Our program begins with selectively in acquisition. We review each parcel of Open Space which is scheduled
to come to us in the dedication of each subdivision. Our analysis focuses on site features/ecosystems with
emphasis on environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes, wetlands, rivers and streams, flood plains,
forests and significant meadows.
Inspection
Each site is inspected prior to dedication to insure that the developer is in compliance with our Conditions of
Open Space Land Necessary to Release of Performance Surety. These General Conditions are part of the
Developer's Agreement and are a legally binding document. It addresses such things as limits of disturbance,
grading and stabilization, marking of property boundaries with surveyor's pins on all Jand coming to the
County, removal of hazards and debris and the removal of any and all encroachments.
Education
Education plays a vital role in our natural resource protection program. We have developed a series of
environmental brochures to educate the public on various aspects of natural resource management. At the
time of dedication we send a letter and brochures to all residents who abut Open Space to explain what Open
Space is and how it is managed. We meet with Home Owners Associations to discuss the same. We have a
host of other programs geared at education or such things as our school lectures, slide presentations,
interpretive programs and our Stream Monitoring Program
Enhancement
Our enhancement program covers such things as working with scouts, civic and community groups, school,
etc. to plant trees, create riparian forest buffers, enhance wildlife habitat areas, etc.
Protection
In the summer of 1992 Howard County Council passed the Parkland, Open Space and Natural Regulations.
These regulations are the first post-development environmental regulations in Howard County and are
enforced by the Land Management Division Staff. We inspect the Open Space land within the communities
and when violations are found, the residents are issued a written warning which gives them ten days to cease
the violation and make any necessary restorations to the area. If, in ten days they have not complied, we issue
a civil citation with fines ranging from $ 25 to $ 1,000. We have issued over 250 violation warnings which
have resulted in the issuances of six civil citations. To date we have gotten 100% compliance. Much of this
is due to the excellent support and backing by our Director, the County Executive, the Howard County
Council and the Maryland District Courts.
35
-------
National Perspectives on Riparian Protection and Management
*•
James Lyons
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for National Resources and Environment
USDA NRE
14th and Independence, S.W., Room 217E
Washington, DC 20250
I always pause when someone asks me to give an"national perspective". Because the real truth
of the matter is that the policies and programs I deal with grew out of a collection of experiences
in more than 3,000 conservation districts and 156 national forests. At the actual management of
any area depends on the natural resources and people at the site.
Our policies and program that help us deal with riparian buffer systems evolved piecemeal,
without a common definition of riparian areas or a clearly defined set of data. They evolved from
the experiences of people with a strong sense of stewardship and knowledge of how vegetative
buffers reduce erosion, absorb nutrients, shade our waterways and provide wildlife habitat.
But ecosystem management demands that we take a broader view. When we take that broader
view on riparian zones, we see them as part of the larger watershed. In this context, therefore,
riparian zones are key elements of that watershed - key pieces of the jigsaw puzzle - but not an
end in themselves. I want to speak at length on ecosystem management a little later.
USDA's experience with riparian areas in the Chesapeake and in other estuarine and river system
around the county give us a good idea as to: the utility of our present programs, policies and
activities; ,
new directions we should move toward in the future and how we can better use the
tools we have;
the importance of an ecosystem approach and
the importance of partnering.
36
-------
I'd like to take this time to explore each of these areas with you.
Where are we now?
Our activities in the Chesapeake watershed involve technical and financial assistance of
several USDA agencies. Two of the most active are under my jurisdiction — the Forest
Service, mainly on public lands, and the Soil Conservation Service, which primarily
provides technical assistance on private lands.
^
We are key players in helping farmers in the Chesapeake watershed deal with
agricultural nonpoint source pollution through voluntary programs.
Our toolkit contains: (1) technical assistance, (2) cost-sharing programs, (3)
land-retirement tools such as Farm Legacy, Farm of the Future, and the Conservation
Reserve Program.
Let me elaborate on some of these.
The Conservation Reserve-Progranvgives landowners an economically viable option for
taking highly erodible cropland out of production. Under this program, USDA enters
into 10-year contracts in which producers agree to plant permanent cover — grass or
trees — on that land. Some 35 million acres of marginal cropland nationwide have
been idled under this program.
Because the land was marginal, its production value was minimal. Our 1992 National
Resources Inventory shows a reduction in erosion of some 370 million acres annually
from CRP lands, with the attendant benefits to receiving waters. And one of the
unintended consequences of this program has been a dramatic improvement in wildlife
habitat.
A special wetlands tree practice under the CRP has placed some 83,000 acres of.
37
-------
riparian areas in trees and protected the adjacent streams. In the states surrounding
the Chesapeake Bay approximately 2,300 CRP acres have been planted to trees. And
the total tree planting in the watershed under CRP is 34,200 acres.
The Wetlands Reserve Program is newer than the CRP, but like the CRP, has proven its
value. The 1992 NRI showed a dramatic decrease in conversion of wetlands to
agricultural uses/and we can thank the WRP for some of these gains.
Another tool at our disposal is our formal working relationships with the governments of
the states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We originally signed memoranda of
understanding with those states in the late eighties.
t
In February of this year, I renewed our commitment to the nonpoint-source effort in the
watershed by signing an-MOD with the leaders of our partner agencies and with the
governors of the states in the watershed.
The Forest Stewardship Program was instituted in 1990. It was designed to help
landowners manage their forest land in a sustainable way.
The Program provides the assistance of a natural resources professional to assist the
landowner in writing a plan to meet his or her objectives. The Stewardship Incentives
Program provides cost-shares for up to 75 percent of the expense of implementing the
practices prescribed in the management plan. The national practices available include:
Reforestation, Forest Improvement and Agroforestry; Windbreak Establishment; Soil and
Water Protection; Riparian and Wetland Protection and Improvement; Fisheries and
Habitat Improvement; Wildlife Habitat Enhancement; and Forest Recreation
Enhancement.
To date, the Riparian and Wetland Improvement has resulted in 80,000 feet of streams .
protected by tree planting within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
38
-------
Where we're headed
Where do we go from here? Well, first of all, the new Congress next January will bring
the farm bill debate to the forefront. The new farm bill will decide, among other
questions, the question of a permanent, or at least long-term, extension of the CRP. If
this happens, we expect to make more effective use of CRP by planting more trees.
Targeting specific watersheds will enhance the accomplishments.
The Forest Incentives Prograpi, which was targeted for "sunsetting" in December 1995,
may well be enhanced by adding elements of the Forest Stewardship Program to the
requirements for cost-sharing. The Forest Stewardship and Stewardship Incentives
Programs could receive more attention and more funding. Income tax issues will also
be addressed — this seems to be the main concern of landowners.
I expect that riparian areas will receive more attention in the Farm Bill. New tools will
be presented to help private landowners with the conservation and enhancement of
riparian areas. All USDA agencies will be directed to utilize their authorities to promote
the proper use of these riparian areas and discourage their conversion to other uses.
We will be encouraging the multiple benefits management of our agricultural lands.
Land retirements will be reviewed again and the Forest Legacy Program will be available
to assist in the preservation of forests in developing areas.
In other words, we'll be working with a much different toolkit — and to my mind a
better one. We have more knowledge, and we'll have the flexibility to apply and
transfer that knowledge. At the same time, we'll be working from our traditional
strengths: A solid base of technical and scientific knowledge and strong working
relationships with partners, local and state governments, and landowners.
From our conversations with the Hill; the budget office, our partners, and people on the
countryside — and from our own good professional sense — I believe we are headed
towards a new look at SCS conservation program design arid delivery.
39
-------
I believe we need'to get program control to the state and local level.
We need to simplify our program design, look at the potential for consolidating
programs - perhaps one for cost sharing and one for land retirement - to give us
greater flexibility in the field and simply to make it easier on our customers.
We need to do this in a way that keeps all the stakeholders involved, enables us to
account to the taxpayer, keeps our programs voluntary, and targets the most critical
priorities.
But a caveat here, as I talk about the voluntary approach, which is one of our
strengths. We do have new responsibilities and we are headed toward accepting a role
other than silent partner on the land.
We will be part of the evaluation process. We will be learning how regulation is a part
of the toolkit - a backup tool - arid how to use it with reason and judgment.
We are headed toward enhancement of our natural resource assessments and
inventories, and a major new role for them.
Likewise, we are headed toward continual improvement in terms of low-cost and
effective solutions to environmental problems.
And we are headed towards-focusinq and organizing ourselves around the natural
resources themselves, not around political boundaries.
Let me take a moment to focus on this.
We at USDA are key players in ecosystem management. Fundamental ecological
science recognizes the complex inter-relationships among the physical and biological
components of our environment. Ecosystem management goes beyond that. It also
recognizes and embraces the role of people in the environmental scheme of things.
40
-------
Ecosystem management is one of the principal thrusts of Vice President Gore's
"Reinventing Government" recommendations. As ecosystem management concerns
USDA, however, keep in mind the fundamental dichotomy between the Forest Service
and SCS. The Forest Service, as a manager of public lands, practices ecosystem
management. SCS, as an advisor to private landowners, fosters it. That's why SCS
refers to its ecosystem management initiatives as ecosystem-based assistance—to
convey more accurately its true role.
In searching for a graphic way to help you understand ecosystem management, I
thought of the situation concerning the salmon fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. The
fisheries have declined for a host of reasons, each bearing on the next.
We can't restore salmon fisheries without restoring salmon habitat. We can't restore
salmon habitat without addressing the various factors affecting it—from agricultural
runoff, to urban runoff, to logging runoff, to the dams and other obstructions that
impede migration, to overfishing, to Native American fishing rights, and many others.
If we try to isolate one problem and deal with it separately, we face what one might
call "the law of unintended consequences" — whatever we.do will have a high
probability of bringing about events we have not foreseen. We can minimize those
unintended consequences by considering problems and solutions in relationship to the
whole.
Two words that we have tended to think of as completely separate spheres —
"ecology" and "economy" — actually have a common origin. That word is the Greek
oikos, maining "house." We can't separate these two spheres in language, and we
shouldn't try to separate them on the land. Our goal is to help the nation achieve
sustainable production of food and fiber indefinitely.
Having the right technology foundation for ecosystem management includes identifying
ecosystem health indicators, understanding ecosystem interactions — the physical,
chemical, and biological processes — and the social, cultural, and economic factors. It
4.1
-------
means understanSing what level o'f precision we need to reasonably assess or appraise
conditions, ensuring that all our procedures are science based and widely accepted.
Having the right technology also means packaging the information in.easy-to-use
formats for our employees and for our customers, many of whom have direct access to
our data and our analytical programs. It also means setting measurable goals,
monitoring effects and outcomes, and being flexible enough to alter conservation
treatments to meet our goals. This essentially means the ability to adapt and respond
to natural resource conditions and to customize solutions as never before.
We also want to be able to measure results—to account for the value we've added —.
and, even more important, to be able base policy on the status and condition of the
resource base in a more holistic manner. And we want to know when programs, or
policies, or actions need fixing or alteration.
In sum, understanding ecosystems requires understanding their components, the
relationships among those components, and the processes that influence those
relationships. This understanding requires us to think geo-spatially. Not only do we
have to know what's there, but also where it is in relationship to everything else.
We don't have to reforest every tributary to the Bay to reach our goals. But we should
maintain forest buffers and respect the economics of the landowner. Encourage
plantings, show income.
The theme of the Administration is manage our lands on a ecosystem management
basis and not be a threat to private landowner rights. We are expecting to encourage
proper management through incentives, on-the-ground technical assistance, and
educational activities to promote awareness of the proper use of our natural resources.
Ecosystem management is clearly a concept whose time has come. And it is clearly a
concept that can provide multiple benefits as it offers a context in which agriculture can
frame the forestry, farming, and ranching of tomorrow and demonstrate its commitment
42
-------
to sound resource management and land stewardship.
The Federal Government can't do it alone, but must rely on partnerships with state and
local agencies as well as the private sector to encourage the maintenance and
enhancement of forested riparian areas. We can't force landowners to do the right
thing, but we can work with them toward the ends we want to achieve. And if we
listen to them as well as tell them — and if we're willing to change our directions when
our customers and our common sense tell us we should — we'll have even stronger
policies and programs, and a greater chance of making real progress.
There is one other way I would characterize the direction USDA is taking in fulfilling its
responsibilities to natural resources and the environment.
Partnering for the future
We are headed toward building a broader constituency. Just look at this group here.
You represent a fairly broad cross section of society. This is progress, and we have to
take in that next step. We need to build linkages with city people and facilitate on
issues that crosscut all sorts of land areas. •
Some of our people call this being an "honest broker," meaning that our job is to bring
all sides to the table and help them find the common ground that will lead toward
working relationships and, ultimately, progress on the land.
Reorganization
We believe that the reorganization that has just passed the Congress will help us do
these things. I'd like to close my remarks this morning with a few highlights of that
reorganization:
\
First of all, the SCS will be renamed the Natural Resources Conservation Service
43
-------
and will assume additional responsibilities. This name change in part validates the
directions that SCS has been moving in for years — toward a multi-resource approach
to providing assistance to landowners on and off the farm.
Among the new responsibilities for the NRCS will be cost-sharing for several
programs, including the Water Bank and the Colorado River Salinity Control Program.
These programs are currently under the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, and we believe the shift will bring more consistency to these and other
conservation cost-sharing programs.
NRCS local offices will work more closely than ever with local offices of another new
agency, the Consolidated Farm Services Agency, which will pull together the current
ASCS, Farmers Home Administration, and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
My job is being upgraded from assistant secretary to under secretary. I say this
not out of pride, but because it reflects the importance that USDA places on the
environment.
In all, USDA will be streamlined and smaller. It will provide better service at less cost.
And it will have a strong focus on the environment.
44
-------
Riparian Protection and Management: Regional and State Approaches
__ ••
Dov Weitman
Chief, Nonpoint Source Control Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
1. Buffers are used by State nonpoint source programs in many ways, with many objectives, including
buffering streams from the effects of nutrients, sediments and pesticides; maintaining shade to
prevent elevation of stream temperature; providing shelter for fish; and providing wildlife corridors.
2. At a national level, EPA supports the use of riparian buffers. For example, EPA grants policy
supports riparian buffers by providing for States to set aside at least 10% of nonpoint source grant
funds ($8 million in 1994) for watershed resource restoration. Much of this is used for instream and
near-stream restoration activities. Riparian buffers are a major component of these activities. EPA
has also published a summary of state forestry laws and an extensive forestry BMP bibliography that
includes much material on streamside management zones' effectiveness.
3. EPA's Regional offices also promote riparian buffers. For example, EPA's Region 10 office,
covering the Pacific Northwest region, has a specific policy to incorporate riparian protection into
nonpoint source projects that they fund.
4. Many States are increasingly stressing riparian protection in their work. Examples include:
• Demonstration and evaluation of multi-species riparian buffer strips (Iowa).
• Streamside management zones in forestry operations (new policies and programs in
Montana, several southeastern States, and elsewhere throughout the United States)
• Riparian stream restoration projects in urbanizing watersheds (Mill Creek, Utah).
• Riparian wetlands restoration throughout the United States, many of them focusing on
restoring and/or protecting areas harmed by grazing.
5. These trends will continue to grow as EPA, other Federal agencies, and the States continue current
trends toward looking holistically as watershed, and stressing the physical and biological, as well as
the chemical aspects of waterbody health.
45
-------
The Status of Riparian Forest Policy in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
John Lipman
Chesapeake Bay Commission
40 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
This draft compendium briefly describes the laws and programs that protect or address
riparian forests in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania. It is intended .as a general guide to the
presentation, and thus focuses on riparian forests, rather than the large universe of stream protection
efforts. In addition, this guide highlights only the major laws and programs. There are indeed other
programs, both public and private, which are notable for their efforts to maintain and restore riparian
forests. A broad view of riparian forest laws and programs is presented, illustrating a range of
protection efforts, from stream fencing to tree planting and maintenance. Although some of these
programs do not have specific forest components, they are worth noting because they provide
opportunities for increasing the emphasis on forests in their riparian protection elements.
Riparian forest protection has been divided into five basic areas: Development-related laws,
agriculture, forestry, cross-land uses, and tax programs. This will impart to the reader a sense of how
many ways riparian forest maintenance and restoration can be applied. It will also convey a sense of
how dispersed these approaches are. Clearly, riparian forest policy does not fall into a neat category
or a single law. Working towards a more comprehensive policy will require a greater consistency and
better coordination among these approaches.
1. DEVELOPMENT
Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act: This act controls development within 1,000 feet of tidal waters,
measured from the heads of tide or the landward side of tidal wetlands. A 100-foot mandatory buffer
is required for all tidal waters, tidal wetlands and tributary streams in the Critical Area, including both
perennial and intermittent streams. Exemptions exist for lots platted before the law was passes and
for lots that would otherwise be rendered unbuildable by the law's requirements. For agricultural
land, the buffer may be reduced to 25 feet with natural vegetation. It may be reduced further and
grass may be permitted if an approved Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plan with Best
Management Practices is in place. For silvicultural land, a 50-foot buffer is required.
Forest Conservation Act: This act protects forest cover from development throughout the state by
limiting forest clearing for residential and commercial development and by requiring replanting where
needed. The Act designates "priority areas" for retainment of forests and replanting, including 50-
foot buffer areas around both perennial and intermittent streams. This area must remain undisturbed,
unless an applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the state or local authority that reasonable
efforts have been made to protect such areas and that plans cannot reasonably be altered.
Nontidal Wetlands Act: A mandatory 25-foot naturally vegetated buffer is required around all
nontidal wetlands greater than 5,000 square feet. This provides a forested or naturally vegetated
buffer in cases where a wetlands exists within or adjacent to a stream.
46
-------
Reforestation Act: This is basically a "no-net-loss" scenario for highway construction. The
law seeks to minimize forest loss and replace unavoidable losses from highway construction
projects, placing the highest priority on forests near or adjacent to streams.
• •.
Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act: This act does not regulate the
riparian area per se, but does encourage such protection as part of each county's requirement
to develop a "sensitive areas element" in their comprehensive plans. The Act, however, permits
the local governments to define each sensitive area and its level of protection. Among the envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas that are specifically mentioned in the act as needing protection are
streams, stream buffers, and 100-year floodplains.
Local Zoning Ordinances: Forty-two percent of the counties in Maryland have regulations
requiring stream buffers of 50 to 100 feet on developed land (exclusive of Critical Areas). The
characteristics of the buffer required may vary from simple setbacks to native vegetation.
Virginia
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act: This act establishes "preservation areas" that comprise
between 50% and 60% of Virginia's coastal plain. The so-called "Resource Protection Areas"
require a 100-foot buffer around tributary streams. Exemptions allow reduction of the buffer
to 50 feet in cases where a lot would otherwise be rendered unbuildable. Exemptions also allow
reduction of the buffer to 25 feet for agriculture land if an approved Soil and Water Quality
Conservation Plan is in place.
Local Zoning Ordinances: All the tidewater counties have adopted Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act regulations into their local zoning ordinances, which extends riparian buffers
to those stream areas not designated as protection areas. In addition, several other counties
outside of tidewater Virginia have incorporated Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations
into their zoning ordinances to protect sensitive areas.
Pennsylvania
Dams Safety and Encroachments Act: This act regulates development in both wetlands and
stream areas by requiring a permit from the Department of Environmental Resources. Although
there are no specific buffer requirements, applicants must avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts
to these areas that would degrade water quality.
Federal
National Flood Insurance Program: All three states have counties that participate voluntarily
in the National Flood Insurance Program. In Maryland, counties and towns that adopt the state's
Model Floodplain Management Ordinance require a 100-foot flood protection setback from
streams with floodplains designated on FEMA maps. In Virginia, participating counties curtail
development in the floodway. Pennsylvania state law requires flood-prone municipalities to
47
-------
participate in the national program, and adds some technical requirements above federal
standards.
H. AGRICULTURE
All Three States
Permanent Vegetative Cover: Cost-share is provided for establishing trees, grasses, and shrubs
in order to stabilize soil on eroding areas, including riparian areas.
Grazing^ Land Protection: Cost-share is provided for spring development, trough, and tanks
so as to provide watering -sites for livestock away from the stream area.
Stream Protection: Cost-share is provided for establishing permanent vegetative cover, which
can include trees, along the banks of streams, as well as related items such as remote watering
systems, stream crossings for livestock, and stream fencing.
Maryland
Buffer Incentive Program: One-time payments of $300 per acre are provided for the planting
and maintenance of minimum 50-foot forested buffers along streams and shorelines on private
land of 5,000 acres or less.
Virginia
Woodland Buffer Filter Area: One-time payments of $100 per acre are provided to establish
minimum 50-foot forested buffers along streams. This practice is permitted only on crop and
pasture land that has recently been in production.
Loafing Lot Management System: Cost-share is provided for a rotational grazing system.
This practice requires a minimum 25-foot fenced buffer around streams. . Vegetation is not
specified.
Pennsylvania
Streambank Fencing Program: Fencing with 10-foot buffer is provided free to rural
landowners by the Pennsylvania Game Commission in exchange for allowing public hunting on
their land. The Department of Environmental Resources is currently in the process of setting
up a parallel program that omits the hunting requirement.
48
-------
Pennsylvania
Voluntary Guidelines: There are no mandatory requirements in the riparian zone on private
forest land, although a 50-foot buffer is recommended.
Special Protection Streams: Mandatory forested buffers are required for commercial logging
operations on state forest lands around streams designated for "special protection" by the Bureau
of Water Quality Management. A 200-foot no-cut buffer is required around "exceptional value"
streams and a 100-foot no-cut buffer is required around "high quality" streams.
Federal
Forest Stewardship Program: This federally funded program, which is administered by the
states, provides technical assistance to private landowners for implementing conservation
practices while meeting harvesting needs. Forest Stewardship Plans are required for
participation in the federal cost-share programs for forestry (see FTP and SIP below). Funding
comes from the U.S. Forest Service.
Forestry Incentive Program (FIP): This program is designed to increase the future supply of
timber on private non-industrial (between 10 and 1,000 acres) forest land. Cost-share is
provided for tree planting, including in forested wetlands and riparian areas. The program is
funded by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP): This program addresses a broad range of ecological
enhancements on non-industrial private forest land. Cost-sharing is provided for tree planting,
stream fencing, riparian and wetland improvement, tree shelters, and fisheries habitat
improvement. The program is funded by the U.S. Forest Service.
IV. CROSS-LAND USES
Maryland
Special Rivers Project: This project fosters forest stewardship and best management practices
in both rural and urban watersheds to improve water quality, although its geographic scope is
limited to the Susquehanna, Monocacy, and Anacostia river basins. In rural settings, the
program establishes Forest Stewardship Plans, riparian forest buffers, and agricultural BMPs.
In urban areas, the program works with local planning agencies to implement urban forestry
practices.
Greenways Program: This program provides long-term planning assistance to protect public
lands and coordinate with federal and local governments and the private sector on a statewide
greenways network, of which stream and river valleys are an essential part. The Greenways
Program also prepares scenic river plans and assists local governments in developing long-term
management strategies through the Scenic and Wild Rivers Program.
49
-------
Agricultural Use Assessment: This program provides a preferential assessment on the value
of land that is used for agriculture. Woodlots can also receive an agricultural assessment.
There are no specific requirements for riparian areas.
Virginia
Use-Value Taxation: Counties voluntary participate in this program, which provides
preferential assessments on the value of agricultural and forest land consistent with its use.
Although popular in urbanizing counties, it can have a negative impact on the tax base in rural
counties. There are no specific requirements for riparian areas.
Pennsylvania
Covenant-Preserving Land Uses: This law authorizes a county to enter into covenants with
landowners for the preservation of farmland, forest land, water supply land, or open space. The
real property tax is reduced to reflect the fair market value of the land with the covenant
restrictions. The covenant is good for ten years, and can be extended with the agreement of
both parties for one year at a time.
Farmland and Forest Land Assessment Act ("Clean and Green Act"): The county Board of
Assessment can grant a preferential assessment for ten or more contiguous acres of land devoted
to agricultural, forest reserve, or open space purposes. Land is assessed at the use value rather
than the prevailing market value. This can apply to land in the riparian zone as well, although
there is no requirement for forests in the riparian zone.
All Three States (Federal)
Public Law 96-451: This program provides federal tax incentives to reduce reforestation costs.
The law permits up to $10,000 of capitalized reforestation costs each year to bo eligible for an
investment tax credit and a 7-year amortization. This can include reforestation efforts in the
riparian zone.
50
-------
Incentives and Disincentives to Forest Buffer Establishment on Agricultural Land
••
Thomas Simpson
Chesapeake Bay Agricultural Programs
MD Department of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
Incentives to Forest Buffer Establishment
Forest buffers provide many benefits to an ecosystem such as improved water quality and
temperature, they create habitat, encourage biodiversity, stabilize streambanks and control pollution. Thert
are two forest buffer cost-share incentive programs, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Buffer
Incentive Program. For these programs to be successful, it is essential that the government agencies win the
support of farmers and landowners by convincing them that this is a cooperative program working for the
benefit of the environment and their farm operation. According to the MD DNR Forest Inventory there is a
maximum of 85,000 acres of cropland in Maryland that could be converted to forest buffers.
Disincentives to Forest Buffer Establishment
Some disincentives to forest buffers are real and some are perceived, however they both hinder forest
buffer establishment. One of the biggest disincentives is the loss of income for the landowner. In many cases
the most productive land is adjacent to a stream, and shading and competition for water encroach on the field.
Another disincentive is the landowner's fear of losing their rights to use that land for farming or development.
Landowners are wary that forest buffers will require a great deal of maintenance and perhaps even introduce
noxious weed invasion. There is a fear of losing commodity support program "base" acres. In certain
localities, when land is taken out of agriculture the landowner might have to pay a real estate tax because the
land is considered potentially developable. Landowners fear that threatened and/or endangered species might
inhabit their buffer. Another disincentive is that the landowner might encounter bureaucratic hurdles in
obtaining cost-share and technical assistance. Some landowners are misinformed on streamside forests, they
might believe that they lead to increased flooding, greater streambank erosion and stream blockages. Lastly,
the landowner might believe that the forest buffers will carve small fields into unmanageable pieces.
Overcoming Disincentives/Enhancing Incentives:
• Increase cost-share
• Expand mitigation banking
• Reduce paperwork and processing time
• Change definition of "base" in commodity programs
Extend/refocus CRP
• Cross-train field staff
• Better target buffer locations
• Develop a menu of options
• Expand educational program
• Change real estate taxes
51
-------
Incentives for Land Management to Enhance and Retain Riparian Forests
• •
Jack King
Chesapeake Paper Products Company
19th and Main Streets, Box 311
West Point, Virginia 23181
Proper Forest Management Practices offer a very real way to conserve America's estimated 80
million acres of forested wetlands. Forestry provides landowners with a valuable incentive to maintain the
overall character of their wetlands. If we are to expect landowners to follow Best Management Practices on
their riparian forests, we must also come to the realization that these forest represent a considerable
investment to the landowner.
hi Virginia, approximately 4% of our timberland is in riparian forests. Following state BMPs means
that landowners will recover only 40% of the timber value on each acre of riparian forest. Chesapeake Forest
Products Company has left Streamside Management Zones on our forest land for over thirty years. I estimate
that we have $7.5 million worth of timber in these SMZ's of which $3 million to $4 million will never be
harvested; we own and practice sustainable forestry on 330.000 acres of woodlands (225,000 acres in
Virginia).
Giving up as much as $500 per acre in timber value on 4% of their land can have a devastating
financial impact to a private woodlands owner.
We must find a way to compensate landowners for the loss of timber value in SMZ's. I suggest that
localities consider tax incentives and/or cost share programs. If only 40% of the timber value is available,
why not reduce ad valorem taxes on these acres by 40 to 60%? This is a good place to start.
52
-------
Implementation: Working Together for Riparian Forests
Jeffrey L. Horan
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Forest Service
2 South Bond Street
Bel Air, Maryland 21014
There has already been a great deal of discussion at this conference on the details of government programs.
particularly incentive programs. John Lipman's "The Status of Riparian Forest Policy in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed" presented earlier, provides a comprehensive look at these programs. Instead of focusing on these same
details I will talk about some of the dynamics that impact the effectiveness of these government programs.
As a resource agency, our goal is -to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay, one of the richest and most diverse
estuarine systems in the world. To be successful we must positively impact land use decisions that are being made
every day. In the rapidly developing Chesapeake Bay Watershed there is an intense competition among land uses for
every acre of land. Government for its part has three primary mechanisms through which it can influence land use
decisions; 1) Legislation, Regulation and Enforcement, 2) Information and Education and 3) Incentives. Clearly, an
astute balance of all three mechanisms is required.
Legislation and Regulation sets up the crucial framework for the programs that follow, but can become
cumbersome and inefficient when taken too far. Information and Education are also crucial but tend to be most
effective over a relatively long time frame. Incentive Programs on the other hand can begin to have an immediate effect
in the specific area for which they are designed.
There is currently an impressive array of government incentives programs available to land owners within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed to encourage forests, since they are recognized as the most productive land use. These
incentives range from professional management assistance available through state forestry agencies and the newly
reorganized Natural Resources Conservation Service, to cost-share programs, tax incentives, conservation easement
.acceptance programs and other incentives that include direct payments or grants to encourage specific practices.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's five year old Stewardship Incentive Program is a very effective cost-
share program that has provided cost-share assistance to plant forest buffers along miles of streams and rivers in the
Bay Watershed. Another federal program is the Conservation Reserve Program that has encouraged farmers, in the Bay
Watershed, to take over 30,000 acres of crop land out of production, in favor of planting trees or grass. Maryland has
provided $200 to $500 per acre grants directly to landowners for the planting of forest buffers within 300 feet of a
stream or wetland. This Buffer Incentive Program (BIP) has encouraged the planting of nearly 800 acres of forest
buffers in Maryland over the past five years.
Another extremely effective approach for a rapidly urbanizing state like Maryland are tax incentive programs
that allow for a significant reduction in assessed Value as long as the landowner follows a resource management plan
that includes conservation measures. Special incentives for planting trees such as Maryland's Chesapeake Bay School
Reforestation Program and TREEMENDOUS Maryland, as well as federal programs like the Small Business
Administrative grants, have helped create outdoor classrooms and effective forest buffers in urban areas.
Currently there is no clear and comprehensive policy in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that encourages riparian
forest buffers. This conference has presented overwhelming evidence indicating the crucial role that forests and
forested riparian buffers play in enhanced water quality, nutrient reduction and wildlife habitat in both urban and rural
settings. Once this fact is accepted by all the cooperative resource agencies, clear policy can be set and resource
managers can begin to use the many existing cost-share and incentive programs as tools to have a very favorable impact
on this amazing ecosystem.
53
-------
The Role of A Private Firm in Creating Regulatory Mitigation and Nonpoint Source Pollution
Reduction Projects fri Support of Local and State Government Agencies
in Reaching Local Tributary and Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies
Vincent H Berg and James C. Richardson
Forest and Wetland Conservation Associates, Inc.
15716 Buena Vista Drive
Derwood, Maryland 20855
Regulated mitigation of nontidal wetlands and, forestry has been limited to a no-win proposition in
the past. Our company looked at the required mitigation programs in Maryland and decided that a more
positive process was needed. We developed a process that provides a WIN-WIN solution, which preserves
and restores riparian buffers and reduces nonpoint source runoff pollution.
The single greatest source of nonpoint source pollution to our tributaries and the Bay comes from
rural and agricultural lands. The task of identifying innovative and cost effective tributary strategies is
important to the future of local and regional creeks, streams, rivers and the Bay. Tributary planners have
been working to identify new and innovative programs and financial resources for tributary strategy
implementation. Our firm has developed a cost-effective process that is innovative, time sensitive and that
compliments all of the existing Tributary Strategy programs.
Forest and Wetland Conservation Associates, Inc. (FAWCA) is a private firm that works with both
public and private developers. The goal of the firm is to. turn the mitigation process into a positive outcome
for all concerned. Mitigation for forest and wetland losses is important; however mitigation requirements
have become time consuming and burdensome and in many cases provides limited environmental benefits.
FAWCA specializes in providing turn-key projects that exceed regulatory mitigation requirements, provides
additional nonpoint source pollution abatement benefits, are supportive of the State's volunteer program for
implementation of agricultural BMPs and saves developers, builders and regulators valuable time and
money.
Our projects also provide greater environmental benefits than traditional mitigation and can assure success by
restoring areas that historically were forested wetlands, forested steep slopes and forested Critical Areas.
Our firm has found that when only on-site mitigation is considered and provided, that the mitigation
project will often achieve limited environmental benefits, may be contrary to sound land Use principals, is
very costly, benefits a small watershed area and benefits very few landowners. The FAWCA, Inc. program
takes this limited benefit situation and turns it into a win-win mitigation project for landowners, for
government, for developers and for the environment. In addition, we reduce government's financial and
administrative burden and also create a series of significant community environmental benefits.
The FAWCA concept is to provide linear mitigation projects on numerous rural (Farm) properties.
The areas used for mitigation are sensitive lands that include stream valleys, steep slopes, prior converted
croplands or intensely pastured areas (the most agriculturally productive areas not utilized fro mitigation).
The land that is used for mitigation is placed in permanent conservation and protected perpetuity by
covenants that run with the land.
54
-------
Our program provides numerous benefits besides cost savings and environmental gains. Though our
program, state and local governments 'will be assisting to concentrate growth in designated growth areas,
implement permanent land use control and goals (Greenways), improve wildlife habitat, preserve open space
and rural (farm) land and reduce or eliminate nonpoint source loadings from hundreds of acres of land.
Therefore, each mitigation project has a multiplier effect that benefits a much larger watershed area and
ecosystem in the County and State
The FAWCA, Inc. program provides the following services:
1. We locate offsite forest and wetland mitigation sites in the same County as is the impact and
obtain approval from regulatory agencies for the selected mitigation site.
2. We provide mitigation project coordination with regulatory agencies.
3. We provide all mitigation site planning, legal, survey and recordation services.
4. We design and plant the acreage to meet all regulatory agency specifications.
5. We design and install additional agricultural best management practices on the mitigation
property as part of the mitigation project, in coordination with the agricultural agencies.
FAWCA's goal is to provide Total Resource Management of the mitigation property.
6. We perform long term compliances and spot checks of the mitigation site and submit reports
to all regulatory agencies.
7. We replant or replace plantings that fail - FAWCA, Inc. becomes the risk manager for the
project.
Our private firm's innovative mitigation program can provide acre for acre mitigation of forest and
wetland losses, on rural riparian sensitive lands. As an example, we recently completed a forest and wetland
mitigation project on a dairy farm that restored 12 acres of nontidal wetland and forestry on sensitive lands
and we installed 10 years of needed BMP practices for a 120 acre dairy farm, all in one year!
55
-------
Lancaster Stream Work Group
Lamonte Garber
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
214 State Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
The Lancaster Stream Work Group was formed in 1993 to promote the protection and restoration of
the streams of Lancaster County (Pennsylvania), particularly those flowing through farmland. The work
group is comprised of many interests from both the public and the private sectors. The group helps to
disseminate information, coordinate programs for landowners, discuss developing technologies and bring
government agencies together with private volunteer organizations that are actively working on local streams.
There is a great need for stream protection efforts in the region. Lancaster County's high animal and
human populations have exerted tremendous pressure on its streams. Pastures are common where cattle have
free access to streams and riparian vegetation is sparse. Non-farm riparian areas have also lost considerable
tree cover. Despite its rural atmosphere, Lancaster County lacks the substantial forests that maintain good
water quality in many other Pennsylvania counties. The largest river in the county - the Conestoga - carries
the highest concentrations of nutrients and sediments of any monitored stream in the Susquehanna River
watershed.
The Lancaster Stream Work Group is working to promote better stream management by helping
coordinate the many different programs available for landowners who are interested in practices such as
stream bank fencing and forest buffers. For example, the group recently completed a flyer describing all the
financial assistance programs available in the county for stream bank fencing projects. The group has also
initiated a mapping project to record the many stream protection projects completed throughout the country to
better gauge progress. Possibly its most important function is to match stream projects with the agency best-
equipped to provide assistance.
Another function of the work groups is to bring together the public and private sector more
effectively. Streams bring together many interests with a wide variety of goals, such as fisheries
management, wildlife habitat, nonpoint source pollution control and soil conservation. There is also a greater
potential for volunteer organizations to get involved in stream restoration than in many other environmental
programs. The Stream Work Group seeks to support these local efforts. For example, a local fishing club
and dairy farmer were interested in fencing a pasture stream and planting trees but had found no assistance
that fit their needs. Members of the work group informally arranged for materials and the job was completed.
As a follow up activity, the work group will be hosting a public open house this fall to recognize the project.
Public-private partnerships like this will be necessary to address natural resource problems like
stream corridor degradation, which would otherwise exhaust the resources of single agencies or organizations.
In addition, these partnerships will help develop a broader constituency for stream corridor management,
riparian forest buffers and habitat restoration.
56
-------
A Non-profit Role in Working with Landowners to Protect Riparian Forests
Steve Bunker
The Nature Conservancy
2 Wisconsin Circle
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Non-profit organizations can play a key role in working with landowners to protect riparian forest buffers.
Experience of Nature Conservancy offices in Maryland and other states have demonstrated the important role
of non-profits in such diverse activities as the direct acquisition of riparian corridors, negotiating voluntary
buffer easements or organizing volunteers to plant trees along streams. In Maryland, we have an outstanding
example of a successful riparian protection program in our Nassawango Creek Preserve and are just
beginning a number of new initiatives whose success will depend on implementing riparian buffer protection
programs.
Nassawango Creek
Nassawango Creek is one of the northernmost bald cypress swamps in the country. The creek originates in
Wicomico County on Maryland's eastern shore and runs for 15 miles before joining the Pocomoke River near
Snow Hill in Worcester County. In addition to bald cypress, the swamp contains Atlantic white cedar,
seaside alder, at least 14 species of orchids and some fifty unusual plant and animal species in all. Because of
its significance, The Nature Conservancy began a protection program in 1978 which to date has protected
over 3,300 acres of swamp and upland buffer in fee ownership.
Sideline Hill Creek
Sideling Hill Creek is a relatively pristine stream in the Ridge and Valley region of Maryland that flows from.
Pennsylvania through Maryland to the Potomac. The stream and riparian corridor support an abundance of
rare plant and animal species including two rare freshwater mussel species, a globally rare plant called the
harperella and a variety of state-rare floodplain plants. To protect these resources, TNC has developed a
strategic plan for the watershed which calls for the protection of a riparian corridor from Purcell,
Pennsylvania to the Potomac River.
Nanticoke River
The Nanticoke River is a lower Eastern Shore river system which runs from lower Delaware to the
Chesapeake Bay draining a watershed of over 700,000 acres. The watershed is laced with non-tidal wetlands
and contains about one-third of all tidal wetlands in Maryland. The tidal and non-tidal wetlands harbor a host
of rare plants and animals, as well as creating habitat for a variety of waterfowl of such significance that the
Nanticoke is a focus area under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Riparian buffers on the
Nanticoke will protect some of the sensitive wetland areas and enhance the use of the wetlands by waterfowl.
57
-------
Finding Creative Solutions to Riparian Forest
J. Toby Tourbier
706 S. Front Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147
Most municipalities have stormwater management regulations that are lacking a holistic approach
and full consideration of this hydrologic cycle, leading to unimaginative engineering solutions.
A municipal ordinance can require infiltration, runoff pollution control, reduction of thermal impacts
and peak flow control. Riparian forest buffers that follow stream valleys can be expanded and enhanced
through stormwater management measures on adjacent sites that can be integrated to form functional
greenways.
Municipalities have an opportunity to formulate a stormwater management approach that can
function as a tool to help structure the present pattern of environmentally destructive sprawling subdivisions.
Municipal decision makers need to understand stormwater problems, define goals and related standards, and
establish an ordinance with stormwater management requirements and a plan submission, review and
approval procedure. London Grove Township in Pennsylvania will be presented as a model.
58
-------
Riparian Easements and Stream Protection
Robert Whitescarver
Valley Conservation Council
P.O. Box 2335
Staunton, Virginia 24402
WHAT:
A Riparian Easement is a special type of conservation easement that applies only to a streamside, or riparian
zone mutually agreed upon by the landowner and the easement holder. Like all easements, it is a legal
agreement in which the landowner retains ownership and full control of the property, yet conveys certain
specified rights to the holder of the easement.
Specifically, the landowner releases or gives up the right to destroy the riparian zone and works with the
easement holder to develop a management plan to ensure the protection of the riparian zone. Typically this is
done by establishing and maintaining vegetation and limiting livestock access to the stream. Each easement
is tailored to the property and the desires of the individual landowner.
WHY:
A well-vegetated streambank protects the soil from erosion and flood damage, improves stream health and
provides essential wildlife habitat.
HOW:
The landowner's first step should be to consult with a prospective easement holder, such as a local Soil and
Water Conservation District or the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, to determine whether his or her plans for
the property would meet conservation goals. If so, the terms of the easement can be negotiated and drawn up
with the assistance of a lawyer. If tax benefits are desired, an appraisal will also be needed.
MANAGEMENT PLANS:
The management plan is the means of assuring that the riparian zone is protected. Technical agencies such as
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Virginia Department of Forestry and the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries can help develop the plan. In addition, these agencies may also be able to provide
significant cost-share funding for conservation practices such as tree planting or developing an alternative
water source for livestock.
REGULATIONS:
The restrictions on how the property can be used and the management plan itself are determined jointly be the
landowner and easement holder. The terms are enforced by the easement holder.
ACCESS:
The public does not gain access to the property
59
-------
TERM:
Easements must last a least five years under state law. For federal tax deductions, however, they must be in
perpetuity.
TAX BENEFITS:
A riparian easement can save the landowner considerable money through tax benefits. A deduction can be
taken on state and federal income tax return in the amount of the charitable gift represented by the easement.
The allowable deduction is the difference between the fair market value of the land before the easement was
placed on it compared to the value after the easement is in place. An appraisal is necessary to calculate this
benefit. Estate taxes are another area in which a conservation easement can make a positive difference. By
removing some of the potential for development, the easement brings down the fair market value of the estate
and can result in a lower tax bill for the heirs.
Local tax assessments also can be lowered since state law requires that localities recognize the reduction in
value caused by an easement. Usually, however, land on which an easement is placed is already taxed at land
use value, and there is little or no additional tax advantage gained.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS:
Riparian easements, by protecting the streambank, improve water quality and wildlife habitat. Benefits can
be increased further if landowners band together and place riparian zone easements on contiguous parts of a
body of water.
INDIVIDUAL BENEFITS:
The technical and financial assistance offered by the cooperating resource agencies can help the landowner
realize their goals for the land. Projects can be designed to prevent soil loss and flood damage and to enhance
wildlife habitat and water quality. Most importantly, the landowner can know that the riparian zone will
always be protected and that their forethought can make a positive impact not just on their property but
downstream as well.
60
-------
A Plan to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution to Long Island Sound through Riparian Enhancement
Laura Tessier
Westchester County Department of Planning
White Plains, New York 10601
Westchester County is located northeast of New York City and west of Connecticut and is contained
within the metropolitan New York region. It is 450 square miles in size and is bordered on the west by the
Hudson River and on the south by the Lone Island Sound. It supports a population of approximately one
million and is urban/suburban in character.
In January 1992, Westchester County Executive Andrew O'Rourke established a Citizen Committee
on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound to respond to nitrogen reduction targets promulgated by
the Long Island Sound Study (LISS), a federal estuary program within the states of New York and
Connecticut. The LISS identified nutrient pollution from sewage treatment plants and urban runoff as causes
of hypoxia in the sound. The Citizen Committee consisted of municipal elected officials, environmental
organizations, civic and business interests and was charged with developing a plan to control nonpoint
sources of pollution originating from Westchester County. The committee recommended 33 actions, or
categories of actions, all of which .were accepted by the County Executive. A 10-member Steering Committee
was subsequently appointed to implement the program.
Westchester County's Long Island Sound Nonpoint Source Planning Program consists of immediate
and long-range actions that are predominantly voluntary and involve both county and municipal governments.
It recognizes nitrogen as the pollutant of immediate concern but maximizes opportunities to control other
pollutants. And it offers both preventive measures and watershed retrofits as options to reduce pollutant
loading. Specific categories of actions include fertilizer/pesticide controls, septic systems controls, pumped
facilities programming, public education initiatives and intermunicipal watershed planning. Watershed
Advisory Committees (WACS) have been formed to oversee preparation of detailed plans to control nonpoint
sources of pollution; each plan is expected to reflect the natural resources and land use characteristics of the
basin.
A major component of the watershed planning initiative is the protection of water resources
important to nonpoint source reduction and the preservation or restoration of a minimum natural buffer
associated with those systems. Woody (forested) buffers are preferred, both because of their pollutant
removal capabilities and ancillary benefits. A minimum target buffer width of 100 feet was selected as the
maximum feasible within an urban setting, but with a provision for expanded buffers if/as identified by a
watershed planning committee.
61
-------
The Big Darby Creek Project
Kathy Smith
Ohio Department of Forestry
304 Patrick Avenue
Urbana, Ohio 43078
The Top of Ohio RC&D covers a ten county area in the west central region of Ohio. The area's
primarily focus is production of agriculture with a heavy emphasis on livestock in several of the counties.
Within this project area there are four organized watershed projects that are currently funded with federal
monies. One of these projects is the Darby Creek Watershed. This watershed covers a six county area and
contains 338,152 acres that contain the Big and Little Darby State Scenic River system that was just
designated a National Scenic River system.
The problems in the watershed include sedimentation from streambank erosion, lack of wooded
riparian corridor in some areas, tillage systems and their impact on the stream and livestock operations in the
watershed. Programs and demonstration areas are being established to educate landowners on how to deal
with these problem areas. Groups made up of farmers, landowners and other private citizens have formed to
help educate those people living within the watershed area. Their educational efforts are being duplicated in
many other watersheds throughout the state. The primary water quality objective within the watershed is to
preserve, maintain and enhance the aquatic and riparian ecosystem.
62
-------
Riparian Assessment, Protection and Restoration in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
f
Randy Dodd
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2194
The purpose of this presentation will be to explore riparian management-efforts in eastern North
Carolina, with a focus on the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Topics that will be covered include GIS-based
landscape characterization studies as well as relevant management approaches being considered.
We have used GIS technology to study forested buffers in northeastern North Carolina. Specifically,
we have overlayed buffer zones (100'-1000') along surface waters onto LANDSAT-generated land use/land
cover data. This study has shown that a relatively high percentage (75% or more) of the land within these
buffers remains forested in the Piedmont. In the Coastal Plains subbasins, the percentage of streamside land .
with forest cover is less (50% or less). This phenomenon can be explained, at least in part, by the extensive
hydrologic modification that has occurred in the Coastal Plain area. Drainage (e.g., water level adjustment,
controlled drainage, channelization) practices are common in many agricultural areas featuring flat
topography and water tables that are at least seasonally close to the surface. Where drainage is widely used in
a region, forest buffers may still stabilize streambanks and provide habitat for aquatic life. However,
reductions in pollution loadings to surface waters will of necessity rely more heavily on upland BMPs.
GIS tools also provide an ability to identify individual stream reaches where lack of buffering may
warrant special attention. We are in the process of preparing a map series that will center on this concept.
Another insight which GIS has revealed is that the headwater systems (first order streams) are the systems
that have been the most heavily disturbed.
We have also looked at the ability of various programs to protect and restore forested buffers. This
review suggest that while a wide array of relevant federal, state and local programs exists, the institutional
structure to champion the protection of continuous linear forested corridors does not currently exist. Much
of the forested riparian land has likely been spared conversion in the recent past more because of
environmental and economic factors than legal or regulatory efforts. In the Tar-Pamlico Basin, pioneering
approaches to river basin planning and nutrient management provide new opportunities to focus on riparian
protection and restoration.
63
-------
Monocacy Project Case History
George Eberling
Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service
14038 Blairs Valley Road
Clear Spring, Maryland 21722
In Maryland, one of the programs developed to combat non-point source pollution of some of its
tributaries is the Special Rivers Project administered through the Forest Service. There are currently three
projects within the Special Rivers Project:
• Susquehanna (northeast MD), 1986
• Anacostia (DC suburbs), 1992
• Monocacy (Frederick and Carroll Counties), 1989
These are all funded by the Clean Water Act Section 117 and 319 funds from the EPA and
administered through the MD Department of the Environment. Although the specific intent of each of these
projects varies, the overall goal of the Special Rivers Project was to stem non-point source pollution by
providing and managing forest filters along the Bay's tributaries.
The Monocacy Watershed is located mainly in Frederick County, MD with smaller portions in
Carroll County to the east and Pennsylvania to the north. The Monocacy River is formed by the confluence
of Marsh and Rock Creeks near the MD-PA border and winds 58 miles through Carroll and Frederick County
finally flowing into the Potomac River near the Montgomery County line. To give you a better idea of where
this is located, Frederick County is about 35 miles northwest of DC and 40 miles west.of Baltimore. The
overall size of the Maryland portion of the watershed is about 565,000 acres or roughly 880 sq. miles.
Frederick County, the largest and most rapidly developing county in Maryland, is quite diverse. It lies on the
border of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge regions with the mountains forming the western boundary of the
.watershed. The northern end of the area is still quite rural and heavily influenced by agriculture while central
and southern Frederick County are rapidly expanding with new growth in the way of housing and industry
occurring daily.
The Monocacy Project was developed to stem non-point source pollution from runoff from the then
primarily agricultural watershed through the establishment and management of forested stream buffers. The
establishment of forest buffers was still a relatively new practice then and rarely used, much less heard of in
controlling non-point source pollution. So we proceeded to carry out this charge in several ways. First, we
addressed the private sector by identifying and contacting all landowners with 10 acres and larger bordering
the Monocacy and its tributaries within the entire Maryland portion of the watershed. This was accomplished
by sifting through the county tax maps and sending direct mailings to these selected landowners. These
mailings explained the importance and function of forest buffers, various incentives for their establishment
and management, and our services and involvement. They were also sent a pre-addressed reply card for them
to return if they were interested. Initial response was fairly good, but progressively dropped the further along
we got in the watershed. From these contacts we would develop riparian forest management and buffer
planting plans for the landowners along with assisting in the implementation of these plans.
64
-------
Next came the public sector, which we addressed several ways. Through Maryland's Greenshores
Program, we used volunteers and civic* groups to plant forest buffers on public lands within the watershed
such as parks and schools. We also provided input for policy making groups involved in land management
such as the Monocacy Scenic River Advisory, ASCS, Soil Conservation, etc., along with various citizen
groups such as the Monocacy Watershed Conservancy. A large part of the Monocacy Project involved
Information and Education efforts which we have handled in several ways. We developed a project brochure
explaining forest buffers and encouraging people to become involved, and we developed a project display to
take to various environmental and agricultural functions. We also developed two demonstration areas where
the public can go see how buffers are planted, what they look like, their maintenance needs, and so forth. One
is in Walkersville and is a Forest Buffer Nature Trail in the Town's Heritage Farm Park. The other is located
in southern Frederick County at Monocacy Natural Resources Management Area and incorporates some
agricultural water quality practices such as fencing waterways and establishing watering troughs for
livestock. Both of these demonstration areas have also been designed as self guided tours where the public
.can pick up a pamphlet on site and view the areas themselves. We are also heavily involved in various school
programs such as talks and school plantings. Media events are a part of our project as well with various
articles appearing in the local papers, agency literature and in outside publications including EPA's
News/Notes. We have also supplied pictures and information to many other groups and agencies to assist in
the development of their riparian forest publications. We have also worked with some developers in
implementing buffer plans aiid planting floodplains on housing sites along with providing input on
development site reviews for county and local planning officials.
To date, we have developed over 150 management plans on 5,500 acres of private lands involving
about 500,000 linear feet of buffer recommendations. We have planted 200 acres of forest buffer on public
and private lands and another 200 acres of non-buffer plantings. We have exhibited the project display and
made presentations on forest buffers and non-point source pollution to over 11,000 people and involved over
2,000 volunteers in various projects, primarily buffer plantings. WeJiave had a number of overwhelming
successes in private land management, the most notable being the Dublin Tree Farm. This 90-acre property
fronts the Monocacy River near Walkersville and was historically used primarily for crops and pasture. Upon
our contacting the landowner, a retired veterinarian from Frederick, he decided to turn the entire property into
a Tree Farm. All 90 acres were subsequently planted into trees, and the property is now a showcase for tours
as well as serving as another demonstration area, and is used regularly for Frederick area elementary school
trips to learn about natural resources management.
Overall, though, agricultural response, despite being the initial focus of our project, has been quite
low. We have done work on farmland, but usually the owners we deal with are not the actual farmers. Due to
this, we have somewhat sifted our target audience to more effectively deal with those who have become the
main users of our services. We have also recently expanded the project boundaries to the west to include
most of Washington County as well, resulting in a total project ares of about 835,000 acres or roughly 1,300
sq. miles. As forest buffers and buffer management have become more commonplace, we are now changing
course to include more innovative approaches and programs to combat non-point source pollution. We are
focusing more on urban plantings, storm water management projects; recommendations and input to various
urban groups and involvement in a new Greenways commission established for the Monocacy corridor. We
are also focusing on more traditional forest management work to complement the project expansion into the
more heavily wooded Washington County. We have a few different demonstration areas in the works to
highlight such water quality practices as stream crossings, best management practices and urban issues as
well as plans to produce an urban water quality brochure.
65
-------
Revitalizing Baltimore's Riparian Forests through Neighborhood Action
Shawn Dalton
Yale*University, Urban Resources Institute
2600 Madison Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21217
Baltimore Urban Resources Initiative is a partnership of the Baltimore City Department of Recreation and
Parks, the Parks and People Foundation, the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and local
community groups. By helping neighborhoods take back abandoned open spaces in Baltimore. UR1 also helps people
to reinvest in themselves, their neighborhoods, their communities and their environment.
URI has been working in Baltimore for five years, and has developed several programs aimed at assisting the
process of social revitalization through ecological restoration in inner city neighborhoods. These include community
forestry, park planning and management, job training and environmental education for inner city youth, geographic
information systems and natural resource management training for employees of the Department of Recreation and
Parks.
Community Forestry
The Community Forestry Program involves local communities with the Division of Forestry in the planning,
implementation and maintenance of community greening activities. To date, this program has captured the imagination
of representatives of over 30 diverse communities throughout Baltimore.
Park Planning and Management Program
Through its Park Planning and Management Program, URI helps the Department of Recreation and Parks improve its
land management practices. To contribute to improving the environmental health of the City and the Chesapeake Bay,
the Department of Recreation and Parks is planting more trees and wildflower meadows, and protecting wetlands and
streambanks to combat erosion, increase infiltration and improve the wildlife habitat value of the park system
Environmental Education and Job Training for Youth
During the summers of 1992 and 1993, in partnership with the Chesapeake Bay Outward Bound program, URI
developed a six-week outdoor experiential education program for inner city kids. The program provided 14-18 year
olds with a hands-on opportunity to learn about careers in natural resource management. In the summer of 1994, URI
will work with representatives of the Department of Recreation and Parks to develop a similar program for middle
school kids. This program, KidsGrow, will be run out of local recreation centers and will emphasize environmental
education and dovetail with local school initiatives and curricula.
• Natural Resource Management Training .
In 1992-1993, a former URI intern worked with five employees of the Department of Recreation and Parks to develop
and teach the sixty-five field employees of the Bureau of Parks who work in the Herring Run Watershed about
Watershed Management, Streams, Wetlands, Meadows, Trees, Forests, Wildlife and Serving the Public. In 1994, after
"co-teaching" the pilot program in the Herring Run Watershed, the Department of Recreation and Parks' trainers
conducted a similar program in the Jones Falls Watershed. URI is now working on training community representatives
in the Gwynns Falls watershed.
Geographic Information Systems
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) involves several components including computer mapping, information
integration and analysis and visual displays of information. The power of GIS lies in its ability to integrate disparate
sources of information to analyze them in a similar context. URI uses such a system to integrate biophysical
information such as stream, park, forest and land use locations with socioeconomic information such as census data,
vacant lot and property locations and neighborhood surveys. GIS is used as a tool to help collect, organize and analyze
information..!*) answer questions. '
66
-------
A Countrywide Creek Valley District for Riparian management
••
James P. "Irish" Grandfield
County of Loudoun
Department of Planning
750 Miller Drive, S.E., Suite 800
Leesburg, Virginia 22075
Portrait of Loudoun County
Loudoun County, Virginia is part of the Metropolitan Washington region. Located 35 miles northwest of
Washington D.C., the County covers 520 square miles. Eastern Loudoun County is home to Washington
Dulles International Airport and consists primarily of suburban, commercial and industrial land uses. The
western two-thirds of the County has primarily agricultural and rural residential land uses.
Loudoun County has an estimated population of 102,100. The County's population increased by 50%
between 1980 and 1990 and continues to grow at roughly a 5% annual growth rate. The rapid growth has
placed increasing pressure to provide services and accommodate the new development in a well planned
manner. In order to plan for the growth, the Board of Supervisors adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in
September 1991 and updated Zoning Ordinance in June 1993.
Environmental Planning and Regulation in Loudoun County
Loudoun County's Comprehensive Plan has policies for protecting a wide.range of water, air, land, geologic
and living resources. For water resources alone, the Plan outlines strategies to protect water quality,
floodplains, wetlands, scenic rivers, the Potomac River shoreline and stream corridors.
The County Zoning and Codified Ordinance implement many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by
regulating solid waste management, sediment and erosion control, floodplain management, mountainside
development, steep slope protection, tree planting and replacement and creek valley buffers. Creek Valley
buffer requirements first went into effect with the adoption of the 1993 zoning ordinance.
Creek Valley Buffers
Section 5-1000 (Scenic Creek Valley) of the Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance sets the criteria for
development adjacent to any stream that drains greater than 640 acres. A Creek Valley Buffer is in effect
wherever the width of the floodplain is less than the width of the Creek Valley buffer. The width of the buffer
is measured from the stream bank and varies depending on whether the stream is the Potomac River, one of
the County's two state scenic rivers, or other streams. Buffer widths are set at 250 feet for the Potomac, 200
feet for state scenic rivers and 150 feet for other County streams. Flexibility is built into the regulations by
allowing for up to an 100 foot buffer reduction for using storm water management best management practices
(BMPs) or preserving (or establishing if one does not exist) a forest along the stream. The construction of
buildings, structures, parking lots or other impermeable surfaces is prohibited in the buffer area. Existing
buildings and structures within the buffer area are permitted to expand or be rebuilt. The County is requiring
the buffer to protect water quality, promote wildlife habitat and preserve the scenic beauty of the County's
streams as development occurs.
67
-------
Forming Local Stream Teams
••
Sharon Meigs
Prince George's County
9400 Peppercorn Place, Suite 600
Landover, Maryland 20785
Levels of Participation
The purpose of the Adopt-A-Stream Program is to satisfy the NPDES Permit
requirements of public outreach, enforcement and monitoring. This program is promoted through
public involvement, stewardship and awareness to two targeted groups, a Phase I group and a
Phase II group. The Phase I group includes schools, Girls and Boy Scouts, community
organizations, homeowners associations and environmental organizations. While the Phase II
group includes businesses, colleges and universities and seniors.
Structure of Stream Teams
The stream teams consist of three levels of participants who agree to a one-year
commitment to adopt any stream. These three levels include stream reporters, stream activists
and stream monitors. The stream reporters, who are given minimal training, conduct stream
walks where they observe physical, biological and pollution conditions as well as storm drain
outfalls. Stream activists participate in tree plantings, stream clean-ups, storm drain stencilings
and public education. Lastly, the stream monitors are responsible for conducting
macroinvertebrate sampling and for assessing the quality of the stream's habitat.
Relationship to Riparian Forests '
Stream reporters observe the forest cover/canopy, forest buffers and stream bank
vegetation. The stream activists conduct stream tree planting, reforestation projects and
education of riparian forest buffers. Stream monitors perform habitat assessments which includes
an evaluation of the bank vegetation, riparian zone width and lastly bank stability.
Assessment of the Program
The program has held five introductory workshops and two biological workshops that
have trained 169 people. Thus far twenty-three streams and two ponds have been adopted.
Volunteers have collected data for three stream walks, distributed 5,000 brochures and 200
posters, stenciled eighty-eight storm drains, identified six pollution problems and sponsored one
stream clean-up.
68
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers: Restoring and Managing a Vital Chesapeake Resource
• . »
Richard D. Norling
Deer Creek Farm
P.O. Box 5850
u Darlington, Maryland 21031 -5850
First I should mention that I am a new landowner with a background in both small business and
government, and a commitment to the environment. You will have to judge whether I am typical of other new
purchases of land in sensitive areas.
When I make a major purchase, as a businessman 1 conduct a review to assess the conditions of
resources and identify problems that need immediate or long-term attention. Among the things I found when I
reviewed my newly-purchased horse farm were a small amount of gullying from soil erosion during storm
runoff, and a need to improve streambank stabilization.
About 20 acres of my farm is low land located along the bank of Deer Creek, and about half of that
area was flooded when Deer Creek overflowed its banks a few months after I purchased the farm. 1 saw that
unvegetated areas, which included a horse training track, experienced gullying during the flooding (the track is
now being removed and replaced by a grassed gallop). But my principal concern was that the stand of trees
along the creek bank was in some spots just a single line of trees - not enough, in my opinion, to hold the bank
together during high water and prevent my field from being carried downstream. I really hate to spend a lot of
money buying something, just to have it wash away. So I decided to plant some more trees in the barest areas
along the creek.
The Soil Conservation Service referred me to State Forester Michael J. Huneke, who when I told him I
wanted to plant a few trees, asked "How many acres?" He educated me in the environmental benefits of
riparian buffers, and my plans enlarged in scale from maybe 30 trees to 1,050 trees covering 2.6 acres. We
planted 300 each of sycamore, green ash and black walnut, plus 150.dogwoods, with 12' X 12' spacing on the
landward side of the trees already along the creek bank.
The planting was done by myself and two helpers over a period of about three weeks. Because the
seedlings that arrived from the state nursery had fairly good root systems, 1 decided to do the extra work and
plant them in holes dug with shovels. We mowed between the trees quite regularly during the summer, and 1
am very pleased with the survival rate. A few of the green ash will need to be replaced next spring, but the
sycamores and black walnuts have done very well. Some of the sycamores are already more than three feet tall!
Lessons learned:
• Planting the hard way using shovels is worth it because of the higher survival rate.
• Get all the clearing of brush, etc., done before the seedlings arrive.
• Do the regular mowing - it really pays off.
• Those little plastic tree flags on wires are nice, but they are no way tall enough to help you
locate tree seedlings in waist-high weeds.
This project would have been just a few trees and would not have happened on such a large scale without
the following help:
Advice, encouragement and preparation of Forest Stewardship Plan by the Maryland Forest,
Park and Wildlife Service, DNR.
• ' Tree seedlings available at reasonable price from Buckingham Forest Tree Nursery.
• Cost-sharing from SIP and Green Shores programs.
69
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers: Restoring and Managing a Vital Chesapeake Resource
Johnston N. Hegeman
P.O. Box 246
Churchville, Maryland 21028
THE SETTING
The farm size and location, the watersheds involved and the stream affected (Tobacco Run) was stated.
THE PROJECT
The description of the project included a discussion of the acreage, tree species, tree planting, planting
protection, pronounced stream meandering, fencing considerations and herbicide sprays. The presentation
also covered the assistance provided by high school students, the SIP Program, project cost breakdown,
MACS and Green Shores support and DNR Forestry Division support.
MOTIVATION
The motivation for this project came from a need to explore crop farming vs. grass farming. As well as;
livestock expansion, cattle water quality in a developing watershed, wildlife habitat, promoting community
involvement, demonstration projects and aesthetics.
RESULTS
After six months, the site experienced a late spring drought. The presentation also covered herbicide
effectiveness, deterioration of "flags" and species survival in a physically rough environment.
LESSONS LEARNED
If this project was to be repeated the following is a list of things that would be done differently: species
selection, vegetation competition, better markets, mid-summer herbicide application, different herbicides
(Rodeo and/or pre-emerge, e.g. Surflan), vegetation removal by weed eater, tree shelters and additional costs
affecting the attractiveness of the programs to farmers.
70
-------
FACILITATED DISCUSSION GROUPS
OF THE
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS CONFERENCE
Although it was nearly the last session of the conference, the results of the discussion
groups could be, and have been, described as one of the most significant outcomes. It is
extremely important to capture and share the ideas, concerns and questions that people have
about riparian forest buffers and their use. This information could potentially impact formulation
of a watershed-wide policy to implement riparian forest buffers for protecting water quality and
other environmental values in the region.
People came to the conference to learn, to teach and to share information, insights and
perspectives. The Discussion Group sessions were conducted as a forum to allow people to react
to what they had heard during the program and as an opportunity to provide advice and guidance
to policy-makers about "Defining a Riparian Forest Buffer Policy/Program thai Works." The
forum had two objectives: The first was to gather ideas, feedback and input that people from
diverse interest groups have on the issues after hearing about the scientific, social and economic
aspects of riparian forest buffer management and restoration. The second objective was to then
encapsulate or coalesce those thoughts and questions so that they may be used as a basis for
developing a riparian forest buffer policy that reflects sound science, attention to social needs and
economic realities.
The approach of the session was to provide four facilitated discussion groups that
represented different land uses, and thus, differing perspectives and interests. The groups
included an urban land use group, suburban land use group, agriculture land use group, and
forestry land use group. Participants attended the discussion group of their choice for the entire
session or were free to circulate. Each group was asked to respond to three prepared questions
and to develop several questions on what the participants believe are the biggest barriers, most
troubling issues or greatest opportunities related to riparian forest buffers. The questions
generated by each group were then presented to a closing panel for discussion in the final plenary
session of the conference. The three questions presented to each group were:
1. Which elements do you feel are necessary for a successful riparian forest buffer
policy/program on agricultural (or urban, suburban or forested) land?
2. What do you think are the most important barriers or issues which presently inhibit the
implementation of riparian forest buffers in your area?
3. What existing or innovative approaches do you feel offer the best models for consideration
in developing a riparian forest buffer program or policy?
Below are the responses by each group and follow-up questions the participants posed to
the closing panel. Each group will be treated separately to provide continuity of the perspectives
and advice that emerged.
71
-------
URBAN RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS
.- ••
1. Elements of a Successful Program
This session focused on generating ideas for using and improving riparian forest buffers in
urban areas. The many suggestions centered around two basic themes: clarity and community.
Defining the project, its goals and expectations are seen as important elements in a successful
urban forest buffer program/policy. Planning appropriately for the urban environment is a key
element that ties the theme of being clear about what is trying to be accomplished and the
necessary limitations placed on the project by it being located in an urban landscape with a dense
human population. Investment and ownership in the program/policy by the community was the
other strong theme that emerged from this discussion. Planning the project using a "bottom-up"
approach, ensuring that the project meets community as well as environmental needs, using a
local, grassroots organizations to help plan/oversee/monitor the project site, and ensuring that
monitoring efforts include social, economic and environmental health aspects are examples of the
needs expressed in the forum. The group felt strongly that community involvement, education,
and ownership of the program will help ensure its success.
2. Important Barriers or Issues
The discussion focused on the need for education, both inside and outside the urban area,
to reinforce the importance of the riparian forest buffer to the health of the entire ecosystem. Not
only does .the immediate community need to understand the functions and importance of buffers,
but populations that are removed from urban areas also need to know how the quality of streams
in cities affect the quality of their lives in rural areas. Agencies need to learn the importance of
taking an ecosystem perspective on environmental issues, as opposed to a narrow view of the
environment. The public needs to learn how the "mow/manicure" philosophy harms riparian
areas, and the country as a whole needs to understand that despite the problems inherent in inner
city areas, they still merit consideration and effort for planning riparian forest buffer projects.
Governments need to learn to work with their constituencies, regardless of how large or
impermanent they may be. Lack of physical space and Jhe abundance of cement in cities was also
mentioned as a barrier to successful riparian forest buffer projects.
3. Existing or Innovative Approaches that Serve as Models
In this discussion, several specific school and community groups were mentioned by name.
The group's discussion simply reinforced the idea presented earlier that community involvement
and ownership is critical to establishing successful, functioning riparian forest buffers in urban
areas. Watershed associations, forest stewardship programs, Adopt-a-Stream programs, and
using local students to help plant and/or monitor projects are all examples that indicate the need
for the community to feel that they are a part of the project and that the quality of the
environment around their home is, to some degree, within their control. Dealing with urban
forests as "green infrastructure" was also suggested as an approach.
72
-------
4. Questions
Finally, four questions were raised to be presented to the closing panel of the conference.
They are: '
1. Three-fourths of the population (and the voting public) live in cities. How do we get our
policy makers and the general public to understand the vital link between improving the
livability of our cities and the protection of our rural natural resources?
2. How can we orchestrate a basic change in the way government works to allow a bottom-
up process to occur in order to hear, understand and act on community needs while
meeting environmental objectives?
3. How do we facilitate government agencies to "work together" to avoid conflicting
objectives and bureaucracy, and to share resources?
4. How do we integrate science and technology (high- and low-tech) into the implementation
of projects in urban areas?
SUBURBAN RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS
1. Elements of a Successful Program
Several themes emerged as elements the group believe are important for a successful
riparian forest buffer program. The themes are: a need to define objectives, plan thoroughly.
educate people, regulation may be necessary, and monitoring and enforcement are essential.
Participants emphasized a need to set policy/program priorities and objectives at the
outset. This requires looking at the full range of benefits protected with forest buffers, not just
stream water quality. Setting priorities will help us determine what we want to achieve and to be
more specific about where efforts should be applied. A policy can not be expected to be good for
all locations and it is more efficient in terms of time and money to set priorities. Also, alternatives
to forest buffers should be explored to achieve water quality and any policy/program should allow
for innovative approaches to the use of buffers or alternatives.
Planning was identified repeatedly in the discussion as a way to map the future and to
avoid conflict and failure of the program/policy. Public participation early in the process by all
interested parties was identified as a key component to success. It is critical to obtain
understanding and support from local governments and citizen interest groups. Another
component of planning is to identify or inventory the resource to use as a guide to actions and
future policy. An inventory will help us ,to consider what scale is meaningful and feasible, both
ecologically and economically. Also, it is important to locate the resource and plan development
73
-------
accordingly so that development impacts are minimized.
j- f
Education is seen as a primary component for program/policy success. People must be
informed about the public and private benefits that are protected by forest buffers, what the values
are and why they matter. Education must be extended in a broad and understandable way.
Regulation may be the most effective means of ensuring participation. If regulation is the
approach taken, several elements should be kept in mind. First, be mindful that the policy must be
legally defendable as it will probably be challenged over time. Second, regulators need to make
sure that the policy is flexible, so that it can adapt to knowledge-base changes, but can remain
consistent over the long term. Many people are concerned that regulations change so frequently
that compliance suffers and enforcement becomes difficult. Third, the language must be clear to
avoid loopholes, define allowable and restricted uses, and assure perpetuity.
Lastly, monitoring and enforcement were seen as integral components in program
success. People recommended that language and mechanisms be specifically written into the
policy to ensure their inclusion. Many times these factors are the weak links in an environmental
protection strategy. Clear guidance needs to be giving for best management practices to be
applied on the ground and technical practices should be addressed.
2. Important Barriers or Issues
People who look at a forest buffer policy/program from a suburban perspective see
impacts on private landowners as the source of important issues. Two areas surfaced as potential
barriers to success: responsibility and liability placed on private landowners, and political
and institutional difficulties.
People expressed concern about perceptions of property rights and the burdens that would
be placed on landowners. We must address fears people have about forest buffers. Landowners
have expressed concern about home security, uninvited public access, wildlife damage and
control, and their responsibilities for maintenance, invasion of exotic species, threatened or
endangered species, and their liability in inappropriate use by others. The group also felt that
encroachment on the buffer may be a problem. Landowners need to be aware of the buffer
location and size so that intentional or inadvertent removal does not become a problem. People
also need to see what a new buffer or restoration area will look like in the future so that alteration
does not occur because it is perceived as "ugly."
Political realities and institutional issues were seen as serious barriers that could derail a
policy/program's success. Creating a policy that is flexible enough to meet local needs and be
applicable region-wide is seen as the biggest challenge and potential barrier. Additional issues
include the assurance of long-term protection, concern that there is little overlap with other
policies and concern about creating another layer of regulation intended to supersede existing
laws. Political palatability is perceived as a barrier to implementing a forest buffer policy that puts
ecological protection needs first. Cooperation on the part of the real estate and development
74
-------
community are also seen as barriers, to success. We must be cognizant of what is expected from
a program/policy: education and Acceptance of change is a slow process. Finally, the funding
needed to assure monitoring and implementation need to be addressed in policy formation.
3. Existing or Innovative Approaches that Serve as Models
Several existing programs and laws were mentioned as approaches to be modeled in
formation of a successful riparian forest buffer policy/program. Baltimore County uses the
concept of "use zones" in its community planning and development activities. The formation of
these zones and their definition could be useful in establishing "forest buffer zones" in residential
areas. The Revitalizing Baltimore Project has a "Neighborhood Stewardship Program" that
considers the dynamics of a local area to apply ecological restoration or land use change. The
Maryland Critical Areas and Forest Conservation Act were noted as existing policies that could be
used as models and reference to avoid policy overlap. The Virginia Ecological Quality Corridors
is a policy that is perceived to be close to the desired effects of a riparian forest buffer program.
4. Questions
The suburban land use group formed six questions to be addressed by the closing panel
and to be considered for the future.
1. Who is going to pay for this? A policy like this needs a bigger "carrot" not a bigger
"stick".
2. How can we avoid this becoming another program that is not integrated with existing
policy?
3. What will be the fate of a riparian forest buffer policy in the face of the upcoming
elections? Will it still be important?
4. How do we get the message out? How do we make the public aware?
5. How do we account for people's needs? Where do the regulations stop?
6. How do we convince future generations to keep forest buffers?
AGRICULTURAL RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS
1. Elements of a Successful Program
The agricultural land use group discussed a series of elements that also followed distinct
themes or categories. People who carry the perspective of the farming community see successful
forest buffer policy/program elements as those that are based on good science, make economic
sense, have flexibility, and are primarily voluntary vs. regulatory.
75
-------
Participants asserted that any policy/program that involves land management practices
needs to be based on good science. That is, it should be based on sound research, result from
interagency consensus that resolves technical issues and is consistent on issues of ecological
function and maintenance requirements. The knowledge needs to be accessible to the farmer and
should inform them about ecosystem restoration and the function of a buffer system.
A buffer policy will need to make economic sense to be successful. Farmers need
information on how buffers will impact costs, profits, and they need to have economic benefits
illustrated to them, if they exist. The ability to derive income from buffer areas would provide
incentive to establishment and maintenance. However, adequate funding for cost-sharing and
technical assistance would be important if costs were to exceed financial benefits over the long
haul.
A forest buffer policy will need to be flexible to be successful. It should not be a blanket
policy, but should be targeted to specific locations. It needs to be simple and considerate of
regional differences. It should recognize that "one size does not fit all", there should be specific
recommendations to specific landowners and developed through a comprehensive approach that
considers everything on the farm. N
The agricultural group believes that elements of a forest buffer policy need to be
primarily voluntary versus regulatory to be successful. Trust is a necessary element to be
successful and is frequently lost when policies become regulatory. It is important to attempt to
make innovative use of existing programs and statutes instead of creating new regulations.
Incentives work better than regulations and they should be tied to performance and sustainability.
Despite the above comments, at least one person said that a forest buffer policy/program needs to
be regulatory to work in the agriculture community.
2. Important Barriers or.Issues
Participants see potential barriers that focus on issues of fear, costs, trust and
cooperation, and technical aspects of forest buffers. People listed issues that reflect the
landowner's perspective and others expressed agency concerns in delivering the information
and technology to do the job right.
A central theme involved fears people have about the impacts of forest buffers on their
farms and livelihood. There is concern that forest buffers would result in loss of income is seen as
a significant barrier. For example, some farmers fear that weed encroachment from buffers will
impact production. A related fear was that compliance would mean a loss of future land use
options and public benefits such as wildlife benefits and aesthetics would be forced on them at the
expense of row-crop goals and other farm operation priorities. Lastly, a strong concern was
voiced about this program/policy leading to future regulations. The farming community also see
the perception of "takings" as a barrier to success with a policy/program.
Costs associated with implementing and.maintaining forest buffers were seen as issues to
»
76
-------
be addressed in the policy/program process. Many feel that there is already a lack of available
land to forego production on fores! buffers. The costs and time required to install buffers may be
seen as prohibitive and concern about maintenance responsibility was cited. The impacts on
assistance programs were perceived to be barriers. There was concern that a buffer policy could
change the "base acres" definition for commodity support programs and could also result in
additional fractionalization of agency technical assistance personnel time .
Trust and cooperation were named as issues that could become barriers in the.policy
process. The group felt that many farmers will point fingers stating that "it is not my problem"
and may not be willing to participate. People also stated that there is a general close-mindedness
that has led to both the public and the farming community to have a lack of trust for the other.
Some mentioned that there are inconsistencies between current programs that may cause
confusion and skepticism about "new" policies/programs. The current political climate and
general political attitudes of people in the farming community were described as presented as
possible barriers.
Participants named technical aspects and definitions as possible problems for a forest
buffer policy/program. People feel that there are mixed messages from various agencies on
riparian forest buffers and result from different interpretations of a limited science. The group
see some basic uncertainties about design, function and ecological implications that could become
issues for agriculture.
3. Existing or Innovative Approaches that Serve as Models
The agriculture group described a hypothetical approach as a model instead of looking to
specific programs or policies that currently exist. The model program was described as one that is
a voluntary, comprehensive (whole-farm) approach that operates with multiple goals or stages to
implementation, is flexible and site-specific considerations for practice are allowable. The policy
would be formed by consensus about the problem and priorities for implementation and has good
community support that involved all stakeholders in the decision-making process. The policy
would be based on good science, be tied to a thorough resource inventory and target specific
areas and flexible practices to meet buffer needs. There would be compensation provided to
landowners for loss of crop production, market support would be developed for products that
come off buffer areas and a system of graduated incentives based on effectiveness of the buffer
area would be instituted. This would involve cooperation from a coordinated federal and state
agency partnership. The education approach would use case studies, demonstrations and .
testimonials to promote the practices. Agencies would monitor effectiveness and provide
technical and financial assistance.
4. Questions
The agriculture land use group developed eight questions to be addressed by the closing
panel and considered in the formation process of a forest buffer policy.
77
-------
1. How will economic issues such as compensation and cost-sharing be addressed in a
riparian management policy?
2. In order to be accepted voluntarily, it must be: feasible, practical (usable), economical
(time, talent, money), safe, legal, moral, politically acceptable, and culturally acceptable.
3. Do riparian forest buffers meet these criterion in agriculture areas?
4. How do we set goals and standards that are flexible and also address fairness to all?
5. How can the agricultural community get trust and cooperation?
6. How can we be creative in providing adequate resources to implement these programs,
including technical assistance and capital?
7. How do agencies prioritize efforts? Where do we apply our practices and technical
assistance?
8. How do we develop effective watershed management teams with longevity? Should we
develop formal interdisciplinary teams?
FORESTRY AND RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS
1. Elements of a Successful Program
The theme of the discussion from the forestry land use group was balance. There were
people who advocated strict regulatory controls of buffers on'silvicultural land, and conversely,
others wanted to avoid "burdensome regulation". Some people believe that timber harvests
should not be totally excluded from buffer areas, but harvesting should not be allowed in all
buffers, either. The group felt that cost-sharing. Memoranda of Understandings for interagency
cooperation, tax incentives, and long-term stable funding would all contribute to a successful
buffer program. Ecosystem, particularly native species, protection was thought to be a primary
function of forest buffers: However, we need to consider other benefits derived from these areas,
including economic. Basing buffer policy on strong science, a commitment to long-term
monitoring, regular in-service training of agency personnel, mitigation easements, and
livestock exclusion were all mentioned as-elements that could ensure a successful program.
2. Important Barriers or Issues
Trust, lack of understanding or knowledge, and fear of change were the main themes discussed
during the segment on "Important Barriers or Issues". Some people have firm ideas about how
forest resources should be used, and there has been little communication in which to find common
ground. People are very divided about how forest resources should be managed, many people
distrust government, and competing forest uses appear to be mutually exclusive. There is also a
78
-------
lack of understanding about how and why riparian forest buffers work ecologically, and how these
functions can boused for a diversaarray of interests (agriculture was one interest mentioned
specifically). Economics also play a large part — timber harvest and subsequent development is
more lucrative in the short-term than preserving trees for vague, distant environmental interests.
Government mandates go unfunded, programs are not integrated and not coordinated, and
property rights advocates are a vocal group. Finally, the lack of ability to view environmental
issues from a watershed perspective was reiterated.
3. Existing or Innovative Approaches that Serve as Models
A model of policy development carried themes of strength and control. The group
suggested that "bad actors" be recognized, regulations protecting Streamside Management Zones
be implemented, and development growth be managed. Others suggested the implementation of a
tributary strategy, and the general use of "adaptive management" techniques. Zoning should be
1 for resource management as well as for development, and clear communication of why these
measures are important is crucial. There was also a community involvement and education
component that is needed to be successful. Using grass roots organizations to foster community
ownership, organizing volunteer programs "with teeth," and organizing field trips or canoe trips
were suggested as ways to get the public involved.
4. Questions
Three questions were raised from the group for submission to the panel at the close of the
conference. They are:
1. How can we get cooperative and coordinated implementation from the various federal,
state and local agencies?
/
2. What is the state of the science now? Where do we need to go?
3. How do we achieve consistent policy across all jurisdictional levels including Delaware,
West Virginia and New York?
79
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers Conference
Summary of Evaluations
Sixty evaluation forms were submitted at the end of the conference. The first few comments
listed were the most common responses for each question, and the rest are more specific comments
not widely received, listed here for interest/information. The evaluation forms themselves are on file
for reference.
What did you like the most about the workshop?
#1 POSITIVE COMMENT: Variety, diversity in both speakers and topics.
• Brought together the entire spectrum of the issues: regulators, farmers, private industry,
technical, policy, social/economic, etc.
• Presentations by landowners
• Case studies from different regions of the country
• Good exchange of ideas; free and open discussion
• Seeing program strengths/weaknesses
• Examples of stream ecology and restoration
• Final sessions that pulled information together & discussed barriers
What did you like the least about the workshop?
• #1 NEGATIVE COMMENT: Too many sessions/feeling of missing something important
• #2 NEGATIVE COMMENT: "Program assumed that buffers are good and that everyone
agrees with that." Needed to include more who disagree with the benefits of riparian forest
buffers, especially more landowners & farmers; lots of comments about "preaching to the
choir"
• Rooms too crowded, difficult to see slides, uncomfortable, sitting too long
• Lunch speaker who talked about behavior
• Need to include/invite more teachers, high school & college students, suburbanites,
community associations
• "Locating the conference at Turf Valley, a resort -with a history of repeat wetlands violations
and a blatantly expressed desire to remove the Little Patuxent River's riparian area."
Were the handouts and other available materials helpful? If not, why not?
Yes. Everyone wants proceedings/summaries of the presentations.
• Wanted more technical information in handouts
• Want examples of model documents for many programs, or resources for getting them
• CBC legal information especially good on handouts
What did you think about how the workshop was organized? If you feel it was poorly
organized, how might it be improved?
VIRTUALLY UNANIMOUS COMMENT: Very well organized; stayed on time
• Good facilities
• Want afield trip, ideally to a restored buffer
80
-------
• Want more specific suggestions for change (i.e. technical suggestions)
Which speakers/topics did you find most useful or informative?
• , Landowners perspective
• Bio-engineering, tried-and-true public education methods
• Transforming science into policy, PA Stream Fencing, Rip easements & stream protection
• Topics that stressed need to communicate one-on-one & importance of being out in the field,
looking at the land
• Suburban Land use group
• workgroup sessions
• The Ag perspective & how riparian buffers can benefit the economics of a farm. Incentives
needed by farmers to put in forested buffers.
• "Soil! (I love soil!) actual technical discussions of plant/soil types — what really works"
• Social and individual dynamics
• Effects of buffers on wildlife
• Practical speakers w/field knowledge
MOST USEFUL OR INFORMATIVE SPEAKERS: Speakers mentioned by name
Most frequently mentioned Frequently mentioned
Bern Sweeney Rich Everett
Neil Sampson Jeff Horan
Richard Lowrance John Lipman
Kathy Smith Tom Makowski
AndyDolloff Rocky Powell
Louis Licht Tom Schueler
Laura Tessier
Len Wrabel
Can you think of any speakers/topics that should have been included but were not?
• More hard science on the actual design and establishment of buffers: species selection,
planting distance, protection from erosion, grazing, and other -wildlife threats, stream
dynamics, impact ofmacrofauna and exotics, etc.
• Include Cooperative extension service; SCS, ASCS, MDA, MDE staff to explain how their
organizations deal with putting in a- buffer (people who help implement this on the ground)
• More landowners, including suburbanites with 5-40 acres of land unfarmed, non-profit and
citizen's groups, especially urban citizen activists
• Development community and county level supervisors
• "Trout streams for the first time in 100 years are getting cooler as streamside tree canopies
close and more of the stream is shaded."
• Role of storm water mgmt today
• MD National Capitol Park & Planning Commission
• Stream Valley Park acquisitions & management
• Living resource considerations, total watershed considerations
81
-------
• Knowing the audience (s) & market strategies to reach them
• Multi-objective buffer projects
• More local BMP case studies
• Economist to address economic issues related to buffer establishment
Is there anything else you would like the conference organizers to know?
# 1 COMMENT HERE: Great job!
• Wanted to hear more from landowners and farmers, particularly those that 1) disagree with
the value of buffers, or 2) implement them on the ground.
• Invite more media next time to raise public's awareness of the issue
• Want participants' list w/contact numbers; mailing list or even a newsletter
• Dinner option w/groupfor those from out-of-town who don't know anyone
The following additional comments are in no particular order:
• "Environmental protection & preservation of the future is more essential than economic
greed and "property rights'."
• "What is the possibility of creating the riparian buffer program by integrating a policy into
existing regulation rather than all new regulations and allowing a buffer program to
become a means of coordinating goals of all the other programs? "
• "Create a registry of community organization contact persons at high schools, colleges,
maybe some sort of E-mail or Bulletin Board to facilitate networking."
• "What about using the recreational fishing public for establishing riparian forest buffers?
Using license fees, adopting streams & rivers, etc."
• "Follow-up and keep all conference attendees informed of Forestry Workgroup progress."
• "Hold another conference in 2-3 years J "
• "Come up and do a workshop for the Delaware Bay estuary!"
• "CBC should have researched the effectiveness of existing programs. The- exemptions
associated with various laws should have acres/feet lost so people could use on a local or
county level."
• "ACB does great work with conferences."
• "You set the stage in plenary, then you break out in sessions to develop consensus — but if
you wait till 2:30 the final day, you've lost a lot of people for that consensus. I don't know
haw to solve this."
• "You all did a great job. When's the next one?"
• "We should have done a lunch time reforestation along the stream valley of the Turf Valley
Country Club."
82
-------
FACT SHEET
Riparian Forest Buffers
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
I Background I
When colonists first
arrived on the shores of
the Chesapeake Bay,
over 95% of the
landscape was forested. Captain John Smith
wrote in 1608, "the country is overgrown with
trees...and affords little grass but that which
grows in the marshes". This vast forest was an
important regulator of the Bay's environment - a
"living filter" which protected the land, filtered
pollutants and sediment from rainfall, regulated
stream and air temperatures, controlled runoff
and provided wildlife habitat.
The last 300 years have brought dramatic
changes to the Bay's
forests. By the mid-
1800's, agricultural
clearing, deforestation and
the growth of cities
resulted in the removal of
more than 50% of the
watershed's forests.
These changes in land use
resulted in a fragmented forest landscape that
What is a riparian area?
Riparian refers to the area of land
adjacent to a body of water, stream,
river, marsh or shoreline. Riparian
areas form the transition between the
aquatic and the terrestrial environment.
impacted the Bay, its streams and rivers, as well
as its wildlife and fish. While many forests have
returned or have been replanted, less than 60%
of our original forested areas remain.,With 14
million people living in the Bay's watershed,
urban growth now results in the permanent loss
of almost 100 acres of forests every day.
Linking the landscape to the Bay, close to
100,000 miles of interconnected streams, rivers,
wetlands and their riparian areas serve as a
"circulatory system" for the Chesapeake Bay. In
the Bay region, forests are the natural riparian
vegetation. Although comprising only 5-10% of
the land in the watershed, riparian areas have an
extremely important role in
maintaining the health of
the Bay. But today, 50%
or more of these streamside
and shoreline forests are
disturbed or degraded and.
more continue to be lost
Protecting and replanting
riparian forests is one of
the goals of the Bay restoration effort.
-------
[Functions and Values -f
Riparian forests are
integral to the health
of the Bay and its
rivers for many
reasons. Their position in the landscape makes them excellent
buffers between upland areas and waters that eventually enter
the Bay. Studies have shown dramatic reductions of 30% to
98% in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), sediment,
pesticides and other pollutants in surface and ground water
after passing through a riparian forest. In addition, trees
provide deep root systems which hold soil in place, thereby
stabilizing streambanks and reducing erosion.
Cool stream temperatures maintained by riparian vegetation are
essential to the health of aquatic species. Shading moderates
water temperatures and protects against rapid fluctuations that
can harm stream health and reduce fish spawning and survival.
Elevated water temperatures also accelerate algae growth and
reduce dissolved oxygen, further degrading water quality. In
a small stream, temperatures may rise 1.5 degrees in just 100
feet of exposure without trees.
Riparian forests offer a tremendous diversity of habitat.
Layers of habitat provided by trees, shrubs, grasses and the
transition of habitats from.aquatic to upland makes these areas
critical in the life stages of over one-half of all native Bay
species. Forest corridors provide crucial migratory habitat for
neotropical songbirds, some of which are threatened due to loss
of habitat. Also, many ecologically important species such as
herons, wood ducks, black ducks, as well as amphibians,
turtles, foxes and eagles utilize the riparian forest.
Riparian forests also offer many benefits to migratory fish.
Forested streams and rivers provide suitable spawning habitat for
shad, herring,'alewife, perch and striped bass. The decline of
these species is partly due to destruction of habitat, which for
some, like shad and herring, extends well into small streams.
Trees and woody debris provide valuable cover for crabs, small
fish and other aquatic organisms along the Bay's shoreline, as
well. Degradation of any portion of a stream can have profound
effects on living resources downstream. While the overall impact
of these riparian forest corridors may be greatest in headwater
streams, there is a clear linkage all the way to the Bay.
The Benefits of
Riparian forests
1. Filtering Runoff
Rain that runs off the land can be
stowed and filtered in the forest -
settling out sediment, nutrients and
pesticides before they reach streams.
Infiltration rates 10-15 times higher
than grass turf and 40 tones higher
than a plowed field are common.
2* Nutrient Uptake
Fertilizers and other pollutants that
originate on the land are taken up by
tree roots. Nutrients are stored in
leaves* limbs and roots instead of
reaching the stream. Through a , ,
process called "demtrification", ,
bacteria in the forest floor convert
harmful nitrate to nitrogen gas,
which is released into the air.
3. Canopy and Shade
The leaf canopy provides shade that
keeps the water cool, retains more
dissolved oxygen and encourages the
.growth of diatoms, nutritious algae
and aquatic insects. The canopy
improves air quality by filtering dust
from wind erosion, construction or.
farm machinery,
4. Leaf Food
Leaves fall into a stream and are
(rapped on woody debris (fallen trees
and limbs) and rocks where they
provide food and habitat for small
bottom dwelling creatures (such as,
insects, amphibians, crustaceans and
smalt fish) which are critical to the
aquatic food chain.
5. Stream and Habitat
Streams that travel through
woodlands provide more habitat for
fish and wildlife. Woody debris "
serves as cover for fish while
stabilizing stream bottoms thereby
preserving habitat over time.
-------
I The Forest Buffer Concept I
1
The concept behind a riparian buffer is to put
the natural benefits and functions of riparian
areas to work in rionpoint pollution control.
When considering the range of benefits and
potential effectiveness, forests are the most
effective type of riparian buffer available.
These linear strips of forest can serve as the last
line of defense from the activities we undertake
in managing the land, such as agriculture,
grazing and urban development. Unlike most
best management practices, the high value of
forests to wildlife and fish, helps buffers
accomplish habitat benefits at the same time
they improve water quality.
A three-zone buffer concept is proposed to
assist technical professionals and landowners
with planning and design of riparian forest
buffers. It provides a framework in which
water quality, habitat, and landowner objectives
can all be accomplished.
ZONE 1 - A mature forest along the water's
edge maintains habitat, food, water temperature
and helps stabilize stream banks and remove
nutrients.
Definition of a Riparian Forest Buffer:
According to the U.S. Forest Service,
a riparian forest buffer is an area of trees
and other vegetation which can intercept
surface runoff, subsurface flow and deeper
ground water flows for the purpose of
removing or buffering the effects of
nutrients, pesticides or other Chemicals
from upland land use, which coujd
otherwise enter bodies of water.
ZONE 2 - This zone contains a managed
forest. The primary function of Zone 2 is to
remove sediment, nutrients and other pollutants
from surface and ground water. It also
provides habitat and allows for economic
benefits to the landowner from the forest
resource.
ZONE 3 - Zone 3 contains grass filter strips,
level spreaders or other features which can slow
runoff, infiltrate water and help filter sediment
and its associated chemicals. >
Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
-------
•Programs Which Can Help I
Many state and federal agencies have initiated
programs to help protect and restore riparian
forest buffers. USDA Programs such as the
Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland
Reserve Program, Forest Stewardship Program, as well as numerous agricultural conservation
practices are designed to provide technical and financial assistance to landowners who want to
protect or restore this resource. In developed areas, zoning, land use and stormwater provisions
may provide opportunities for greater tise of riparian forest buffers. Volunteer assistance with
design and planting can be obtained. In some states, easements and tax incentives may be used
to protect and restore buffers on private land, A Buffer Incentive Program in Maryland makes
a per acre payment to landowners, Call your local forestry, soil conservation, farm service or
local planning office for more information about programs that are available in your area.
Chesapeake Bay Program Riparian Buffer Initiatives
The Chesapeake Bay Program has initiated a number of actions to promote better understanding
and appreciation for the value of riparian forests and to encourage their protection and restoration.
Building a scientific foundation, the Bay Program published a scientific synthesis which defines
the water quality function of buffers in the watershed. The Nutrient Subcommittee and its
Forestry Work Group have also initiated research and established demonstration projects. In
addition, an inventory of the status.ai«l condition of riparian buffers throughout the six state
watershed is underway. In partnership with each of the states, the Bay Program is developing a
handbook for the design and establishment and the initiation of training programs for technical
specialists, landowners and mangers and local governments. Protecting buffers and stream
corridors where they exist and planting in disturbed riparian areas are significant elements of a
Baywide strategy to reduce nutrients - the Tributary Strategies,
In October 1994, the Executive Council of the Chesapeake Bay Program signed a Riparian Forest
Buffer Directive, which recognized the need for greater riparian forest buffer protection and
restoration. With the help of^citi^is^jteuidowii^rs andI otherjttakehplders, an expert panel of
scientists and managers will set future goals and develop a basinwide policy to enhance existing
programs which protect, maintain and restore riparian forest buffers. Combined with habitat
restoration strategies, this multi-faceted program will help improve riparian management and the
health of our streams and rivers and the Chesapeake Bay itself.
For more information contact:
The Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Ave, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 267-5700
1- (800) YOUR-BAY
-------
VEGETATED STREAM RIPARIAN ZONES: THEIR EFFECTS ON
i
STREAM NUTRIENTS, SEDIMENTS, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
An Annotated and Indexed Bibliography
by David L. Correll
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
Edgewater, Maryland, USA 21037-0028
Third Edition
April, 1994
-------
INTRODUCTION
The goal of this document is to comprehensively cite and subject index the World
literature on vegetated stream riparian zone water quality effects. Each citation, with the
exception of student theses, has been obtained, studied for content, and cross-indexed for other
relevant citations. Only publications which were readily obtained through a research library
system were included. Publications on tidally-influenced wetlands and exclusively lake riparian
zones were excluded.
In order to make this goal tenable I have established somewhat arbitrary, but fairly rigid
boundaries for relevant subject matter. Studies of all types of vegetation were included; forest,
grass, herbaceous. Relevant studies include influences on water quality of inputs of surface
and groundwater from the uplands and interactive effects among the water in the channel, the
hyporheic zone, and the floodplain. Water quality includes concentrations of nutrients,
suspended sediments, dissolved and particulate organic matter, pH, metals, and pesticides of
all types. Studies of large woody debris are specifically excluded. Also excluded are studies
of the application of municipal sewage and rndustrial/mining effluent to riparian zones.
However, studies were included of effects on agricultural waste waters and a limited number
of studies, on urban or suburban drainage waters. I have excluded riparian vegetation habitat
effects, both terrestrial and aquatic, and in-stream processes such as productivity, nutrient
cycling/spiraling, water temperature, channel morphology. I have also excluded the many
studies of water quality transformations by stream bed sediments in which only shallow depths
were measured and no inferences of riparian zone effects were evident.
All citations except for those of student theses have brief annotations to help identify
the aspects of these studies which are particularly relevant. They are also coded for subject
matter as listed below.
I. Document Type
D = Contains New Research Data
M = Management Oriented
R = Review of Relevant Publications
II. Vegetation Type in Riparian Zone
F = Forest
G = Grass
H = Herbaceous
III. Stream Order, e.g. 1st order, 2nd order
-------
IV. Hydrologic Parameters
GW = Groundwater
HZ = Hyporheic Zone Interactions
OF = Overland Storm Flows
TS = Hydrologic Tracers Utilized
. V. Geology of Study Site
CP = Coastal Plain Province.
PT = Piedmont Province
MT = Mountain Provinces
VI. Water Quality Parameters
Al = Aluminum
Ca = Calcium
DAM = Dissolved Ammonium
DOM = Dissolved Organic Matter
DPP = Dissolved Phosphate Phosphorus
DTKN = Dissolved Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
DTP = Dissolved Total Phosphorus
Fe = Iron
HERB = Herbicides
INS = Insecticides
K = Potassium
Mg = Magnesium
Mn = Manganese
Na = Sodium
NIT = Nitrate & Nitrite
PAM = Particulate Ammonium
pH = pH
POM = Particulate Organic Matter
PPP = Particulate Phosphate Phosphorus
PTN = Particulate Total Nitrogen
FTP = Particulate Total Phosphorus
PTKN = Particulate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TN = Total Nitrogen
TP = Total Phosphorus
TrM = Trace Metals
TSS = Total Suspended Sediments
VII. Riparian Processes
BioStor = Storage in Biomass of Riparian Zone
Denit-F = Denitrification Measurements in the Field
-------
Denit-L = Denrtrification or Denitrification Potential Measurements in the
Laboratory
Nitrif = Nitrification Measurements
ET = Evapotranspiration in Riparian Zone
Flux = Flux Rates Measured Through Riparian Zone
Infil = Infiltration in Riparian Zone
MBal = Mass Balance of Movement Through Riparian Zone
NutCyc = Special Effects of Nutrient Cycling Within Riparian Zone
SedTrap = Sediment Trapping Rates Within Riparian Zone
While these subject codes are not comprehensive, they cover most of the topics relevant
to this bibliography. A maximum of eight subject codes were assigned to each publication.
In some cases many more could have been selected so those that seemed the most important
were selected. •
The materials in this bibliography will be maintained in a bibliographic computer file,
which can be searched for individual or combinations of factors for special interests of users.
Obviously, it can also be updated periodically. I hope it will be a useful research and
management tool for everyone interested in this topic.
-------
Literature Cited
1. Alberts, E.E., W.H. Neibling, and W.C. Moldenhauer (1981) Transport of
sediment nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff through cornstalk residue
strips. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 45; 1177-1184. Used Rainfall
Simulator to Meaure Removal of Total Nitrogen and Available
Particulate Phosphate by Experimental Plots. Examined Particle Size
Effects and Used arFlume to Measure Overland Flow Volumes. D; OF; TN;
PPP
2. Altier, L.S., R.R. Lowrance, R.G. Williams, J.M. Sheridan, D.D. Bosch,
W.C. Hubbard, W.C. Mills, and D.L. Thomas (1994) An ecosystem model
for the management of riparian areas, pp. 373-387. in; Riparian
Ecosystems in the Humid U.S., Functions, Values and Management.,
(ed). Wash., D.C.: Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Districts. Description of a
Model Under Development for a Riparian Vegetative Buffer System.
Includes Hydrology,- Nutrient Dynamics, Nutrient Storage in Woody
Plant Biomass. Presents Results of Preliminary Hydrologic
Calibrations in a Georgia Coastal Plain Site. OF; GW; ET; BibStor;
Flux; NutCyc;' CP
3. Altthan, S.J. and R.R. Parizek (1994) Evaluation of nitrate removal from
groundwater in the riparian zone. pp. 277-290. in: Riparian .
Ecosystems in the Humid U.S., Functions, Values and Management.,
(ed). Wash., D.C.: Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Districts. Measured 3-
Dimensional Groundwater Flow Paths Based on Pressure Differentials of
Flows From Cropland Through a Forested Area to a Stream and Attempted
to Relate Nitrate Concentrations. D; F; MT; GW; NIT
4. Ambus, P. (1993) Control of denitrification enzyme activity in a
streamside soil. FEMS Microbial Ecol. 102; 225-234. Soil
Concentrations of Denitrification Enzymes and Potential
Denitrification Rates in Surface and Subsoils. D; H; NIT; 'Denit-L
5. Ambus, P. and S. Christensen (1993) Denitrification variability and
control in a riparian fen irrigated with agricultural drainage water.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 25; 915-923. Measured Denitrification Potential
and Nitrate Removal in a Fen Receiving Agricultural Drainage Waters.
D; NIT; DOM; Denit-L; G
6. Ambus, P. and R. Lowrance (1991) Comparison of denitrification in two
riparian soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55; 994-997. Vertical Profiles
of Potential Denitrification in Soils. D; F; 1st & 2nd Order; CP;
NIT; Denit-L
7. Anderson, N.H. and J.R. Sedell (1979) Detritus processing by
macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Ent. 24; 351-377.
A Broad Review of Stream Detritus Dynamics Including a Section on
Inputs From Forest. R
8. Asmussen, L.E., A.W. White, E.W. Hansen, and J.M. Sheridan (1977)
• Reduction in 2,4-D load in surface runoff down a grassed waterway. J.
Environk Qual. £; 159-162. Measured Transport of 2,4-D from Cropland
Through Grass Buffer. Used Rainfall Simulator. D; G; OF; HERB; CP
-------
9. Aubertin, G.M. and J.H. Patric (1974) Water quality after clear cutting
a small watershed in West Virginia. J. Environ. Qual. 3_; 243-249Y
Effects of Watershed Clearcutting, but Retaining a Forested Buffer.
D; F; 2nd Order; MT; GW; NIT; DPP
10. Baker, L.A. (1992) Introduction to nonpoint source pollution in the
United States and prospects for wetland use. Ecol. Engin. I; 1-26.
Review of Status of Nonpoint Source Pollution Nationally. Use of
Wetlands to Control Nonpoint Pollution. R; TSS; PTP; PTN; HERB;
SedTrap
11. Barfield, B.J., E.W. Tollner, and J.C. Hayes (1979) Filtration of
sediment by simulated vegetation I. Steady-state flow with
homogeneous sediment. .Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. 22(3); 540-545,
548. Engineering Model Results for Sediment Trapping in Grassed
Buffers. D; G; OF; TSS; SedTrap
12. Barker, J.C. and B.A. Young (1984) Evaluation of a Vegetative Filter
for Dairy Wastewater in Southern Appalachia. Raleigh, NC: Water
Resources Res! Inst. UNC, pp. 69 pp. A Grass Filter Strip was
Treated with Effluent from a Milking Center Settling Pond. Discharge
from the Filter Strip was Measured with a Flume and Automatic Sampler.
D; G; OF; NIT; DAM; PTKN; DOM; PTP
13. Barling, R.D. and I.D. Moore (1994) Role of buffer strips in management
of waterway pollution - a review/Environ. Manage. 18(4); 543-558. A
wide-ranging Review of vegetated buffer strips and their effects. R
14. Beadle, L.C. (1932) Scientific results of the Cambridge expedition to
east African lakes, 1930-1. IV. The waters of some east African lakes
in relation to their fauna and flora. J.- Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 38; 157- .
211. Measured Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the Chambura River
Channel Above and Below an Extensive Papyrus Swamp, Which the River
Flowed Through. D; H; TP . .
15. Beare, M.H., R.R. Lowrance, and J.L: Meyer (1994) Biotic regulation of
NO3 depletion in a Coastal Plain riparian forest: Experimental
approach and preliminary results, pp. 388-397. in; Riparian
Ecosystems in the Humid U.S., Functions, Values and Management.,
(ed). Wash., B.C.: Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Districts. Riparian Soil
Cores Were Studied for Microbial and Root Biomass, and
Denitrification Potentials. D; F; G; CP; NIT; BioStor; Denit-L
16. Benson, L.J. and R.G. Pearson (1993) Litter inputs to a tropical
Australian rainforest stream. Australian J. Ecol. 18 (4); 377-383.
Measured Vertical and lateral Litter Inputs to Stream Channel. D; F;
1st order; POM; PTP; PTKN
17. Bilby, R.E. (1988) Interactions between aquatic and terrestrial systems
pp. 13-29. in: Streamside Management: Riparian Wildlife and Forestry
Interactions. Contribution # 59, Institute of Forest Resources.,.. K.
Raedeke (ed) . Seattle: Univ. Washington. Overall Review of Forested
Riparian'Zone Interactions with Streams, Especially in the Pacific
Northwest of the United States R
-------
18. Bilby, R.E. and P.A. Bisson (1992) Allochthonous versus autochthonous
organic matter contributions to the trophic support of fish
populations in clear-cut and old-growth forested streams. Canad. J.
.Fish. Aquatic Sci. 49; 540-551. Compared Fish Production, and
Directly Measured Both Vertical and Horizontal Litter Inputs to the
Channel in Two Stream Segments with and without Riparian Forest. D;
F; POM
19. Bingham, S.C., P.W. Westerman, and M.R. Overcash (1980) Effect of grass
buffer zone length in reducing the pollution from land application
areas. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. 23 (2) ; 330-335, 342.- Measured
Effectiveness of Grass Buffer to Remove Nutrients From a Site Used
for Land Disposal of Poultry Manure. Did Not Examine Groundwater
Discharges. D; G; OF; TN; TP; POM; DOM; NIT
20. Bird, G.A. and N.K. Kaushik (1981) Coarse particulate organic matter in
streams, pp. 41-68. in:.Perspectives in Running Water Ecology., M.A.
Lock and D.D. Williams (eds). New York: Plenum. Review Which
Includes Studies of Litter Inputs from Forest to Stream Channels. R;
F; POM
21. Blackburn, W.M. and T. Petr (1979) Forest litter decomposition and
benthos in a mountain stream in Victoria, Australia. Arch. Hydrobiol.
86; 453-498. Directly Measured Forest Litter Inputs to Stream
Channel. D; F; MT; POM; TN . .
22. Blood, E.R. (1980.) Surface Water Hydrology and Biogeochemistry of the
Okefenokee Swamp Watershed. Ph. D. Thesis. Athens, GA: Univ. Georgia,
pp. 194 pp.
23. Boar, R.R., R.D. DeLaune, C.W. Lindau, and W.H. Patrick Jr. (1993)
Denitrification in Bottomland Hardwood Soils of the Cache River,
Arkansas. Technical Report WRP-CP-1. Washington, DC: U.S.. Army Corps
of Engineers, pp. 35 pp. Measured Denitrification in Floodplain
Forest Soils with N-15 Labeled Nitrate. D; F; DAM; NIT; POM; Denit-L;
Nitrif ^
24. Bormann, F.H., G.E. Likens, and J.S. Eaton (1969) Biotic regulation of
particulate and solution losses from a forest ecosystem. Bioscience
19; 600-610. Forested Watershed Completely Clear Cut and Herbicide
Used to Prevent Regrowth. Most complete report on losses of cations,
nutrients, sediments, aluminum, dissolved and particulate organic
matter, silicate. D; F; 1st order; MT; GW; TSS; POM; NIT
25. Bormann, F.H., G.E. Likens, D.W. Fisher, and R.S.. Pierce (1968)
Nutrient loss accelerated by clear-cutting of a forest ecosystem.
Science 159; 882-884. Forested Watershed was Completely Clear Cut
and Herbicide was used to Prevent Regrowth. D; F; 1st order; MT; GW;
" , NIT; Nitrif; MBAL
26. Bburg, A.C.M., D. Darmendrail, and J. Ricour (1989) Geochemical
filtration of riverbank and migration of heavy metals between the
Deule River and the Ansereuilles Alluvion--chalk aquifer (Nord,
France)'. Geoderma 44; 229-244. Measured Changes in Concentration of
Dissolved Constituents as Water Passed from, the River Channel Through
the Bank to Pumping Stations. D; GW; TrM; Mn; Fe
-------
27. Bowden, W.B. (1987) The biogeochemistry of nitrogen in freshwater
wetlands,- Biogeochemrstry 4(3) ; 313-348. A General Review of all
Types of Freshwater Wetlands. R; NutCyc
28. Bowden, W.B., W.H. McDowell, and C.E. Asbury (1992) Riparian nitrogen
dynamics in two geomorphologically distinct tropical rain forest
watersheds:nitrous oxide fluxes. Biogeochemistry 18(2) ,- 77-99.
Transects from Stream Bank to Uplands in two Puerto Rican Forested
Watersheds. Measured Potential Nitrification arid Potential
Denitrification in Vertical Soil Profiles. D; F; GW; MT; NIT; DAM;
Denit-L; Nitrif
29. Bren, L.J. (1993) Riparian zone, stream, and floodplain issues: a.
review. J. Hydrol. 150; 277-299. A Very Broad General Review. R
30. Briggs, S.V. and M.T. Maher (1983) Litter fall and leaf decomposition
in a river red gum (Eucalyptus camaidulensis) swamp. Aust. J. Bot. 33;
307-316. Directly Measured Vertical Litter Inputs to a Eucalyptus '
Swamp Forest. Also Measured Composition of the Litter. D; F; POM;
Ca; PTKN; PPP; Mg; K
31. Brinson, M.M. (1993) Changes in the functioning of wetlands along
environmental gradients. Wetlands 13 (2) ; 65-74. A Broad Review
Comparing the Functions of Various Types of Wetlands. R
32. Brinson, M.M., H.D. Bradshaw, and R.N. Holmes (1983) Significance of
floodplain sediments in nutrient exchange between a stream and its
floodplain. pp. 223-245. in; Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems., T.D.
Fontaine and S.M. Bartell (eds). Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science.
Monitored Dissolved Nitrogen and Phosphorus in River Channel,
Floodwaters over Floodplain, and in Floodplain Soil Pore Waters.
Also Conducted Experimental Nutrient Enrichments of Floodwaters with
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen and Phosphorus and Used N-15 and P-32
Isotopic Tracers. Inferred Nutrient Fluxes and Cycling. D; F; CP; •
NIT; DAM; DPP; NutCyc
33. Brinson, M.M., H.D. Bradshaw, and E.S. Kane (1984) Nutrient
assimilative capacity of an alluvial floodplain swamp. J. Appl. Ec'ol.
21(3) ; 1041-1057. Experimental Field Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Enrichment. Overall Nutrient Dynamics Measured. D; F; CP; DAM; NIT;
DPP; BioStor; NutCyc
34. Brown, G.W., A.R. Gahler, and R.B. Marston (1973) Nutrient losses after
clearcut logging and slash burning in the Oregon Coast Range. Water
Resources Res. £;. 1450-1453. Measured Nutrients and Sediments
Released From 3 Forested Watersheds for 2 Years Prior and 2 Years
After Clear Cutting One, Partially Cutting One, and Leaving One as a
Control. D; F; MT; NIT; TSS; K; DTP
35. Brunet, R.C., G. Pinay, F. Gazelle, and L. Rogues (1994) Role of the
floodplain and riparian zone in suspended matter and nitrogen
retention in the Adour River, south-west France. Regulated Rivers;
Research & Management. £); 55-63. Studied Changes in Particulate
Corfcentrations as Floodwaters Moved into Floodplain. Also Used
Sediment Traps. D; F; 7th order; TSS; PTN,-- NIT; DAM; Flux
-------
36. Buchanan,,D.B. (1982) Transport and Deposition of Sediment in Old Woman
Creek, Erie County, Oh-io. M.Sc. Thesis. Comumbus, OH: Ohio State"
Univ., pp. 198 pp.
37. Bunn, S.E. (1986) Origin and fate of organic matter in Australian
upland streams, pp. 277-291. in: Limnology of Australia., P.
Dedekker and W.D. Williams (eds). :. A Review of Sources, Processing,
and Fates of Organic Matter in Streams, Especially Australian Streams.
R
38. Cambell, I.C. and L. Fuchshuber (1994) Amount, composition and
seasonality of terrestrial litter accession to an Australian cool
temperate rainforest stream. Arch. Hydrobiol. 130 (4); 499-512.
Directly Measured Vertical Litter Inputs to a Stream Channel from a
Forested Watershed. D; F; POM; 2nd Order
39. Cambell, I.C., K.R. James, A. Devereaux, and B.T. Hart (1992)
Allochthonous coarse particulate organic material in forest and
pasture reaches of two south-eastern Australian streams. I. Litter
accession. Freshwater Biology 27; 341-352. Measured Vertical and
Lateral Litter Inputs to Stream Channels. D; F; G; POM; 3rd Order,•
4th Order \ •'
40. Carbiener, R. and M. Tremolieres (1990) The Rhine rift valley
groundwater-river interactions: Evolution of their susceptibility to
pollution. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management. 5_; 375-389. A
Review of 20 Years of Research .on Interactions Between the .Rhine
River Channel and its FloodPlain and Shallow Groundwaters. Includes
Data on Nutrients, Toxic Metals, and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. R;
TrM; INS
41. Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly (1994) Wetland and stream
buffer size requirements - A review. J. Environ.,Qual. 23; 878-882.
A General Review of the width of Buffer Required for Various
Functions.' R . ,
42. Chauyet, E. and H. Decamps (1989) Lateral interactions in a fluvial
landscape: the river Garonne, France. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 8(1)'; 9-
17. Review of the Geomorphology of the Garrone River in France and
the Role of the Riparian Forests in Buffering Nitrate in Groundwater
and Providing Particulate Organic Matter to the River. R; F; POM;
NIT
43. Chauvet, E. and A.M. Jean-Louis (1988) Production de litiere de la
ripisylve de la Garonne et apport au fleuve. Acta Oecologia,
Oecologia Generalis 9^; 265-279. Specifically Measured Timing and
Flux of Leaf Litter Inputs From Riparian Forests into Stream Channel.
D; F; POM; Flux
44. Chescheir, G.M., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs, and R.G. Broadhead (1991)
Nutrient and sediment removal in forested wetlands receiving pumped
agricultural drainage water. Wetlands 11; 87-103. Study of Natural
Forested'Buffers Receiving Agricultural Wastewater. D; F; CP; TSS;
TN;--TP; NIT
-------
45. Chescheir, G.M. , J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs, R.G. Broadhead, and R. Lea
(1987) The Hydrology and Pollution Removal Effectiveness of Wetland
Buffer Areas Receiving Pumped Agricultural Drainage Water. Water
Resources Res. Inst. Report Num. 231. Raleigh, NC: Univ. North
Carolina, pp. 170 pp. Measured and Modeled Effectiveness of Riparian
Forests for Removal of Suspended Sediments arid Nutrients from Pumped
Agricultural Drainage Waters. D; F; CP; OF; TN; TP; TSS; MBal
46. Chescheir, G.M., R.W. Skaggs, J.W. Gilliam, and R.G. Broadhead (1988)
Hydrology of wetland buffer areas for pumped agricultural drainage
water, pp. 260-274. in: The Ecology and Management of Wetlands., e.
t.a.l. D.D. Hook (ed). Portland, OR: Timber Press. Field Data and
Hydrologic Model Development for Pumped Agricultural Drainage Flow
Through a Forested Riparian Zone. D; F; CP; OF; GW; Tr
47. Chescheir, G.M., R.W. Skaggs, J.W. Gilliam, and R.G. Broadhead (1991)
Hydrology of two forested wetlands that receive pumped agricultural
• drainage water in eastern North Carolina. Wetlands 11 (1); 29-53. An
Engineering and Hydrologic Study of Two Forested Buffers Receiving
High Volumes of Pumped Agricultural Drainage Waters. The Same Sites
Were Also the Focus of Nutrient and Sediment Dynamic Studies. D; F;
TSS
48. Clairain Jr., F.J. and B.A. Kleiss (1989) Functions and values of
bottomland hardwood forests along the Cache River, Arkansas:
Implications for management, pp. 27-33. in: Forested Wetlands of the
Southern United States., D. Hook and R. Lea (eds). Orlando, FL: USDA
Forest Service, SE Exp. Sta. Outline of Plans for Input/Output Study
of a River Segment with Extensive Floodplain Forest. D; F; TSS
49. Clinnick, P.F. (1985) Buffer strip management in forest•operations: a
review. Australian Forestry 48; 34-45. A Review of the Use of
Riparian Buffers to Control Suspended Sediments. R
50. Congdon, R.A. (1979) Litter fall of the paperbark tree (Melaleuca
cuticularis) in the marshes of the Blackwood River Estuary, Western
Australia. Aust. J. Ecol. £; 411-417. Directly Measured Vertical
Litter Inputs and Analyzed Litter for Total N and P. D; F; POM; PTKN;
FTP
51. Conner, W.H. and J.W. Day (1976) Productivity and composition of a
baldcypress-water tupelo site and a bottomland hardwood site in a
Louisiana swamp. Am. J. Bot. 63; 1354-1364. Directly Measured
Vertical Litter Inputs from a Swamp Forest. D; CP; POM
52. Conners, M.E. and R.J. Naiman (1984) Particulate allochthonous inputs:
relationships with stream size in an undisturbed watershed. Canad. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41; 1473-1488. Unusually Complete Study of .Forest
. Inputs of Both Lateral and Vertical Particulate Organic Matter to a
Series of 4 Streams Ranging in Order from 1st to 6th. D; F; POM
53. Cooke, J.G. and A.B. Cooper (1988) Sources and sinks of nutrients in a
New Zealand catchment. III. Nitrogen. Hydrol. Proc. 2^; 135-149.
Movement of Nitrogen Fractions from a Completely Pastured, Watershed
into Stream Channel. D; G; 1st order; OF;. .GW; NIT; Denit-L; Nitrif
-------
54. Cooper, A.B. (1990) Nitrate depletion in the riparian zone and stream
channel of a small headwater catchment. Hydrobiologia 202(1-2; 13-26.
Nitrate Removal from Shallow Groundwater in a Grassed Riparian Zone
and Potential Denitrification Rates in the Soils. D; G; 1st order;
GW; NIT; Denit-L; MBal '
55. Cooper, A.B., J.E. Hewitt, and J.G. Cooke .(1987) Land use impacts on
stream water nitrogen and phosphorus. N. Z. J. Forest Sci. 17; 179-
192. Discharges were Measured from Three Adjacent Watersheds for 14
Years. One was Pasture the Whole Time, One was Native Podocarp/Mixed
Hardwood Forest the Whole Time, and One was Pasture Initially, then
Planted in Pine. D; F; G; TP; DPP; NIT; DAM; Flux
56. Cooper, A.B. and C.E. Thomsen (1988) Nitrogen and phosphorus in
streamwaters from adjacent pasture, pine and native forest catchments.
New Zealand J. Mar.' Freshwater Res. 22; 279-291. Comparison of
Nutrient Area Yields from Three Nested Watersheds in Three Different
Land Uses. D; F; G; TN; TP; NIT; DAM; DPP .
57. Cooper, J.R. (1985) Phosphorus and Sediment Redistribution from
Cultivated Fields in Riparian Areas. Ph.D. Thesis. Raleigh, NC. :
North Carolina State Univ.
58. Cooper, J.R. and J.W. Gilliam (1987) Phosphorus redistribution from
cultivated fields into riparian areas. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51; 1600-
1604. Long-term Evaluation of Phosphorus Trapping in Riparian
Forests by Means of Sediment Trapping. Used Cs-137 for Horizons. D;
F; CP; OF; PTP; PPP; SedTrap ,
59. Cooper, J.R;, J.W. Gilliam, R.B. Daniels, and W.P. Robarge (1987)
Riparian areas as filters for agricultural sediment. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 51(2); 416-420. Long-term Evaluation of Total Sediment
Trapping by Riparian Forest. Used Cs-137 Horizons. D; F; CP; OF;
SedTrap
60. Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, and T.C. Jacobs (1986) Riparian areas as a
control of nonpoint pollutants, pp. 166-192. in: Watershed Research
Perspectives., D.L. Correll (ed). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Press. Overview of Four Coastal Plain Watersheds and their Riparian
Forest Buffer Effects on Sediment, Phosphorus, and Nitrate Transport
from Agricultural Uplands. D; F; CP; OF; GW; NIT; SedTrap; PTP
61. Corbett, E.S., J.A. Lynch, and W.E. Sopper (1978) Timber harvesting
practices and water quality in the eastern United States. J. For.
76 (8) ; 484-4.88. Management Oriented Review of .Effects of Clear
Cutting Forested Watersheds and Effectiveness of Leaving a Buffer
Strip of Forest. M; R; F; TSS; NIT
62. Correll, D.L. (1983) N and P in soils and runoff of three coastal plain
land uses. pp. 207-224. in: Nutrient Cycling in Agricultural
Ecosystems., R. Lowrance, R. Todd, L. Assumssen and R. Leonard (eds)
Athens, GA: Univ. Georgia Press. Comparison of Nutrient Area Yields
of Three Adjacent Watersheds in Three Contrasting Land Uses. D; F; G;
CPf TN; TP; Flux; NTT
-------
63. Correll, D.L. (1991) Human impact on the functioning of• landscape
boundaries, pp. 90-109. in: The Role of Landscape Boundaries in 'the
Management and Restoration of Changing Environments., M.M. Holland,
P.G. Risser and R.J. Naiman (eds). New York: Chapman and Hall. Field
Chamber Measurements of Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Overview of Long-
Term Study, of One Riparian Forest.. D; F; 1st order; CP; GW; NIT;
Denit-F
64. Correll, D.L., N.M. Goff, andW.T. Peterjohn (1984) Ion balances
between precipitation inputs and Rhode River watershed discharges, pp.
77-111. in: Geological Aspects of Acid Depositon., O. Bricker (ed) .
Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science. .A Comparison of Three Small Adjacent
Watersheds with Uplands in Corn Production, Pasture, and Mature
Forest. All had Riparian Forests. All Major Ions and Dissolved.
Nutrients Measured. D; F; 1st order; CP; OF; GW; NIT; Flux
65. Correll, D.L., T.E. Jordan, and D.E. Weller (1992) Nutrient flux in a
landscape: Effects of coastal land use and terrestrial community
mosaic on .nutrient transport to coastal waters. Estuaries. 15; 431-
442. A Synthesis of Many Aspects of a Complex Landscape with a Focus
on the Role of Riparian Forests in Nutrient. Dynamics. R; F; CP; OF;
GW; NutCyc
66. Correll, D.L., T.E. Jordan, and D.E. Weller (1992) Cross media inputs
to eastern US watersheds and their significance, to estuarine water
quality. Water Science and Technol. -26(12); 2675-2683. A Synthesis
of Many Studies of Landscape Level Effects on Receiving Water Quality,
Including the Role of Riparian Forests. R; F; CP; OF; GW; HERB;
NutCyc
67. Correll, D.L., T.E. Jordan, and D.E. Weller (1994) Coastal riparian
forests: Their role in filtering agricultural drainage, pp. 67-7.2. in;
Altered, Artificial, and Managed Wetlands. Focus: Agriculture and
Forestry., J.A. Kusler and C. Lassonde (eds). : Assoc. State Wetland
Mngrs. A Review of the Buffering Effects of Riparian Forests in the
Coastal Plain. R; F; CP; OF; GW;. NIT; MBal; NutCyc
68. Correll, D.L., T.E. Jordan, and D.E. Weller (1994) Failure of
agricultural riparian buffers to protect surface waters from
groundwater contamination, p. in press, in: Groundwater-Surface Water
Ecotones. Lyon, France. July, 1993. UNESCO/MAB/IHP., J. Gibert
(ed). London: Cambridge Univ. Press. Measured Changes in
Groundwaters as They Moved Through Grassed and Forested Riparian
Zones from Agricultural Fields to a Stream Channel. Measured Eh and
Water Table Slopes. D; F; CP; GW; NIT; DTKN; DAM; pH
69. Correll, D.L., J.W. Pierce, and T.-L. Wu (1978) Herbicides and
submerged plants in Chesapeake Bay. pp. 858-877. in: Technical,
Environmental, Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone
Managment., (ed). New York: Amer. Soc. Civil Engin. Transport of
Agricultural Herbicides from Row Crops Through a Riparian Forest -into
a Stream. Changes in Partitioning Coefficients due to Coarse
Sediment Trapping in Forest. D; F; 1st order; CP; OF; HERB; Flux
-------
70. Correll, D.L., J.W. Pierce,- and T.L. Wu (1978) Studies of the transport
of atrazine and alachl'or from minimum till corn fields into
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters. Proc. Northeastern Weed Sci. Soc.
32(Sup); 21-32. Studies of the Transport of Agricultural Herbicides
from Row Crops Through a Riparian Forest into a Stream. .D; F; 1st
order; CP; OF; HERB; Flux
71. Correll, D.L. and.D.E. Weller (1989) Factors limiting processes in
freshwater wetlands: An agricultural primary stream riparian forest.
pp. 9-23. in: Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife., R.R. Sharitz and J.
W. Gibbons (eds). Oak Ridge: US Dept. Energy. Results from Several
Years of.Measuring Hydrologic Budgets, pH Effects, Nitrate Mass
Balances, Forest Nitrogen Storage in Biomass, for Cropland Drainages
Through a Riparian Forest. D; F; 1st order; CP; GW; TS; NIT; ET
72. Costello, C.J. (1989) Wetlands treatment of dairy animal wastes in
Irish Drumlin Landscape, pp. 702-709. in: Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment., D.A. Hammer (ed). Chelsea, MI: Lewis. Dairy
Animal Wastes were Applied to Peat Wetlands and Monitored for
Effectiveness at Removal of BOD, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus. D; H; TSS;
DOM; POM; DAM; NIT; DPP
73. Cuffney, T.F. (1988) Input., movement and exchange of organic matter
within a subtropical coastal blackwater river-floodplain system.
Freshwater Biol. 19; 305-320. Overall Study of Transport of Organic
Matter from Riparian Forest Litter to Stream Channel. Used Tracers,
Pool Sizes, Decomp. Rates, and a Model. D; F; CP; TS; POM; Flux
74. Gushing, C.E. (1988) Allochthonous detritus input to a small, cold
desert spring-stream. Verh. Int.ernatl. Verein. Theoret. Angewan. Limn.
23; 1107-1113. Directly Measured Litter Inputs,, both'Vertical and
Horizontal. D; F; POM
75. Gushing, C.E. and E.G. Wolf (1982) Organic energy budget of Rattlesnake
Springs, WA. Amer. Midi. Naturalist 107; 404-407. Measured Litter
Inputs from Forested .Riparian Zone. D; F; 1st order; POM
76. Davidson, E.A. and W.R. Swank (1986) Environmental parameters
regulating gaseous nitrogen losses from two forested ecosystems via
nitrification and denitrification. Applied Environ. Microbiol. 52;
1287-1292. Both Laboratory Analyses and Field Chamber Measurements
were used to Contrast Upland Forest and Riparian Forest
Denitrification and Nitrification. Measured Redox Potentials of
Soils. D; F; MT; Denit-F; Denit-L; Nitrif; Flux
77. Davidson, E.A. and W.T. Swank (1990) Nitrous oxide dissolved in soil
solution: An insignificant pathway of nitrogen loss from a
southeastern hardwood forest. Water Resources Res. 26(7) ; 1687-1690.
Study of Concentrations of Nitrous Oxide Dissolved'in Shallow
Groundwater and Soil Water,'along a Gradient from Upland Forest
Through Riparian Forest to a Stream. D; F; MT; GW; Denit-F; Flux-
-------
78. Davidson, E.A., W.T. Swank, and T.O. Perry (1986) Distinguishing
between nitrification-and denitrif ication. as sources of gaseous
nitrogen production in soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 52 (6) ; 1280-
1286. Field Chambers and Controlled Concentrations of Acetylene were
used to Measure Rates and Distinguish Between Denitrification and
Nitrification. Sites Included Uplant Forest and Riparian Forest. D;
F/-MT; Denit-F; Nitrif-; 'Flux
79. Dawson, F.H. (1976) Organic contribution of stream edge forest litter
fall to the chalk stream ecosystem. Oikos 27; 13-18. Directly
Measured Vertical Litter Inputs to Two Small Streams in England. D;
F; POM
80. Day, J.W., T.J. Butler, and W.G. Conner (1977) Productivity and
nutrient export studies in a cypress swamp and lake system in
Louisiana, pp. 255-269. in; Estuarine Processes., M. Wiley (ed). New
York: Academic Press. Studied Flux of Nutrients from a Swamp Forest
into a Lake. D; F; CP; POM; DOM; .TP; TN; Flux
81. Decamps, H. (1993) River margins and environmental change. Ecol. Appl.
3(3); 441-445. A General Review of the Ecological Interactions
Between Forested Riparian Zones and River Channels. R; F
82. Delong, M.D. and M.A. Brusven (1991) Classification and spatial mapping
of riparian habitat with applications toward management of streams
impacted by nonpoint source pollution. Environ. Manage. 15(4) ; 565-
572. Development and Testing of a CIS Approach to Improved
Management of Watershed Riparian Zones. M
83. Delong, M.D. and M.A. Brusven (1994) Allochthonous input of organic
matter from different riparian habitats of an agriculturally impacted
stream. Environ. Manage. 18(1); 59-71. Measured vertical litter
'inputs directly'into stream channel in eight reaches of a stream with
differing riparian vegetation. Watershed was partly forested, partly
agricultural/riparian vegetation. D," F; B; H; MT; 5th order; POM;
Flux
84. Denver, J.M. (1991) Groundwater-sampling network to study agrochemical
effects oh water quality in the unconfined aquifer, pp. 139-149. in:
Groundwater Residue Sampling Design., (ed). : Amer. Chem. Soc. Symp.
#465. Study of Nitrate Transport From Agricultural Uplands Through a
30 meter deep Unconfined Aquifer of Sand and Gravel Underneath and
Adjacent to .a Small Stream Lined with Riparian Forest. Nitrate
Transport Bypassed the Riparian Zone. D; F; CP; GW; NIT; Flux
85. Desbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolff (1994) Vegetated Buffers
in the Coastal Zone. A Summary Review and Bibliography. Coastal
Resources Center Technical Report No. 2064. Narragansett, RI:
University of Rhode Island, pp. 71 pp. A Wide-Ranging Review and
Bibliography of Vegetated Buffers in General with Many References. R
36. Devito, K.J., P.J. Dillon, and B.D. Lazerte (1989) Phosphorus and
nitrogen retention in five precambrian shield wetlands.
Biogeochemistry 8(3); 185-204. Input and Output Mass Balances for
Total N and P and Dissolved Organic Matter -for two Forested Wetlands
along Streams Draining Canadian Shield Watersheds. D; F; TP; TN; NIT;
DOM; MBal
-------
87. Dickey, E.G.-and D.H. Vanderholm (1981) Vegetative filter .treatment'of
livestock feedlot runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 10; 279-284. Study of
Filter Strips for Treating Feedlot Runoff. Most of Volume
Infiltrated and Water Quality of Infiltrating Water was not Measured.
D; G; OF; TSS; TP; TN •
88. Dillaha, T.A., R.M. Reneau, S. Mostaghima, and D. Lee (1989) Vegetative
filter strips for agricultural non-point source pollution control.
Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. 32; 513-519. Used Rainfall Simulator
on Agricultural Crop Plots and Various Lengths of Grass Buffer to
Measure Removal Efficiency for Sediments and Nutrients. D; G; TSS;
TN; TP; NIT; DAM; DPP
89. Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard,. and D. Lee (1986) Long-Term Effectiveness
and Maintenance of Vegetative Filter Strips Virginia Water Resources
Research Center Bull. No. 153. Blacksburg, VA: USEPA, pp. 39 pp.
Review of Literature and Management Recommendations on Grassed Filter
Strips Based on.a Survey of 33 VA Farms that Installed Filter Strips
in the Past. M; G; R
90. Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, and D. Lee (1989) Long-term effectiveness
of vegetative filter strips. Water Environ. & Techno!. Nov.; 419-421.
General Management Recommendations Based Upon Surveys of 33 Farms
for Maintenance Problems and Effectiveness Over Time of
Grassed/Herbaceous Filter Strips. M; G; H; OF
91. Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, D. Lee, S. Mostaghimi, and V.O. Shanholtz
(1988) Evaluation of vegetative filter strips as a best management
practice for feed lots. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 6£; 1231-1238.
Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Grass/Herbaceous Buffers
in Removing Sediments and Nutrients. Used Rainfall Simulator. D; H;
G; OF; TSS; TP; TN; NIT
92. Dorge, C.L. (1977) Phosphorus Cycling in a Southern Illinois Cypress
Swamp. M.S. Thesis. Chicago: Illinois Inst. Tech.
93. Dosskey, M.G. and P.M. Bertsch (1994) Forest sources and pathways of.
organic matter transport to a blackwater stream: a hydrologic
approach. Biogeochemistry 24 (1); 1-19. Measured Discharges of
Dissolved and Particulate Organic Matter and Formed a Budget for the
Volumes Discharged as Groundwater and Storm Flows. D; CP; F; GW; 2nd
order; DOM; POM
94. Doyle, R.C., D.C.. Wolfe, and D.F. Bezdicek (1975) Effectiveness of
forest buffer strips in improving the water quality of manure
polluted runoff, pp. 299-302. in: Managing Lisestock Wastes..Proc.
3rd Intern. Symp. Livestock Wastes., (ed). St. Joseph, MI: Amer. Soc,
Agric. Engin. Manure was Applied Directly to Forested Buffer Plots.
Overland Storm Flow Nutrient Concentrations were Measured at Various
Distances Downhill. No Data on Interactions Between Infiltration..
into Groundwater and Overland Flows. D; F; TN; TP; DTKN; NIT; DAM;
OF
-------
95. Duff, J.H. and F.J. Triska (1990) Denitrification in sediments from the
hyporheic.. zone adjaceat to a small forested stream. Can. J. Fish."
Aquatic Sci. 47(6); 1140-1147. Study of Interactions Between Channel
and Hyporheic Zone. Nitrate and Acetylene were Injected into
Riparian Zone Soils. D; F; 3rd order; NIT; Denit-F; Denit-L; DOM; HZ
96. Duncan, C.P. .and P.M. Groffman (1994) Comparinag microbial parameters
in natural and constructed wetlands. J. Environ. Qual. 23; 298-305.
Compared Soil Microbial Activities in Zones of Riparian Forest
Differing in Hydration. D; F; GW; NIT; BioStof; Denit-L; NutCyc
97. Duncan, W.F.A. and M.A. Brusven (1985) Energy.dynamics of three low-
order southeast Alaska streams: Allochthonous processes.. J.
Freshwater Ecology 3 (2); 233-248. Measured Vertical Litter Inputs to
Three Stream Channels with Differing Riparian Vegetation. D; POM,-
2nd Order
98. Edwards, R.T. and J.L. Meyer (1987) Metabolism of a sub-tropical low
gradient blackwater river. Freshwater Biol. 17; 251-263. Measured
Open-Water Oxygen Budgets and Import/Exports of Dissolved and
Particulate Organic Matter for Stream Channel. Constructed an
Organic Carbon Budget and Inferred Inputs from Flood Plain to Balance
Budget. D; F; CP; 6th order - . "
99. Edwards, W.M., L.B. Owens, D.A. Norman, and R.K. White (1980) 'A
settling basin-grass filter system for managing runoff from a.paved
beef feedlot. pp. 265-273. in; Livestock Waste: A Renewable Resource.,
(ed). St. Joseph, MI: Amer. Spc. Agric. Eng. Measured Changes in
Nutrient Concentrations For Runoff from a Feedlot as it Moved Through
a Grassed Buffer Zone. D; G; POM; TSS; DAM; DTP; K
100. Edwards, W.M., L.B. Owens, and R.K. White (1983) Managing runoff from a
small, paved beef feedlot. J. Environ. Qual. 12; 281-286. Mass
Balances of Sediments and Nutrients Draining from a Paved Feed Lot
Through a Retention Pond, then two Grassed Buffers. D; G; OF; TSS;
TN; TP; MBal
101. Ehrenfeld, J.G. (1987) The role of woody vegetation in preventing
ground water pollution by nitrogen from septic tank leachate. Water
Research 21; 605-614. 'Measured Total Nitrogen Assimilation & Storage
as Net Primary Production of Woody Plants in a Deciduous hardwood
forested Wetland. D; F; CP; GW; TN
102. Elder, J.F. (1985) Nitrogen and phosphorus speciation and flux in a
large Florida river wetland system. Water Resources Res. 21; 724-732.
Measurements of Concentration Patterns Along the Channel and in
Major Tributaries Were Used to Infer Interactions with Flood Plain.
D; F; TN; TP; DPP; DAM; POM
103. Engler, R.M. and W.H. Patrick Jr. (1974) Nitrate removal from flood
••• water overlying flooded soils and sediments. J. Environ. Qual. 3_; .409-
413. Floodplain Forest Soil Cores were Incubated with Nitrate and
Rates of Nitrate Disappearance Measured. D; F; CP; NIT; Denit-L
-------
104. Esry, D.H. and D.J. Cairns (1989) Overview of the Lake Jackson
restoration project with artificially created wetlands for treatment
of urban runoff, pp. 247-257. in; Wetlands: Concerns and Successes.,
D.W. Fisk (ed). Bethesda, MD: Amer. Water Resources Assoc. Overview
and Summary Data on a Constructed Herbaceous Wetland Used for Water
Quality Polishing of Urban Storm Runoff. M; D; CP;.TSS; DAM;. NIT;
Flux
105. Ethridge, B.J. and R.K. Olson (1992) Research and information needs
related to nonpoiht source pollution and wetlands in the watershed:
an EPA perspective. Ecol. Engin. 1; 149-156. A Management Oriented
Review of Riparian Forests and Their Potential Use in Watershed
Management. M; R; F
106. Ewel, K. C. (1978) Riparian ecosystems: conservation of their unique
characteristics, pp. 56-62. in; Strategies for Protection and
Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems., R.
R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick (eds). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest
Service. An Overall Review of the Ecological Roles of Riparian Zones.
along Streams. R
107. Fail Jr., J.L. (1983) Structure, Biomass, Production, and Element
Accumulation in Riparian Forests of an Agricultural Watershed. Ph.D.
Thesis. Athens, GA: Univ. Georgia.
108. Fail, J.L., B.L. Haines, and R.L. Todd (1986) Riparian forest
communities and their role in nutrient conservation in an
agricultural watershed. Amer. J. Alternative Agriculture 11(3); 114-
121. Detailed Measurements of Nutrient Assimilation and Storage.in
Tree Woody Biomass at same Sites Where Nutrient Removal from
Agricultural Drainage was Measured. D;.F; CP; TN; TP; K; Ca; BioStor
109. Fail, J.L./M.N. Hamzah, B.L. Haines, and R.L. Todd (1986) Above and
belowground biomass, production, and element accumulation in riparian
forests of an agricultural watershed, pp. 193-224. in: Watershed
Research Perspectives., D.L. Correll (ed). Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Press. 'Detailed Study of Accumulation of Nutrients in
Woody Biomass of Forest Trees in a series of Sites Where Nutrient
Removal from Agricultural Drainage Was Also Measured. D; F; CP; TN;
TP; K; Ca; BioStor
llO. Findlay, S., D. Strayer, C. Goumbala, and K. Gould (1993) Metabolism of
streamwater dissolved organic carbon in the shallow hyporheic zone.
Limnol. Oceanogr.' 38(7); 1493-1499. Study of groundwater dissolved
organic carbon metabolism at a depth of .0.5 meter in a point gravel
bar. D; HZ; 4th order; DOC
111. Fisher, S.G. (1977) Organic matter processing by a stream-segment
ecosystem: Fort River, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Int. Rev. Gesamten
Hydrobiol. 62; 701-727. A 1700 Meter Segment of Stream Channel on a
Mixed Landuse Watershed. Directly Measured Forest Litter Inputs. D;
F; 4th order; POM
-------
112. Fisher, S.G. and G.E. Likens (1973) Energy flow in Bear Brook, New
Hampshire: an integrandve approach to stream ecosystem metabolism.
Ecol. Monographs 43; 421-439. An Attempt to Determine a Complete
Organic Matter Budget for a Completely Forested Watershed, Including
Measures of Riparian Litter and Dissolved Organic Matter Inputs to
the Stream Channel. D; F; MT; 2nd order; DOM; POM
113. Flanagan, D.C., G.R. Foster, W.H. Neibling, and J.P. Burt (1989)
Simplified equations for filter strip design. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric.
Eng. 32; 2001-2007. Simplified Version of CREAMS Model for
Predicting Suspended Sediment Retention in Grass Filter Strips. D; G;
OF; TSS
114. Franklin, E.G., J.D. Gregory, and M.D. Smolen (1992) Enhancement of the
Effectiveness of Forested Filter Zones by Dispersion of Agricultural
Runoff. Report No. UNC-WRRI-92-270. Raleigh, NC: Water Resources
Research Inst., pp. 28 pp. Used Level Spreaders to Disperse Storm
Overland Flows from Cropland into Forested Riparian Zones. D; F; PT;
OF; TSS; TP; DAM; NIT »
115. Fredriksen, R.L., D.G. Moore,, and L.A. Norris (1975) The impact of
timber harvest, fertilization, and herbicide treatment on streamwater
quality in western Oregon and Washington, pp. 283-313. in: Forest
Soils and Forest Land Management., B. Bernier and C.H. Winget (eds) .
Quebec: Laval University Press. Comparisons of Concentrations of
Suspended Sediments, Dissolved Nutrients, and Herbicides in Streams
Draining Clear Cuts, Partial Cuts and Control Douglas Fir Forests in
Oregon. D; F; TSS; HERB; NIT; DAM; DPP; DTKN
116. Fustec, E., A. Mariotti, X. Grille, and J. Sajus (1991) Nitrate removal
by denitrification in alluvial ground water: Role of a former channel..
J. Hydrol. 123; 337-354. Study of Agricultural Groundwater Rich in
Nitrate Moving Through a River Meander before Entering Channel.
Natural Abundance N-15 use to Infer Denitrification. Also Field
Acetylene Block for Direct Measurement of *Denitrification. D; GW;
DAM; NIT; DOM; Fe; Denit-F; Flux
117..Gambrell, R.P., J.W. Gilliam, and S.B. Weed (1975) Denitrif ication in
subsoils of the North Carolina coastal plain as affected by soil
drainage. J. Environ. Qual. 4_; 311-316. Study of Groundwater Moving
From Agricultural Fields to Stream along a Transect. Measured
Nitrate Concentrations, Eh, and Inferred Denitrification. D; CP; GW;
NIT; DOM; DAM i '
118. Gambrell, R.P., J.W. Gilliam, and S.B. Weed (1975) Nitrogen losses from
soils of the North Carolina coastal plain. J. Environ. Qual. 4_; 317-
323. Study of Movement of Nitrate From Agricultural Uplands Through
Riparian Zone to Stream Channel. Measured Hydrological Budgets
Including Overland Flow. Mass Balance for Total N. D; CP; OF; GW;
ET; TN; NIT
119. German, E.R. (1989) Removal of nitrogen and phosphorus in an
undeveloped wetland area, central Florida, pp. 139-147. in; Wetlands:
Concerns and Successes., D.W. Fisk (ed) . Bethesda, MD: Amer. Water
Resources Assoc. Input/Output Fluxes of Water and Nutrients From
Upland Suburban and Agricultural Areas Through a Large Wetland. •»• D; F;
G; CP; TN; TP; NIT; DAM
-------
120. Gilliam, J.W_. (1994) Upland wetlands and water quality, pp. 102-10&. in:
Altered, "Artificial, and Managed Wetlands. Focus: Agriculture and
Forestry., J.A. Kusler and C. Lassonde (eds). : Assoc. State Wetland
Mngrs. A Review of Riparian Forest Interception of Nitrate in
Shallow Groundwater. R; F; NIT; GW
121. Gilliam, J.W. (1994) Riparian wetlands and water quality. J. Environ.
Qual. 23; 896-900. A Review of Water Quality Buffering Effects of
Riparian Vegetation Zones. R
122. Gilliam, J.W., G.M. Chescheir, R.W. Skaggs, and R.G. Broadhead (1988)
Effects of pumped agricultural drainage water on wetland water
quality, pp. 275-283. in; The Ecology and Management of Wetlands.,
e.t.a.l. D.D. Hook (ed). Portland, OR: Timber Press. Study of
Nutrient and Sediment Removal in Forested Riparian Zones Subjected to
Pumped Agricultural Drainage. D; F; CP; OF; GW; TSS; NIT; TP
123. Gilliam, J.W. , R.B. Daniels, and J.F, Lutz (1974) Nitrogen content of
shallow ground water in the North Carolina coastal plain.. J. Environ.
Qual. 3_; 147-151. Study of .60 Groundwater Wells at 6 Sites on the
Inner, Mid-, and Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Nitrate
Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater were High in the Middle of Crop
Fields but low on the Edges Near Streams Draining Fields. True
Whether the Riparian Zone was Forested or Cropped. D; CP; GW; NIT;
DAM
124. Gilliam, J.W., R.W. Skaggs, and C.W. Doty (1986) Controlled
agricultural drainage: An alternative to riparian vegetation, pp. 225-
243. in: Watershed Research Perspectives., D.L. Correll (ed).
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press. Study of the Relative
Efficiency of Nitrate Removal from Groundwater in Riparian Zones with
and without Controlled Drainage Structures in the Channels. D; CP;
GW; NIT; TN; TP; DTKN
125. Gilliam, J.W., R.W. Skaggs, and S.B. Weed (1979) Drainage control to
diminish nitrate loss from agricultural fields. J. Environ. Qual, _8;
137-142. Controlled Drainage Structures Were Used to Improve Rates
.of Nitrate Removal from Cropland Drainage in Waterlogged Soils.
Riparian Zone was Cropped. Redox Potentials Were Monitored. D; CP;
GW; NIT .
.126. Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins (1991) An
ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41(8); 540-551.
An Overall Review of Stream-Riparian Interactions of Diverse Types.
R
127. Groffman, P.M., E.A. Axelrod, J.L. Lemunyon, and W.M. Sullivan (1991)
Denitrification in grass and forest vegetated filter strips. J.
Environ. Qual. 20(3); 671-674. Compared denitrification potentials
of soils in grassed and forested riparian buffers. D; F; G; Denit-L;
NIT; pH; DOM
-------
128. Groffman, P.M., A.J. Gold, and R.C. Simmons (1992) Nitrate dynamics in
riparian forests: Micrpbial studies. J. Environ. Qual '.' 21(4) ; 666-671.
Comparison of Nitrate'Transport and Loss at Several Sites Which
Differed in Degree of Soil Waterlogging and Loading with Nitrate from
Uplands. Measured Mineralization Rates, Enzyme Potential for
Denitrification and Microbial Biomass Pools of N and P. D; GW; F;
NIT; Denit-L; Nitrif; BioStor; NutCyc
129. Gurtz, M.E., G.R. Marzolf, K.T. Killingbeck, D.L. Smith, and J.V.
McArthur - (1988) Hydrologic and riparian influences on the import and
storage of coarse particulate organic matter in a prairie stream. Can.
J. Fish. & Aquatic Sci. 45; 655-665. Comparison of Flux of
Particulate Organic Matter from Riparian Zones Vegetated with
Different Plant Communities into a Stream Channel. D; G; H; F; POM;
Flux
130. Hammer, D.A. (1989) Constructed wetlands for treatment of agricultural
waste and urban stormwater. pp. 333-348. in: Wetlands Ecology arid
Conservation: Emphasis in Pennsylvania., S.K. Majumdar, R.P. Brooks,
F.J. Brenner and R.W. Tinner Jr. (eds) . Philadelphia, PA: Penn. Acad..
Sci. General Review of the Use of Natural and Constructed Wetlands
for Wastewater Renouvation. R
131. Hammer, D.A. (1992) Designing constructed wetlands systems to treat
agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Ecol. Engin. 1; 49-82. A
Review of How Constructed Wetlands are Designed and How They can be
Used to Treat Agricultural Runoff as Well as Other Wastewater. R; H;
TSS; TN; TP .
132. Hamzah, M.N. (1983) Root Biomass, Production and Decomposition in the
Riparian Forests of an'Agricultural Watershed. Ph. D. Thesis. Athens,
GA: Univ. Georgia.
133. Hanson, G.C., P.M. Groffman, and A.J. Gold (1994) Symptoms of nitrogen
saturation in a riparian wetland. Ecol. Appl. 4(4); 750-756. Soil
Nitrogen Dynamics were Studied along Riparian Forest Transects with
Differing Nitrate Loading. Soil Moisture, Organic Matter, pH,
Nitrogen Content, Microbial Biomass, N Mineralization were Measured.
Analyzed Vascular Plant Leaf C & N Content. D; F; GW; NIT; Nitrif;
NutCyc; Biostor; Flux
134. Hanson, G.C., P.M. Groffman, and A.J. Gold (1994) .Denitrification in
riparian wetlands receiving high and low groundwater nitrate inputs.
J. Environ. Qual. 23; 917-922. Measured Denitrification Potentials
in Soil Cores Along a Gradient of Soil Water Saturation in Sites
Receiving or Not Receiving High Nitrate Groundwater Fluxes from
Suburban Housing Developments. D; F; GW; Denit-L; .NIT
135. Harmon, M.E., J.F. Franklin, F.J. Swanson, P. Spllins, S.V. Gregory, J.D.
Lattin, N.H. Anderson, and a.l. et (1986) Ecology of coarse woody
debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv. Ecol. Res. 15; 133-302.
Comprehensive Review of Coarse Woody Debris in Streams with a Section
Specifically on Input Rates from Various Forests .< R; POM; Flux
-------
136. Harrison, A.D., P. Keller, and D. Dimovic (i960) Ecological studies in
OlifantsvLei near Johannesburg. Hydrobiologia 15; 89-134. Measured
Concentrations of Nutrients Entering and Leaving an Extensive Marsh
Which the Streams Flowed Through. D; H; DAM; NIT
137. Hart, B.T., E.M. Ottaway, and B.N. Noller (1987) Magela Creek .system,
northern Australia. II. Material budget for the floodplain. Aust. J.
Mar. Freshwater Res. 38(6); 861-876. A Mass Balance Model of Inputs
From Precipitation and Tributary Creeks and Output in the Lower
Channel was used to Infer the Channel Interactions with the
Floodplain. D; TSS; NIT; DAM; TP; Flux; MBal
138. Haupt, H.F. and W.J. Kidd Jr. (1965) Good logging practices reduce
sedimentation in central Idaho. J. Forestry 63; 664-670. Measured
Effectiveness of Leaving Forest Buffers of Various Widths on Total
Sediment Discharges When Clearcutting Forested Watersheds. D; F; MT;
TSS .
139. Haycock, N.E. (1991) Riparian Land as Buffer Zones in Agricultural
Catchments. Ph.D. Thesis. Oxford, UK: Univ. Oxford.
140. Haycock, N.E. and T.P. Burt (1993) Role of floodplain sediments in
reducing the nitrate concentration of subsurface runoff: a case study
in the Cotswolds, UK. Hydrol. Process. 7; 287-295. Used Wells to
Follow Concentration of Nitrate in Groundwater Flowing Through
Grassed Floodplain to Channel. D; G; GW; NIT; Flux
141. Haycock, N.E. and T.P. Burt (1993) The sensitivity of rivers to nitrate
leaching: The effectiveness of near-stream land as a nutrient
retention zone. pp. 261-272. in; Landscape Sensitivity., D.S.G.
Thomas and R.J. Allison (eds). London: Wiley. Measured Nitrate
Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater as it Moved Through Grazed.
Pastureland on a River Floodplain to the Channel. D; G; GW; NIT
142. Haycock, N.E. and G. Pinay . (1993) Groundwater nitrate dynamics in grass
and poplar vegetated riparian buffer strips during the winter. J.
Environ. Qual. 22; 273-278. Comparison of Nitrate Removal
Efficiencies Between a Grass and a Poplar Forested Riparian Zone in
England. D; G; F; GW; NIT; Flux; MBal
143. Haycock, N.E., G. Pinay, and C. Walker (1993) Nitrogen retention in
river corridors: European perspective. Ambio ; in press. Review of
Use of Riparian Vegetation Zones to Control Nitrate Movement from
Uplands into Stream Channels. R; GW; NIT
144. Hayes, J.C., B.J. Barfield, and R.I. Barnhisel (1979) Filtration of
sediment by simulated vegetation II. Unsteady flow with non-
homogeneous sediment. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. 22; 1063-1067.
Continues Development of a Mathematical Model of Sediment Trapping by
Grass in Filter Strips. D; G; TSS; SedTrap
145. Hayes, J.C., B.J. Barfield, .and R.I. Barnhisel (1984) Performance of
grass filters under laboratory and field conditions. Trans. Amer. Soc.
Agri-c. Engin. 27; 1321-1331. Tested a Sediment Transport-Model with
Laboratory Experiments Under Complex Topographic Conditions. D; G;
OF; TSS
-------
146. Hearne, J.W. and C. Howard-Williams (1988) Modelling nitrate removal by
riparian vegetation in. a springfed stream: The influence of land-use
practices. Ecol. Model. 42; 179-198. Mathematical Model Developed
and Tested with Field Data for Nitrate Dynamics Between Stream
Channel and Herbaceous Plants on Stream Bank. D; H; NIT; BMass; 1051
147. Hendrickson Jr., O.Q. (1981).Flux of nitrogen and carbon gases in
bottomland soils of an agricultural watershed.. (Diss. Abstr. 82-
01544), Ph.D. Thesis. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
148. Herrick, B.R. (1981) Extractable Soil Pools of Calcium, Magnesium,
Potassium, and Phosphorus in the Riparian Zone of an Agricultural
Watershed. M.S. Thesis. Athens, GA: Univ. Georgia.
149. Hey, D.L., M.A. Cardamone, J.H. Sather, and W.J. Mitsch (1989)
Restoration of riverine wetlands: the Des Plaines River wetlands
demonstration project, pp. 159-183. in; Ecological Engineering: An
Introduction to Ecotechnology., W.J. Mitsch and S.E. Jorgensen (eds)
New York: Wiley. Summary of Plans and Objectives for a Wetland
Restoration Project on the Floodplain of the Des Plaines River. M
150. Hill, A.R. (1990) Ground water flow paths in relation to nitrogen
chemistry in the near-stream zone. Hydrobiologia 206 (1) ,• 39-52.
Followed Pathways of Grdundwater Through Stream Riparian Zone with
Tracers, Sampling Along Transects of Nested Piezometers and Ground
Water Wells. D; F; 2nd order; NIT; DAM; TS; GW
151.. Hill, A.R. (1990) Groundwater cation concentrations in the riparian
zone of a forested headwater stream. Hydrol. Proc. <4; 121-130. Used
Tracers to Follow Pathways and Chemistry of Groundwater Through a
Stream Riparian Zone. D; F; GW; 2nd order; TS; Ca; Mg; K
152. Hill, A.R. (1991) A ground water nitrogen budget for a headwater swamp
in an area of permanent ground water discharge. Biogeochemistry 14;
• 209-224. Compared Local and Regional Ground Water Inputs and Their N-
Content. Also Discharges From the Swamp. Used a Chloride Balance.
D; F; 2nd order; GW; TN; DAM; NIT; DTKN
153. Hill, A;R. (1993) Nitrogen dynamics of storm runoff in the riparian
zone of a forested watershed. Biogeochemistry. 20; 19-44. Estimated
Overland Flow With .O-18 as a Tracer and Measured Ammonium and Nitrate
in Rain, Throughfall, and Stream. D; F; OF; 2nd order; DAM; NIT
154. Hill, A.R. (1993) Base Cation Chemistry of Storm Runoff in a Forested
Headwater Wetland. Water Resources Res. 29(8) ; 26.63-2673. Followed
Fluxes of Major Cations Through a Forested Riparian Swamp During
Storm Events. D; F; 2nd order; OF; Ca; Mg; K; Na
155. Hill, A.R. and M. Shackleton (1989) Soil N mineralization and
nitrification in relation to nitrogen solution chemistry in a small
forested watershed. Biogeochemistry 8(2); 167-184. On a Completely
Forested Watershed, Compared Soil Nitrification Ratesf .Groundwater
Nitrate Concentrations for Upland and Riparian Forest Communities. D;
F; .GW; 2nd order; NIT; Nitrif; DAM; BioStor
-------
156. Hill, A.R. and J.M. Waddington (1993) Analysis of storm run-off sources
using oxygen-18 in a headwater "swamp. Hydrol. Processes "]_; 305-316. •
Used a Tracer to Determine Source of Overland Storm Flows in a
Forested Swamp. D; F; 2nd order; OF; TS
157. Hill, A.R. and J. Warwick (1987) Ammonium transformations in
springwater within the riparian zone of a small woodland stream. Can.
J. Fish. Aquat. .Sci. 44 (11) ; 1948-1956. Spring water was
Experimentaly Enriched with Dissolved Ammonium, Then Allowed to Flow
Through a Stream Riparian Forest into the Channel. Rates of
Ammonification and Nitrification were Measured. D; F; 2nd order; NIT;
DAM; Nitri'f
158. Holland, M.M., D.F. Whigham, and B. Gopal (1990) The characteristics of
wetland ecotones. pp. 171-198. in: The Ecology and Management of
Aquatic-Terrestrial Ecotones., R.J. Naiman and H. DeCamps (eds).
Paris: UNESCO. A General Review of the Ecology of Upland/Wetland
Riparian Zones. . R .
159. Howard-Williams, C. (1991) Dynamic processes in New Zealand land-water
ecotones. New Zealand J. Ecol. 15; 87-98. A General Review of New
Zealand Studies of Stream Riparian Ecotones Including Nutrient and
Sediment Interactions. R
160. Howard-Williams, C., J. Davies, and S. Pickmere (1982) The dynamics of
growth, the effects of changing area and nitrate uptake by watercress
. Nasturtium Officinale R. Br. in a New Zealand stream. J. Appl. Ecol.
19; 589-601. Detailed Study of Nitrogen Assimilation and Storage by
Herbaceous Vegetation on,Stream Bank. D; H; 2nd order; NIT; BioStor
161. Howard-Williams, C. and M.T. Dowries (1984) Nutrient removal by
streambank vegetation, pp. 409-422. in: Land Treatment of Wastes.
Water & Soil Misc. Publ. 70., R.J,. Wilcock (ed) . :. Nitrate Removal
by Streambank Herbaceous Vegetation. D; H; 2nd order; NIT; DAM; DTKN
162. Hubbard, R.K. and R.R. Lowrance- (1994) Spatial and temporal patterns of
solute transport through a riparian forest, pp. 403-411. in: Riparian
Ecosystems in the Humid U.S., Functions, Values and Management.,
(ed). Wash., D.C.: Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Districts. Followed
Movement of Nitrate and Bromide Applied to the Soil. Surface Upslope
from a'Riparian Forest. D; F; GW; CP; TS; NIT
163. Hupp, C.R. and D.E. Bazemore (1993) Temporal and spatial patterns of
wetland sedimentation, West Tennessee. J. Hydrology 141; 179-196.
Used Tree Cores and.Depth of Burial of Original Tree Roots to Measure
Long-Term Sedimentation. Short-Term Sedimentation was Measured Over
Clay Pads. D; F; SedTrap
L64. Hupp, C..R. and E.E. Morris (1990) A dendrogeomorphic approach to
measurement of sedimentation in a forested wetland; Black Swamp,
Arkansas. Wetlands 10; 107-124. Measured Sedimentation Rates for a
Forested Floodplain. D; F; CP; TSS; SedTrap
-------
165. Hupp, C.R., M.D. Woodside, and T.M. Yanosky. (1993) Sediment and trace
element trapping in a .-forested wetland, Chickahominy River, Virginia*
Wetlands 13 (2); 95-104. Measured Sediment Depositon Rates in a
Forested Flood Plain and the Trace Element Composition of the
'Deposited Sediments. D; F; CP; TrM; TSS; SedTrap; BioStor
166. Hus'sey, M.R., Q.D. Skinner, J.C. Adams, and A.J. Harvey (1985)
Denitrification and bacterial numbers in riparian soil of.a Wyoming
mountain watershed. J. Range Management 38; 492-496. Soils at Three
Shallow Depths Along Transects from Stream Channel to Uplands were
Analyzed for Numbers of Denitrifying Bacteria and Potential Rates of
Denitrification. D; Denit-L
167.. Iversen, T.M., J. Thorup, and J. Skriver (1982) Inputs and
transformation of allochthonous particulate organic matter in a
headwater stream. Holarct. Ecol. 5_; 10-19. Estimated Inputs of
Forest Litter to Stream on a Completely Forested Watershed in Denmark.
Does Not Describe How Inputs were Measured. D; F; 1st order; POM
168. Jacobs, T.C. and J.W. Gilliam (1983) Nitrate Loss From Agricultural,
Drainage Waters: Implications for Nonpoint Source Control. Raleigh,
NC: Univ. North Carolina, pp. 208 pp. Study of Two Coastal Plain
Agricultural Watersheds. Followed Groundwater Nitrogen Through
Riparian Forests. Measured Eh and Riparian Plant Biomass and
Nutrient Reservoirs. D; F; CP; GW; NIT; DAM; Flux; BioStor
169. Jacobs, T.C. and J.W. Gilliam (1985) Riparian losses of nitrate from
agricultural drainage waters. J. Environ. Qual. 14; 472-478. Used
Data From Groundwater Well Transects and Eh Probes with a
Hydrological Model to Estimate Nitrate Mass Balances for Groundwater
Moving from Croplands to Stream Channels Through Riparian Forests. D;
F; CP; GW; NIT; MBal •.
170. James, B..R., B.B. Bagley, and P.H. Gallagher (1990) Riparian zone.
vegetation effects on nitrate concentrations in shallow groundwater.
pp. 605-611. in: New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A
Research and Management Partnership. Ches. Res. Consort. Publ. No.
137.," J.H. Mihursky and A. Chaney (eds) . Solomons, MD: Ches. Res.
Consort. Measured Nitrate Concentrations in Groundwater Under
Leguminous, and Nonleguminous Forested Riparian Zones, also Under
Forests Experimentally Clear Cut. D; F; G; GW; NIT
171. Johnston, C.A. (1991) Sediment and. nutrient retention by freshwater
wetlands: Effects on surface water quality. Crit. Rev. Environ.
Control 21(5-6); 491-565. An Overall Review of the Water Quality
Modifying Functions of Freshwater Wetlands. R
172. Johnston, C.A. (1993) Material fluxes across wetland ecotones in
northern landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 3(3) ; 424-440. Spatial Distribution
and Accumulation Rates of Nutrients Within a Forested Wetland Along
. the Course of a Stream. D; F; 2nd order; TN; TP;'TSS; NIT; Flux
-------
165. Hupp, C.R., M.D. Woodside, and T.M. Yanosky (1993) Sediment and trace
element trapping in a•£orested wetland, Chickahominy River, Virginia.
Wetlands 13 (2); 95-104. Measured Sediment Depositon Rates in a
Forested Flood Plain and the Trace Element Composition of the
.Deposited Sediments. D; F; CP; TrM; TSS; SedTrap; BioStor
166. Hussey, M.R., Q.D. Skinner, J.C. Adams, and A.J. Harvey (1985)
Denitrification and bacterial numbers in riparian soil of. a Wyoming
mountain watershed. J. Range Management 38; 492-496. Soils at Three
Shallow Depths Along Transects from Stream Channel to Uplands were
Analyzed for Numbers of Denitrifying Bacteria and Potential Rates of
Denitrification. D; Denit-L
167. Iversen, T.M., J. Thorup, and J. Skriver (1982) Inputs and
transformation of allochthonous particulate organic matter in a
headwater stream. Holarct. Ecol. 5_; 10-19. Estimated Inputs of
Forest Litter to Stream on a Completely Forested Watershed in Denmark.
Does Not Describe How Inputs were Measured. D; F; 1st order; POM
168. Jacobs, T.C. and J.W. Gilliam (1983) Nitrate Loss From Agricultural
Drainage Waters: Implications for Nonpoint Source Control. Raleigh,
NC: Univ. North Carolina, pp. 208 pp. Study of Two Coastal.-' Plain
Agricultural Watersheds. Followed Groundwater Nitrogen Through
Riparian Forests. Measured Eh and Riparian Plant Biomass and
Nutrient Reservoirs. D; F; CP; GW; NIT; DAM; Flux; BioStor
169. Jacobs, T.C. and J.W. Gilliam (1985) Riparian losses of nitrate from
agricultural drainage waters. J. Environ. Qual. 14; 472-478. Used
Data From Groundwater Well Transects and Eh Probes with a
Hydrological Model to Estimate Nitrate Mass Balances for Groundwater
Moving from Croplands to Stream Channels Through Riparian Forests. D;
F; CP; GW; NIT; MBal
I
170. James, B.R., B.B. Bagley, and P.H. Gallagher (1990) Riparian zone
vegetation effects on nitrate concentrations in shallow groundwater.
pp. 605-611. in; New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A
Research and Management Partnership. Ches. Res. Consort. Publ. No.
137., J.H. Mihursky and A. Chaney (e.ds) . Solomons, MD: Ches. Res.
Consort. Measured Nitrate Concentrations in Groundwater Under
Leguminous, and Nonleguminous Forested Riparian Zones, also Under
Forests Experimentally Clear Cut. D; F; G; GW; NIT
171. Johnston, C.A. (1991) Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater
wetlands: Effects on surface water quality. Crit. Rev. Environ.
Control 21(5-6); 491-565. An Overall Review of the Water Quality
Modifying Functions of Freshwater Wetlands. R
172. Johnston^ C.A. (1993) Material fluxes across wetland ecotones in
northern landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 3(3); 424-440. Spatial Distribution
and Accumulation Rates of Nutrients Within a Forested Wetland Along
the Course of a Stream. D; F; 2nd order; TN; TP; TSS; NIT; Flux
-------
173. Johnston, C.A., G.D. Beubenzer, G.B. Lee, F.W. Madison, and J.R. McHenry
(1984) Nutrient trapping by sediment deposition in a seasonally .•
flooded lakeside wetland. J. Environ. Qual. 13; 283-290. Study of
History and Rate of Sediment Trapping by a Small Streamside Forested
Wetland. Cs 137, nitrogen and phosphorus content of soils measured.
D; F; 2nd order; SedTrap; TP; TN
174. Johnston, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G.J. Niemi (1990) The cumulative
effect of wetlands on stream water quality and quantity. A landscape
approach. Biogeochemistiry 10; 105-141. Principal Components Analysis
of Nutrient Discharges from 33 Watersheds was Used to Correlate
Wetlands with Various Nutrient Parameters. D; .TSS; NIT; DAM; TP; DTP;
DTKN; DPP .
175. Johnston, C.A., G.B. Lee, and F.W. Madison (1984) The stratigraphy and
composition of a lakeside wetland. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48; 347-354.
Soil History of a Forested Wetland Along a Small Stream with an
Agricultural Watershed. D; F; 2nd order; SedTrap; TP; TN
176. Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll, W.T. Peterjohn, and D.E. Weller (1986)
Nutrient flux in a landscape: the Rhode River watershed and receiving
waters, pp. 57-76.'in ^Watershed Research Perspectives., D.L.
Correll (ed) . Washington,.D.C. :. Smithsonian Press. An Overview and
Landscape Level Analysis of Nutrient Flux in a Coastal Plain
Watershed Including the Effects of Riparian Forests on Agricultural
Drainage. R;' F; NIT;- TN; TP; TSS; MBal
177. Jordan, T.E., D.L, Correll, and D.E. Weller (1993) Nutrient
interception by a riparian forest receiving inputs from adjacent
cropland. J. Environ. Qual. 22 (3); 467-473. Followed Surface and
Groundwater Moving From Cropland Through a Floddplain on a 3rd Order
Stream. Measured Eh, all forms of Nitrogen, Chloride, and Dissolved
Organic Matter. Used Bromide Tracer in Groundwater. D; F; CP; TS;
TSS; NIT; TN; MBal
178. Kadlec, R.H. and J.A. Kadlec (1978) Wetlands and water quality, pp. 436-
456. in; Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our
Understanding., P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark and J.E. Clark (eds).
Minneapolis, MN: Amer. Water Resources Assoc. A General Review of
How Wetlands Interact with Flooding Waters and Change Their Water
Quality. R
179. Kao, D.T.Y. and B.J. Barfield (1978) Predictions of flow hydraulics of
vegetated channels. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 21(3); 489-494.
Model of Overland Flow Through Simulated Grass Buffer. D; G; OF
180. Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser (1978) Water Resources and the Land-Water
Interface. Science 201; 229-234. A Review of the Effects of Forested
Stream Riparian Zones on Sediment Transport and Deposition,"Nutrient
Exchange, and Stream Habitat Factors. R
181. Kemp, G.P., W.H. Conner, and J.W. -Day Jr. (1985) Effects of flooding .on
decompositon and nutrient cycling in a Louisiana swamp forest.
Wet-lands 5_; 35-51.. .Laboratory.and Field Mesocosm Experiments on
Nutrient Trapping from Floodwaters in a Floodplain Harwood Forest. D;
F; CP; TSS; TP; TN; DPP; PPP -
-------
182. Kemp, G.P. and J.W. Day Jr. (1984) Nutrient dynamics in a Louisiana
swamp receiving agricultural runoff, pp. 286-293. in: Cypress Swamps.-,
K.C. Ewel. and H.T. Odum (eds). Gainsville, FL: University Presses of
Florida. Nutrient Dynamics of a Forested Swamp Were Inferred From
Water Quality and Hydrologic. Data. D; F; CP; NIT; DAM; DTKN; DPP; ET
183. Kesner> B.T. and V. Meentemeyer (1989) A regional analysis of total
nitrogen in an agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecology 2(3); 151-
163. Landscape Level CIS and Modeling Analysis of a Subwatershed of
the Little River Watershed. Nitrogen Annual Mass Balances Including
the Role of Riparian Forests. D; TN; MBal; CP
184. Kibby, H.V. (1978) Effects of wetlands on water quality, pp. 289-298.
in; Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands
and Other Riparian Ecosystems., R.R. Johnson and J.R. McCormick
(eds). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. A General Review of
Wetland Effects on Water Quality. R
185. Killingbeck, K.T. (1984) Direct measurement of allochthonous litter
accumulation in a tall grass prairie stream. Southwest. Nat. 29; 357-
358. Measured Total Litter Inputs to Stream Channel. D; F; POM
186. Kimmins, J.P. and M.d Feller1 (1976) Effect of clearcutting and
broadcast slashburning on nutrient budgets, streamwater chemistry,
and productivity in Western Canada, pp. 186-197. in: XVI IUFRO World
Congress Prpc., Div. I., (ed) . Oslo, Norway:. Study of Three
Completely Forested Watersheds. Two Were Clearcut and on One of
, Those the Slash was Burned. D; F; MT; GW; OF; NIT; K; Ca
187. King, J.M., J.A. Day, B.R. Davies, and M.-P. Henshall-Howard (1987)
Particulate.ogranic matter in a mountain stream .in the -south-western
Cape, South Africa. Hydrobiologia 154; -165-187. Measured Vertical
and Horizontal Litter Inputs to Channels and Their Caloric and
Nitrogen Contents. .D; F;.B; 2nd order; 3rd order; POM; PON
188. Kitchens Jr., W.M., J.M. Dean, L.H. Stevenson, and J.H. Cooper (1975)
The Santee Swamp as a nutrient sink. pp. 349-366. in: Mineral Cycling
in Southeastern'Ecosystems., F.G. Howell, J.B. Gentry and M.H. Smith
(eds). Aiken, GA: Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Measured Water
Quality Parameters of Inflow and Outflow Waters for a Large Forested
FloodPlain System. D; F; CP; TSS; TP; DPP; NIT; DAM
189. Klarer, D.M. and D.F. Millie (1989) Amelioration of storm-water quality
by a freshwater estuary. Arch. Hydrobiol. 116; 375-389. Study of
Storm Event Discharges from an Agricultural Watershed Through a
Wetland. Sediment, Nutrient,, and Metals.Removal were Measured. D; F;
TSS; 2nd order; NIT; TrM; DPP; DAM
190. Kleiss, B.A., E.E. Morris, J.F. Nix, and J.W. Barko (1989) Modification
of riverine water quality by an adjacent bottomland hardwood wetland.
pp. 429-438. in: Wetlands: Concerns and Successes., D.W. Fisk (ed.)..
Bethesda, MD: Amer. Water Resources Assoc. A River-Segment Mass
Balance S'tudy. Measured Nutrient and Sediment Effects of Extensive
Floodplain Forests. D;. F; TSS; TN; TP;. NIT; POM; DOM
-------
191. Klopatek, J.M. (1978) Nutrient dynamics of freshwater riverine marshes
and the. role of emergent macrophytes. pp. 195-216.. in: Freshwater
Wetlands., R.E. Good,.D.F. Whigham and R.L. Simpson (eds). New York:
Academic Press. Measured Nutrient Concentrations in the Inflow and
Outflow Waters of a Riverside Marsh,. D; H; TN; TP; NIT; .DAM; DPP
192. Knauer, N. and U. Mander (1989) Studies on the filtration effect'of
differently vegetated buffer strips along inland waters, in Schleswig-
Holstein. 1. Information: Filtration of nitrogen and phosphorus. Zeit.
fur Kulturtechnik und Landentwicklung. 30; 365-376. Measured
Effectiveness of Various Vegetated Riparian Zones in Removing
Nutrients from Agricultural Discharges. D; F; G; TN; TP; NIT; DAM;
DPP
193. Knauer, N. and U. Mander (1990) Studies on the filtration effect of
differently vegetated buffer strips along inland waters in Schleswig-
Holstein. 2. Information: Filtration of heavy metals. Zeit. fur
Kulturtechnik. und Landentwicklung. 31; 52-57. Measured Efficiency of
Removal of Heavy Metals from Agricultural Drainage Waters Moving
Through Either Alder Stands or Grass. D; F; G; TrM
194-. Kuenzler, E.J. (1989) Value of forested wetlands as filters for
sediments and nutrients, pp. 85-96. in; Forested Wetlands of the.
Southern United States. Southeastern Experiment Station., D. Hook
and R. Lea (eds). Orlando, Fl: USDA, Forest Service. General Review
of the Water Quality Filtering Affects of Riparian Forests. R; F
195. Kuenzler, E.J,, P.J. Mulholland, L.A. Ruley, and R.P. Sniffen (1977)
Water Quality in North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams and Effects of
Channelization. Raleigh, NC: Univ. North Carolina, pp. 160 pp. Study
of Nutrients and General Water Quality in Unchannelized Streams and 4
Highly Channelized Streams Draining Watersheds that were all App.rox.
two-thirds Forested with Floodplain Forests, and one-third
agricultural. Differences in Water Quality were Attributed to the
lack of Interaction with FloodPlain Forests in the Channelized
Streams. D; F; CP; TP; DPP; PPP; TN; NIT
196. Kuenzler, E.J., P.J. Mulholland, L.A. Yarbro, and L.A. Smock (1980)
Distribution and Budgets of Carbon, Phosphorus, Iron, and Manganese
in a Flood Plain Swamp Ecosystem. Raleigh, NC: Univ. North Carolina,
pp. 234 pp. Complete Organic Carbon and Phosphorus Budgets for a
Large Floodplain Forest. D; F; CP; POC; DOC; PTP; DTP; MBal
197. Kussmaul, H.' and D. Muhlhausen (1979) Hydrologische und hydrochemische
untersuchungen zur uferfiltration, Teil III: Veranderungen der
. wasserbeschaffenheit durch uferf iltration und trinkwas'seraufbereitung.
Gwf-wasser/Abwasser. 120; 320-329. Measured Changes in
Concentrations of Water Quality Parameters as Channel Water
Percolated Through a Stream Bank to Pumping Stations. D; GW; DOM;
DPP; NIT; TrM.; INS; Ca
198. LaBaugh, J.W. (1986) .Wetland ecosystem studies from a hydrologic
perspective. Water Resources Bull. 22(1) ; 1-10. Review of Wetland
Studies with Special Attention to the Adequacy of Hyrological
Measurements. R
-------
199. Labroue, L. and G. Pinay (1986) 'Epuration naturelle des nitrates des
eaux .souterraines: possibilites d'application au reamenagement dee
lacs de gravieres. Annls. Limnol. 22 (1); 83-88. Measured Nitrate •
Concentrations in Groundwater Flowing into a Gravel-Pit Lake in
Floodplain of Garrone River. Conducted Laboratory Denitrification
Measurements with Acetylene Block. D; F; GW; NIT; Denit-L
200. Lambou, V.W. (1985) Aquatic organic carbon and nutrient fluxes, water
quality, and aquatic productivity in the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
pp. 180-186. in: Riparian Ecosystems and their'Management:
Reconciling Conflicting Uses., R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R,
Patton and P.F. Ffolliott (eds). Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest
Service. Analyses of Nutrient Concentrations and Volumes of Flow at
Various Points Along the Atchafalaya River.Where Much of the Flow is
Through Bottomland Hardwood Forests. D; F; TN; TP; POM; DOM; NIT;
Flux
201. Laszlo, F. (1989) Qualitatsprobleme bei der Gewinnung von
uferfiltriertem Grundwasser in Ungarn. Acta Hydrochim. Hydrobiol. 17;
453-463. Measured Change in Water Compositon as it Moved.from River
Channel Through Bank Soils to Pumping Stations. D; DOM; DAM; NIT;
DPP; TrM; GW
202. Lee, D., T.A. Dillaha, and'J.H. Sherrard (1989) Modeling phosphorus
transport in grass buffer strips. J. Environ. Eng. 115; 409-427. New
Event-Based Model of Total Phosphorus Removal in Grass Buffer Strips.
D; G; OF; TSS; TP
203. Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, and N.M. Johnson (1969) Nitrification:
Importance to nutrient losses from a cutover forested ecosystem.
Science 163; 1205-1206. Forested Watershed Completely Clear Cut and
Herbicide Treated to Prevent Regrowth. D; F; 1st order; MT; GW; NIT;
Nitrif; MBAL
204. Lindau, C.W., R.D. Delaurie, and G.L. Jones (1988) Fate of added nitrate
and ammonium-nitrogen entering a Louisiana gulf coast swamp forest. J.
Water Pollut. Control Fed. 60 (3); 386-390. Experimentally Enriched
Floodwaters in Chambers Over Soil in Bottomland Hardwood' Forests of
Barataria Basin with Nitrogen. Used N-15 Nitrate and Ammonium to
Measure Rates and Products of Nitrification/Denitrification in Areas
Known to Remove High Levels of Nitrogen from Floodwaters. D; F; CP;
Denit-F; TN; NIT; DAM
205. Line, D.E., J.A. Arnold, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, .J.A. Gale, J. Spooner,
and G.D. Jennings (1993) Noripoint sources. Water Environ. Res. 65(4) ;
558-571. A General Review of Recent Publications Including Nutrient,
Sediment, and Pesticide Studies. R
206. Livingston, E.H. (1989) Use of wetlands for urban stormwater management.
pp. 253-262. in: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment., D.A.
Hammer (ed). Chelsea, MI: Lewis. A General Review Specifically of
Attempts to Treat Urban Stormwater with Wetlands. R
-------
207. Livingston, W.H. and R.O, .Hegg (1981) Terraced pasture for disposal of
dairy yard runoff. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. Publ. 2-81. pp. 270-273.
in: Proc. 4th Internatl. Livestock Waste Symp., (ed). St. Joseph, MI:
Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. Measured Effectiveness of a Grassed Buffer
for Removing Sediment and Nutrients from Livestock Wastewaters.
Measured Input/Output Volumes. D; G; OF; TN; TSS; PPP; NIT; MBal
208. Lockaby, E.G., K.L. McNabb, and J.E. Hairston (1994) Changes in
groundwater nitrate levels across a land-use drainage continuum, pp.
412-421. in: Riparian Ecosystems in the Humid U.S., Functions, Values
and Management., (ed) . Wash., B.C.: Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Districts.
Monitored Nitrate and Chloride Concentrations in Groundwater Moving
from Cropland into a Grass/Forest Riparian Buffer in Alabama. D; CP;
GW; NIT
209. Lockaby, B.C., F.C. Thornton, R.H. Jones, and R.G. Clawson (1994)
Ecological responses of an oligotrbphic floodplain forest to
harvesting. J. Environ. Qual. 23; 901-906. Measured Effects of
Logging Floodplain Forests of Low-Order Streams on Surface Water
Suspended Sediments, Nitrate, Phosphate, and BOD in the Floodplain.
Also Measured Potential Denitrification Rates in Soil Cores. D; F;
CP; NIT; DPP; TSS; Denit-L
210. Lowrance, R. (1989) Riparian zone effects on water quality, pp. 149-151.
in: Proc. 1989 Georgia Water Resources Conf. Institute of Natural
Resources., K.J. Hatcher (ed). Athens, GA: Univ. Georgia. A Brief
Review. R .
211. Lowrance, R. (1992) Groundwater nitrate and denitrification in a
Coastal Plain riparian forest. J. Environ. Qual. 21; 401-405.
Measured Seasonal Vertical'Profiles of Denitrification Potential in
Soils along a Transect from Cropland Through a Riparian Forest to a
Stream Channel. D; F; CP; Denit-L; NIT
212. Lowrance, R., R. Leonard, and J. Sheridan (1985) Managing riparian
ecosystems to control nonpoint pollution. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 40;
87-97. A Review Synthesizing the Overall Landscape Level Effects of
Riparian Forests on the Little River Watershed and the Functions of
Riparian Vegetation in General. R; F; CP
213. Lowrance, R., S. Mclntyre, and C. Lance (1988) Erosion and deposition
in a field/forest system estimated using Cesium-137 activity. J. Soil
& Water Conserv. 43(2) ; 195-199. Estimated Sediment Trapping in a
Riparian Forest from Overland Stormflows Originating from Croplands.
Used Cs-137 Technique. .D; F; CP; TSS; TS; SedTrap
214. Lowrance, R. , J.K. Sharpe, and J.M. Sheridan (1986) Long-term sediment
deposition in the riparian zone of a coastal plain watershed. J. Soil
& Water Conserv. 41; 266-271. Long-Term Sediment Trapping from
Overland Storm Flows Originating in Croplands and Crossing Riparian
Forests were Estimated by Soil Horizon Measurements and by Sediment
Delivery Ratio Estimates. D; F; CP; SedTrap
-------
215. Lowrance, R. and A. Shirmohammadi (1985) REM: A model for riparian
ecosystem..management in agricultural watersheds, pp. 237-240. in:1'
Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting
Uses., R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton and P.F. Ffolliott
(eds) ., Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest. Service. Structure of a
Simulation Model for Agricultural Watershed Discharges That
Explicitly Includes Riparian Forests. D; F
216. Lowrance, R., R.L. 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. An Overall
Synthesis of Nutrient Mass Balance Study of Watershed N of the Little
River Watershed, an Agricultural/Riparian Forest System. D; F; CP;
GW; TN; NIT; TP; MBal
217. Lowrance, R.R. (1981) Nutrient Cycling in Agricultural Ecosystems:
Movement of Water-Borne Nutrients in a Riparian Forest. Ph.D. Thesis.
Athens, GA: Univ. Georgia.
218. Lowrance, R.R. and H.B. Pionke (1989) Transformations and movement of
nitrate in aquifer systems, pp. 373-391. in: Nitrogen Management and
Ground Water Protection., R.F. Follett (ed). New York: Elsevier.
Broad Review of Nitrate Dynamics in Various Types of Aquifer
Including Shallow Uncontained Aquifers in Riparian Zones. R; GW; NIT
N *
219. Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E. Asmussen (1983) Waterborne nutrient
budgets for the riparian zone of an agricultural watershed.
Agriculture Ecosyst. Environ. 10; 371-384. Nutrient Removal of a
Riparian Forest was Calculated by Estimating Groundwater and Surface
flows from the Watershed at a Weir as Slow and Fast Flow. Nutrient
Concentrations in Rain, Groundwater Entering the Forest from
Agricultural Uplands and Streamwater were Measured. D; F; CP; GW; TN;
TP; Ca; Mg
220. Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E. Asmussen (1984) Nutrient cycling in.
an agricultural watershed. I. Phreatic movement. J. Environ. Qual. 13;
22-27. Concentrations of Nutrients were Traced as Shallow Ground
Water Moved from Agricultural Fields Through a Riparian Forest to a
Stream Channel. D; F; CP; GW; NIT; Ca; Mg; K
221. Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.O. Asmussen (1984) Nutrient cycling in
an agricultural watershed. II. Stream flow and artificial drainage. J.
Environ. Qual. 13; 27-32. A Paired Watershed Approach was used in
Which One had Extensive Riparian Forest, the Other Did Not.
Differences in Stream Nutrient Discharges were Attributed to the
Effects of Riparian Forest. D; F; CP; GW; NIT; DAM; DTKN
222. Lynch, J.A. and E.S. Corbett (1990) Evaluation of best management
practices for controlling nonpoint pollution from silvicultural
operations. Water Resources Bull. 26; 41-52. Comparisons of long-
r term effects of Clearcuttihg with and without forest buffers along.
streams. D; F; MT;.TSS; NIT; Ca; Mg; K
-------
223. Lynch, J.A. , E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem (1985) Best.management
practices, for controlling nonpoint-source pollution on forested •'
watersheds. J. Soil Water Cons. 40; 164-167. Comparisons of Forested
Controls and Clearcuts With and Without Forested Stream Buffers. D-
F; MT; TSS; NIT; Ca; K; Mg
224. Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer, and J.D. Wood (1989)
Nutrient and sediment removal by vegetated filter strips. Trans. Amer.
Soc. Agric. Eng. 32 (2); 663-667. Experiments with Plots and Rainfall
Simulator. D; G; TSS; TN; TP; Flux
225. Mander, U. (1991) Eco-Engineering methods to control nutrient losses
from agricultural watersheds, pp. 53-64. in: Proc. European IALE
Seminar on Practical Landscape Ecology, Suppl., J. Brandt (ed).
Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde. University. A Review of the Use of Grass
and Forest Buffer Strips in Estonia to Control Non-Point Source
Pollution. R; G; F .
226. Mander, U.E., M.O. Metsur, and M.E. Kulvik (1989) Storungen des
Stoffkreislaufs, des Energieflusses.und des Bios als Kriterien fur
die Bestimmung der- Belastung der Landschaft. Petermanns Geographische
Mitteilungen 133(4); 233-244. Comparisons of the Effectiveness of
Grass and Forest Filter Strips in Removing Nutrients from
Agricultural Drainage. D; G; F; TN; TP; TSS
227. Mann, K.H., R.H. Britton, A. Kowalczewski, T.J. Lack, C.P. Mathews, and
I. McDonald (1970) Productivity and energy flow at all trophic
levels in the River Thames, England, pp. 579-596. in: Productivity
Problems in Freshwaters. IBP/UNESCO Symp., Z. Kajak and A.
Hilbricht (eds). Poland: Razimierz Dolny. Measured Litter Inputs to
Channel from Riparian Trees. D; F; POM
228. Martin, C.W., D.S: Noel, and C.A. Federer (1984) Effects of forest
clearcutting in New England on stream chemistry. J. Environ. Qual.
13 (2) ; 204-210. Wide Ranging Comparison of 56 New England Forested
Watersheds. Six Were Entirely Clear-Cut, 32 Partially Clear-Cut, and
18 Controls were not cut at all. No Herbicides were used to Prevent
Regrowth. D; F; MT; NIT; DAM; Ca; Mg; Flux
229. Martin, C.W., D.S. Noel, and C.A. Federer (1985)' Clearcutting and the
biogeochemistry of streamwater in New England. J. For. 83 (11); 686-
689. Analysis of Results of Study by Martin, et al. (1984) and
Review of Literature. R; F; MT
230. Martin, E.H. (1988) Effectiveness of an urban runoff detention pond-
wetlands system. J. Environ., Engin. ASCE. 114; 810-827. Overland
Flows from a Highway/Suburban Watershed were Passed Through a
Detention Pond and a Cypress Wetland. Focus was on Nutrient and
Metals Removal. D; F; CP; TSS; TrM; TP; TN; Flux
231. Mattraw, H.C. and J.F. Elder (1984) Nutrient and Detritus Transport..in
the Appalachicola River, Florida. Water-supply paper 2196-C. : U.S.
Geological Survey, pp. 62 pp. An Overall Study of Nutrient- Flux in
the-"Whole System with an Emphasis on Floodplain Forest Interactions.
A Hydrologic Budget and Nutrient/Detritus.Flux Analysis were Used to
Infer the Interactions of the Main Channels with the Floodplain1"'
Forests. D; F; POM; DOM; TN; TP; DTN; DTP
-------
232. McArthur, B.H^. (1989) The use of isolated wetlands in Florida for
stormwater treatment., pp. 185-193. in: Wetlands: Concerns and
Successes., D.W. Fiske (ed). Bethesda, MD: Amer. Water Resources
Assoc. Potential of Wetlands for Treatment of Urban Storm Runoff
with Data from a Case Study. M; D; CP; TSS; TrM; TN; TP; Flux
233. McColl, R.H.S. (1978) Chemical runoff from pasture: the influence of
fertiliser and riparian zones. N. Z. Jl. Mar. Freshwater Res. 12 (4) ;
371-380. Study of three Nested Watersheds before and after Much of
the Land was Converted from Abandoned Scrub to Fertilized Pastures.
A Small Headwaters Watershed was Completely Converted, the Others
Retained Scrub and Wetland Riparian Zones. Decreases in Nutrient
Concentrations along the Higher Order Streams were used to Infer
Riparian Vegetation effects. D; TP; DPP; DAM; NIT; Ca; Mg; K
234. McDowell, W.H., W.B. Bowden, and C.E. Asbury (1992) Riparian nitrogen
dynamics in two geomorphologically distinct tropical rain forest
watersheds:subsurface solute patterns. Biogeochemistry 18 (2) ; 53-75.
Transects of Groundwater Wells -were used to Compare Nitrogen
Concentration Patterns from Uplands to Stream Channel in Two
Completely Forested Watersheds in Puerto Rico. D; F; GW; NIT; DAM;
DTKN
235. McDowell, W.H. and S.G. Fisher (1976) Autumnal processing of dissolved
organic matter in a small woodland stx'eam ecosystem. Ecology 57; 561-
567. Direct Measurements of Vertical and Lateral Inputs of Litter to
Stream Channel from a Completely Forested Watershed. D; F; POM; 2nd
order
236. Mclntyre, S.C. and J.W. Naney (1991) Sediment deposition.in a forested
inland wetland with a steep-farmed watershed. J.'Soil Water Cons.
46 (1) ,• 64-66. Measured Long-term Sediment Trapping by a Forested
Riparian Zone Receiving Storm Floodwaters from a Stream Channel. D;
F; TSS
237. Meyer, J.L. and G.E. Likens (1979) Transport and transformations of
phosphorus in a forest stream ecosystem. Ecology 60; 1255-1269. A
Complete Phosphorus Budget for a Forested Watershed Including Litter
Inputs. D; F; MT; 3rd order; POM; PTP
238. Minshall, G.W. (1978) Autotrophy in stream ecosystems. Bioscience 28;
767-771. A Review and Report of New Data Including Litter Inputs to
Stream Channels. R; D; H; POM
239. Mitsch, W.J. (1978) Interactions between a riparian swamp and a river
in southern Illinois, pp. 63-72. i.n: Strategies for Protection and
Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems.., R.
R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick (eds) . Washington, DC: USDA, Forest
Service. Interactions of Floodwaters and Sediment/Nutrients Between
Channel and a Floodplain Cypress Wetland. D; F; TP; DPP; NIT; DAM;
DTKN; SedTrap
-------
240. Mitsch, W.J. (1988) Ecological engineering and ecotechnology with
wetlands applications .of systems approaches, pp. 565-580. in:
Advances "in Environmental Modelling., A. Marani (ed) . Amsterdam:
Elsevier. A Brief Review with Discriptions of Several New Wetland
Studies. R
241. Mitsch, W.J. (1992) Landscape design and the role of created, restored,
and natural riparian wetlands in'controlling nonpoint source
pollution. Ecol. Engin. 3.; 27-47. A Review of Results from Several
Studies of Riparian Wetlands Including Reconstructed. R
242. Mitsch, W.J., C.L. Dorge, and J.R. Wiemhoff (1979) Ecosystem dynamics
and a phosphorus budget of an alluvial cypress swamp in southern
Illinois. Ecology 60; 1116-1124. Hydrological and Phosphorus Budgets
were Measured for a Cypress Floodplain Forest and its Exchanges with
the River Channel. A Model of an Ecological Type Resulted. D; F; TSS;
TP; DPP; SedTrap
243. Mitsch, W.J.', C.L. Dorge, and J.R. Wiemmhoff (1977) Forested Wetlands
for Water Resource Management in Southern Illinois. Research Report
Number 132. Urbana, IL: Univ. Illinois Water Resour. Cen., pp. 275 pp
An Overall Hydrologic and Phosphorus Budget was Measured and Modeled
for a Floodplain Hardwood Forest. D; F; TSS; TP; DPP; DTP; ET; NIT
244. Mitsch, W.J. and B.C. Reeder (1991) Modelling nutrient retention of a
freshwater coastal wetland: estimating the roles of primary
productivity, sedimentation, resuspension and hydrology. Ecol. Modell.
54; 151-187. Simulation Model of Phosphorus Retention and Cycling in
a Wetland Receiving Agricultural Drainage. D; H; TP; DTP; DPP; PPP;
Flux; SedTrap
245. Mitsch, W.J. and B.C. Reeder (1992) Nutrient and hydrologic budgets of
a Great Lakes coastal freshwater wetland during a drought year..
Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 1(4) ,• 211-222. Hydrologic and Phosphorus
Input-Output Budgets for a Riparian Herbaceous Wetland Receiving
Agricultural Discharges. D; H; TSS; TP; DTP; DPP; MBal; SedTrap
246. Mitsch, W.J., B.C. Reeder, and D.M. Klarer (1989) The role of wetlands
in the control of nutrients with a case study of western Lake Erie.
pp. 129-159. in: Ecological Engineering: an Introduction to.
Ecotechnology., W.J. Mitsch and S.E. Jorgensen (eds) . New York:
Wiley. Review of Riverine Riparian Wetlands and Their Nutrient and
.Sediment Interactions. R
247. Mitsch, W.J. and W.G. Rust (1984) Tree growth responses to flooding in
. a bottomland forest in northeastern Illinois. Forest Science 30; 499-
510. A 60 Year Data Set on Frequency and Duration of Flooding in a
Floodplain Forest were Compared with Tree Growth Rates from Tree
Cores. D; F; BioStor
-------
248. Molinas, A., G.T. Auble, C.A. Segelquist, and L.S. Ischinger (1988)
Assessment of the Role, of Bottomland Hardwoods in Sediment and
Erosion Control. Rep. Num. NERC-88/11. Natl. Ecol. Res. Center. Ft.
Collins, CO: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., pp. 116 pp. A Model of
Sediment Generation, Transport, and Deposition was used to Predict
the Effects of Increasing the Amount of Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Along Channels of the Yazoo River. M; TSS; F
249. Mulholland, P.J. (1992) Regulation of nutrient concentration in a
temperate forest stream: Roles of upland, riparian, and instream
processes. Limnol. .Oceanogr. 37(7); 1512-1526. Nutrient Dynamics of
Completely Forested Small Watershed. Included Nutrient Interactions
Between Channel and Riparian Shallow Groundwater. D; 'F;. MT; 1st
order; DAM; NIT; DPP; DTP .
250. Muscutt'/'A.D., G.L. Harris, S.W. Bailey, and D.B. Davies (1993) Buffer
. zones to improve water quality: A review of their potential use in UK
agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 45 (1-2) ; 59-77. A General
Review of the Use of Vegetated Buffer Zones to Trap Nutrients and
Pesticides in Agricultural Drainage Waters. R
251. Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and C.A. Johnston (1988) The
potential importance of boundaries to fluvial ecosystems. J. N. Am.
Benthol..Soc. 7 (4); 289-306. Review of a Wide Range of Studies of
River Boundaries. R -
252. Naiman, R-.J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock (1993) The role of riparian
corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3 (2) ; 209-
212. Review.of Riverine Riparian Corridors and Their Ecology. R
253. Neary, D.G., A.J. Pierce, C.L. O'Loughlin, and L.K. Rowe (1978)
Management impacts on nutrient fluxes in beech-podocarp-hardwood
forests. New Zealand J. Ecol. 1; 19-26. Measured Nutrient Discharges
When a Forested Watershed was Clearcut and The Slash Burned. D; F;
MT; DTN; DTP; DAM; K; Ca
254. Nieswand, G.H., R.M. Hordon, T.B. Shelton, B.B. Chavooshian, and S.
Blarr' (1990) Buffer strips to protect water supply.reservoirs: a
model and recommendations. Water Resources Bull. 26(6); 959-966. A 5-
Zone Model for Buffer Strips to Protect Receiving Water Quality was
Applied to a New Jersey Watershed. No Verification was Done. M; OF
255. Nixon, S.W. and V. Lee (1986) Wetlands and Water Quality: A regional
review of recent.research in the United States on the Role of
Freshwater and Saltwater Wetlands as Sources, Sinks, and Transformers
of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Various Heavy Metals. Washington, D.C. :
US Army Corps Engin. Rep. Y-86-2., pp. 229 pp. A Major Review of
Wetlands and Their Relationships to Water Quality Throughout the
United States. R
256. Nutter, W.L. and J.W. Gaskin (1989) Role of streamside management zones
in controlling discharges to wetlands, pp. 81-84. in; Forested
Wetlands of the Southern United States., D. Hook and R. Lea (eds).
Orlando, FL: USDA Forest Service, SE Exp. Sta. Brief General Review
of Water Quality Effects of Riparian Zones. R
-------
257. Odum, E.P. (1978) Ecological importance of the riparian zone. pp. 2-4.
in: Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands
and Other Riparian Ecosystems., R.R. Johnson and J. F. McCormick
(eds). Wash. B.C.: USDA Forest Service. Conceptual Review of
Riparian Zones R
258. Omernik, J.M., A.R.- Abernathy, and L.M. Male (1981) Stream nutrient
levels and proximity of agricultural and forest land to streams: some
relationships. J. Soil and Water Conservation 36 (4); 227-231.
Statistical Analysis of Correlation of Nutrient Concentrations in 175
Streams with the Adjacency of Forest and Croplands to the Stream
Channel. Found some Correlations but Most Were Low. D; F; TP; DPP;
TN; DAM; NIT
259. Osborne, L.L. and D.A; Kovacic (1993) Riparian vegetated buffer strips
in water quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biol.
29_; 243-258. Studied Ground Water Nitrate and Phosphorus
Concentrations as the Water Moved from Row Crops Through Grass or
Forested Buffers or Groped Buffers. Also Total Phosphorus in
Overland Flows Through Rye Grass or Oat Buffers. D; GW; G; F; NIT;
DTP; OF; TP '
260. Otto, C. (1975) Energetic relationships of the larval population of
Potamophylax cingulatus (Trichoptera) in a south Swedish stream.
Oikos 26; 159-169. Measured Litter Inputs from Riparian Trees in a
Pastureland Watershed. D; F; 1st order; POM
261. Overcash, M.R., S.C. Bingham, and P.W. Westerman (1981) Predicting
runoff pollutant reduction in buffer zones adjacent to land treatment
sites. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. 24 (2); 430-435. Mathematical
Model for Grass Buffers Used to Trap Nutrients from Agricultural
Waste Waters. D; M; G
262. Parsons, J.E., R.B. Daniels, J.W. Gilliam, and T.A. Dillaha (1991) The •
effect of vegetation filter strips on sediment and nutrient removal
.from agricultural runoff, pp. 324-332. in: Proc. Environmentally
Sound Agriculture., A.B. Butcher (ed) . Gainesville, FL: Univ.
Florida, SSI IFAS. Comparative Study of Grassed Filter Strips in
Coastal Plain and Piedmont, for Nutrient and Sediment Removal from
Cropland Storm Runoff. D; G; CP; PT; OF; TSS; TKN; TP
263. Paterson, J. J. , J.H. Jones, F.J. Olsen, and G.C. McCoy (1980) Dairy
liquid waste distribution in an overland flow vegetative-soil filter
system. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. 23; 973-977. Measured
Effectiveness of a Grassed Riparian Zone for Removing Nutrients in
Dairy Waste Waters. Tested Overland Flows and Groundwater. D; G; DOM;
DAM; NIT; DPP; TSS; Ca
I
264. Paterson, K.G. and J.L. Schnoor (1992) Fate of alachlor and atrazine in
a riparian zone field site. Water Environ. Res. 64(3); 274-283.
Studied Effectiveness of Poplar Stands, Bare Soil, or Corn Buffers-at
Retention of Atrazine and Alachlor. D; HERB; F
-------
265. Paterson, K.G. and J.L. Schnoor (1993) Vegetative alteration of nitrate
fate .in unsaturated zQne. J. Environ. Eng. 119 (5) ; .98,6-993. Applied
Nitrate to Bare, Corn, and Poplar Tree Plots. Measured Nitrate
Concentrations in Soil Water at Depths to 135 cm. D; F; G; NIT
266. Peterjohn, W.T. (1982) Nutrient Transformations in three single-landuse
watersheds. M.S. Thesis. Oxford, OH: Miami University.
267. Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll (1984) Nutrient dynamics in an
agricultural watershed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest.
Ecology. 65 (5); 1466-1475. Overall Study of Groundwater and Overland
Flows From Croplands Through a Riparian Forest. Mass Balances for
Sediments, Nitrogen and .Phosphorus Parameters. Storage of N and P in
Woody Biomass. D.; F; CP; GW-; OF; MBA1; BioStor; TN
268. Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll (1986) The. effect of riparian forest
on the volume and chemical composition of base-flow in an
agricultural watershed, pp. 244-262. in; Watershed Research
Perspectives., D.L. Correll (ed). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Press. Complete Hydrologic Budget for Cropland/Riparian Forest
Watershed. Also Mass Balances for Nitrogen over a Two Year Period.
D; F; CP; GW; ET; NIT; MBal; BioStor
269. Petersen Jr., R.C,, L.B. Madsen, M.A. Wilzbach, C.H.D. Magadza, A.
Paarlberg, A. Kullberg, and K.W. Cummins (1987) Stream management:
emerging global similarities. Ambio 16; 166-179. A General Review of
Problems Related to Management of Streams and Their Riparian Zones.
R ' ' . •
270. Petersen, R.C., L.B.M. Petersen, and J. Lacoursiere (1992) A building
block model for stream restoration, pp. 293-309. in; River
Conservation and Management., P.J. Boon, P. Calow and G.E. Petts
(eds). Chichester: John Wiley. Review and Management Recommendations
for Restoration of Riparian Buffer Zones on Streams. M; R .
271. Peterson, D.L. and G.L. Rolfe (1982) Seasonal variation in nutrients of
floodplain and upland forest soils of Central Illinois. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 46; 1310-1315. Compared Nutrient Composition of Upland and
Floodplain Forest Soils. D; F; PPP; Ca; Mg; K
272. Peverly, J.H. (1982) Stream transport of nutrients through a wetland. J.
Environ. Qual. 11; 38-43. Upstream-Downstream Comparison of Nutrient
Concentrations, Especially Dissolved Nutrients, for a Stream that
Flows into and out of a Large Wetland Managed for Wildlife. D; F; TN;
TP; DOM; DPP; NIT
273. Phillips, J.D. (1989) Nonpoint source pollution control effectiveness
of riparian forests along a coastal plain river. J. Hydrol. 110; 221-
237. A Model Utilizing Hydrologic and Soil Parameters to Predict the
Effectiveness of Riparian Forests to Remove Nitrate for a Large
Watershed. D; M; F; CP; NIT
274. Phillips, J.D. (1989) Fluvial sediment storage in wetlands. Water
Resourc. Bull. 25; 867-873. Review of Sediment Trapping by Wetlands
.Within Watersheds. R; SedTrap
-------
275. Pierce, 'R.S., C.W. Martin, C.C. Reeves, G.E. Likens, and F.H. Bormann
(1972) Nutrient loss £rom clearcutting in New Hampshire, pp. 285-295.
in: Watersheds in Transition. Proc. Series Num. 14., S.C. Scallany,
P.G. McLaughlin and W.D. Striffler (eds). Urbana, IL.: Amer. Water
' Resources Assoc- Study of a Research Complete Clear-Cut of a
Completely Forested Watershed, Where all biomass was left in Place
and Regrpwth was Allowed. Nutrient Discharges were Followed During
Recovery. Data were also .Collected from 70 other Clear-Cuts in the
Same Region. D; F; MT; NIT; Ca; Mg; DOC
276. Pinay, G. (1986) Relations sol-nappe dans les bois reverains de la
Garonne: Etude de la denitrification. Ph. D. Thesis. Toulouse: Univ.
P. Sabatier, pp. 196 pp.
277. Pinay, G. and H. Decamps (1988) The role of riparian woods in
regulating nitrogen fluxes between the alluvial aquifer and surface
water: A conceptual model. Regulated rivers: Research and Management
"2_; 507-516. Measured Changes in Nitrate Concentrations in Shallow
Ground Water as it Moved from Agricultural Uplands Through Various
Forested Riparian Zones. D; F; GW; NIT
278. Pinay, G. , H. Decamps, C. Aries, and M. Lacassin-Seres (1989)
Topographic influence on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in riverine
woods. Arch. Hydrobiol. 114 (3); 401-414. Sampled Soils of Riparian
Forests at 4 Depths and Correlated Waterlogging with Nitrogen and
Organic Carbon Parameters. Measured Eh. D; F; POM; NIT; PTKN; PAM
279. Pinay, G., H. Decamps, E. Chauvet, and E. Fustec (1990) Functions of
ecotones in fluvial systems, pp. 141-169. in: The Ecology and
Management of Aquatic-Terrestrial Ecotones. Man and the Biosphere
Series., R.J. Naiirian and H. Decamps (eds). Paris: UNESCO. A General
Review of the Functional Ecology of Riverine Riparian Zones. R
280. Pinay, G., A. Fabre, P.h. Vervier, and F. Gazelle (1992) Control of C,N
P distribution in soils of riparian forests. Landscape Ecol. 6(3) ;
121-132. Three Riparian Willow Stands were Sampled for Soil
Nutrients and Nitrogen Mineralization and Denitrification. The
Results were Correlated with Geomorphic Features. D; F; 7th order;
Denit-L; TP; TN; POM; PAM
281. Pinay, G. and L. Labroue (1986) Une station d'epuration naturelle des
nitrates transportes par les nappes alluviales: 1'aulnaie glutineuse.
C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 302 (III; 629-632. Sampled Groundwater along
Transects of Wells Through an Alder Riparian Forest. Measured
Nitrate Concentration Pattern and Denitrification Potential. D; , F;
GW; NIT; Denit-L
282. Pinay, G. and R.J. Naiman (1991) Short-term hydrologic variations and'
nitrogen dynamics in beaver created meadows. Arch. Hydrobiol. 123 (2) ;
187-205. Correlated Water Logging Conditions with Eh, and Soil Water
Nutrient Concentrations. 'D; H; NIT; DOM; DAM
-------
283. Pinay, G. , L. Roques, and A. Fabre (1993) Spatial and temporal patterns
of denitr.if ication in.a riparian forest. J. Appl. Ecol. 30(4) ; 581-
591. Four Transects Through Riparian Forests. Measured Nitrate
Concentrations, Denitrification Potentials, Used NaCl as a Tracer. D;
F; GW; 4th order; Denit-L; NIT; Fe; Mn
284. Pionke, H.B. and R.R. Lowrance (1991) Fate of nitrate in subsurface
drainage waters, pp. 237-257. in: Managing Nitrogen for Groundwater
Quality and Farm Profitability., (ed) . Madison, WI: Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. A Broad Review of Nitrate Dynamics in Shallow and Deep Ground
Water. Includes Sections on Effects of Riparian Zones. R; GW
285. Prato, T. and H. Shi (1990) A comparison of erosion and water pollution
control strategies for an agricultural watershed. Water Resources Res'.
26; 199-205. A Management Oriented Modeling Exercise in Which BMPs
on.Cropland Fields were Compared to Riparian Vegetation Strategies
for Controlling Sediment Yields to a Watershed Stream Channel. M;
TSS; TN; DTP; SedTrap
286. Pringle, C.M. and F.J. Triska (1991) Effects of geothermal groundwater
on nutrient dynamics of a lowland Costa Rican stream. Ecology 72.; 951-
965. Groundwater was Sampled with Transects of Wells from Stream
Channels Through Riparian Zones in Tropical Forested Watersheds. D;
F; GW; DPP; NIT
287. Raedeke, K.(.e.d.). (1987) Streamside Management: Riparian Wildlife and
Forestry Interactions. Seattle: Institute of Forest Resources.
288. Reed, S.C. (1990) Wetland systems, pp. 211-260. in: Natural Systems for
Wastewater Treatment. Manual of Practices. FD-16., (ed). Alexandria,
VA: Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. Detailed-Operational Manual for
Planning and Operation of Natural and Constructed Wetland Systems for
Water Quality Treatment. M
289. Rhode, W.A. , L.E. Asmussen, E.W. Hauser, R.D. Wauchope, and H.D. Allison
(1980) Trifluralin movement in runoff from a small agricultural
watershed. J. Environ. Qual. j?; 37-42. Measured Flux of Trifluralin
in Overland Storm Flows From Soybean Fields Through a Grassed
Waterway. D; G; OF; CP; HERB
290. Richardson, C.J. (1985) Mechanisms controlling phosphorus retention
capacity in freshwater wetlands. Science 228; 1424-1427. An Array of
Wetland.Soils were Studied with Respect to Their Phosphorus Binding
Capacity. Capacity may be Predicted Solely from Extractable Aluminum
Content of the Soil. D; DTP; DPP
291. Richardson, C.J. (1989) Freshwater Wetlands: Transformers, Filters, or
Sinks?, pp. 25-46. in: Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife., R.R.
Sharitz and J.W. Gibbons (eds). Oak Ridge: US Dept. Energy. A
General Review of Water Quality Interactions of a Wide Range of
Freshwater Wetlands. R
292. Risser, P.G. (1990) The ecological importance of land-water ecotones.
pp.--7-21. in: The Ecology and Management of Aquatic-Terrestrial
Ecotones. Man and the Biosphere Series., R.J. Naiman and H. DeCamps
(eds). Paris: UNESCO. Overall Review of Ecology of Riparian Ecotones.
R '
-------
293. Sanchez-Perez, J.M., M. fremolieres, A. Schnitzler, and R. Carbiener
(1991) Evolution de la qualite physico-chimique des eaux de la frange
superficielle de la nappe phreatique en fonction du cycle saisonnier
et des stades de succession des forets alluviales rhenanes (Querco-
Ulmetum minoris Issl. 24). .Acta Ecologica 12 (5) ; 581-6.01. Studies of
Changes in Water Quality as Waters Move onto the Flood Plain of the
Rhine and Infiltrate into Riparian Forests. D; F; GW; HZ; NIT; DAM;
DPP; K
294. Sanchez-Perez, J.M., M. Tremolieries, and R, Carbiener (1991) A site of
natural purification for phosphates and nitrates carried by the Rhine
flood waters: the alluvial ash-'elm forest. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris,
Serie III. 312; 395-402. Measured Concentrations of Nitrate and
Phosphate in Floodwaters and along Forested Riparian Zone
Infiltration Pathways. D; F; GW; NIT; DPP
295. Schellinger, G.R. and J.C. Clausen (1992) Vegetative filter treatment
of dairy barnyard runoff in cold regions. J. Environ. Qual. 21; 40-45,
Measured Nutrient, Coliform, and Sediment Transport from a Retention
Pond via a Level-Lip Spreader Through a Grassed Buffer. Measured TN
and TP in harvested aboveground grass cuttings. Measured both
surface and groundwater discharges. D; G; OF; GW; TSS; TP; TKN; DTP
296. Schipper, L.A.,.A.B. Cooper, and W.J. Dyck (1991) Mitigating non-point
source nitrate pollution by riparian zone denitrification. pp. 401-
413. in: Nitrate Contamination: Exposure, Consequence and Control.
NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Nebraska, Sept. 1990., I. Bogardi
and R.D. Kuzelka (eds). New York: Springer. Review of Studies of
Denitrification in New Zealand Agricultural Riparian Zones. R; NIT;
Denit-L
297. Schipper, L.A., A.B. Cooper, C.G. Harfoot, and W.J. Dyck (1993)
Regulators of denitrif ication in an organic riparian soil. Soil Biol..
Biochem. 25; 925-933. Measured Denitrification Potentials in
Riparian Soils Downslope from Sewage Spray-Irrigated Forest.
Examined Controls by Moisture Content, Temperature, Organic Matter.
D; GW; NIT; Denit-L
298. Schipper, L.A., A.B. Cooper, C.G. Harfoot, and W.J. Dyck (1994) An
inverse relationship between nitrate and ammonium in an organic
riparian soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 26 (6) ; 799-800. Measured
Relationship in Riparian Soil Among Organic Matter, Denitrification
Potential, and Dissimilatory Reduction of Nitrate to Ammonium. D; GW;
NIT; Denit-L
299. Schipper, L.A. , C.G. Harfoot, P.N.' McFarlane, and A.B. .Cooper (1994)
Anaerobic decomposition and denitrification during plant
decomposition in an organic soil. J. Environ. Qual. 23; 923-928.
Measured Denitrification Potential, Methanogenesis, and Carbon
Dioxide Production Rates from Soil Cores with and without Amendments
with Various Natural Organic Matter Sources. D; F; NIT; Denit-L
-------
300. Schlosser, I.J. and J.R. Karr (1981) Riparian vegetation and channel
morphology impact on sjpatial patterns of water quality in
agricultural watersheds. Environ. Management 5_; 233-243. Two
Agricultural Watersheds with Variable Riparian Vegetation along
'Tributary and Main Channel Reaches were Compared for Yields of Total
Suspended Solids and Total Particulate Phosphorus. Results were
Compared with Model Predictions. D; TSS; FTP
301. Schlosser, I.J. and J.R. Karr (1981) Water quality in agricultural
watersheds: impact of riparian vegetation during baseflow. Water
Resources Bulletin 17; 233-240. Monitored Phosphorus and Suspended
Sediments During Baseflow at Various Locations on Six Agricultural
Watersheds. Compared Water Quality of Reaches With and Without
Riparian Forest. D; F; TSS; TP; DPP ,
302. Schnabel, R.R. (1986) Nitrate concentrations in a small stream as
affected by chemical and hydrologic interactions in the riparian zone.
pp. 263-282. in; Watershed Research Perspectives., D.L. Correll (ed) .
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press. Measured Potential
Denitrification in Soils of a Riparian Forest Receiving Groundwater
from Agricultural Fields. D; 'F; GW; MT; 1st order; Denit-L; NIT
303. Schnabel, R.R., .W.J. Gburek, and W.L. Stout (1994) Evaluating riparian
zone control on nitrogen entry into northeast streams, pp. 432-445.
in: Riparian Ecosystems in the Humid U.S., Functions, Values and
Management., (ed). Wash., D;C.: Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Districts.
Review of Factors Which are Important in Determining the
Effectiveness of Riparian Buffers in a Landscape. R; GW; NIT
»
304. Schnabel, R.R. and W.L. Stout (1994) Denitrification loss from two
Pennsylvania floodplain soils. J. Environ. Qual. 23; 344-348.
Measured Plant Uptake, Denitrification Potential, and Nitrous Oxide
Concentrations in Soil Water of Grassed Riparian Plots Fertilized
Heavily with Mineral Nitrogen. D; G; GW; MT; NIT; Denit-L; BioStor
305. Schultz, R., J. Colletti, C. Mize, A. Skadberg, M. Christian, W.
Simpkins, M. Thompson, and B. Menzel (1991) Sustainable tree-shrub-
grass buffer strips along midwestern-waterways. pp. 312-326. in; Proc.
2nd Conference on Agroforestry in North America., H.E.G.e.n.e.
Garrett (ed). Columbia, MO.: Univ. Missouri. Established Grassed and
Forested Riparian Experimental Zones and Instituted Studies of
Nutrient Flux From Agricultural Areas. D; M; F; G-; GW; OF; TN; TP
306. Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, R.B. Hall, and C.W. Mizel (1989) Uses of
short-rotation woody crops in agroforestry: An Iowa perspective, pp.
88-99. in; First Conference on Agroforestry in North America,
Proceedings., P. Williams (ed). Guelph, Canada: University of Guelph.
A Concepts Paper Including the Potential Benefits from Reestablishing
Riparian Forest Buffers in Iowa. Describes the Design of the Risdal
Buffer Strip Project. M; F
-------
307. Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, W.W. Simpkins, C.W. Mize, and M.L.
Thompson _ (1994) Developing a multispecies riparian buffer strip-'
agroforestry system, pp. 203-225. in: Riparian Ecosystems in the
Humid U.S., Functions, Values and Management., (ed). Wash. D.C.:
Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Districts. Measured Changes in Nitrate and
Atrazine Concentrations as Groundwater from Croplands Moved Through a
Reconstructed, Three-Tiered Riparian Buffer in Iowa. D; F; GW; NIT;
HERB; BioStor; B; G .
308. Schwer, C.B. and J.C. Clausen (1989) Vegetative filter treatment of
dairy milkhouse wastewater. J. Environ. Qual. 18; 446-451. Measured
Nutrient Mass Balances Including Both Surface and Subsurface Outputs.
D; G; TSS; MBal; TP; TN; PPP; DAM
309. Sedell, J.R., F.J. Triska, J.D. Hall, N.H. Anderson, and J.H. Lyford
(1974) Sources and fates of organic inputs in coniferous forest
streams, pp. 57-69. in; Integrated Research in the Coniferous Forest
Biome. Conif. For. Biome, Ecosyst. Anal. Stud., US/IBP, Bull. No. 5.,
R.H. Waring and R.L. Edmonds (eds). Seattle: Univ. 'Washington.
Measured Vertical and Lateral Litter Fluxes into Channels of Two
Forested Watersheds. D; F; MT; POM
310-/- Seitzinger, S.P. (1994) Linkages between organic matter mineralization
and denitrification in eight riparian wetlands. Biogeochemistry 25(1);
19-39. Compared Eight Primarily Forested Wetlands in NJ and PA for
Denitrification Rates with Ambient and Elevated Nitrate
Concentrations. D; F; CP; NIT; Denit-L
311. Sidle, R.C. (1986) Seasonal patterns of allochthonous debris in three
riparian zones of a coastal Alaska drainage, pp. 283-304. in:
Watershed Research Perspectives., D.L. Correll (ed). Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Press. Measured Litter Nutrient Inputs to Stream Channel
in Three Reaches of a Completely Forested Watershed in Alaska. D; F;
1st order; 2nd order; POM; PTP; PTN
312. Sievers, D.M., G.B. Garner, and E.E. Picket (1975) A lagoon-grass
terrace system to treat swine waste, pp. 542-543, 548. in; Proc. 3rd
Internatl. Livestock Waste Symp. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin.
Publication PROC 275., (ed). St. Joseph, MI: Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin.
Use of Grassed Riparian Waterway to Remove Nutrients and Sediments.
Did Not Examine Groundwater Quality. D; G; OF; TN; TP; TSS; POM; DOM
313. Simmons, R.C. (1990) Nitrate Attenuation in the Shallow Groundwater of
Riparian Forests. M.S. Thesis. : Univ. Rhode Island.
314. Simmons, R.C., A.J. Gold, and P.M. Groffman (1992) Nitrate dynamics in
riparian forests: Groundwater studies. J. Environ. Qual. 21(4); 659-
665. Several Sites were Manipulated by Adding Nitrate and Bromide
Tracer, then Following Changes in the.Ratio Downslope.. D; F; GW; TS;
NIT
-------
Jib. Smith, C.M. (1989) Riparian pasture retirement effects on sediment,
phosphorus and nitrogen in channellised surface run-off from pastures.
N. Z. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 23; 139-146. Concentrations of
Sediments and Nutrients were Compared in Overland Storm Flows Through
Riparian Zones of Completely Pastured Watersheds and Pastured
Watersheds in Which Livestock were Removed from the Riparian Zone. D;
OF; H; TSS; TP; TN; NIT; G .
316. Smith, C.M. (1992) Riparian afforestation effects on water yields, and
water quality in pasture catchments. J. Environ. Qual. 21; 237-245.
Hydrologic Data from two Pasture Watersheds were Compared for Nine
Years Prior and Nine Years Subsequent to Afforestation of Riparian
Zones with Pine. Two Years of Sediment and Nutrient Discharge Data
were also Taken for These and Other Pasture Watersheds. D; F; 1st
order; TSS; DTP; DTKN; NIT
317. Sontheimer, H. (1980) Experience with river bank filtration along the '
Rhine River. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 72; 386-390. Summary of
Long-Term Data on Effectiveness of Treating Rhine River Waters by
Percolation'Through Riparian Forests. D; F; TrM; Fe; DPP; DOM
.318. Spomer, .R.G., R.L. Mahurin, and R.F. Piest (1986) Erosion, deposition,
and sediment yield from Dry Creek Basin, Nebraska. Trans. Amer. Soc.
Agric. Engin. 29; 489-493. Permanent Elevation Markers Placed in the
Floodplain 30 Years Before were Used to Measure Sediment Trapping. D;
SedTrap
319. Stanford, J.A. and J.V. Ward (1988) The hyporheic habitat of river
ecosystems. Nature 335; 64-66. Shallow Groundwater Wells in Riparian
. Zone were Used to Sample for biota and Nutrients. D; GW; DOM; DTP;
NIT; HZ
320. Staver, K.W. and R.B. Brinsfield. (1990) Groundwater discharge patterns
in Maryland coastal plain agricultural systems, pp. 593-603. in: New
Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A Research and Managment
Partnership. Ches. Res. Consort. Publ. No. 137., J.H. Mihursky and A.
Chaney (eds). Solomons, MD: Ches. Res..Consort. Measured Volumes and
. Nitrate Content of Shallow Groundwater Moving From Cropland Through a
Riparian Shoreline and into a Tidal River. D; CP; GW; NIT; Flux
321. Staver, K.W. and R.B..Brinsfield (1991) Monitoring agrochemical
transport into shallow unconfined aquifers, pp. 264-278. in;
Groundwater Residue Sampling Design. ACS Symp. Series 465., R.G.
Nash and A.R. Leslie (eds) . Washington, DC: Amer. Chem. Soc.
Measured Volume and Nitrate Content of Shallow Groundwater Moving
from Agricultural Fields Through a Riparian Zone and into a Tidal
River. D; CP; GW; NIT; Flux
322. Staver, K.W. and R.B. Brinsfield (1993) Coupling of Agricultural
Watersheds and Coastal Waters: Role of Groundwater Nutrient Inputs. :
. .Univ. Maryland Agr. Exper. Sta. Measured Volume and Nitrate Content
of Groundwater Moving from Agricultural Fields Through a Riparian"
Zone of Grass/Forest and into a Tidal River. D; CP; F; G; GW; NIT
-------
323. Staver, K.W. and R.B. Brinsfield. (1994) Groundwater/estuarine
interactions in a coastal plain riparian agroecosystem. pp. 256-276.
in: Riparian Ecosystems in the Humid U.S., Functions, Values and
Management., (e'd) . Wash. ,B.C. : Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Districts.
Measured Volume and Nitrate Contents of Groundwater Moving from a
Cropland Area into a Tidal River in Maryland. D; CP; GW; NIT; Flux
324. Stewart, B.A. .and B.R. Davies (1990) Allochthonous inputs and retention
in a small mountain stream, South Africa. Hydrobiologia 202; 135-146.
Measured Vertical Litter Inputs to a Small Stream Channel. D; F;
1st order; POM
325. Stuart, G.W., C.A. Dolloff, and E.S. Corbett. (1994) Riparian area
functions and values - a forest perspective, pp. 81-89. in: Riparian
•Ecosystems in the Humid U.S., Functions, Values and Management.,
(ed) . Wash. B.C.: Natl. Assoc. Conserv. Bistricts. Broad Review of
the Impacts of Beforestation of Watersheds and Riparian Zones and
Channel Alterations, Habitat and Functional Values of Riparian
Forests. R; F
326. Swank, W.T. (1988) Stream chemistry responses to disturbance, pp. 339-
358. in: Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta., W.T. Swank and B.
A. Crossley Jr. (eds). London: Springer. Long-term Comparison of
Control Forested Watersheds and Two That Were Manipulated. One was
Completely Clear Cut and Replanted with Trees, Another Was Managed in
Grass for a Long Time, Then Planted in Trees. B; F; MT; 2nd order;
NIT; DPP; DAM; Ca
327. Swanson, F.J., S.V. ^Gregory, J.R. Sedell, and A.G. Campbell (1982) Land
water interactions: The riparian zone. pp. 267-291. in: Analysis of
Coniferous Forest Ecosystems in the Western United States., R.L.
Edmonds (ed). : US/IBP Synthesis Series. General Wide-Ranging Review
of Riparian Zones Including Impact of Vegetation via Litter Inputs.
R; POM.
328. Sweeney, B.W. (1993) Effects of streamside vegetation on
macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in Eastern North
.America. Proc. Acad. Natural Sci. Phil. 144; 291-340. Direct
Measurements of Flux of Litter into Channel. Compared Nitrate
Concentrations in Two First Order Streams Which Had and Did Not Have
Riparian Forests. D; F; PT; NIT; POM
329. Swift, L.W.J.r. (1986) Filter strip widths for forest roads in the
Southern Appalachians. Southern J. Appl. Forestry. 10; 27-34.
Measured Bistance that Sediment was Transported Below New Roads When
Various Management Techniques were Utilized. B; F; TSS
330. Tailing, J.F. (1957) The longitudinal succession of water
'characteristics in the White Nile. Hydrobiologia 11; 73-89. Measured
. Upstream/Bownstream Changes in Nutrient Concentrations for the White
Nile River as Affected by Passage Through a Large Wetland System
The Sudd. B; H; DPP; DAM; NIT;. Fe
-------
331. Thomas, K., R.H. Norris, and G.A. Chilvers (1992) Litterfall in
riparian and adjacent ..forest zones near a perennial upland stream' in
the Australian Capital Territory. Aust.. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43;
511-516. Directly Measured Vertical Litter Inputs to a Small Stream
Channel from a Riparian Eucalyptus Forest. D; F; POM
332. Tollner, E.W., B.J.'Barfield, C.T. Haan, and T.Y. Kao (1976) Suspended
sediment filtration capacity of simulated vegetation. Trans.', Am. Soc.
Agric. Engin. 19; 678-682. A Model of Sediment Trapping from
Overland Flows by Simulated Grass Filter Strips. D; G; OF; TSS
333. Tollner, E.W., B.J. Barfield, and J.C. Hayes (1982) Sedimentology of
exact vegetal filters. Proc. Hydraulics Div. Amer. Soc. Civil Engin.
108; 1518-1531. Theoretical Studies and Experimental Data Were Used
to Develop Models to Describe Sediment Deposition in Simulated Grass
Filter Strips. D; G; OF; TSS
334. Tollner, E.W., B.J. Barfield, C. Vachirakornwatana, and C.T. Haan (1977)
Sediment deposition patterns in simulated grass filters. Trans. Amer..
Soc. Agric. Engin. 20(5); 940-944. Model of Sediment Trapping
Efficiency for Various Grass Filter Strip Designs was Validated with
Laboratory Experimental Tests of Grass Plots. D; G; TSS; SedTrap
335. Tremolieres, M., D. Carbienier, R. Carbienier, I. Eglin, F. Robach, J.M.
Sanchez-Perez, A. Schnitzler, and D. Weiss (1991) Zones indondables,
vegetation et qualite de 1'eau en milieu alluvial Rhenan: L'ille de
Rhinau, un site de recherches integrees. Bull. Ecol. 22(3-4); 317-336.
A Review of Work on the Interactions Between Waters Flooding from the
Rhine River onto its FloodPlain and Infiltrating into Groundwater
Under the FloodPlain Forests. Focused on the Effects of Forest
Species Composition and Water Quality Effects. R; F; GW
336. Tremolieres, M. , r. Eglin, U. Roeck, and R. Carbiener (1993) The
exchange process between river and groundwater on the Central Alsace
floodplain (Eastern France). I. The Case of the Canalized River Rhine.
Hydrobiologia 254; 133-148. Followed Nutrient, Mercury, and
Dissolved Organic Matter Concentrations of Waters Infiltrating and
Moving as Groundwater in the Phreatic Zone of Riparian Forest Areas.
D; F; GW; HZ; NIT; DPP; TrM; DOM
337. Tremolieres, M., U. Roeck, J.P. Klein, and R. Carbiener (1994) The
exchange process between river and groundwater on the central Alsace
floodplain (Eastern France) : II. The case of a river, with functional
floodplain. Hydrobiologia 273; 19-36. Studied Changes in Groundwater
Nutrients as River Channel Waters Interacted with Groundwater in the
. Ill River, a Major Tributary of the Rhine. D; F; G; GW;. DOM; DAM;
DPP; NIT
338. Trimble Jr., G.R. and R.S. Sartz (1957) How far from a stream should a
logging road be located?. J. Forestry 55; 339-341. Field Data and
Recommendations for Width of Forest Buffers in New England Mountains
Based on Slope. D; M; F; MT; TSS
-------
339. Triska, F.J., J.H. Duff, and R.J. Avanzino (1990) Influence of exchange
flow between the channel and hyporheic zone on nitrate production- in
a small mountain stream. Canad. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47; 2099-2111.
Studied Changes in Nutrient Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater and
Hyporheic Zone of Riparian Area. Experimentally Added Ammonium to
Shallow Groundwater and Measured Nitrification. D; F; 3rd order; HZ;
DAM; NIT; DTKN; Nitrif
340. Triska, F.J., J.H. Duff, and R.J. Avanzino (1993) Patterns of
hyrological exchange and nutrient transformation in the hyporheic
zone .of a gravel-bottom stream: Examining terrestrial-aquatic
linkages. Freshwater Biol. 29(2); 259-274. Experimental Injections
into Shallow Groundwater of Ammonium to Measure Potential
Ammonification and Nitrification and of Acetylene and Nitrate to
Measure Potential Denitrification. D; F; GW; HZ; TS; DAM; Nitrif;
Denit-F
341. Triska, F.J., A.P. Jackman, J.H. Duff, and R.J. Avanzino (1994)
Ammonium sorption to channel and riparian sediments: A transient
storage pool for dissolved inorganic nitrogen. Biogeochemistry 26 (2).;
67-83. Alluvial Sediments in Nylon Mesh Bags were Incubated in
Stream Bed and in Groundwater Wells in the Riparian Zone. Compared
Riparian Old-Growth Forest with a 23rYear Old Clear Cut. Focused on
Ammonium and Nitrate. D; F; MT; 3rd Order; PAM; DAM; NIT
342. Triska, F.J., V.C. Kennedy, R.J. Avanzino, G.W. Zellweger, and K.E.
Bencala (1989) Retention and transport of nutrients in a third-order
stream in northwestern California: hypoheic processes. Ecology. 70;
1893-1905. Injected Chloride and Nitrate Continuously for 20 days
into Stream Channel and Measured Exchange Rate and Distances into
Riparian Zone with Groundwater Wells. Measured Dissolved Carbon and
Nitrogen. D; F; GW; HZ; TS; NIT; DAM; DOC
343. Triska, F.J., V.C. Kennedy, R.J. Avanzino, G.W. Zellweger, and K.E.
Bencala (1990) In situ retention-transport response to nitrate
loading and storm discharge in a third-order stream. J. N. Am.
Benthol. Soc. 9(3); 229-239. Examined the Kinetics and Magnitude of
Channel-Riparian Zone Exchange by Conducting a Mass Balance Injection
of.Nitrate and Chloride to Stream Channel. D; F; HZ; 3rd order; NIT;
.MBal . •
344. Triska, F.J., J.R. Sedell, K. Cromack Jr., S.V. Gregory, and P.M.
McCorison (1984) .Nitrogen budget for a small coniferous forest
stream. Ecol. Monogr. 54; 119-140. A Complete Nitrogen Budget for a
Small Completely Forested Watershed Including Vertical and Lateral
Litter Inputs and the Nitrogen Content of these Litter Inputs. D; F;
MT; 1st order; POM; PTKN; DTKN; NIT
345. Triska, F.J^, J.R. Sedell, and S.V. Gregory (1982) Coniferous forest
streams, pp. 292-332. in: Analysis of Coniferous Forest Ecosystems in
the Western United States. US/IBP Synthesis Series 14., R.L.
Edmonds (ed). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.
Review and Synthesis of Research on Nutrient Dynamics of Several
Forested Mountain Watersheds Including Inputs of Dissolved Organic
Matter in Groundwater and Litter Inputs. R; F; MT; POM; 'DOM
-------
346. Urban, N.R. and S.J. Eisenreich .(1988) Nitrogen cycling in a forested
Minnesota bog. Can. J. Bot. 66; 435-469. Nitrogen Budget for a
Mire/Bog Including Upland Inputs and Stream Outputs. D; F; DTKN; NIT;
DAM; BioStor; MBal
347. Van der Valk, A.G., C.B. Davis, J.L. Baker, and C.E. Beer (1978)
Natural freshwater wetlands as nitrogen and phosphorus traps for land
runoff, pp. 457-467. in: Wetlands Functions and Values: The State of
Our Understanding., P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark and J.E. Clark (eds).'
Minneapolis, MN: Am. Water Resour. Assoc. General Review of Nutrient
Trapping in Fresh Water Wetlands. R -
348. Van der Valk, A.G. and R.W. Jolly (1992) Recommendations for research
to develop guidelines for the use of wetlands to control rural
nonpoint source pollution. Ecol. Engin. _!; 115-134. Recommendations
for the use of Constructed Wetlands for Nonpoint Source Control. M
349. Vellidis, G., R. Lowrance, M.C. Smith, and R.K. Hubbard (1993) Methods
to assess the water quality impact of a restored riparian wetland. J.
Soil & Water Cons. 48 (3) ; 223-230. Design of a Reconstructed
Forested Riparian Zone for Nonpoint Source Agricultural Pollution
Control. M; CP;. F; GW
350. Verry, E.S. and D.R. Timmons (1982) Waterborne nutrient flow through an
upland-peatland watershed in Minnesota. Ecology 63; 1456-1467. A
Peat Wetland Which was the Groundwater Outwelling Source Area for a
Stream. A Complete Hydrologic and Nutrient Budget was Constructed
Including.the Role of the Wetland. D; H; GW; NIT; DAM; TN; TP; DPP
351. Vervier, P., M. Dobson, and G. Pinay (1993) Role of interaction zones
between surface and ground waters in DOC transport and processing:
considerations for river restoration. Freshwater Bidl. 29,- 275-284.
Changes in Shallow Groundwater as it Moves Through a Gravel Bar on a
Large River. D; GW; DOM; TS; NIT; DTP
352. Vervier, P. and R.J. Naiman (1992) Spatial and temporal fluctuations of
dissolved organic carbon in subsurface flow of the Stillaguamish
.(Washington, USA). Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 123; 401-412. Followed
Changes in Dissolved Organic Carbon Concentration as Shallow
Groundwater Moved Through a Gravel Bar. D; F; GW; 6th order; DOM
353. Vincent, W.F. and M.T. Downes (1980) Variation in nutrient removal from
a stream by watercress (Nasturtium officinale R. Br.). Aquatic Bot. 9_;
221-235. Nutrient Removal by Watercress on Stream Bank. D; H; NIT;
DPP; DAM; 2nd order
354. Vitousek, P.M. (1981) Clear-cutting and the nitrogen cycle. Ecol. Bull.
(Stockholm). 33; 631-642. Review of Effects on Nutrient Dynamics of
Clearcutting a Forested Watersheds. R; F; NIT
355. Vitousek, P.M., J.R. Gosz, C.C. Grier, J.M. Melillo, W.A. Reiners, and
R.L. Todd (1979) Nitrate losses from disturbed ecosystems. Science
204; 469-474. Review of the Effects on Nutrient Dynamics of
Clearcutting Forested Watersheds. R; F; NIT
-------
356. Vitousek, P.M. and J.M. Melillo (1979) Nitrate losses from disturbed
forests: patterns and mechanisms. Forest Science 25(4)'; 605-619.
Review of-'the Effects''on Nutrient Dynamics of Clearcutting Forested
Watersheds. R; F; NIT
357. Von Gunten, H.R., G. Karametaxas, U. Krahenbuhl, M. Kuslys, R. Giovanoli
E. Hoehn, and R. Keil (1991) Seasonal biogeochemical cycles in
riverborne groundwater. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 55; 3597-3609.
Water Quality was Measured as River Channel Water Percolated Through
the River Bank to a Pumping Station. D; DOM; NIT; pH; TrM; Mn; Ca;
Infil
358. Von Gunten, H.R. and T.P. Kull (1986) Infiltration of inorganic
compounds from the Glatt River, Switzerland,.into a groundwater
aquifer. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 29; 333-346. Measured Changes in
Concentrations as River Channel Water Infiltrated the Bank and into
Groundwater. D; GW; K; Ca; Mg; NIT; DPP; TrM
359. Vought, L.B.-M., J. Dahl, C.L. Pedersen, and J.O. Lacoursiere (1994)
Nutrient retention in riparian ecotones. Ambio 23 (6).; 342-348.
General Review of Riparian Zone Functions Plus Some New Data From
Sweden on Changes in Nutrients in Surface and Groundwaters with
Distance of Travel Through Riparian Vegetation Zones. R; D; OF; GW;
NIT; TN; TP; DPP
360. Vought, L.B.M., J.O. Lacoursiere, and N.J. Voetz (1991) Streams in the
agricultural landscape?. Vatten 47; 321-328. Experimental
Measurements of Overland Flows Through Riparian Zone after Enriching
with Nutrients and of Shallow Groundwater Flows. . D; F; H; G; OF; GW;
NIT; DPP
o
361. Walbridge, M.R. (1993) Functions and values of forested wetlands in the
southern United States. J. Forestry 91 (5); 15-19. Review of Forested
Wetlands. R; F
362. Walbridge, M.R. and B.C. Lockaby (1994) Effects of forest monagement on
biogeochemical functions in southern forested wetlands. Wetlands
14 (1); 10-17. A Review Focused on Nutrients in Forested'Wetlands. R
363. Walbridge, M.R. and J.P. Struthers (1993) Phosphorus retention in non-
tidal palustrine forested wetlands of the Mid-Atlantic region.
Wetlands 13 (2); 84-94. A Broad Review of Phosphorus Retention in
Coastal .Plain Floodplain Forests. R; CP; TP *
364. Ward, J.V. (1989) The four dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems.' J.
North Amer.' Benth. Soc. £3; 2-8. Review and Conceptual Description of
How Stream Channels Interact with Floodplains and Hyporheic Zone. R
365. Warwick, J. and A.R. Hill (1988) Nitrate depletion in the riparian zone
of a small woodland stream. Hydrobiologia 157 (3); 231-240. A
Forested Watershed. Water Flowing on or Near Surface from Spring
Seeps Through Riparian Zone was Enriched with Nitrate and
Concentrations were Traced to Stream Channel. Laboratory
Denitrification Potentials Were.Measured for Soils. D; F; 2nd order;
NIT;" Denit-L
-------
366. Webster, J.R. (1977) Large particulate organic matter processing in
- stream ecosystems, pp. 505-526. in: Watershed Research in Eastern,
North America. , D.L.'Correll (ed). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press.
Directly Measured Both Vertical Litter Fall and Lateral Litter Inputs
to 4 Completely Forested Watershed Streams. D; F; MT;'POM
367. Webster, J.R., S.W. Golladay, E.F. 'Benfield, D.J. D'Angelo, and G.T.
. Peters (1990) Effects of watershed disturbance on particulate
organic matter budgets of small streams. J. North Amer. Benth. Soc. 9;
120-140. Litter Inputs to Channels were Directly Measured for Two ~
Completely Forested and Three Logged Watersheds. D; F; POM
368. Webster., J.R., S^W. Golladay, E.F. Benfield, J.L. Meyer, W.T. Swank, and
J.B. Wallace (1992) Catchment disturbance and stream response: An
overview of stream research at-Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, pp. 231-
253. in: River Conservation and Management., P.J. Boon, P. Calow and
G.E. Petts (eds).. Chichester: Wiley. Review of Effects of Logging
Forested Watersheds. R; F; TSS; POM
369. Weimhoff, J.R. (1977) Hydrology of a Southern Illinois Cypress Swamp.
Master's Thesis. Chicago: Illinois Institute Technology, pp. 98 pp.
370. Weller, D.E., D.L. Correll, and T.E. Jordan (1994) Denitrification in.
riparian forests receiving agricultural discharges, pp. 117-131. in:
Global Wetlands: Old World and New., W.J. Mitsch (ed). New York:
Elsevier. Soil Cover Chambers and Trace Gas Analyzers were Used to
Map Emission of Nitrous Oxide in an Agricultural/Riparian Forest
Watershed. D; F; GW; CP; NIT; Denit-F; 1st order
371. Welsch, D. (1991) Riparian Forest .Buffers, Function and Design for
Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. Radnor, PA.: US Forest
.Service, pp. 24 pp. Managment Recommendations for Riparian Zones
Along Streams. M; F; G; OF; GW
372. Weston, B\A., D.J. Cummings, and H.M.. Shaw (1986) Soil, water and
nutrient movement through pastured filter strips, pp. 392-393. in:
Proc. Symp. Hydrology and Water Resources., (ed). Brisbane,
Australia: Griffith Univ. Effectiveness of Riparian Pastureland to
Remove Nutrients from Cropland Generated Overland Storm Flows. D; G;
TSS; PPP
373. Whigham, D.F. and S.E. Bayley (1978) Nutrient dynamics in fresh water
.wetlands, pp. 468-478. in: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of
Our Understanding., P.E. Greeson,- J.R. Clark and J.E. Clark (eds).
Minneapolis, MN: Amer. Water Resources Assoc. General Review of
Nutrient Retention by Wetlands. R .
374. Whigham, D.F., C. Chitterling, and B.' Palmer (1988) Impacts of
freshwater wetlands on water quality: a landscape perspective.
Environ. Manag. 12 (5); 663-671. General Review of the Nutrient
Retention by Wetlands in a Landscape. R
-------
375. Whigham, D.F. , C. Chitterlihg, B. Palmer, and J. O'Neill (1986)
Modification of runoff from upland watersheds - The influence of a,
diverse riparian ecosystem, pp. 305-332. in: Watershed Research
Perspective's., D.L. Correll (ed) . Washington, B.C.: Smithsonian
Press. Measured Surface and' Shallow Groundwater Nutrient
Concentration Patterns in Three Habitats of a Floodplain Wetland. D;
F; CP; GW; NIT; DAM; DPP; DTKN
376. Williams, R.D. and A.D. Nicks (1988) Using CREAMS to simulate filter
strip effectiveness in erosion control. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 43;
108-112. Used model to estimate effectiveness of grass filter strips
for erosion control. M; G; OF; TSS
377. Wilson, L.G. (1967) Sediment removal from flood water by grass
filtration. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. 10(1); 35-37. Measured
Reductions in Suspended Sediments with Distance As Overland Flows
Moved Through Grassed Filters. D; G; TSS
378. Winterbourn, M.J. (1976) Fluxes of litter falling into a small beech
forest stream. N.Z.J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 10; 399-416. Directly
Measured both Vertical and Lateral Litter Inputs to Stream Channel.
D; F; 1st order; POM
379. Yarbro, L.A. (1979) Phosphorus Cycling in the Creeping Swamp Floodplain
Ecosystem and Exports from the Creeping Swamp Watershed. Ph.D.
Thesis. Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. North Carolina.
380. Yarbro, L.A. (1983) The influence of hydrologic variations on
phosphorus cycling and retention in a swamp stream ecosystem, pp. 223-
245. in: Dynamics of Lotic Systems., T.D. Fontaine and S.M. Bartell
(eds). Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science. Measured Retention of
Various Phosphorus Fractions From Floodwaters by. a Floodplain Forest.
•D; F; CP; PTP; DTP; DPP
381. Yarbro, L.A., E.J. Kuenzler, P.J. Mulholland, and R.P. Sniffen (1984)
Effects of Stream Channelization on Exports of Nitrogen and
Phosphorus from North Carolina Coastal Plain Watersheds. Environ.
Management 8(2) ; 151-160. Compared Nutrient Discharges of Watersheds
With and Without Channelization. Inferred Effects Were Caused by
Int erupt ion of Channel/Floodplain Forest Interactions. D; F; TN; TP;
NIT; DAM; DPP; DTP
382. Yates, P. and J.M. Sherian (1983) Estimating the effectiveness of
vegetated floodplains/wetlands as nitrate-nitrite and orthophosphate
filters. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. £; 303-314. Comparison of Nutrient
Fluxes from Cropped Watersheds with and without Forested Floodplains.
D;, F; CP; NIT; DPP
383. Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson (1980) Effectiveness of
vegetated buffer strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff.
J. Environ. Qual. B_; 483-487. Measured Effectiveness of Sorghum,
Grass, and Oat'Buffer Zones for Nutrient Removal. Some Water
Infiltrated and Its Quality was not Measured. D; H; OF; TN; TP; DPP;
DAM; NIT
------- |